Setting aside the dubious hindsight/foresight problems with this as of 2004, why on earth would whatever idea you seem to be positing override one's desire to pay lower tax?
But why cut taxes, at a time, when the federal government is living within its means? It makes no sense to me, certainly not with a Republican president who was committed to expanding it
Indeed, its Bush 43 policies and the economic downturns which continue to drive the deficit, adding to the gross federal debt. Obama's counter-cyclical measure - the ARRA - cost a conservative
$800bn by comparison, with the increase in the federal debt post-2009 more the consequence of the Great Recession than his response to it. And "austerity" was no road out of that one
FTR, I've never cast a vote on the promise of tax cuts in my life. Its not something that can be bought
The Medicaid and Medicare programs were passed when the government was living within its means and directly caused the government to no longer live within its means. Both have added hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending over the past 50 years. The phenomenon suggested here is certainly not new to American politics.
All that tells me is that the federal government needed to continue to live within its means, it was only with Reagan that the debt to GDP ratio started to explode - as if I didn't know why
- but, anyway, all you need to do is ensure that revenues are able to meet existing and future requirements, which should, of course, ultimately, give people the choice of 1) contributing more in during the work cycle or 2) be willing to work longer
There is no problem that cannot be resolved if there is the political will. Most major developed economies seem to be running high public debt to GDP ratios. Try not to worry about it
. But, ultimately, there needs to be new global post-Hayekian consensus. Neoliberalism seems as dated as revolutionary socialism