Cut Spending or increase Taxes?

Yesterday, Rand Paul was interviewed by a t.v. commentator and Paul stated that one of his goals as a Senator would be to persuade his colleagues to cut federal spending by $100 billion a year.

The interviewer asked if Paul didn't think that increasing taxes was also essential to help reduce the deficit. The way the question was posed clearly implied that the answer to the question was that taxes had to be increased -- particularly on the upper income taxpayers.

But Rep. Paul stated emphatically that the problem is not inadequate or insufficient tax revenues. The problem is entirely about excessive spending. He then trotted out some compelling data about the rate of increase in federal spending since 2008 and suggested that just getting back to the 2008 level would reduce spending by far more than $100 billion.

According to the Washington Post, federal spending went up by 16% in 2009 to $3.2 trillion. That represents an increase of some $475 billion, which is far more than Paul's modest proposal to cut spending.

Nonetheless, the mantra from the left is that we can't cut spending without cutting essential programs. When given some examples of popular things that would have to be cut if Paul's proposal became law, Paul replied that the left always trots out the most popular programs and insists that these are the only programs that can be cut. This is the same tactic as threatening to cut police or fire services or funds for education when there are demands to cut spending at the local level.

As for the argument by the left that continuing the Bush tax cuts will cause a loss of federal revenue, Paul rightly points out that the 2001 tax cuts are the law today and that letting them expire would be the largest tax increase in recent memory.

Vern

http://www.offshorepress.com/taxreform2010.html