once upon a time...

[acroyear]

nay?  anyone?  beuller?


A recent column (I can't remember where) did talk about fiscal responsibility and how the trend seems to be against the Republican party line.  Reagan and Bush Jr both asserted that reduction of tax revenues leads to increased fiscal responsibility in congressional budgets, yet the great tax-cut years of those two Presidents were both filled with the worst of pork-barrel excess.  By contrast, the higher taxes of Bush's later years and Clinton's era were filled with severe criticism in pork-barrelling that generally worked, with congresses being very active in trimming their excesses.  The columnist did try to assert a causal relationship that wasn't there, but rather I think its more that a congress that cares about fiscal responsibility and working properly with their income rather than trying to reduce it for the sake of some well-placed constituents, is going to be better across the board.

Of course, there were so many other factors involved in the war between Clinton and Uncle Newt's Congress that just looking at the tax rate vs "pork barrel rate" (which is hard enough to determine) isn't a genuine indicator of a trend that could apply to future administrations.

Comments

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

I think it's simpler than that. A Congress that taxes-and-spends, spends less because its constituents feel the cost of the spending.

A congress that borrows-and-spends is spending FUTURE tax revenue; i.e., money that does not yet have a constituency. Thus the voters, and therefore Congress, does not feel the pain of the spending.

As with everything, if you get something for nothing, you will purchase more of it. Hence, increased spending.