Hi Michael, I do not disagree with much of the article.
(By the way, the notion of a tax cut being an expenditure is cant. The
Democrats wrote that into law when they controlled Congress. As every
revolutionary knows, what one must do first is seize the rhetoric! A tax cut is
a tax cut just as S. Freud once said sometimes a cigar is only a cigar (tell
that to Hillary?).
The only way a tax cut now will require higher taxes later is if government
programs remain as big or grow. The prospect of the necessary tax increase to
sustain these programs will be the engine that drives their elimination. Social
Security and Medicare will survive as Geezer-Socialism, the rest, I hope will
go. I'm not in favor of Geezer-Socialism or any other and I'd rather see even
private money spent on kids and not old farts (let alone public money), but
that's a political reality. The competing interest groups can match the Baby-
Boomers (AARP will become the Fifth estate).
I'm in favor of a tax limiting Consitutional Amendment. You pay 10% and if you
do you have a defense to any claim for as much as another dime in any taxes.
("After all, even God only asks 10%!). Our existing governments ought to be
able to get along on 10% of the national income (or sales). Cut off the money,
I says, and do it in a way that can be enacted. (Again, am I an optimist or
what?)