Reason #2 to Vote No on Question 1

[asterroc]

What this is all about

Reason #2: Tax cuts may actually increase government spending!

"[T]his paper examines the behavior of government expenditures following legislated tax changes that narrative sources suggest are largely uncorrelated with other factors affecting spending. The results provide no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, they suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending." --Dr. Christina Roma, UC Berkeley Professor of Economics

Thanks to seekingferret for the link. I haven't read through it entirely, but I'm fascinated by the possibility - it seems entirely illogical that tax cuts would NOT reduce government spending. The point here is if people want to reduce government expenditures, cutting taxes may not do the trick.

Comments

[q10.livejournal.com]

libertarians are usually hostile to government activities for one of two reasons:

1. those activities involve some amount of regulatory or law-enforcement action that they think imposes on somebody's freedom, or involves other undue attempts to influence or control people's free choices.

2. those activities cost money which comes from taxes (which are bad), or require deficit spending which is seen as generally bad for a variety of reasons.

i think that most libertarians wouldn't object to the government putting a chicken in every pot if it could do so with it's magical chicken-making wand, but when the government has to spend itself into debt or raise taxes to do that, it's seen as trouble. when libertarians say ‘if we cut back to only constitutionally mandated government functions...’ that's almost always followed by &lsqou;...then my huge tax cut would become viable’, unless they're talking about specific non-constitutionally-mandated functions that they dislike because they see them as encroaching on people's freedom to do their own thing (like the FDA, the DEA, much of the FCC, et c.)