A Tax Cuts Mystery

If Government spending wasn’t out of control, no one would have wanted to kill Bush tax cuts

(Page 3 of 3)

“But wait,” said the sidekick. “If they really needed to kill Bush Tax Cuts to pay for Government Spending, then why this talk about resurrecting or saving part of him? The part they want to leave dead—the top one percent or two percent—wouldn’t really make much of a dent when it comes to paying for Government spending.”

The chief of detectives glared at the sidekick again. “Hey, that kind of deductive reasoning is the work of the lead detective, not the sidekick. Didn’t anyone ever tell you the sidekick exists to make the detective look smart by comparison?”

“So if it wasn’t Government Spending and it wasn’t a suicide, whodunit?—I mean, who did it?” asked the sidekick, catching himself as he saw another glare descending over the chief of detectives’ visage.

“Well, at the moment, the lead suspect is a guy called Obama. Barack Obama,” said the chief of detectives. “It’s actually a pretty clear cut case. We’ve got him on videotape saying he was going to do it. Actually, he uses some milquetoast language like ‘ask the rich to pay a little bit more.’ At the time no one took him seriously. They thought no one would get Bush Tax Cuts, especially after Obama hung around him for four years and never went in for the kill, or at least could never get past Bush Tax Cuts’ bodyguard, House Republicans. But that’s when Bush Tax Cuts got vulnerable. He let his guard down. He thought he’d live forever. ”

“Sounds grim,” said the sidekick.

“It is,” said the chief of detectives. “Maybe the next Tax Cuts will be more careful.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • T o n y||

    Someone started early.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Don't you start now.

  • Almanian.||

    That pretty much sucked. Happy New Year.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Here's a scenario: Inner circle types took a gamble that happy days would be here again by 2013 -- apparently through mystical processes too complicated to explain. The idea was that we'd be in good enough shape to make continuation of Bush tax cuts a straightforward, politically painless matter. But they lost the gamble, the economy is still in the crapper, and the bill for Keynesian excess and incompetence has come due as they have long known it would. So now they REALLY need the money. By tying continuation of the cuts to increased taxes on the rich, the lefties can avoid blame from the middle-class and divert that blame to the GOP. But make no mistake. ALL the beltway players want that extra money for the Federal coffers, and the game now is to be the side who loses the battle to save the cuts while appearing to be most vigorous defenders of the largest voting bloc (probably meaning the middle class).

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Three name guy? Who did he assassinate before he was killed?

  • Almanian.||

    Who did he assassinate

    The American Dream™. As if you didn't know - Mr. Three Name Guy Yourself!

    *mic drop*

  • Ted S.||


  • AlmightyJB||

    OT: Military Mutants. Also, I want an exo-skeleton.

  • ||

    For 6 years Bush had the white house, the house and the senate.

    Why didn't he make them permanent in the first place?

  • T o n y||

    So the CBO wouldn't have to explain just how massively they would increase debt. If the Bush era Republicans didn't want to "pay for" the tax cuts with spending cuts (in fact they spent like a billion drunken sailors), then they must have been doing them for Keynesian stimulative reasons. They didn't exactly have the effect of an economic boom. They seem like one of the worst policy ideas to come from the Bush era among many, many horrible ideas.

  • Xenocles||

    Despite the "pay for" language, that's probably a pretty good explanation.

  • ||

    That's actually probably pretty accurate.

    Golf clap for Tony.

  • Juice||

    Sorry, I don't agree that they were the worst policy decision. They're probably the only good thing Bush ever did while in office.

  • Virginian||

    The only problem with idiot Tony's opinion is that the Bush tax cuts raised revenue. In fact, every time taxes have been cut from JFK forward, more money has come into the federal treasury than the previous year.

    The treasury has more money than ever before. The problem is not revenue,the problem is outlays. Remember how no tax system has been able to pull more than 20% of GDP? We're spending upwards of 22%. It is completely impossible to fix this by revenue increases. The money just isn't there, short of outright confiscation of assets.

    The most annoying fucking thing is the regulation. Burdensome taxation is one thing, but the Sword of Damocles that is the Federal Register makes it impossible for what was the most dynamic and innovative economy in the world to grow enough wealth to ease the burden of debt.

  • T o n y||

    No serious economist thinks the Bush tax cuts "raised revenue." Revenue goes up when the economy grows. Absent the Bush tax cuts, revenues would have been much higher.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 1.1.13 @ 1:46PM |#
    "No serious economist thinks the Bush tax cuts "raised revenue."

    Shtihead, you have no idea what any "serious" economist thinks. Proven by:
    "Absent the Bush tax cuts, revenues would have been much higher."

    You are sleazy beyond belief, shithead.

  • Brandybuck||

    Nothing wrong with tax cuts, but our dysfunctional government (regardless of party in power) always increases spending whether taxes go up or down. The problem isn't the level of taxes, the problem is the spending.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They didn't exactly have the effect of an economic boom.

    Maybe they offset catastrophic levels of regulation and other government imposed burdens that would otherwise have destroyed the economy.

  • JWatts||

    "So the CBO wouldn't have to explain just how massively they would increase debt."

    No, that's just wrong. It's 180 degrees wrong.

    The CBO scores bills for the next 10 years. The tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and set to expire in 2010. So the CBO scoring showed precisely how much the tax cuts would effect the budget. If they had been permanent most of the effect would have been beyond the 10 year horizon and hidden.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why didn't he make them permanent in the first place?

    What does that even mean?

    The "Bush tax rates" have been in place for more than a decade now. Which is longer than any major tax scheme in my lifetime and maybe ever.

  • Xenocles||

    It means "Why did they include a sunset provision in the bills that established those rates?" Obviously there's no binding a future Congress, but these rates were ephemeral by design.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Even so, 10 years of a certain rate is practically 'permanent'.

    Look at how the rates have bounced around in the past.


  • Ryan60657||

    I give this a rating of "Fail".

    Happy New Year everyone.

  • Drave Robber||

    Needs MOAR LA... oh wait, not Friday Funnies.

  • waaminn||

    Gotta just love those bought and paid for politciians!


  • Sarah Conner||

    Dude knows what he's talking about. Wow.

  • Sevo||

    You left out the sarc..../sarc

  • waaminn||

    Never thought about it like that dude. Wow.


  • Fatty Bolger||

    Some guy named Cuts. Bush Tax Cuts.

    Some folks just need killin'.

  • دردشة العراق||

    thank you

  • sohbet siteleri||

    Sohbet thanks editor. Chat

  • sohbet siteleri||

    Sohbet Remember that Reagan Tax Cut case we had a couple decades back?” the chief asked Sohbet Odaları

  • istanbul sohbet||

    Thanks so much for this ! I have not been this thrilled by a blog post for quite some time ! sohbet You’ve got it, whatever that means in blogging. chat Anyway, You’re definitely someone that has something to say that people should hear. Keep up the wonderful job.

  • istanbul sohbet||

    It is nice to find a site about my interest. My first visit to your site is been a big help Thank you for the efforts you . film izle been putting on making your site such an interesting and informative place to browse through. tubidy I'll be visiting your site again to gather some more valuable information. You truly did a good job

  • istanbul sohbet||

    I agree along with you. This post is actually inspiring. Nice post and many types of a person tell you is up to mirc date as well as really enlightening, i mynet sohbet must book mark the actual web page in order to can come right here just as before to study anyone, as you've performed a great employment

  • sohbet siteleri||

    Ah, forget it,” said the chief of detectives.Sohbet Siteleri - Chat Siteleri

  • sohbet siteleri||

    then they must have been doing them for Keynesian stimulative reasons. Güzel Sözler - Şarkı Sözleri

  • sohbet siteleri||

    But times are changing.Sohbet - Chat

  • sohbet siteleri||

    Huh?” said the sidekick. Mynet Sohbet - Mynet Sohbet

  • sohbet siteleri||

    eah, yeah, yeah,” said the sidekick.Film izle - Dizi izle

  • sohbet siteleri||

    No, that's just wrong. It's 180 degrees wrong. Sohbet
    Sohbet Odaları

  • sohbet siteleri||

    more money has come into the federal treasury than the previous year. Oyun - Mirc indir

  • sohbet siteleri||

    It is completely impossible to fix this by revenue increases. Rüya Tabirleri - Yemek Tarifleri


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties