A senior editor at The New Republic, Noam Scheiber wrote this article , in which he compares advocates for lower taxes to terrorists, and agrees with Paul Krugman's assertion that those advocating for lower taxes are intentionally trying to bring about a "fiscal catastrophe".  Unfortunately, Mr. Scheiber doesn't have an email address listed, so I can't express my displeasure with his assertions to him directly.  I will, however, offer him a response in the form of an open letter.

Dear Mr. Scheiber,

In your article entitled "When the Starved Beast Bites Back", you make several assertions about advocates of lower taxation that are simply not consistent with the facts, and which seem to indicate a lack of understanding of both the intention of would-be tax cutters and the resultant impacts of tax reductions.  The purpose of this letter is to respond to some of your assertions.

In your article you ascribe to Republicans — specifically those who advocate for tax cuts (alas, not all Republicans do) — the idea (supposedly explicitly stated) that the purpose of tax cuts is to "starve the beast", that is, to reduce the flow of revenue to the government such that there is no choice but to cut the size and scope of government spending.  I can't speak for all tax cut (and in my case, tax reform) advocates, but I have never heard any that approach cutting taxes from that standpoint.  Cutting taxes isn't a means to an end — cutting the size and scope of government intrusiveness and cutting taxes are two sides of the same coin.  Allowing people to keep more of their own money goes hand-in-hand with not confiscating their property or encroaching on their liberties in other ways (like, for instance, mandating the purchase of a government-approved health insurance policy, or banning internet poker).  Economic liberty is intertwined with political liberty.

But even assuming that cutting taxes were premised on "starving the beast", the results of tax cutting demonstrate that such a strategy would be a poor one.  The supposed "$5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus" that President Bush "inherited from Bill Clinton" wasn't "squandered" as a result of the supposedly "massive" tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 — revenues to the government increased.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, tax revenues to the federal government grew by 35% between 2003 and 2007 — faster than the growth in the economy.  Individual income tax receipts increased as a share of GDP during that same time period, from 7.3% to 8.0%, while corporate income tax receipts increased from 1.2% of GDP to 2.7%.  If the tax cutters were looking to starve the beast, their strategy failed.

The same phenomenon occurred in the 1980s with the Reagan tax cuts, and in the 1960s with the Kennedy tax cuts.  Reducing tax rates does not necessarily reduce the revenue collected; rather, reductions in tax rates tend to result in an increase in revenue to the government, as memorialized by the famous "Laffer Curve".

The surplus wasn't "squandered" by cutting taxes, it was wasted by increased spending.  Under President Bush, federal spending increased at an even faster rate than did tax revenue increases; even discretionary spending increased at double the rate that it did under President Clinton.  And, notably, those "Bush tax cuts" weren't really all that "massive" — they were advertised as $1 trillion over 10 years, which is less than 10% of the total income tax revenue and less than 1% of the total economy.

As to the idea that somehow Republicans are attempting to provoke a fiscal crisis, that would seem to be a strange assertion in a time when it was largely Republicans opposing the massive new government spending "stimulus" program and the massive new government spending (and taxing) health care overhaul.  Adding new entitlements when we already have trillions in unfunded liabilities for current entitlement programs hardly seems to represent fiscal responsibility; opposing these trillions in new spending hardly seems to be "forcing the country toward the fiscal crisis" as you assert that at least some Republicans "are quietly rooting for."

Finally, I would like to point out that while the centerpiece of President Clinton's first economic package was increasing taxes, he otherwise cut taxes himself in several ways.  First of all, he helped push through the North American Free Trade Agreement — a huge tax cut for consumers.  Also, following the Republican landslide in 1994, he signed into law reductions in capital gains taxes, child tax credits, and other tax cuts.  The surpluses materialized after these tax cuts, not before.  And, as alluded to above, under President Clinton federal spending was largely under control.

In short, there's nothing nefarious or sinister about wanting a more limited, less intrusive government in favor of more liberty for individuals and families.  A desire to cut taxes is no evidence of a conspiratorial plan to wreck the economy and destroy the government.  The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property; reducing the tax burden on individuals and families simply gives them more control over their own property.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX