Chait Doesn't Just Hate Bush: Loathes Lower Taxes, Too

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Jonathan Chait is one of the Founding Fathers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Way back in '03, the New Republic senior editor authored one of BDS's early, seminal works: "The Case for Bush Hatred," whose very first line was the unequivocal: "I hate President George W. Bush."

Ah, but Jonathan Chait isn't a mere one-hatred man. As of this morning, we can conclusively state that in addition to his animus toward our nation's chief executive, Jonathan Chait also hates lower taxes.

In his New York Times column "Captives of the Supply Side," Chait directs his ire at lower federal taxes in general, and in particular toward those who believe that lowering tax rates can actually yield higher total tax revenues. This is of course the theory behind the Laffer Curve, based on the notion that lowered tax rates are more than compensated for by the additional economic activity they stimulate.

Chait variously derides tax-cut proponents as "the economic far right," calls supply siders "the most extreme and counterfactual subgroup" among anti-taxers, labeling believers in supply-side economics "fanatical ideologues." His new book dismisses their ideas as "crackpot" and a "con."

There's only one small cloud on Chait's higher-taxes horizon: the facts. As he somewhat sheepishly acknowledges along the way:

Granted, economic growth sometimes causes revenues to rise faster than expected after a tax cut, as has happened since the 2003 tax cut.

Uh, yeah, there is that.

But not to worry. Chait goes on to argue that in any case, in most cases higher tax rates will yield higher total tax revenues. We'll leave it to others to determine the precise point on the Laffer Curve that yields the highest return. But I would make two observations:

• Why, in any case, should our goal be to set tax rates at the point likely to collect the maximum amount of money for the federal government? Why feed the monster? We should instead be seeking to send to Washington the absolute minimum amount of money necessary to fulfill the indispensable functions of the federal government.
• As a senior editor of the New Republic, Chait is a voice of the liberal establishment. It might be difficult to predict what precisely would be the foreign policy of a new Dem president. But one thing is beyond cavil: domestically, a key goal of any Dem White House will be to raise taxes.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Chait hates taxes, too. Ping to Today Show list

[jmaroneps37]

S.A.I.D.S = social auto immune disease syndrome. The suffer hates and attacks his own country. SAIDS infections happen most frequently among those at the far left edge of the Bell Curve.

[LibLieSlayer]

I HATE chait!

LLS

[Numbers Guy]

Chait thinks there’s no good time to cut taxes. If there’s a surplus, then government should spend more. If there’s a slowdown and a deficit, then fixing the deficit should take priority. He’s wedded to a policy position then finds whatever justification he can no matter what the circumstances to support it, even if his rationales are totally contradictory.

What’s really bizarre is his apolcalyptic rhetoric about relatively minor tax cuts (Bush dropping the top rate by a few points), then he turns around and says that Clinton’s tax increases were minor and couldn’t have had much impact. If dropping the top rate 4 points is a horrible thing, then how can he argue that raising the rate by the same amount is a minor thing?

[econjack]

Chait variously derides tax-cut proponents as "the economic far right,..."

What about the Kennedy tax and Reagan tax cuts and the growth that followed them? As to the Laffer curve, that experiment was tried in India years ago and worked exactly as predicted. This guy's a very, very bad joke.

[Trailerpark Badass]

The New Republic?

Isn't that one of those fake news spoof publications, like The Onion or Scrappleface, except not as funny?

[neodad]

I’ve always wondered what point on the Laffer curve maximizes both revenue and economic growth.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Interesting question. I’d guess the question varies in accordance with the point in the economic cycle and the nature of current economic activity. For example, at the beginning of the computer revolution, probably little or anything would have stopped the fervor of those who were motivated by other than money. But I would guess that a mature economy with relatively little innovation going on would be much more sensitive to tax increases.

In any case, while the question is theoretically interesting, I’d be more interested in asking “what is the bare minimum we need to send the federal government to permit it to fulfill its few indispensable functions?”

[driftless2]

Libs never want to cut spending..they just want to constantly raise taxes. Their concern about balancing the budget is the real con. They don’t want to balance anything...they just want to grow the government. Taxes and the raising of them is what they crave.

[CurlyDave]

For example, at the beginning of the computer revolution, probably little or anything would have stopped the fervor of those who were motivated by other than money. But I would guess that a mature economy with relatively little innovation going on would be much more sensitive to tax increases.

1. When in the history of the United States has there been a period of "a mature economy with relatively little innovation going on"? I don't think you can find such a time since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

2. It is just as easy to construct a Laffer-like curve plotting Gross Domestic Product against tax rate instead of tax revenues vs. tax rate. I have always been disappointed that "mainstream" economists have never realized that this is the correct curve. If we maximize GDP we maximize the well-being of the country.

[Lancey Howard]

[Lancey Howard]

Democrats have no problem walking into the polling place on election day and voting for big government to confiscate more money - - from their NEIGHBORS.

Normal people view this bizarre behavior as obscenely selfish and rude, but many liberals actually believe they are somehow accomplishing something, and that they are helping others, notably, “the poor”. Therefore, voting for government to take more money from their neighbors makes liberals feel powerful - - like they are moving pieces on the political chessboard, ie., stealing from some people and giving to others. And they can’t be arrested!

It’s a psychological problem that should be studied. Privately.

[Clock King]

What the hell has this waste of skin EVER produced of value? Nothing. Sitting on his butt all day, writing garbage.