If an economic plan reduces government income, then no matter what it spends, it will always and forever be too much. If Republicans cut $100 billion dollars in taxes, then suddenly, the government is spending $100 billion more that it should.
Is that crazy or what? Another words, no matter how bad the economy gets under their policies, those self-induced shortfalls only boosts their argument that government spends too much.
The biggest example? Repealing “Obamacare.” According the the CBO, via research by Politifact:
Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016.
In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" … Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.
That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.
So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.
So what happens ten years from 2012, after electing a Republican president and senate that repeals the Affordable Care Act? They'll be able to make the same conservative argument again, that government is spending too much:
When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.
That was easy. It looks like the government is spending $210 billion more than it’s taking in, so we'll just have to cut more spending…etc....on and on....
This odd economic spiral downward is even popular among conservative voters. That's why they won so big in 2010, and may win big in 2012, despite their austerity agenda and unpopular Republican governors.
No comments:
Post a Comment