In my previous diary, "Taxes in fantasy land", I combined a Rachel Maddow segment on the fantasy bubble of rightwing media with conservative-reported snapshot story about Tea Party fantasy beliefs about taxes and the size of government. But later in her show last night, Rachel herself took on the topic of rightwing tax fantasies as a direct challenge to the main$tream media:
I am convinced this is a test. This is of test of whether we as a country can communicate rational around factual information. With all of the resources we devote to covering politics and with everything we spend purportedly to try to understand what's going on in Washington politics, can we explain and understand that the first thing being proposed by the new Republican majority in Washington is that we should tackle heart disease by cooking up a passel of deep fried cheese? That we should tackle the deficit by adding $700 billion to the deficit? That is what they want to do first thing.
Of course, this is a test that the M$M has been failing for 30 years now. That's how long the GOP has been arguing--based on the cartoonish "Laffer Curve"--that cutting taxes will reduce the deficit, with spectarularly failed results:
The media has accepted this absurdity, despite it's unbroken record of refutation by reality for thirty years now. Why should the media change now, just because Rachel Maddow points it out to them in single syllables? Does she really tink they have functioning brains? Apparently so:
This is empirical world. If you add $700 billion to the deficit to pay for rich people, you've added $700 billion to that deficit thing, which is not a way of making that deficit thing smaller. Thing plus 700 billion does not equal smaller thing. The announced first major policy initiative of the new Republican House of Representatives is to add $700 billion to the deficit. By extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest people in the country. they are trying to get away with saying this will reduce the deficit, not increase it. They are not telling the truth. I think we are all capable of understanding that. I think even with the media we've got, we are capable of understanding that a fried cheese diet is not a heart healthy diet. Why is the White House signaling they might be willing to go along with the Republicans on this instead of killing the Republicans on this?
You know, mindless repetition of outright lies worked for the GOP. Could mindless repetition of the truth be an effective antidote?
Trying to fight batshit insane fantasy with a dose of cold hard reality, Andrew Samwick sayeth:
Go Find Me the Peak of the Laffer Curve
My New Year's Plea from 2007 has been getting some attention in the recent discussions over whether cutting tax rates will raise revenue. In this post, I'd like to follow up on the last line of that plea, which I have not seen recently quoted:
If I'm wrong, show me the evidence ... and tell me why the tax cuts were so small given their effects on revenues.
Restated, if these tax cuts raised revenue, then why not keep cutting them until the point at which revenues actually begin to fall? I presume the reason is that none of the proponents of this line of argument have any idea what the revenue-maximizing tax rate is.
Actually, I think Samwick is giving them far too much credit with that last sentence. I don't think anyone involved actually even thinks about the revenue-maximizing tax rate. They're not the least bit interested in maximizing government revenue. They want to kill government, pure and simple, so that there's nothing at all to restrain their rapacious power.
That quibble aside, however, Samwick's argument here is brilliant: If cutting marginal tax rates increases revenue, then why not cut more? Tell us how much we should cut, and let's be done with it.
He goes on to say:
So the next question is simply, "What do the experts on your staff tell you that the top marginal tax rate should be in order to maximize tax revenues, leaving everything else about the tax code the same?" Journalists should relentlessly ask it of the Republican leadership in Congress who continue to make fallacious claims, and the Democratic leadership in Congress ought to ask it politely in a letter to CBO Director Doug Elmendorf.
In both cases, we'll get some interesting responses. The Republican leadership will have to admit that they have no idea or give some ridiculous answer. CBO will also have to take a serious look at how it allows for potential supply side responses to changes in tax rates and take a stand on the issue.
Reality. What a concept!
p.s. What the hell do they pay Democratic Party strategists for, anyway? How come an unpaid independent blogger has to come up with stuff like this? And how come this is the case 99 times out of 100?
