PDA

View Full Version : Ben Stein Blames ‘Excessive Tax Cuts’ & ‘Voodoo Economics’ for Deficit, Hails ‘Grown-ups L




JacobG18
04-17-2011, 07:43 PM
During a pre-recorded commentary aired on CBS’s Sunday Morning show, right-leaning actor and economist Ben Stein - also a CBS contributor - blamed "excessive tax cuts" enacted by former President Bush and congressional Republicans for "starting the problem" of the current federal budget deficit, and advocated raising taxes on the wealthy in addition to "major spending cuts" and changes in Medicare and Social Security to get the deficit under control. Stein: "The Republicans who started the problem with excessive tax cuts in the Bush years will have to agree to raise taxes at least upon the truly rich of whom there are plenty."

And, while ignoring the presence of a Republican Congress that helped restrain spending growth during the Clinton administration, and the spike in tax revenue fueled by an unsustainable tech bubble, Stein concluded his commentary praising former President Bill Clinton and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin as "grown-ups," awarding them credit for the balanced budget of the late 1990s.

Stein: "The grown-ups like Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin - his Treasury Secretary who actually balanced the budget - left the federal fiscal scene more than 10 years ago. Now it's time to live within our means. No more voodoo economics. We can do it. The first step is back through the looking glass into reality. We've got to do it."

Ironically, last September, Stein gave a commentary on Sunday Morning complaining about the drive to raise taxes on the wealthy, leading Sy-Fy producer Linda McGibney to attack him personally in a commentary on the same show the following week.

Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Sunday, April 17, Sunday Morning on CBS:

CHARLES OSGOOD: So where do America's finances stand on this tax-filing eve? Here's our contributor Ben Stein.

BEN STEIN: As I make my way around the nation these days, travelers come up to me and ask me about the federal budget: Are we about to go broke? Will we have a crisis? Whose fault is it all? So here's a little lesson on the subject. We are not about to go broke. Our total federal debt is roughly equal to our yearly national output as an economy, the Gross Domestic Product. This is a very high ratio not seen since World War II.

But we've survived that high debt largely because the economy was growing fast, the big deficit stopped, and the federal debt as a relative matter shrank. Nowadays, we have immense deficits added to the debt for years to come with no end in sight. And the economy is growing slowly - maybe not at all. At some unknown point, the debt will be so large relative to the national output that our U.S. Treasury and Securities will be downgraded in terms of credit quality. That will raise borrowing costs, already a massive expense, and be a shock altogether



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/04/17/ben-stein-blames-excessive-tax-cuts-voodoo-economics-deficit-hails-gr#ixzz1JppONh1B

Zippyjuan
04-17-2011, 07:58 PM
Bush Jr was the first time in history that our country went to war and cut taxes. Others in the past who went to war had to raise funds to pay for it. Bush passed them on to the next generation. At the time of the balanced budget, Clinton argued that we should try to pay down some of the debt with excess revenues and Bush argued that it "should be returned to the people". Then he went on to increase the debt by more than every president before him combined. I can't say that Obama has done much better on that point though but if Bush had agreed to let his tax cuts expire when they were first scheduled to, the deficit today would be a lot smaller. They were supposed to be a stimulus for a limited time. Consider reactions to the present administration wanting to continue stimulus now. Same thing. How long should the stimulus continue and when should the work to reduce the deficit begin? Same point for Bush and Obama.

MikeStanart
04-17-2011, 08:44 PM
That's like saying a drug junky is in a bad situation because he can't afford to buy more dope.

One Last Battle!
04-17-2011, 09:18 PM
Clinton didn't balance the budget through financial wizardry, genius economics, or mathematically-perfect taxes; he looted Social Security and other such programs for extra cash, bragged about what a great surplus he was running, and then jumped ship before it could be pointed out that he hadn't REALLY balanced the budget, he had just shuffled the money around slightly so that the people of the future would receive a nasty surprise when they began to receive their Social Security money (the future is apparently now, since otherwise Obama would have done the same thing).

AuH20
04-17-2011, 09:30 PM
Bush Jr was the first time in history that our country went to war and cut taxes. Others in the past who went to war had to raise funds to pay for it. Bush passed them on to the next generation. At the time of the balanced budget, Clinton argued that we should try to pay down some of the debt with excess revenues and Bush argued that it "should be returned to the people". Then he went on to increase the debt by more than every president before him combined. I can't say that Obama has done much better on that point though but if Bush had agreed to let his tax cuts expire when they were first scheduled to, the deficit today would be a lot smaller. They were supposed to be a stimulus for a limited time. Consider reactions to the present administration wanting to continue stimulus now. Same thing. How long should the stimulus continue and when should the work to reduce the deficit begin? Same point for Bush and Obama.

We have to get this balancing budget nonsense out of our head, when the budget is omitting major unfunded items. Republican or democrat it's irrelevant. Right now, all a balancing budget does is buy time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html


Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

Zippyjuan
04-17-2011, 09:46 PM
We have to get this balancing budget nonsense out of our head, when the budget is omitting major unfunded items. Republican or democrat it's irrelevant.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

Misleading numbers. He gets $200 trillion in debt by assuming that you have to pay every claim for Social Security and Medicaid benefits with tax revenues from this year only- even though those expenses don't occur this year. Am I broke if I owe say $100,000 on my mortgage and only have $10,000 in the bank? No. I have 30 years to pay it off in. Yes, they do play with numbers but this guy is playing with them too. I am not retired but he is counting my Social Security benefits (which I have not received asuming I am eventually able to collect on them) as an expense. He does not give revenues the same treatment he gives expenses. There will be revenues in those future years as well- same as I will have future income to pay my mortgage off with.

Whether or not one considers that Clinton had a balanced budget, the Bush tax cuts were the start of the latest explosion of government debt.