Texas and Taxes ♠ Texas et Taxes |

Article content

Article copy

Hardly 5 minutes after I posted the previous article, at the end of which I briefly mentioned that Bastiat was far from being as neglected in Texas (and I believe in the US as a whole) than he is in his own country, I stepped up on this:

Yes, that's right. The official Bush/Cheney 2004 blog. Probably not a big news for you, but I never heard of it before (Yeah, I know I haven't been exactly on top of things lately but thanks for telling me really. What kind of friend are you dammit?)

Anyway, today's post is quoting the New Hampshire Sunday News, itself quoting President Bush:

Just as our economy is coming around, some are saying now is the time to raise taxes. To be fair, they think any time is a good time to raise taxes,Ӕ he [the President] joked. At least theyӒre consistent. But I strongly disagree. A nation cannot tax its way to growth or job creation. Tax relief has put this nation on the right path, and I intend to keep this nation on the path to prosperity.

The economic numbers from late summer and early fall are bearing this out. Consumer spending is on the rise, as is job creation.

To make this point hit home, the President mentioned Brian Stowell of Claremont, whose family owns Crown Point Cabinetry. Bush said that Stowell told him the tax cuts have allowed his family to reinvest in the family business to the point that they will be able to hire 25 new employees.

Okay. Enough with the sophisticated European patricians.

I want a boorish cowboy such as this one for President. And I want him Now.

Article copy (alternate language)

A peine 5 minutes après avoir posté l'article précédent à la fin duquel je notais brièvement que Bastiat était loin d'être aussi ignoré au Texas (et, je crois, dans le reste des Etats-Unis en général) que dans son propre pays, je suis tombé là-dessus :

Oui, c'est exact. Le blog officiel Bush/Cheney 2004. Peut être pas une bien grande nouvelle pour vous, mais je n'en avais pas entendu parler auparavant (Ouais, je sais que j'ai été un peu en retrait dernièrement mais merci de m'avoir informé. Quel genre d'ami êtes-vous bordel ?)

Quoi qu'il en soit, le post d'aujourd'hui cite le New Hampshire Sunday News, qui lui-même cite le Président Bush:

Alors que notre économie commence à repartir, certains disent qu'il est temps désormais d'augmenter les impôts. Pour être juste, ils pensent qu'il est temps d'augmenter les impôts tout le temps,Ӕ a plaisanté [le Président]. Au moins, ils ont de la constance. Mais je diffère fortement. Une nation ne peut pas tailler son chemin vers la croissance et la création d'emploi à coups de taxes. Les allègements d'impôts ont mis cette nation sur le bon chemin et j'ai l'intention de la garder sur la voie de la prospérité.Ӕ

Les résultats de la fin de l'été et du début de l'automne confirment cela. La consommation augmente, ainsi que la création d'emplois.

Pour illustrer son argument localement, le Président a mentionné Brian Stowell de Claremont, dont la famille possède l'entreprise d'ébénisterie Crown Point. Bush a relaté avoir entendu dire par Stowell que les réductions d'impôt avaient permis à sa famille de réinvestir dans l'entreprise familiale au point de pouvoir embaucher 25 nouveaux employés.

Ok. Assez avec les patriciens européens sophistiqués.

Je veux un rustre cow-boy tel celui-là comme Président. Et je le veux maintenant.

Other

About

the dissident frogman

I own, built and run this place. In a previous life I was not French but sadly, I died.

Contact

Random (somewhat) related entries

Comments

Comments thread (22)

823 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Adam: how could he "spend" money he doesn't "tax" exactly?

824 - Mitch

Mitch
- Link

DF: One problem I have with GWB is that he has not cut spending along with cutting taxes. How does he do it? The same way we do, only instead of maxing out his credit card, he runs up the national debt by issuing Treasury bonds. We made the same mistake when expanding social services (the Great Society campaign) while the Vietnam War was dragging on. We paid the price in the '70's.

825 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Mitch: That's interesting, I didn't know that. Could it be said that it's a global politic of his - for instance, are all public spends going "on credit", so to speak, or is it limited to certain sectors? (and in that case, which ones?) Also, it does sound incoherent to cut the income and max out the spending, of course, yet being anything but an expert in this field, I'm wondering: could this move be justified by some obscure (well, at least for me) and surely paradoxical economic theory? I mean, at least on the French side, everything is clear and simple: public spending is going over the top (and blasting the EU's "stability pact") and taxes are following (I'm not buying ChIraq's alms on the income taxes as "tax cuts". It's a joke, not an abatement.)

826 - Ernest Brown

Ernest Brown
- Link

DF, "Adam: how could he "spend" money he doesn't "tax" exactly?" 'Deficit Spending' is the answer to your last question. :-<

827 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Thanks Ernest. (looking forward to see you blogging back... the same, by the way) So, all partisan considerations put aside, how does this fit in the economic model? I mean, what's the strategy, if there is any?

828 - Adam

Adam
- Link

Not only has Bush not cut spending along with cutting taxes, he's actually increased spending *a lot*, so the taxes will just be paid by future taxpayers rather than current ones. Sure there are economic theories which justify this (some kind of Keynesianism or something), but even if you accept those theories, this is still a bit much. Most likely it's just playing politics; the voters like tax cuts and also their pet programs, so Bush gives them both. This also makes it more difficult for the next Democrat (whoever and whenever) to spend a large deficit. Bush won't be president anymore when the sh*t hits the fan anyway. By the way, DF, great blog. It also helps me practice my French. :-)

829 - j a pate

j a pate
- Link

yes, that is correct, spending has greatly increased. however, one should observe that when "homeland defense" and a war time increase in the defense budget is subtracted, the resulting increase for the rest of government is just 2 percent. that is the lowest rate of increase in decades. because of the recession, which has ended, tax revenues have been much lower. the bush administration has vigorously pushed a policy of economic growth to get things in better balance. the tax package is just a part. much of this policy has been fiercely resisted by the Democrats. also note that the portion of the GDP devoted to defense is only 3.2 per cent. the admisnistration has resisted, some would say foolishly, increasing defense spending due to this deficit problem. for those not informed, 3.2 is a very small figure everywhere but in europe. during the cold war, 6.5 to 9.0 was the rule. as far as i know, britain was the only free european country that ever raised its defense spending to the 3.2 level during that period. we always tried to get germany to give 3.0 per cent but it never happened. another demonstration that europe rarely pulls its own weight in these matters. oh, i forgot, turkey spends 10 percent and i think the greeks spend a lot, but, of course, greece is given a free economic ride by the EU, but the europeans with bouzikis are another story.

830 - the dissident frogman

the dissident frogman France
- Link

Thanks j a pate, I was suspecting something along that line, particularly since one of my readers sent me an email pointing at the defense issue. I just needed it be said in the comments I guess. ;-)

831 - Joe

Joe
- Link

Fred: We already understand your government very well. So do the citizens of France, and they are eternally aggrieved. The euro apparatus only works as long as there is a US, an eager Eastern Europe, and a productive Asia to buoy it, give it a market for its' rubbish, and nod while it insists that it always knows how the rest of humanity should live. Look - no-one listens to them, and things go well. They only seem able to impose their will over African states that are already on their knees with poverty caused by closed European markets and manipulation by European state industries. The world realizes that ever so brilliant euro-chatter is little more than an expression of narcissism.

832 - Mitch

Mitch
- Link

Hi again, DF Despite my qualms, there is some justification for Bush's spending. As j a pate points out, this is wartime and the first responsibility of any government is victory. There is a big bill coming due for Iraq's reconstruction, but failing to complete it would amount to failing to consolidate the partial victory. Reagan tried the same thing during a period of economic "malaise," which really resulted from 3 previous administrations' failure to address the hangover from the '60's. It was called "starving the beast," whereby he insisted on tax cuts and dared the opposition to keep spending. Eventually, spending tailed off and the economy grew out of the deficit. Bush is much more attuned to Reagan than to his father, both in economics and in ideology. We have a new "Evil Empire" to resist and eventually demolish. BTW, the design and operation of your blog is outstanding. I took a look at the "view source" option to see how it is done, but I cannot reproduce the effects on Blogger. The only suggestion I could possibly make is to employ a JavaScript to hide your e-mail from the spammers' bots. That is, unless you wish to receive e-mail regarding the molestation of various animals, offers to increase the size of your penis or your breasts (to do both at once would, I think, add a certain amount of variety to your social life). Keep up the good work, mec.

Add a comment

the dissident frogman