posted
Today, the Washington Post reported a slightly heated exchange between Hillary Clinton and Alan Greenspan about the history of the Bush tax cuts. This, in itself, would not be interesting enough to me to post it on Hatrack. But something Greenspan said in defense of his (in hindsight) mistake in supporting tax cuts was VERY interesting.
He said that he noted in his testimony to Congress that the data he had that led him to support tax cuts (data showed we might end up with surpluses that grew too fast) might be flawed. In view of that, he reminded everyone who would listen, he also strongly suggested that the tax cuts be put in place with automatic stopping points if it turned out that the projections were flawed or the predicted outcomes of the cuts didn't materialize.
Of course, Congress passed the tax cuts without those triggers. And the President, of course signed the bill without those triggers.
It seems like a simple concept. We aren't 100% sure of this happening, so we'll hedge a little and say that if it doesn't work out the way we predict, everything automatically stops or reverses course.
Seems like we should be applying this kind of reasoning to all sorts of things that our current modus operandi commits us to.
Is there some reason that dictates that the only ways we limit our laws are through sunset clauses or by passing another new law to modify the old one?
Instead, we go forward with these major changes based on uncertain data and the parties fight each other over these things because they are so difficult to undo. I would like greater wisdom from our leaders. Especially when the guy they all look to for advice tells them his data is suspect.
posted
They are not boneheads. They know what they are doing, and while their actions may not advance their stated goals they do serve their true aims.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea - I doubt it. I did not mean to imply they all shared the same goals, and while their aims are probably not particularly noble I imagine they are relatively mundane. Besides, I thought starving the beast had been discussed openly for years.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
