Replies

"Notice I said deficits = deferred taxes not deficits = raised taxes."

So you did. Point taken.

And for the most part you are correct, however, there are *technical* exceptions which, though hardly popular, permit exceptions to your "rule" above (e.g. defaulting on debt, leasing unused federal land, running printing presses, etc.).

Thus deficits do not have to equate to deferred taxes. Those who loaned money to Iraq back in the 1990's are certainly learning that lesson today...

Here is the way I look at today's deficit. When Bush was elected there was a projected "surplus" of 6 trillion dollars at the end of 10 years. That projection was distorted by the revenue coming in from the vaporware boom that went completely bust. So, the "surplus" wasn't there anyway. However, Bush used that projection to enact a corresponding 10 year tax cut of approx. the same 6 trillion dollars and in the last 3 years that has been REAL dollars coming back to the private sector and he is about to propose his 4th tax cut in the SOTU address. Bush is starving the beast. The portion of the deficit attributed to the Iraq is a finite expense since we will not occupy the country for any long period of time. With the exception of the Medicare bill the only non-military expenditures directly controlled by Bush is in his discretionary budget. The Education bill was peanuts compared to the expenditures for Social Security and defense. The Social Security costs cannot be sustained no matter what happens with taxes or the economy. SS will require some form of both privatization and means testing in order to remain viable.

defaulting on debt, leasing unused federal land, running printing presses, etc.).

Sigh.... Perhaps we need to go back and define "tax". An economist would argue that anytime the govt takes "value" from the economy, it is levying a tax. It need not come in the form of traditional withholding from the paycheck or having a person file a return. So if the govt starts increasing the money supply to jack up the inflation rate, it is taking "value" away from people's cash and govt security holdings. If they lease land, then they are taking value away from the general public by assigning the land to a specific person or entity. If they sell assets, they take "public" assets and convert them to private ones, thereby removing the public interest in that land. If they default, all the holders of govt securities get stuck by having value removed from their savings, in addition to having the economy suffer through a banking crisis. All of these things take value from the general public. They are all taxes. The form does not matter, the substance does.