Yep... that sums up this piece -- the author fails to decipher the "tactics" from the "strategery"... Bush's $330 billion tax cut can't be simply divided by 10 and assumed to be $33 billion of tax cuts per year. About $250 billion of it shows up in the first 2-3 years. And by working on the margins (capital gains, dividends, and all the individual tax rates), it provides strong growth-oriented, investment oriented incentives. And the "strategery" of the sunsetting provisions means that the Fall 2004 election will feature a revisiting of the issue: "the Democrats want these Tax Cuts rescinded! They want to raise your taxes!" For people (voters) on the margin (at say the 10% marginal tax rate or enjoying the dividend tax cut), reversing those tax cuts will mean Tax Rate INCREASES of 50-100%! How well do you think that will play, Mr. Mondale?
Like you, I can see what the author intended but he didn't do a very good job of making his point.
Remember, I'm just asking, but it seems to me that if the AMT is not substantially adjusted, most all other tax reductions are going to be irrelevent for the 25% or more of tax payers that currentlt pay AMT.
If anyone has any insight on this, it would be appreciated.
I agree, his case that tax cuts don't reduce federal revenue was well made, when trying to give the democrat spin he waffled. First by argueing that the cut was only 33b per year, when it can be argued that the sunset provisions will never be allowed to take place if the economy still needs a boost. and Second by not informing us that the president asked for far higher cuts and was beaten back by the democrats and the left leaning senators still in the republican party.