Three oceans, the Rio Grande, and the Sonora Desert are worth more than 90% of the defense budget to our security. The US was very secure 15-20 years ago with a defense budget under $300 billion, and prices just 33% lower than today. I think with 50% of today's defense budget, we'd still be very secure. And we could reallocate $400+ billion of the economy to more productive activities than the modern day equivalent of Pyramid building.
Politicians spend, regardless.
Yes, lets run up the white flag on spending and just concede that we will suffer deficits and debt and the welfare state till kingdom come.
But prosperity ONLY occurs with lower taxes.
The period of 1947-1963 wasn't prosperous with 90% top marginal rates?
How about 1963-1973 with 70% top marginal rates? No prosperity?
How about 1983-1987 with 50% top marginal rates? Again, no prosperity?
No wait, 1993-2001, with 40% top marginal rates - no prosperity?
Your linkage has no empirical proof to it. I don't disagree with lowering taxes at the margin, but truly criticial to prosperity is limiting the bite of government on the economy, and eliminating artificial disincentives in the tax code.
Federal Taxes are currently running at $2 billion of a $14.5 trillion economy. That's under 14% and lower than anytime in recent memory. Its not excessive tax collections that are dragging on the eeconomy right now, but excessive debt.
The "prosperity" of the 1960s was pretty phoney too, and was soon seen in the destruction of the economy caused after JFK's tax cuts wore off and the LBJ Nixon tax hikes took effect.
But, I'm done with you. If you want higher taxes, go for it. The only way out of "deficits" is to have the private sector grow faster than government. Only Coolidge was able to hold down government spending for five years, and at a horrific cost to the U.S. in national security. So, go for it. No more responses from me.