[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]
Go here, look for yourself. The NYT has offered a Budget Simulator that is propaganda masking itself as a computer program. For instance consider some of the options they give you:
- Cut foreign aid in half.
- Cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent.
- Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent.
Really, that is the best we can do? I bet if we really, really tried, we could cut our federal workforce by 25% at least. In fact, if we really wanted to radically reduce the federal government, 50% is a very doable goal. I mean not all by itself, but in conjunction with radical reductions in the amount of work and regulation going on, it could be done. And I bet their pay could stand to be cut a tad more than just 5%. Likewise it assumes that we can only cut aid to states by 5%. I refuse to be so pessimistic.
But more egregiously, it assumes that raising taxes will raise government income. Now they are free to have that opinion, but there is plenty of data suggesting that if you raise taxes you will kill the economy and income will fall. For instance, they suggest a millionaire’s tax which sounds great in a “soak the rich” sort of way, but they tried that in Maryland, and revenues fell. Gee, who would think that if you taxed the most mobile segment of the population that they might up and leave? Who could have predicted that?
What this is, is the latest example of liberals worshipping false “science”—science that hasn’t been established nearly enough to call it anything more than a hypothesis, dressed up as a cold, hard certainty. Don’t be fooled by their cheap tricks.
Hat tip: James Pethokoukis.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]