A Stitch in Haste

The ultimate expression of failed redistributionist economic theory, the International Monetary Fund, is pooh-poohing the Bush Administration's stated intent of halving the U.S. federal budget deficit in half by the end of the President's term.

Instead, and unsurprisingly, the IMF prefers a wide panoply of new taxes of every ilk:

As an alternative, the IMF recommended that the United States consider raising taxes through such methods as eliminating some current tax deductions, creating a national consumption tax or a new energy tax, all ideas that run counter to President Bush's tax-cutting goals.

Of course, the question of how realistic any deficit reduction forecasts are, now that we have the dual propositions of "whatever it takes" Katrinanomics and "there is no fat left" DeLayonomics, is totally valid when condemning the current fiscal policy of the tax-and-spend Republicans in Congress and the White House. But that is not the same as saying that we should engage in taxation carpet-bombing, not only hiking every tax already on the books but also crafting new ones like a national consumption tax.

As the Porkbusters project irrefutably demonstrates, there is a third way: reduce government spending. Reduce it dramatically. Surely the nation can do with a few less "bridges to nowhere" and obsolete moonshots in order to get our fiscal house in order.

It's the first rule of debating: both sides can be wrong. Such is the case with the Hobson's Choice of "higher taxes or higher deficits."

Technorati Tag: porkbusters