Why do tax cuts have to be 'paid for?'
Whenever believers in limited government propose tax cuts, believers of bigger government immediately shriek the 'tax cuts' have to be "paid for" almost as if it's the government's money. On Monday, the editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal talk about President Bush's tax cuts. More importantly, however, they demolish the arguments that tax cuts have to be "paid for," saying, "This notion that tax cuts must be 'paid for' is an interesting one. It stems from an underlying presumption that the amount of our paychecks currently seized by the federal government actually 'belongs' to the federal government. Therefore, this thinking goes, such cuts must be 'paid for,' or restored, by anyone who reduces the amount of loot currently flowing through that mighty pipeline that sucks earnings from our little individual bank accounts and pours them into the bottomless vaults of Washington." After noting the tax-and-spenders will link the tax cuts to the current growth of the deficit, the editorial says, "Needless to say, tax cuts don't create debt. Only excessive spending can cause debt." As the editorial rightly notes, "Federal tax receipts have continued to grow by leaps and bounds every year." What it gets down to is the politicians can't control their urge to spend our money.