Why are there triggers for tax cuts but never for spending increases?
I hear that Republicans are considering adding a trigger to the upcoming tax cut bill so that if economic growth and revenues don't hit projections, deficits don't increase. Does anyone recall any trigger suggestion when spending programs have exceeded estimates and caused the deficit to increase? I don't! Obamacare costs have skyrocketed, and not once have reporters and other Democrats ever cared about the deficit soaring. It seems they care about deficits only if anyone offers to allow individuals and businesses to keep more of the money they earn.
It is truly pathetic that every day the public is indoctrinated with left-wing think-tanks, Democrats, and compliant reporters saying tax cuts don't help the economy much and cause revenues to drop and deficits to rise. They know or should know that Kennedy's, Reagan's, and Bush's substantial tax cuts caused the economy to take off and revenues to grow substantially. Rising revenues can't cause deficits to rise; only spending more than the increases can do that. Revenues also rose after Clinton reluctantly approved capital gains tax cuts in the middle 1990s. Not once did left-wing economists, Democrats, and reporters get their predictions right. They always underestimate the cost of spending programs and underestimate revenues and growth from tax cuts, and yet they indoctrinate the public with their garbage predictions.
Here is a great article in The Wall Street Journal with nine respected economists writing how the tax cuts to corporations and individuals would lead to more economic growth. Of course, this article will not see the light of day in most newspapers or on networks because it just doesn't match Democrat talking points.
It certainly appears that reporters and other Democrats don't want anything that will actually help the overall economy, especially since the last eight years of massive government spending increases, massive increases in regulations, and tax increases yielded the slowest economic recovery in seventy years. They certainly don't want the public to see what actually works and what will increase economic opportunities.
I continually ask for Democrats and reporters to list which policies of Obama and Democrats have lifted people up instead of making more people dependent on government. Maybe they could concentrate on listing the ones that helped inner-city minorities. So far, I haven't seen a list or even an individual policy that encouraged economic growth.
If anyone wants to know why Virginia voted for a Democrat for governor, it is because Virginia has continually become more dependent on government for paychecks. Several of the richest counties in the U.S. are around D.C., where they produce nothing but regulations and bureaucracy. They certainly don't want the rest of the country to be able to keep more of their money and get more freedom and power back. They want to maintain the power they have amassed.
An example of a Democrat employment agency is the CFPB, where they earn lavish paychecks. In the past several years, employees at the agency have made 593 donations to Democrats and one to a Republican. Essentially, taxpayers from throughout the country fund this off-the-budget agency, and then employees funnel some of the taxpayer money back to Democrats.
When are compliant reporters going to start telling the public the truth that tax cuts yield more economic growth than government spending and tax increases? Don't they actually want to help the poor and middle class as they profess?