Ben Stein may be known best by my generation knows as the best as the economics teacher in the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (“Bueller…. Bueller….?). But he is also an attorney, former presidential speechwriter (for Nixon and Ford) and regular newspaper columnist for the New York Times.
Stein’s political beliefs generally tilt towards the right, pictured above at the 2000 Republican National Convention. He is notoriously anti-evolution, pro-life and fiscally conservative.
That’s why this article from Sunday’s New York Times (though published on the web on Saturday, free registration required) fascinated me. Stein came out in swinging against McCain’s economic and tax platform.
Stein begins by quoting McCain as saying that he won’t raise taxes. That, Stein says, more or less, sounds nice. And then he inserts the big BUT:
But the unhappy fact is that it’s necessary to raise my taxes and the taxes of all upper-income Americans. (I do wish, however, that “upper income” started just a dollar above me.)
The sad truth of the last two two-term Republican presidents is that their economic premise, the key part of their economic game plan, simply has not done what it’s supposed to do.
That is, cutting taxes, especially on upper-income Americans, does not generate so much economic activity that it replaces all the lost I.R.S. take and then some. At least those have been the results so far.
He goes on to cite a brief history of conservative economic policy, attempting to debunk the notion that cutting taxes for the wealth spurs economic growth. He is notes that with Bush, like Reagan, government spending has increased while revenues from taxes have fallen. Despite the fact that Stein believes that military spending was necessary (really, Ben?), he adds another BUT:
But we have been left with immense deficits and a doubled national debt as President Bush enters his final months in office.
McCain, he argues, isn’t thinking correctly. Spending, Stein notes, is going to continue to rise if our levels of spending remain the same (which they likely will). The solution, he believes, is to not raise taxes on the poor or middle class, nor to not cut taxes on the wealthy. He believes McCain’s plan, which includes tax cuts for the wealthy is in fact, flawed:
I don’t like taxing rich people or anyone I like. But our government — run by the people we elected — needs the revenue. Do we pay it or do we make our children pay it? Dwight D. Eisenhower — and Bill Clinton — knew the answer: You behave responsibly and balance the budget except in rare circumstances.
He ends his piece by reminding us that he is a Republican – and that personal and national responsibility are important. Gasp, it’s enough to make him sound like… a traditional Republican? The irony of his statements is that fiscal conservatism used to be a basic tenet of the Republican party; Stein, in my opinion, is wagging his finger at the party to remind them of what they used to be.
This theory, of course, is nothing new. Separately, Stein has repeated the observation made by Warren Buffett, one of the richest individuals in the world, that Buffet pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretaries. (For a similar article about Warren Buffett, click here.)
I thought Stein’s piece was remarkably thoughtful and rant-free. Give it a peek and let me know: What do you think? Is he right?
Ben Stein misses the point here. What kind of Republic is he if he doesn’t advocate less spending above all else? I dislike both McCain’s and Obama’s plan. Any plan that doesn’t cut taxes for everyone and cut spending by twice as much (or 10 times as much), is one I’m not voting for.
Ron Paul, we need you!
I agree with Ben Stein. The so-called “fiscal conservative” faction of the GOP is anything but. They chant the no-new-taxes mantra in a cynical way just to get the vote from other cynical people. Then they band-aid the economy just enough to survive their term in office. If a Democrat takes office next, they yell that the Democrats are the ones who ruined the economy! But I sincerely hope they don’t always speak for the entire GOP; that a more reasonable faction gets its way soon and helps steer us into better, more long-term plans.
Bill Clinton? Responsible? Bill Clinton balanced the budget by robbing money from Social Security! Now we are being told that Social Security will either go bankrupt or have benefits severely reduced for future retires. Bill Clinton should be in prison for the things he did while President!
When the current president took office in 2001 the debt was $5.7 Trillion it is now $9.5 Trillion, the biggest amounts by far are the DOD, Social security, interest, and the HHS budget.
In the past 12 years that I have been preparing tax returns for people the credits have increased the rates have decreased, and we have seen what that has done to the deficit.
It never make sense to spend more than you take in. But sometimes you have to for emerencies. Like World War 2.
War in the time of the Romans was profitable, not anymore.
Taxes are too high for everyone. The original income tax was 0% for more than one hundred years. The federal government has assumed the responsibilities of the states and the people. Our Constitution says what the federal government is allowed to spend money on. We just need to get back there and let the states and people have their responsibility back.
The biggest problem with politicians (and some of your comments above) is that they tend to view the economy as a fixed pie. It’s not a fixed pie. It’s a growing pie with living, breathing components (us). Those components move the economy with an infinite amount of external and internal impacting variables. Saying the ‘debt has doubled’ is a blind view of economics. Think about the financial impact of 9/11 and the security infrastructure that the country absorbed. Then add to it war and natural disasters (here and abroad) and the ‘debt’ does not matter. It doesn’t play a role whatsoever in our day to day interaction.
It’s like saying that it’s unhealthy to move from a small home to a large home because it doubles your monthly mortgage payment. You’re ignoring all of the other factors that may have made it an ideal decision!
The economy is not a pie, it’s more like a river. With meandering turns and highs and lows. The job of Americans is to stay afloat. The job of our government is to remove the obstacles. That doesn’t mean necessarily cutting the debt, though.
He’s on the right track, moreso then other Republicans (I’m Republican too, even though it pains me to see the party embrace the christian right and ignore the fiscal conservatives), but still has a ways to go.
First and foremost, spending is out of control, and entitlement programs need to be reigned in. Taxes may need to be raised, but it should be somewhat across the board (I don’t think anyone should pay nothing or have a negative tax rate). The rich (of which I’m NOT, unless you’re a democrat class warfare mongerer) already pay something a huge amount of all personal income taxes, and more then that if you include the double taxation of corps, while being what, 1% of the population? I guess the question is how much of a percentage of overall taxes should this group pay, 50%, 75%? Where does it stop?
Sounds like Ben is finally realizing that his party has been wrong all along. Cutting taxes for the rich doesn’t necessarily prompt them to create jobs. They often just buy more luxury stuff or when in charge of a company, cut jobs to increase shareholder value. There is no way oil companies should be getting tax breaks while poor people suffer amidst inflation and rising energy prices.
The Republicans like to tell people what they want to hear so that they can get re-elected, even if it means hurting the long term health of our economy or our environment.
Here’s a fact my Corporate Finance taught us: the U.S. stock market has historically done better under Democratic presidents than during Republican presidents. So, increased taxes may be a good thing. It’s necessary today and the top 1% have a lot more of a cushion to support our economy. Since they have benefited from it so much already, it makes sense that they should take on more of the burden. One other issue is that the more you have, the more tax loopholes you have access to. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett agree that they don’t pay enough tax. I’m upper middle class, and I’d pay a bit more in taxes, but, ironically, under either McCain or Obama, I’d get about the same tax cut.
UH2L
http://www.thingsivenoticed.com
One thing to remember, there’s nothing forcing anyone to accept tax cuts. When Bill Gates and Warren Buffett argue that they should pay higher taxes, they can if they so choose. But note that they are not. Talk is cheap, follow the money (BTW, it’s astounding how many liberals who support higher taxes engage in estate planning to reduce those taxes).
The Clinton’s also have a long history of paying the minimum possible. Anyone else remember the used underwear as a charitable donation?
… Oil company profits… hmmm… what a con job…
Taxes, the economy, spending, etc… Is all a huge complex problem to be sure. A few things to note here… first… Clinton didn’t balance the budget, it was the Republican Congress at the time. Remember the democrats were thrown out two years into the Clinton Administration after the biggest tax hike in history, which was clearly unconstitutional since it was retroactive… I recall in the Constitution Art.I Sc.9 that “No bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” (after the fact). Read the Constitution, budgets and fiscal direction are set by Congress, not the President. Second, when you hear the baloney about “oil company profits”… they tend to leave out that little nugget that the profits announced are WORLDWIDE!! Not within the US. roughly 15% of that big number accounts for US profits. In addition, those profits generally run about 8-10% of their gross revenue… by my reckoning and many others, that would be “piss-poor” performance in any other sector… but Pelosi, Reed, et. al. won’t tell you that one.
Somehow people are under the impression that Gov’t is a bottomless pit of money and by its spending its boosting the economy. That money has to come from somewhere, if not printing it. Its not just fiscal tax policy that boosts the economy, its also the message and perception. Reagan spoke highly of America, whereas Carter was a always complaining how bad things were. No one wants to hear that. We need a president who has a fierce love for this country, and a brass pair that clang when he walks down the hall… and at that very sound, Congressmen and Senators lose control of themselves at the sound… hmmm… kinda like what happens when Reid and Pelosi hear Anne Coulter! 😉 LOL Food for thought…
the diet doctor is out only if it has become a life threating situation and is recommended by a doctor. the rx and the mileage are dedeductible , but if you say it is a diet then it is out