Leftist writer Jonathan Chait claims that it is. Nick Schulz discusses Chait’s argument here.
In short, Chait is jumping (I think with intellectual dishonesty) on a piece written by Cato’s William Niskanen in which he took a critical look at the argument long favored among us limited government types that tax cuts would “starve the beast” — or at least maybe reduce it from a size 54 to a 52. Niskanen says that it just hasn’t worked, so Chait rushes to the conclusion that free market types are crazy to keep on pushing for tax cuts.
Schulz explores several problems with Chait’s argument, but here’s what I think is the most glaring flaw: If Chait really believes what he says Niskanen has said, then as a matter of logic not only should free-market, limited government types change their position, but so should he. After all, if it’s crazy for us to keep pressing for tax cuts because they supposedly lead to bigger government, then Chait ought to be a zealous advocate of tax cuts so he can have more of the governmental leviathan he loves. I think you will look in vain for evidence that Chait has switched his position.
The right conclusion to be drawn from Niskanen’s work is that those of us who think that government is far too big need to focus our attention on the spending side, not on the revenue side. To advocate higher taxes in the hope that by giving government more resources that will actually lead to its shrinkage — well, that would really be crazy.
