Orszag Takes On Cavuto: ‘Folks Need To Actually Look At The Budget Document’
Orszag Takes On Cavuto: ‘Folks Need To Actually Look At The Budget Document’
Today, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag appeared on Neil Cavuto’s show to discuss the budget released by the Obama administration, which “proposes significant tax increases for businesses and wealthy families worth nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years.” Throughout the course of their conversation, Orszag debunked various conservative tax myths trumpeted by Cavuto including: the budget proposes to raise taxes during a recession, tax increases on the wealthy are a “job killer” that will ruin economic growth, and the increases will discourage investors from playing the stock market. Watch a compilation:
As Orszag said, “we’re returning to the tax rates that applied during the 1990’s. I think all Americans — including high income Americans — did quite well during that decade.”
4 Responses to “Orszag Takes On Cavuto: ‘Folks Need To Actually Look At The Budget Document’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Orszag, what a wonderfully fallacious conclusion.
I think I need to get another Springer Spaniel like I had in the 1990’s. I think all Americans – including high income Americans – did quite well during that decade.
I think we should return to the grunge movement that was popular in the 1990’s. I think all Americans – including high income Americans – did quite well during that decade.
Casuation or coincidence?
Now on to more substantial ideas. Basically lets look at a business cycle.
It goes up and down, and then repeats. Nice. When the business cycle trends downward (looking at you Fall, 2008), it makes sense for the government to step in, make it easier on the tax payer, and lower tax rates.
When the business cycle trends upwards (looking at you, 1991-2001) it makes sense for the tax payers to step in, make it easier on the budget, and raise tax rates.
So, why did we pay more taxes during the 1990’s? How about because we had a better economy and we could afford it.
Did the tax rate *make* the better economy? Did grunge? Did my pet? I believe the answer to all three would be a no.
This is the problem with the popular look at Keynes. Keynes wanted government to step to the plate when the tax payer couldn’t, but when the tax payer was fine, the government was supposed to back out. Government *hardly ever* backs out once it gains new responsibilities, and therefore, the next cycle, new and successive layers of programs are needed beyond the original outlay to spur the economy.
Problem – it gets more and more expensive to bail ourselves out.
February 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pmHere’s the play-by-play as I see it.
Orszag – We’re returning to taxing like its the 90’s because it was a good decade.
Cavuto – But this isn’t like the 1990’s.
Orszag – Right. So the tax changes don’t actually apply until 2011, and lets hope the economy is fixed by then.
Time out. Translation: We’re changing tax policy to anticipate something like the 90s and don’t actually think these policies will help us get there, hence why we’re raising taxes later and not now…
Cavuto – … oooohhhkayy…(missing the point) and moving along… so (eventually) you want to raise taxes on people who invest heavily in the stock market, right? Then why would they invest?
Orszag – Well I don’t know (ed note – clearly), but we had a strong economy and stock market during the 90s. ( duh ) Taxes are not the only thing that drives either investment or economic performance (but it is the only thing I will talk about, and the taxes in question will not take place for another two years anyway)… we’re trying to get the economy moving again.
And then Orszag ends by telling people to “actually look at” the budget document…
So let me get this straight. The guy whose selling point is that the 90s were wonderful, and chooses not to make a single argument how they are trying to get the economy moving again right now, is going to tell me to do his research?
Can’t he just explain how the heck the budget is going to help? I’m not entirely convinced he knows! Perhaps Orszag needs to look at the plan!
February 26th, 2009 at 10:27 pmCan’t he just explain how the heck the budget is going to help? I’m not entirely convinced he knows! Perhaps Orszag needs to look at the plan!
Maybe if you would stop waiting to recieve the latest(Oh, wait I mean tired) GOP talking points and actually do your own research and LOOK at the budget before critizing it you would know what he’s talking about. Fox News is so out of it, first they think its 1981(Regan)then 1993 (Gingrich) now 2010. And BTW, isn’t the GOP always turning to the REGAN Tax Cuts of the 1980’s. And why is it that they can’t think of anything to solve this crisis outside a Tax Cut? GOP:”You can’t spend your way out of every problem but you can TAX CUT your way out of all of them!”
February 27th, 2009 at 12:32 amHi Tommie,
I pulled up the tax document and looked into some details. After I got through a couple sections, for instance, 16(?) billions to give 60 million people $250 using Social Security and other programs, and due to the fact that the bill may not actually pass, I stopped reading before I could work myself into a profligate-spending-induced frenzy. Hopefully this will help you to see that it was not some GOP-talking point rant I was on, however badly my html tags may have butchered the first ‘rant.’
Tommie, my point is that the arguments Orszag makes are pathetic, ludicrous, and unsubstantiated, based on the information provided.
And as per GOP-talking points (A favorite hobby of mine apparently), please let me know which conservatives pundits support the same view on Keynes that I and they (and even Keynes himself) have in common so that I may get back to studying *their* talking points. It would provide a fount of knowledge that I could use to cite in subsequent posts.
It’s cute, just embed a clip from Fox News and you can’t seem to hold off on your Fox News rant. Divorce your political idealogy from the medium and take the merits of the material as it is. From the interview provided (can you see the Think Progress mark on it, too?) Orszag looks like a tool, talks like a tool, and argues like a tool. My evaluation holds – he is a tool. Care to prove otherwise?
February 27th, 2009 at 1:07 pm