Wall Street Journal Editorials Try to Have it Both Ways

I will try to keep this short because it could be long and complicated.

The WSJ today correctly acknowledges that tax receipts went down because the economy went into recession.  They go on as they always do to say that the only way to get the economy growing is to cut taxes and limit spending so that incentives to save and invest are maximized.

However, they overlook the fact that personal tax rates are lower then they were in the booming 1990's when we had a balanced budget.  They overlook the fact that housing/financial crisis always take 5 to 7 years to come out of and a lack of fiscal stimulus will generally extend that.

They assert that the government is trying to raise taxes at the expense of growth, but at the same time, they want to balance the budget as fast as possible by cutting spending.  Anyone who played with the NYTimes "on line balance the budget game" knows that the spending cuts necessary to balance the budget without any revenue increases will have poor people going without medical care and/or a defense budget that must have all the troops brought home and/or a host of other changes in government operations.

I don't normally comment on WSJ editorials because they are so partisan to the Republicans and since most of my readers already know that there is no new information.  However, today got under my skin so I had to comment.  The WSJ is a prisoner to positions that don't make sense in reality.  Case in point, while they want Ronald Reagan supply side economics they overlook the fact that Bush I's tax increases are the only way the budget was eventually balanced in the 1990's.  They criticize the deficit but never called for tax increases to pay for the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan that they supported.  I honestly think they don't want any government except a security apparatus and a court system.  Wonder how they would treat the poor people begging under their feet at the World Financial Center.