Thanks! This is the type of research needed that separates opinion from facts and data. As you've already pointed out, there seems to be some difference between Cato and House revenue assumptions. Also, we are looking at the House version and the Senate has yet to do their magic or GW sign it. The intent and 'pay as you go' is clear, a Democratic approach.

As for spending the money, we'll see. There are folks who advocate various bio-fuels, even GW Bush can say 'switch grass' and this may provide the funds to build prototype plants. Our country has a long history of government - business - university cooperation and that model continues to work well. For example, the first nuclear reactor was a university - government project but now Westinghouse and GE are quite capable of making their own.

So overall, what were seeing the Democrats have passed a law to bring in the revenue needed to support a good public policy, development of non-geological energy sources. We may disagree about the methods and we'll meet at the ballot box to decide.

BTW, I agree with Cato if they truely want to reduce the deficit. The fastest way is to expire GW's tax cuts and get back to paying off the Reagan - Bush deficits.

Bob Wilson

 

Cato would probably say you tax plan was strictly short term, and would do long term harm to the economy. They'd probably also say that it was Reagan's tax cut now long ago that spurred the strong economy that allowed Bush' I, and Clinton's tax increases to be rather effective in a short term way. But that it was the same tax increases that slowed the economy down around the time Bush II took office.

Cato would not want to eliminate GW's tax cuts, but would cut defense spending and a lot of other "investments" including Iraq.