April 07, 2005
Too Much is Never Enough
Radney Balko points out why it is Democrats have such trouble garnering the votes of libertarian-leaning people who don't think much of the Republican Party: because the Democrats have an insatiable hankering for other people's money.
Some readers will doubtless argue that Yglesias is simply more fiscally responsible than the Republicans who currently occupy power. After all, we've got a deficit that is likely going to get worse before it gets better, and the impending costs of entitlement spending will mean that the deficits will get far worse if we don't get spending in line with income. Additional taxes are only logical to deal with these looming costs.
There's truth in that. I suspect we'll see tax increases towards the end of this decade, since Congress appears incapable of controlling spending and since it's appearing increasingly unlikely we will see any reform of Social Security (and, of course, since Social Security reform will cost more money in the short run). It seems implausible that we can continue to amass debt at our present rate without facing a serious financial crisis. Eventually that will mean more taxes.
But observe what Matt is hoping for. He doesn't just want a few more taxes to cover increased expenses. He wants to increase the 'progressivity' of the current income tax system while adding in a Value-Added Tax to really pull down the economy. Matt's looking for an increase of six percent of GDP going towards government services, a huge increase when you consider government already consumes roughly 20% of the economy. Understanding that, perhaps it's a little clearer why 
