Matt Yglesias wants the world to know that conservatives don't care about the deficit. Even the excuse that it is simply the politicians who are hacks on the topic while independent conservative thinkers remain honest doesn't pass muster with Yglesias, who notes that Reagan's blinding aura blots out any mention of the "d" word during his term in office.
In his first point, Yglesias is right -- after all, Republican leader Mitch McConnell recently told us that "virtually every Republican" believes that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. In his second, he's generally right, in that purity-minded conservative thinkers rarely consider the pragmatic results of constantly advocating for tax cuts -- that is, huge deficits.
But give at least some conservatives credit: Kevin Williamson, an editor at National Review, wrote an article in May calling for conservatives to focus on spending cuts rather than tax decreases, noting that "there is no evidence that the tax cuts on net produced more revenue than the Treasury would have realized without them ... this kind of talk is distressingly unremarkable in Republican political circles." Despite the story's efforts to laud Arthur Laffer, it ultimately produces the conclusion it earlier calls a liberal misapprehension: That tax cuts "were an ill-considered product of starve-the-beast ideology and produced crippling deficits."
So I skimmed The Corner, National Review's blog, looking for similar commentary on remarks from Sen. Jon Kyl that kicked off this discussion and prompted McConnnell's remarks. There was no discussion of McConnell, and on the Kyl issue, there is a post from Dan Foster attempting to explain Kyl's remarks in a way that makes him appear responsible: "I'm sure if you asked Senator Kyl, he'd tell you that tax cuts should be offset -- by spending cuts. That also seems a fairly natural inference to draw here." But on further consideration of the comments, Foster updated his post, critically noting that Kyl "is openly advocating some 'starve the beast' unfunded tax cuts," and referring back to the Williamson article.
That was it -- Williamson's own blog on debt and deficits doesn't mention the issue, but does spend a post blaming President Obama for Illinois' deficit, or perhaps arguing that Illinois' budget practices are responsible for the federal deficit largely caused by the Bush tax cuts. Which puts a fine point on the subject: Conservatives may recognize the realities of what tax cuts mean for the economy, but they principally use the issue as an ideological cudgel to oppose policy decisions and politicians that don't benefit conservative interests.
-- Tim Fernholz
