Via Greg Mankiw, we find this National Review interview of Senator McCain by Ramesh Ponnuru. Greg refers us to this part of the Q&A (by far the worst on economic issues):
Ponnuru: If you could get the Democrats to agree, or at least to come to the table on entitlements or on tax simplification, are those circumstances under which you’d be willing to accept a tax increase?
Sen. McCain: No; no.
PONNURU: No circumstances?
Sen. McCain: No. None. None. Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues. So what’s the argument for increasing taxes? If you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts?
Greg suggests two appropriate follow-up questions for McCain:
1. If you think the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts increased revenue, why did you vote against them?
2. If you think tax cuts increase revenue, why advocate spending restraint? Can't we pay for new spending programs with more tax cuts?
As Greg has announced that he's an economic advisor to Governor Romney, I'll be very curious to hear Romney's response to a direct question about the circumstances under which he would be willing to increase taxes if he's elected President.
The question that I would like to have answered by any policy maker who voted for the tax cuts and believes that they have increased revenues is:
Why did you make them so small?
Pingback: The Curse of Voodoo Economics | American Compass