The gulf between those on the political left and right (at least the way we define it in modern politics) seems to be impassably wide; and getting wider over time thanks to the non-factual partisan rhetoric that often masquerades as sound socio-economic policy.
Well, thanks to the work of Economics Professor Arthur Laffer, Professor of Economics Tim Groseclose, and fiscal sanity and tax reform proponents such as Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D…and many others… maybe the left and the right can finally find some points of agreement.
I have always maintained that common ground could be reached at least in the area of basic economic principles when it comes to responsible fiscal policy. My belief is that the point we should all be able to agree on is the need for sustainable, thus balanced, budgets based on economic conditions while maintaining maximal employment & business growth.
I think many people, on both sides of the “role of government” debate, could agree with a starting point of a balanced budget pegged to real measures of growth, jobs and income. We can argue all day long about HOW to spend the money, but let’s first agree that we should actually HAVE the money as opposed to borrowing it or printing it out of thin air.
Here is our common ground: Lowering tax rates to match the peak or “hump” of the Laffer Curve will 1) maximize revenue, which will delight the big spenders who always beat the drum for for higher taxes, and 2) it will delight delight fiscal conservatives because it will increase the incentive to work, decrease the cost of labor and reinvestment as well as increasing the chance of a budget surplus.
Now, some of the smartest economic minds have given credence to this belief by backing it up with economic and fiscal facts! How could anyone argue against those outcomes? Only most die-hard Keynesians would try to argue that these conditions are unrelated, thus pushing policies that dig our fiscal hole even deeper.