Generally speaking, the Republicans get it, the Democrats don't.

 

The rural republicans are far from "getting it". 

I think it's fair to say that the rural republicans feel the same way about the urban democrats.

"Hope and change" is divisive as well.... for those who don't want it and are content with the status quo. But it is vague... good thing it was just a catch-phrase and not actually the platform.

 

I presume that "Turn Ohio Red" is just a catch-phrase and not actually the platform, too.

 

It's also potentially unintentionally comedic, as "red" used to be (and still often is) associated with communism. "Turn Ohio Red" would mean something very different coming from the Workers World Party than the GOP. :-)

Do you think this is by the media's design? If they had chosen red for filling in districts won by Democratic candidates, Republicans would have been having a field day ever since using the Dem=Red=Commie attack. (Once again lowering the level of discourse.)

Is it really that difficult for everyone to remember that:

Red state = Republican

Blue state = Democrat

 

The use of "reds" and "pinkos" pretty much died with the Cold War, but it is making a comeback with uber-left's revival in the Democratic Party.

It's easy to remember, but equally hilarious, if you're amused by such things.

The use of "reds" and "pinkos" pretty much died with the Cold War, but it is making a comeback with uber-left's revival in the Democratic Party.

What is your evidence of the Democratic Party swinging "uber-left"?

The use of "reds" and "pinkos" pretty much died with the Cold War, but it is making a comeback with uber-left's revival in the Democratic Party.

What is your evidence of the Democratic Party swinging "uber-left"?

I said "revival in the Democratic Party" means more power inside the party and "uber-left" means radical left of the 1960s.

Read this to start: http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595550445

 

Compare the Obama administration to the Clinton administration.  One is left, one is more moderate.

I would say Obama is more moderate than early Clinton.

 

Clinton had a stronger healthcare reform plan, for example, and he in 1993 tried to allow gays to serve in the military, which Obama has been tip-toeing on (while there's massive support for repeal). As for the stimulus and whatnot...it's just a continuation of GWB's plans, and you have to stretch reaaaallly far to call him leftist at all, especially if you call Clinton a moderate.

 

Clinton went more moderate after the 1994 elections...he basically had to. Obama's been that way from the beginning. So much so that he hasn't been able to get much done, due to trying to include Republicans whose only goal is to prevent him from doing anything.

 

Think about Bush's style of commanding power, then think about Obama's. Obama tries to be diplomatic with Republicans That's not very leftist.

Obviously Clinton was left, he was just more moderate as I said.  The big question is how much Obama will moderate after the 2010 election.  Obama has said a lot in his past that was farther to the left than Clinton and then when you look at his czars and other appointments coupled with the 'ram it through' before we're voted out mentality in Congress and the whole thing seems farther left than 1993 or even early 1994.

 

Here's an article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/15/one_year_out_the_fall_99907.html

 

Also, Bush and Obama aren't too different.  Both trust in government but the Obama/Reid/Pelosi just trusts even more in even bigger government.

 

 

All of this belongs in the Obama Presidency thread, btw.

All of this belongs in the Obama Presidency thread, btw.

LOL, oops. Sorry, mods.

 

According to people on the Enquirer site, Strickland is an uber-lefty commie because he wants government to fund passenger rail.

Also, Bush and Obama aren't too different. Both trust in government but the Obama/Reid/Pelosi just trusts even more in even bigger government.

Did you expect that comment to go unchallenged?

 

I'll go first.  Bush started the war in Iraq as a way of dividing the (confused) electorate.  It's fuked-upped-ness actually worked well for President Cheney and his partner Rumsfeld: it helped Rove win elections in 2002 and 2004

 

Also, Bush and Obama aren't too different.  Both trust in government but the Obama/Reid/Pelosi just trusts even more in even bigger government.

Did you expect that comment to go unchallenged?

 

I'll go first.  Bush started the war in Iraq as a way of dividing the (confused) electorate.  It's fuked-upped-ness actually worked well for President Cheney and his partner Rumsfeld: it helped Rove win elections in 2002 and 2004

And ending it helped Obama get elected which he did just as quickly as he promised. Oh, nevermind.  And it's not like Obama voted to fund the war or anything like that.  Oh, snap again.

Poor deflection, Scrabble.  Ten percent of the electorate fled the Republican party because they were lying warmongers.

 

IIRC, John Kasich was a Fox News host.  You know, the station that brought us Rove/Bush republicanism.

Poor deflection, Scrabble. Ten percent of the electorate fled the Republican party because they were lying warmongers.

 

IIRC, John Kasich was a Fox News host. You know, the station that brought us Rove/Bush republicanism.

Who said I was defending the GOP?

Also, Bush and Obama aren't too different. Both trust in government but the Obama/Reid/Pelosi just trusts even more in even bigger government.

Did you expect that comment to go unchallenged?

 

I'll go first. Bush started the war in Iraq as a way of dividing the (confused) electorate. It's fuked-upped-ness actually worked well for President Cheney and his partner Rumsfeld: it helped Rove win elections in 2002 and 2004

 

The entire country started the Iraq war to eliminate the threat of a rogue state or non-state actor obtaining and using WMD that almost everyone, including the Europeans and Democrats who opposed the war, conceded that the evidence strongly suggested he had.  The vote for the authorization of military force passed with, I believe, more than 70% of both houses of Congress.  Presidents don't start wars on their own, no matter what the antiwar left might like to believe.  If he hadn't had his own party and a substantial number of Democrats behind him, it would never have happened.  If the Democrats really thought that the war was such an electoral benefit in 2004, they always had the option of supporting it for political reasons even if they didn't think it was the right thing to do as a country.  To the extent that they stood on their so-called "principles" and opposed the war and were punished at the ballot box for it, that is the risk you take when you take a stance like that.  If the country really were convinced that the wars were bad and that the best way to "win" would be to call them off and bring the troops home, they would have done much better.

 

Also, the Iraq war did not begin until March of 2003.  I don't think it was helping the GOP win very many seats in 2002.  It was on the radar, but there were other issues, including Afghanistan and other domestic War on Terror measures that were more prominent in the 2002 elections.

Also, Bush and Obama aren't too different. Both trust in government but the Obama/Reid/Pelosi just trusts even more in even bigger government.

Did you expect that comment to go unchallenged?

 

I'll go first. Bush started the war in Iraq as a way of dividing the (confused) electorate. It's fuked-upped-ness actually worked well for President Cheney and his partner Rumsfeld: it helped Rove win elections in 2002 and 2004

 

The entire country started the Iraq war to eliminate the threat of a rogue state or non-state actor obtaining and using WMD that almost everyone, including the Europeans and Democrats who opposed the war, conceded that the evidence strongly suggested he had. The vote for the authorization of military force passed with, I believe, more than 70% of both houses of Congress. Presidents don't start wars on their own, no matter what the antiwar left might like to believe. If he hadn't had his own party and a substantial number of Democrats behind him, it would never have happened. If the Democrats really thought that the war was such an electoral benefit in 2004, they always had the option of supporting it for political reasons even if they didn't think it was the right thing to do as a country. To the extent that they stood on their so-called "principles" and opposed the war and were punished at the ballot box for it, that is the risk you take when you take a stance like that. If the country really were convinced that the wars were bad and that the best way to "win" would be to call them off and bring the troops home, they would have done much better.

 

Also, the Iraq war did not begin until March of 2003. I don't think it was helping the GOP win very many seats in 2002. It was on the radar, but there were other issues, including Afghanistan and other domestic War on Terror measures that were more prominent in the 2002 elections.

 

I think it took a few years for the war issue to really become a benefit to the Democrats.  The timing was right for Bush for the 2004 election, but had he had to run for re-election in 2006, instead, he would have been in big trouble.

 

Public perception really changed in those two years.

^

The war + Katrina.  It was a competence issue around the GOP.

 

Then the economy started to decline. This was probably unfair to blame Bush, but it happened under Bushes' watch and the GOP paid the political price

 

Strickland is having the same issue.  He is "owning" the bad Ohio economy, which will be why he is having political problems.

Though I'd prefer it if Kasich doesn't say one word either way about guns, gays, or gods, I'm sure he's probably going to have to show concern (even if feigned) to get the groups that care about those issues on board.

 

Yeah, being anti-gay rights has become is a litmus test for GOP candidates, so he is going to have to take that line. This why I will not support Republican candidates, not until the party drops this issue.  They are my enemy and I'll be damned if I vote for any of them.  Uh huh, I know this is being a single issue voter, but IMO lesbians and gays are fools to support a political party that works against them...this includes their candidates.

The funny thing is the Democrats insinuated that Kasich was gay back in the 90s because he shared an apartment in DC with his campaign manager and wasn't married.

 

Yeah, the gay thing has to go. It'll be interesting if it even comes up this year.

I

 

The entire country started the Iraq war to eliminate the threat of a rogue state or non-state actor obtaining and using WMD that almost everyone, including the Europeans and Democrats who opposed the war, conceded that the evidence strongly suggested he had.

Bollocks.  Bush pulled out the weapons inspectors and started bombing.  Go read up on what inspector Hans Blix said.

I

 

The entire country started the Iraq war to eliminate the threat of a rogue state or non-state actor obtaining and using WMD that almost everyone, including the Europeans and Democrats who opposed the war, conceded that the evidence strongly suggested he had.

Bollocks. Bush pulled out the weapons inspectors and started bombing. Go read up on what inspector Hans Blix said.

 

This debate is so 2006, and I'm not going to revisit everything I wrote back then.  Sight unseen, though, I'll wager that I've read more primary and secondary materials than you on the topic, so shove your "go do some reading" advice.  If you're so well-versed in the debate leading up to the war, you know what I said about the other intelligence services, as well as the Democrats (particularly those close to the Clintons, who had also concluded that Saddam had WMDs or programs aimed at producing them that were successfully evading the sanctions) is true.  You also know that I'm right about the bipartisan vote count.  The war was bipartisan going in.  It became a partisan issue later.

It is obvious that you didn't read the reporting in the Akron Beacon Journal by Landis and Strobel.  Those Knight Ridder reporters had contacts in the Pentagon who revealed that the bush/cheney propaganda was a lie.

 

But bush owned the media back then and most American gutless reporters refused to cross them.  I think they were in fear.  Bush also had a lying propagandist Judith Miller at the NY Times whose propaganda convinced members of both parties that Saddam had WMDs.  That's why Congress voted for the war resolution. 

Poor deflection, Scrabble. Ten percent of the electorate fled the Republican party because they were lying warmongers.

 

IIRC, John Kasich was a Fox News host. You know, the station that brought us Rove/Bush republicanism.

Who said I was defending the GOP?

 

Do you do so subconsciously?  I find that hard to believe.

John Kasich is a Steelers fan.

John Kasich is a Steelers fan.

 

^No mud-slinging

It is obvious that you didn't read the reporting in the Akron Beacon Journal by Landis and Strobel.  Those Knight Ridder reporters had contacts in the Pentagon who revealed that the bush/cheney propaganda was a lie.

 

But bush owned the media back then and most American gutless reporters refused to cross them.  I think they were in fear.  Bush also had a lying propagandist Judith Miller at the NY Times whose propaganda convinced members of both parties that Saddam had WMDs.  That's why Congress voted for the war resolution. 

 

Thank You.  Gramarye seems to forget that there was an incredible amount of manipulation that went on to make things seem justifiable.  Yes this argument is old, and I didn't think any of this was still of question. 

 

I was there, as were my colleagues (most which were Republican appointees) and the extent of what went on was well beyond criminal. 

It doesn't have to make you a bad republican to acknowledge and/or denounce what has happened, I mean it only helps in reestablishing some kind of credibility, no..?.     

John Kasich is a Steelers fan.

 

^No mud-slinging

 

I don't think that's mudslinging, I think it directly relates to the job qualifications.

Though I'd prefer it if Kasich doesn't say one word either way about guns, gays, or gods, I'm sure he's probably going to have to show concern (even if feigned) to get the groups that care about those issues on board.

 

Yeah, being anti-gay rights has become is a litmus test for GOP candidates, so he is going to have to take that line. This why I will not support Republican candidates, not until the party drops this issue.  They are my enemy and I'll be damned if I vote for any of them.  Uh huh, I know this is being a single issue voter, but IMO lesbians and gays are fools to support a political party that works against them...this includes their candidates.

 

I used to think that way, but the economic issues are far too important right now.  I think that Kasich/Republicans simply understand these issues and how to help get Ohio back on track much more so than Strickland/Democrats.  So if it means that in order to turn Ohio's economy around and make the state more competitive, that we must put gay rights on the backburner for another decade, that's a sacrifice I think we must make.  Besides, eventually, at least hopefully soon, I think that gay rights is going to no longer be a "states rights" issue, but an issue dealt with on the Federal level, probably through the courts, and states will no longer be allowed to discriminate (even if it's the "will" of the people).

John Kasich is a Steelers fan.

 

^No mud-slinging

 

I don't think that's mudslinging, I think it directly relates to the job qualifications.

 

:laugh:

 

^^ It is hard for me to put economic issues ahead of fundamental civil rights issues.

 

Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin - Those who sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither

I'd also add that, whatever your position on gay rights is, it's not fundamentally an economic issue.  I know there are people who dress it up as one by talking about "attracting top talent" to a region's businesses, but it really is fundamentally an issue of rights, not money.  Therefore, the government should be able to talk about the two (gay rights and economic development) at the same time and keep them separate.  Whether that will actually happen, of course, is another matter entirely.

Why do you want them addressed separately?  It might not "fundamentally" be an economic issue.... but it is an economic issue nonetheless.  Gay people move to "gay friendly" areas and they take their talent, tax revenue and overall productivity with them.

Why do you want them addressed separately? It might not "fundamentally" be an economic issue.... but it is an economic issue nonetheless. Gay people move to "gay friendly" areas and they take their talent, tax revenue and overall productivity with them.

 

Because the non-economic issues predominate over the economic ones and because the "take their talent elsewhere" argument presupposes that gays are more economically productive than the ones that would otherwise take the same jobs or live in the same neighborhoods.  That may or may not be true but is not a given.  Moreover, the non-economic issues are not only dominant, but they completely trump the economic issues: to those who support gay marriage and nondiscrimination laws, the economic consequences are irrelevant.  They'd support such laws even if the economic consequences were completely proven to be negative.  Likewise, those who oppose such laws can say the same thing: the would oppose such laws whether the economic consequences of such laws would be positive or negative.

 

Therefore, if the economic costs and benefits (a) cannot be proven and (b) would not matter for the vast majority of people voting and/or pressuring their legislators to vote on the issue, why bother wading into those waters?

All good points... but still no reason to leave that issue out of the conversation... so long as it does not hi-jack the entire debate.  I think statistics prove the economic benefits to be more than speculative.

^^ It is hard for me to put economic issues ahead of fundamental civil rights issues.

 

Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin - Those who sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither

 

I don't think the Franklin quote is quite applicable here.  But anyways, though it is easy for me to feel this way because I'm not the one being discriminated against here, I feel that Ohio has many more pressing issues than worrying about gay rights at the moment.  Ohio's economy is in shambles, that's the most important issue facing the governor, no matter who's in that office.  I want my governor spending his time working on that.  What he thinks about gay rights is irrelevant, because as I've said before, I think that issue will work itself out through other avenues.  In fact, I don't believe the governor has much say in the matter at the moment, anyways.

I don't follow Ohio state politics as closely as I should, so this is an honest question:  Is there any evidence to believe state GOP would do more good for the economy than state Dems?  I understand that cutting taxes is a more central goal for state GOP, but that obviously needs to be paired with spending cuts at the state level (to state the obvious)- has the state GOP proposed significant specific spending cuts?  ["waste, fraud and abuse" does not count.]  I guess $17M per year for the 3Cs would count, but it's obviously a drop in the bucket.

 

I've hear rumbing from state GOP about eliminating the state income tax, but as far as I can gather, it's just political nonsense because it generates 45% of the state's revenue, so it would mean massive increases in sales taxes and fees, which a GOP governor is unlikely to get behind.

 

I guess I'm just a bit skeptical that governors have that much influence over statewide economic performance, and to the extent they do, don't know how it matches up to the national parties.

I agree that governors alone don't have that much influence over economic performance, but governments absolutely do, especially over time.

I don't follow Ohio state politics as closely as I should, so this is an honest question: Is there any evidence to believe state GOP would do more good for the economy than state Dems? I understand that cutting taxes is a more central goal for state GOP, but that obviously needs to be paired with spending cuts at the state level (to state the obvious)- has the state GOP proposed significant specific spending cuts? ["waste, fraud and abuse" does not count.] I guess $17M per year for the 3Cs would count, but it's obviously a drop in the bucket.

 

I've hear rumbing from state GOP about eliminating the state income tax, but as far as I can gather, it's just political nonsense because it generates 45% of the state's revenue, so it would mean massive increases in sales taxes and fees, which a GOP governor is unlikely to get behind.

 

I guess I'm just a bit skeptical that governors have that much influence over statewide economic performance, and to the extent they do, don't know how it matches up to the national parties.

 

This is the same question I ask all the time whenever some says tax cuts/elimination.  How are you going to pay for it?  How are you going to close the gap in the budget that it creates.  I hear some ideas in response but nothing that would come even close to what is being proposed on the other end.  So, if either gubernatorial candidate is going to campaign on cutting taxes, I want to see a balance sheet..... a SPECIFIC balance sheet.

I don't follow Ohio state politics as closely as I should, so this is an honest question: Is there any evidence to believe state GOP would do more good for the economy than state Dems? I understand that cutting taxes is a more central goal for state GOP, but that obviously needs to be paired with spending cuts at the state level (to state the obvious)- has the state GOP proposed significant specific spending cuts? ["waste, fraud and abuse" does not count.] I guess $17M per year for the 3Cs would count, but it's obviously a drop in the bucket.

 

I've hear rumbing from state GOP about eliminating the state income tax, but as far as I can gather, it's just political nonsense because it generates 45% of the state's revenue, so it would mean massive increases in sales taxes and fees, which a GOP governor is unlikely to get behind.

 

I guess I'm just a bit skeptical that governors have that much influence over statewide economic performance, and to the extent they do, don't know how it matches up to the national parties.

 

This is the same question I ask all the time whenever some says tax cuts/elimination. How are you going to pay for it? How are you going to close the gap in the budget that it creates. I hear some ideas in response but nothing that would come even close to what is being proposed on the other end. So, if either gubernatorial candidate is going to campaign on cutting taxes, I want to see a balance sheet..... a SPECIFIC balance sheet.

 

Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve?

 

Truth be told, the first few years after significant tax cuts could be rough.  It wouldn't be a short-term fix, that's for certain.

I am aware of several theories one could speculate as the probable results/consequences of significant tax cuts.  I just want the candidate to be up front with specifics of how the balance will be acheived in the short term while we hope the stars align and prosperity returns.

 

But like I said above, if someone wants to explore how tax credits can be used more expansively to attract business, I would feel much more comfortable with taking a cross the fingers and wait and see approach.  At least then we would know for sure that the lost revenue is being circulated in the economy and not earning interest in some trust fund.

 

 

I just hope whoever wins in November can assemble an effective strategy to get Ohio into the 21st century and not just reiterate platitudes about solar panels and shining up Ohio cities.

Define "into the 21st century."  Two people could say that and mean very different things; it's one of the very platitudes you claim to deplore.

into the 21st century means out of the hell that was the latter half of the 20th century

 

whatever that means

The Buckeye Institute advocates "eliminating" the income tax.  However, they do advocate instituting a different tax on economic activity to replace it.  It is not exactly a value added tax, IIRC.  I read their article a year ago.  There is some "sense" in it.

 

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1187

 

Unfortunately, their scholars sidetrack the issue with verbiage like this: 

 

This idea has been greeted with skepticism by many who think that government, not taxpayers, can better spend  the money earned by Ohioans.

THAT is certainly not the issue in question.

 

NOte that you are going to have to follow the link on that page to read their thesis.

 

Scrabble's remark, shining up Ohio cities, is ignorant and out of place on UO.  Ohio government has been favoring rural and suburban Ohio for the longest time.  Policy and money flows away from the cities.  It was not that long ago that every tiny county was assured of having one representative in the Ohio House.  Tiny Vinton County, population 20,000, got more representation than cities several times its size.

Scrabble's remark, shining up Ohio cities, is ignorant and out of place on UO.

Whoa whoa whoa.  The "shining up Ohio cities" came from the Kasich statement I quoted upthread just like the "solar panels" referred to Strickland's State of the State address that I noted up thread.

 

I can copy both posts if you feel the need to nitpick.  Lighten up.  I just want Ohio to thrive and hope both candidates do more than spout platitudes.  Geez.

These cities definitely need some shining, in some cases literally.  Nothing ignorant about realizing it's time for a bath.

Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve?

 

Yes, and the Laffer Curve is utter b.s.  In fact, the "theory" of the Laffer Curve was used to justify the Bush tax cuts.  Did the deficit decrease or increase after those?

 

It is interesting to think that those who say "people know how to spend their own money better than the gov't" would advocate tax cuts that follow a theory that says that by cutting taxes you will increase production or economic activity and therefore tax receipts so you won't run a deficit.  If the reason you want to cut taxes in the first place is because they are too high, but after the cuts, the same amount of taxes are being collected (which, in reality, never happens), aren't they still too high?

 

Also a tax break or tax credit is the same thing as a subsidy.  The only difference is that the tax credit taxes money away from the income side, and the subsidy is a minus on the expenditure side.

 

A long time ago there was a theory that the government would supply the support structure of the economy- the legal system, transportation systems, waste management, education, unemployment insurance, health care (I think Bismarck started this), etc., which would create a stable environment for people to live work and produce.  Now apparently the government is supposed to initiate a crazy patchwork of subsidized guesses about what new industry is going to hit, while at the same time not providing for any of that other stuff.

 

Well put LK.

The Laffer Curve itself is not BS, but I agree that it tends to get coopted and misapplied in support of simplistic conservative arguments.  The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_Curve">Laffer Curve</a> model simply states that there is *some* tax rate that is neither 0% nor 100% at which revenue is maximized.  In other words, at 0%, no revenue is generated; at 100%, the revenue generated is zero because no one will do anything if someone else will get 100% of the earnings.

 

Of course, the Laffer Curve itself does not supply an answer as to what that revenue-maximizing tax rate <em>is</em>.  And, of course, to the extent that tax cuts recently have indeed led to revenue declines, it suggests that we're on the <em>left</em> slope of the Laffer Curve, i.e., the side at which higher taxes would indeed yield higher revenues because the added disincentive to work would not outweigh the added revenue.

 

Supply-side economics is more than the Laffer Curve because hardcore supply-siders like Grover Norquist hold that one should continue to lower taxes <em>even on the left side</em> of the Laffer Curve, i.e., in the full knowledge that it will decrease government revenue, because they see government revenue itself as a bad thing.  In addition, as a slightly less ideological point, the Laffer Curve is <em>not</em> a relationship between tax rates and <em>private sector economic growth</em>; it is a relationship between tax rates and government revenue.  In other words, the argument goes that it's better to have a $15 trillion economy including a $2 trillion government than a $14 trillion economy including a $3 trillion government.  The Laffer Curve does not directly describe the relationship that would support this argument, because this involves movement all within the left half of the Laffer Curve.

 

An example of where the Laffer Curve's theory *was* proven correct was with the <em>Kennedy</em> tax cuts, which dropped the top individual income tax rates from 90%+ (!!!) to 71%.  It's fairly safe to say that a 90% tax rate--even as a marginal tax rate--is on the right-hand side of the Laffer Curve.  Government revenue *and* the private economy both climbed after the Kennedy tax cuts.

 

So the Laffer Curve is not BS.  Many of the modern arguments purporting to use it are, though.

How would Google run the government if it were in charge?

 

Great Video:

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/02/24/nr.google.ceo.on.govt.cnn?iref=allsearch

An example of where the Laffer Curve's theory *was* proven correct was with the <em>Kennedy</em> tax cuts, which dropped the top individual income tax rates from 90%+ (!!!) to 71%. It's fairly safe to say that a 90% tax rate--even as a marginal tax rate--is on the right-hand side of the Laffer Curve. Government revenue *and* the private economy both climbed after the Kennedy tax cuts.

 

Fine, perhaps I spoke too strongly.  But it's pretty obvious that we have been talking about the public policy arguments stemming out of the theory of the Laffer Curve, rather than a discussion of how the economic model itself works.  In addition, I'd be surprised if people were actually paying the 90% rate throughout the period that that was the top tax bracket.  I don't have any way of proving this obviously, but I suspect that the tax cuts were designed in part to give people a better reason to disclose their wealth honestly.  The AMT was created in the late 60s (I think) basically to make sure that people were paying something in taxes.

 

But you hit the nail on the head, and the question is begged. 

 

Of course, the Laffer Curve itself does not supply an answer as to what that revenue-maximizing tax rate <em>is</em>.

 

In addition, as a slightly less ideological point, the Laffer Curve is <em>not</em> a relationship between tax rates and <em>private sector economic growth</em>; it is a relationship between tax rates and government revenue. In other words, the argument goes that it's better to have a $15 trillion economy including a $2 trillion government than a $14 trillion economy including a $3 trillion government. The Laffer Curve does not directly describe the relationship that would support this argument, because this involves movement all within the left half of the Laffer Curve.

 

What does this theory tell us?  Well, it doesn't tell us what the optimal tax rate is, as you pointed out (not that an economic theory should be able to answer a social/political question anyway).  So what does it do?  It describes a relationship between the size of the private economy and the expenditure on government.  This ratio is so devoid of content as to make it meaningless.

 

Why should be concerned about the aggregate size of government versus non-government economy?  The only thing that helps us understand what programs are worth spending public money on is the effectiveness of the program.