Tweet
Deficit Hawks believe that reducing the deficit/balancing the budget/paying down/paying off the national/federal debt is a priority. How we get there is less important than getting there. You can't really say you are a deficit hawk if you think we should keep an eye on the deficit while taking care of other things. Keeping an eye on the deficit isn't the same thing as reversing the deficit.
It's sort of meaningless to say you are a deficit hawk if it's not your priority. You might say you are deficit aware, or a deficit watchdog, or using the deficit as a pretense to argue for political advantage in pursuit of another priority.
Most "Deficit Hawks" are really "Tax Cutters." That is, their priority is cutting taxes and deficit spending provides a rationale for spending less, which then -- instead of paying down the deficit -- they bait and switch into a tax cutting argument. That's what George W Bush did with his 2001 tax cuts, and the extension of them in spite of spikes in federal spending.
Some "Deficit Hawkery" is simply political jockeying. We are all wary of the Reaganesque/W Bushesque tactic of borrowing and spending -- no one wants to see their political rival cut taxes and then borrow money to maintain prosperity through their administration, then pass on an economic disaster to their party when the economy inevitably sours. So we rail against deficit spending when our rival team is in office, and rationalize it as being part of the "big picture" when our team is in office.
Borrowing and Spending has to be worse to a Deficit Hawk than Taxing and Spending, because at least Taxing and Spending maintains a balanced budget -- which is at least closer to matching the priority of the Deficit Hawk.
Taxation shouldn't be automatically rejected by a true Deficit Hawk, in fact it is essential to tax in excess of spending to reduce or reverse a deficit and arrest or retire a debt. Deficit Hawks may not like taxes, but when you meet a so-called "Deficit Hawk" who is more interested in cutting taxes than paying off debt, you can be sure that they are not truly a Deficit Hawk. They are a DHINO.
It's sort of meaningless to say you are a deficit hawk if it's not your priority. You might say you are deficit aware, or a deficit watchdog, or using the deficit as a pretense to argue for political advantage in pursuit of another priority.
Most "Deficit Hawks" are really "Tax Cutters." That is, their priority is cutting taxes and deficit spending provides a rationale for spending less, which then -- instead of paying down the deficit -- they bait and switch into a tax cutting argument. That's what George W Bush did with his 2001 tax cuts, and the extension of them in spite of spikes in federal spending.
Some "Deficit Hawkery" is simply political jockeying. We are all wary of the Reaganesque/W Bushesque tactic of borrowing and spending -- no one wants to see their political rival cut taxes and then borrow money to maintain prosperity through their administration, then pass on an economic disaster to their party when the economy inevitably sours. So we rail against deficit spending when our rival team is in office, and rationalize it as being part of the "big picture" when our team is in office.
Borrowing and Spending has to be worse to a Deficit Hawk than Taxing and Spending, because at least Taxing and Spending maintains a balanced budget -- which is at least closer to matching the priority of the Deficit Hawk.
Taxation shouldn't be automatically rejected by a true Deficit Hawk, in fact it is essential to tax in excess of spending to reduce or reverse a deficit and arrest or retire a debt. Deficit Hawks may not like taxes, but when you meet a so-called "Deficit Hawk" who is more interested in cutting taxes than paying off debt, you can be sure that they are not truly a Deficit Hawk. They are a DHINO.
Comment