*lots of crosstalk*
Bashir: Judson, give your economic policy. How do you think the deficit should be reduced?
Philips: Start with cut spending. Cut taxes to stimulate the economy, it's worked in the past, it worked for Reagan, it worked for Bush. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Let's try something that's worked!
Lots of wonderful goodies in here. Let's proceed one at a time.
As I've mentioned not too long ago, there's this really annoying myth about the Prophet Reagan (peace be upon him) being either solely a tax cutter, or a fiscal hawk. Most of us on planet Earth realize that he was neither. Of course, I've rarely, if ever, seen any right winger acknowledge that Reagan was a massive spender, but that's to be expected (can't tarnish the symbol, afterall). What was interesting was that Philips takes it a step further by including ole' Dubya along with the Gipper. I know that the righties are quite fond of Dubbers, but in a pathetic attempt to put a veneer of "independence", they would usually admit that he was a huge spender (and hence why the Tea Party came to being...after he was long gone, of course).
Okay, so we pointed out that neither Bush, nor Reagan were known for their fiscal restraint. But what about Philips other claim about such policies having "worked in the past"? Well, when we tried showering the rich with hundreds of billions of dollars over the last decade in order for it to eventually trickle down to Joe Sixpack, it didn't really work out so well. The sure to be historic job growth Republicans promised upon passage of the tax cuts never materialized, and Bush wound up having the weakest job growth since WWII. But I do happen to agree with Philips' insanity remark, and I'm confident that if somebody pointed this out, he'd agree we shouldn't be repeating such stupid policies.
Finally, there's one more thing in Philips' statement that he and all other right wingers refuse to acknowledge: Obama HAS cut taxes! Repeatedly. He did so with the stimulus, the payroll tax cut, and the extension of the Bush tax cuts. But I'd like to specifically focus on the tax cuts in the stimulus. Why? Because the stimulus is the Republicans primary whipping boy that they can always bring up when they talk about Obama spending like a drunken sailor. Of course, one problem is that around 1/3 of the $787 billion stimulus was made up of tax cuts. That's a good chunk of change. Republicans need to decide whether tax cuts cause deficits or not, and I wish some intrepid reporter would ask that.