I have a theory that no one has less understanding of the economy than New York Times columnists. My theory was one again proven by Nicholas Kristof’s latest op-ed.Kristof tries to suggest that a decline in certain public services and our infrastructure has to be linked to a reduction in tax rates since the 1950s. The logic there is that public services have declined, and so have tax rates, so the two MUST be linked.
This is a perfect display of how liberals often confuse correlation and causation. Both of those factors are true, but no real understanding of these issues would bring anyone to the same conclusions as Kristof.
First, Kristof seems to be confusing lower tax rates with less tax revenue.
Tax revenue has reached record levels in many years where the rates were significantly lower. Many of the years with higher rates had significant loopholes that resulted in lower tax revenue. Furthermore, our spending has not really been constrained by revenues as we are currently running record deficits.
Second, Kristof implies that the decline in these public services is a result of less funding, which is the complete opposite of reality. Whether looking at combatting crime, public education or public services, funding for these projects has continuously increased over the last 50 years and is at, or near, all time highs.
In education, the U.S. went from spending $2,835 (adjusted for inflation) per student in 1961 to $10,694 in 2009. Spending has increased almost five-fold, but Kristof wants us to believe that the problem is lower tax rates?
It is true that many public services are failing, but the last several decades have proven that the problem is definitely not a lack of spending. More legitimate arguments exist over ideal tax rates, but Kristof suggested none of those in his column. It is hard to tell whether Kristof is truly this ignorant or just being purposely dishonest, but he is not doing the public any service with his contribution on these important issues in either case.
