In the past, even Democrats didn’t think that way. Of the post-WWII tax cutting Presidents, three tax cutters stand out above the rest: JFK, Reagan, and Bush. The Tax Foundation has posted hard analysis of all three. The report shows that JFK’s cuts were the biggest of the three:

“Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.”

It’s interesting to note that while Democrats relentlessly cry about the Bush tax cuts, you would have to combine all of them into one package to beat JFK’s tax cuts. He understood something about the markets and the economy that today’s politicians mostly miss. The economy will thrive when it’s workers are free to keep as much of their money as possible. Don’t be confused, Kennedy was liberal. He argued for all the typical liberal spending preferences (education, medical care, and so forth), but he didn’t let his liberal social agenda confuse him into thinking the government could actually prosper at the expense of its citizens.

Reagan’s cuts come in at a respectable second place. They had a similar effect of relieving the nation of its recession and actually served to boost government revenues from $244B to 446B by 1989. Bush’s cuts, while small by comparison, did have a stimulative effect as well. However, the effect of these cuts was blunted by the fact that the cuts were split into three rounds. One can speculate that if they had been combined the effect might have been greater.

Today’s leaders have much to learn. Rather than punishing upper income earners and making them into objects of ridicule and hatred, our Tax Cut Professionals let them keep more of their money and our economy has always benefited from it.

NJ.com has published Christie’s recent address to the State’s legislature. In the speech he outlines a large number of budget cuts and freezes. One of the more controversial cuts is a hold on $475 million in State aid to schools. Naturally, this raises the ire of the teacher’s union. The cuts are decried as dangerous, unnecessary, and terrible for children. The unions already have the left wing media turning on the waterworks. Christie isn’t falling for it.

Another fiscal problem Christie identified will hit home for California politicians:

“One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits — a total of $3.8m on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?”

Not only is it unfair, but it doesn’t even make fiscal sense. The tax rate required to support pension programs like this would never pass on a referendum, and officials know it. That’s why these sorts of benefits are “hidden”, taxpayers only see the current cost of teachers’ salaries, and it seems reasonable at the time. Years later, when it’s time to pay for these benefits is when the taxpayers really feel the pain. Now is that time for New Jersey.

Then there are the moral arguments. Why does a government worker get better treatment than everyone else? That sounds like a form of government our Founding Fathers worked hard to get away from, not something we should embrace. A public servant is just that, a servant. We should not be creating government jobs that pay better than their private sector equivalents, provide better benefits, and make it nearly impossible to get fired. But that’s exactly what nearly all government jobs do.

I’m liking this guy more and more. I wonder if he’s busy in 2012.

The uninitiated may think debt reduction could be accomplished by reducing redundant, duplicate, and overlapping government programs. However, that won’t work because each of those programs represents a job for some government worker, and in some cases sends pork back home to a Congressional district. Then there’s Medicare reform. Given that the program is a $32.4 trillion debt entitlement, it would seem like low hanging fruit for a debt commission. That’s a non-starter too, however. Politicians rely on scaring seniors with the specter of Medicare cuts. To actually implement such cuts would (in their minds) be political suicide.

So what are we down to? Well, some question why we need a military presence almost everywhere. Since we spend roughly 29% of the Federal budget on the military, that sure seems like a good place to look for savings. However, Republicans are the party of the military, so that’s a non-starter as well.

Then there are tax hikes.

It’s somewhere between humorous and infuriating that Congress has blown through endless sums of money and is now suddenly concerned about all the debt. Where were these “deficit hawks” in the Democrat party when the failed stimulus bill was being considered?

In Washington parlance, “concern about deficits and debt” only means one thing: More taxes. Some things in life are so simple. Democrats tax and spend. It’s true. The old adage simply has it backwards…they spend, and then tax.

Republicans aren’t much better. For them, the adage reads “Republicans borrow and spend letting someone else lose their seat by raising taxes”.

Tax or no tax, one thing is for certain: Washington will quickly blow through every dollar it has (and a lot more after that) on senseless pet projects. If you have a better vote buying scheme, I’m sure they’d love to hear it.