(And recent studies suggesting tax cuts inspire more spending were based on an analysis of a woefully short period of time — probably unreliable in much the way that all the tired generalizations about how “no senator in an odd-year election following a recession has ever,” etc., based on only six election cycles.)

yeah, so, the thing is…

Taxes are an economic bad. Deficits and debts are also an economic bad. If you’re faced with a choice between two candidates, both of whom are gong to leave spending untouched, but one of whom proposes a large tax cut and the other of whom does not (which means, one proposes a different, deferred, tax base for the spending) why is it a question of principle which to support?

“The government” doesn’t become bankrupt and debt-saddled in a way that’s independent of the rest of the economy. Debt-ridden governments sometimes embark on still-more-destructive tactics like monetizing the debt; they sometimes default on loans, thereby violating contracts; at best they end up as a long-term drag on the real economy by keeping interest rates high *and* increasing taxes to pay for the interest. And finally, “starve the beast” seems to lack any empirical support as a prediction of Congressional behavior; spending goes *up* as the idea of a budget constraint is abandoned. (In a culture of balanced budgets, the first $100b spending increase is a big, visible deal. In a culture of deficits, the jump from a $200b to a $300b deficit doesn’t seem to bother Congress or voters.)

I “like tax cuts.” But I don’t think that commits me to favoring the higher-spending-and-tax-cuts party over the higher-spending-and-higher-taxes party all the time; depends on tax rates, debt levels, etc. Give me a tax-and-spending cuts option and I’ll vote for it, but choices among lesser evils require actual judgments about what’s lesser.