A few comments from Bruce Bartlett on the effectiveness of the "starve the beast" strategy towards reducing the size of the federal government.
-- The Idiocy of Starve the Beast Theory.
-- 'Starve the Beast' - Origins and Development of a Budgetary Metaphor.
-- To Starve or Not To Starve the Beast.
In Kevin Drum's comment we get an interesting observation:
If you raise taxes to pay for government programs, you're essentially making them expensive. Conversely, if you cut taxes, you're making government spending cheaper. So what does Econ 101 say happens when you reduce the price of something? Answer: demand for it goes up.
Cutting taxes makes government spending less expensive for taxpayers, which makes them want more of it. And politicians, obliging creatures that they are, are eager to give the people what they want. Result: lots of spending and lots of deficits.
If you want to reduce spending, the best way to do it is to raise taxes so that registered voters actually have to pay for the services they get. I don't have a cute name for this theory, but it's true nonetheless. Even for Republicans.
This suggests that it is rational for people to want more government programs if they do not know the true costs of those programs. If you want to cut government, raise taxes.
