National Journal's Clive Crook deftly devalues "starving the beast" as a political tactic, which asserts that tax cuts can put pressure on lawmakers to reduce the size of the government. "Starve the beast" exponents are not demanding packages of lower taxes and lower spending. They are saying that lower taxes will sooner or later wear spending down anyway. When you look at those cases -- instances where taxes have been cut independently, with no connection to new spending plans -- spending does not fall, say the Romers. In fact, it rises a bit. "Starve the beast" does not work. I hope they are right. The idea that a kind of political extortion is needed to contain the growth of government may possibly be correct -- but it is certainly unappealing. The case for low taxes can be made perfectly well on the merits: Arguments one (pro-growth) and two (pro-liberty), as mentioned at the start, ought to be enough. Then, if you can convince people that persistent large budget deficits are bad for the economy (which they are), the case for limited government is made as well. A couple comments: "starve the beast" is another product of the rightist mind, which puts all faith in the individual when it comes to economic matters, but no faith in the individual when it comes to political matters. This thought has been formalized by George Mason economist Bryan Caplan, who suggested limiting the franchise to libertarian economists. Who's the elitist now? Crook, who is both a libertarian and a believer in democracy, thinks a convincing case can be made for small-government economics. Well, here's a thought experiment. Let's say you're a bridge engineer, or an Army hospital administrator, or a levee builder. And let's say you think you need more funding to do your job. Who do you think will give you a fair hearing- an honest, good-faith conservative like Crook, or a liberal who's less skeptical of government? I'd venture it's the liberal who doesn't think government is always the problem that'll give the fair hearing and make the right call. After all, it's been conservatives of Crook's stripes that were in power while all these problems were festering. So by all means, let's finally have a discussion on the merits. In fact, it seems like President Bush wants to have this discussion, and has taken up Crook's view. I believe liberals can make a convincing contrary case, but will they? Instead of just yammering on about the debt?