The other day I wrote about the mischaracterization by the media of the reason why the GOP opposes raising taxes on anyone. That post generated a comment that illustrates the ability of the media and the Democrats to confuse most people about the truth. The comment, by "Jim" was as follows:
The point you make is absolute myth. There was no economic growth at all after Bush instituted tax cuts. There have been numerous non-partisan economists who have said there is no correlation that raising the taxes on the rich will stunt job creation.
The Bush tax cuts passed in final form in 2003. There had been an initial bill in 2001, but shortly thereafter, the country was hit with the 9-11 attacks which caused a drop in consumer spending. During the year prior to the completion of the tax cuts in 2003, GDP grew at an average annual rate of about 1.5%. In the year after the tax cuts were fully in effect, GDP growth grew to a 4% rate. That extra 2.5% of growth each year meant that GDP was higher by about $350 billion dollars per year and that a great many new jobs were created. In 2004 and 2005, the economy produced about 5 million private sector jobs. The unemployment rate came down to 4.7% by the end of those two years.
Let me put this another way: to say, as the comment does, that "there was no economic growth at all after Bush instituted tax cuts" is to repeat just another false talking point put out by the media and the Democrats.
As for the "numerous non-partisan economists" who supposedly say that there is no correlation between raising taxes and reducing job creation, this is again a phony point. Rather than quoting an individual, let me cite to the Congressional Budget Office, an agency which is supposed to be non-partisan. Here is what that agency had to say about raising taxes:
The point you make is absolute myth. There was no economic growth at all after Bush instituted tax cuts. There have been numerous non-partisan economists who have said there is no correlation that raising the taxes on the rich will stunt job creation.
The Bush tax cuts passed in final form in 2003. There had been an initial bill in 2001, but shortly thereafter, the country was hit with the 9-11 attacks which caused a drop in consumer spending. During the year prior to the completion of the tax cuts in 2003, GDP grew at an average annual rate of about 1.5%. In the year after the tax cuts were fully in effect, GDP growth grew to a 4% rate. That extra 2.5% of growth each year meant that GDP was higher by about $350 billion dollars per year and that a great many new jobs were created. In 2004 and 2005, the economy produced about 5 million private sector jobs. The unemployment rate came down to 4.7% by the end of those two years.
Let me put this another way: to say, as the comment does, that "there was no economic growth at all after Bush instituted tax cuts" is to repeat just another false talking point put out by the media and the Democrats.
As for the "numerous non-partisan economists" who supposedly say that there is no correlation between raising taxes and reducing job creation, this is again a phony point. Rather than quoting an individual, let me cite to the Congressional Budget Office, an agency which is supposed to be non-partisan. Here is what that agency had to say about raising taxes:
In addition, and particularly important given the current state of the economy, immediate ...tax increases would represent an added drag on the weak economic expansion.
It is true that totally partisan economists like Paul Krugman have tried to use anecdotal evidence to argue that raising taxes will not affect job creation. Sadly, these are political statements, not an actual economic analysis. There is no doubt that any tax increase will result in a diminution of consumption by consumers. That means fewer jobs. It is beyond argument. I guess I better change what I just wrote to say that it is beyond honest argument.
1 comment:
Well Said Jeff!
Post a Comment