Take the 'Bush Recession' of 2001 - 2003 for example. Bush tax cuts not only caused that but hurt the recovery and reduced federal revenue, right? At least that's what those on the left claim. Hmmmm. Let's examine some facts.
Economists now largely agree that the cause of that recession was the Dot-Com collapse. Guess when that began. It was March 2000, nearly a full year before Bush took office. That was the month in which the NASDAQ began its precipitous fall, in the end losing 77% of its value. (Which, by the way is far more than the 55% it lost during the recession we're now digging out from under.)
Did you know that the market value of those high tech companies lost approximately $5 Trillion during the high tech bust? Did you know that economists now think that six increases in interest rates late in Clinton's last term was responsible for triggering the tech bust? You will hear that the recession began in March 2001 after Bush was elected and economists thought that at the time but they've since determined that the GDP was not the best indicator of when that recession really began. As a result, they moved the date back to March 2000 when the NASDAQ began its crash but you won't hear that from The Media or politicians on the left. Blaming Bush is more fun. Never mind that Bush's first tax cut didn't happen until after even the March 2001 date. How can one logically argue that his tax cuts caused the recession if his tax cuts came months later no matter which date one uses as the start of that recession? Apparently the blame Bush crowd is determined not to allow those inconvenient things called facts interfere with the mission to blame him anyway.
We also hear that the reduction to 35% in the tax rate for the rich contained in Bush's 2001 tax cut is mostly to blame for continued rising unemployment, falling federal revenues and for everything bad that's happened to our economy since then. There's just this one teenie-weenie problem with that argument. His tax cut for the rich to 35% didn't happen until May 2003! Yes, the 2001 tax cut legislation called for a 35% tax rate for the rich but it was to be cut in incrementally over 5 years. In 2001, the tax rate for the rich was reduced a paltry 0.5%, from 39.6% to 39.1%. For the following two years, 2002 & 2003, it was reduced another small 0.5% to 38.6%. That's bad news for folks on the left who claim the 35% tax rate caused a lot of problems. Now for the REALLY bad news (for those on the left).
The facts show that the economy started turning around in July 2003. Unemployment topped out at that point AND federal revenues began increasing. Guess what happened only one month prior to the start of the recovery when everything turned around? Bush's second AND BIGGER tax cut for the rich.
Bush's second tax cut for the rich at the end of May, 2003 wasn't even an additional tax cut. By then, 9/11 had dragged the other markets down as well and the Bush administration felt that the small(!) tax cuts so far (from 39.6% to 38.6%) were not getting the job done well enough so they got their second tax law passed which ACCELERATED the first Bush tax cuts immediately to 35%. Guess what happened about one month later. Unemployment topped out and immediately began a recovery to Clinton levels of 4.4% by mid-2006. Federal revenue decreases bottomed out and started back up.
Facts: Unemployment and federal revenue both turned around a month after the largest portion of Bush's tax cuts were implemented. Doesn't that sound like the exact opposite of what the left says about the Bush tax cuts?
The current problems in our economy are getting blamed on Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts and Bush's bank bailouts. Well, just as in the argument above, when you look into the details, you find no evidence that those claims are correct. Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264917/not-tax-cuts-not-wars-and-not-bailouts-kevin-d-williamson
Do the facts matter? Many folks on the left don't want to hear or discuss them. Should the facts matter? Well, DUH! If we're going to use Bush's tax policies as a basis on which to argue what to do or not do to fix our ailing economy, doesn't it matter what actually happened?
If we're going to increase taxes on the rich based on claims that Bush's tax cuts for the rich caused employment and revenue problems, shouldn't we care that those claims are bogus? What are the chances we'll arrive at a solution that works if we base our decision on things that aren't true? An honest person has to say we'll fail. Doesn't the recovery of our economy matter more than partisan politics? Well, it should, shouldn't it! Can The Left rise above it and do what's right for the country or are they so focused on the next election that doing the right thing for our economy doesn't matter? Today I have to say, it looks like they're more interested in maintaining partisan political myths than making decisions based on truths
No comments:
Post a Comment