Joe Walsh Claims Every Time The U.S. Has Cut Taxes, Revenue Has Gone Up (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- As Congress addresses the federal deficit and begins debating next year's budget, a centerpiece of the conversation is whether to raise taxes and increase revenue for the government or to simply cut spending.

In his speech last week, President Obama called for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for individuals making $200,000 or more a year and couples making $250,000 or more. Some conservatives, such as Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have voiced support for tax increases.

But many other Republicans, especially freshmen members affiliated with the Tea Party, aren't so keen on that idea. On ABC's "This Week," host Christiane Amanpour mentioned to freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) that House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan doesn't address raising revenue, while Obama's does.

"Can you really sustain what everyone's calling for just by cuts in public services? Doesn't there need to be revenue-raising mechanisms?" she asked.

Walsh replied that the best way to raise revenues is to grow the economy. "You get taxes and regulations off the backs of businesses so that revenues can increase," he insisted.

Amanpour continued to press him, expressing skepticism that Congress can really balance the budget just by cutting social programs. Walsh insisted that tax cuts consistently help the economy grow and therefore raise revenues for the government.

"In the 80s, federal revenues went up," said Walsh. "We didn't cut spending. Revenues went up in the 80s. Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up. The economy has grown."

WATCH:

Walsh isn't the first lawmaker to make this argument. Last year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a similar comment about the Bush tax cuts.

"There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he asserted. "They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy."

But even conservative economists have cast doubt on this claim.

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former White House economist under George W. Bush, in a 2006 Washington Post article.

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, also said that no one in the administration believes tax cuts created a surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan economist who became a strong critic of the Bush administration's policies, used data from the Office of Management and Budget in a blog post last year to illustrate how "the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue rather significantly."

On CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected calls for tax increases, suggesting instead to cut military spending and funds for welfare programs.

"I think there is a compromise," he said. "But the compromise is not to raise taxes, the compromise is for conservatives to admit that the military budget's going to have to be cut. We've doubled military spending. I believe in a strong national defense, but conservatives will have to compromise and we will have to cut military spending. Liberals will have to compromise and we will have to cut domestic welfare. The compromise is where we cut, not where we raise taxes."

Comments

[joeyfoto]

08:25 AM on 04/27/2011

Ever hear of the "Big Lie Theory."

If you repeat a lie often enough and loudly enough, enough people will believe it to make policy with a dishonest basis. The craft of the "Big Lie" was perfected by Joseph Gobbles as director of publicity for the National Socialist Party, in Germany in the 1930s.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
So said Joseph Gobbles.

This statement by Joe Walsh, oft repeated by Republicans who either can not add or lack the integrity to examine real numbers is a Big Lie.

[queenofcups30]

01:26 PM on 04/29/2011

And believe us...Obama relies on and liberals subscribe to the "Big Lie Theory" its the only way you people can justify the clown you put in office.

As far as the Bush tax Cuts...in 2006 we saw tax revenue receipts from the wealthy to the tune of 18.4% of the GDP..a 40 year high. Any spin regarding the outcome of the tax cuts if from the liberals who rather see failure than admit a policy they don't believe in was successful. This country hit the dirt because of the failed liberal policies at Fannie and Freddie...ask Geithner, Clinton and the debt commission Obama appointed and has continued to ignore.

[joeyfoto]

01:52 PM on 04/29/2011

You don't know enough about economics to make those sweeping statements; Despite the fact that you threw in a few numbers, they are unsupported by data.

Fannie & Freddie fell outside the range of normal foreclosures but not by enough to have caused this cataclysm had that debt not been bundled into junk derivatives and sold around the world as real investments. That multiplied the failure and magnified the losses by several orders of magnitude. It also destroyed America's reputation for financial acumen around the world where people have lost significant confidence in America's ability to manage money.

Take the losses at F&F and put next to them, the cost of your guy Bush's idiotic, unnecessary, fraudulently-based and failed war in Iraq. Which pile would you rather have in the US treasury?

Another part of the problem is a bi-partisan cover-up for criminality, that should have put hundreds if not thousands of con-men&women into prison and disgorged hundreds of billions of ill-gotten assets. How many mansions in the Hamptons would that have garnered ? How many Austrian, Swiss, Cayman Islands bank accounts would have been turned over to keep pampered backsides out of federal prisons...

It's just like the racist birther canard — blame housing support that helps poor people for the entire financial collapse.... That is a lie. You can feed that to the ignorant who elect representatives who vote for subsidies to the oil industry.

"Failed Liberal policies" my A$$.

[dsimon]

03:14 PM on 06/11/2011

"As far as the Bush tax Cuts...in 2006 we saw tax revenue receipts from the wealthy to the tune of 18.4% of the GDP..a 40 year high."

That's an essentially meaningless statistic. Receipts from the wealthy have gone up because the wealthy are making so much more money, not because the economy as a whole has done so much better. In fact, the median household income barely budged during the Bush years, even before the housing bubble burst. I don't know how many times we have to try trickle-down and watch it fail before more people realize it doesn't work. And it's stats like the one above that try to get people to draw clearly invalid conclusions to support their failed ideological world view.

And most reports say Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the economic collapse. They followed the big lenders into sub-prime, not led them. No one told the investment banks to leverage themselves 20 to 1, to seek liar's loans, to package them into securities, and so on.

[Butquestioning]

10:46 AM on 04/20/2011

I'm not sure what charts he's looking at but he is completely wrong...As a percentage of GDP, From 1981 thru 1993 revenue decreased every year, starting at 19.6% going down to 17.5%. From 93 thru 2000, as taxes were increased, revenue increased every year, starting at 17.5% and climbing to 20.6%.

In 2001 thru 2010, again with taxes being cut, revenue decreased from 19.5% in 01 to 14.9% in 2010... So, it is obvious that tax revenue is cut by tax cuts, at least the type of cuts made under Reagan, Bush and Bush.

[onionboy]

11:04 AM on 04/20/2011

Yes. Tax increases raise tax revenues. I can't believe there's controversy.

[queenofcups30]

01:28 PM on 04/29/2011

Well, after you consider the collapse of the failed liberal policies at Fannie and Freddie, the revenue decreased considerably from 2008 - 2010 which can account for the majority since in 2006 we saw tax revenues that equaled 18.4% of GDP a 40 high in tax collection receipts. You can blame the liberals for this mess.

[Butquestioning]

02:26 PM on 04/29/2011

Fannie and Freddie were victims of the Bush policies and had nothing to do with the mortgage problems. Revenue decreased almost every year under Bush, not just after the recession.

In 2001, revenue was at 19.5% of GDP,and it declined or stayed lower than that percentage thru 2010 with a low of 14.4%, the lowest since 1950. In 2000, the revenue was at 20.6%, the highest point it has been since 1944 when it was at 20.9%

But Bush lost revenue not just as a percentage of GDP, but in actual dollars as well...for the first time since 1971. To add further damage to our situation, Bush INCREASED spending from the low of 18.2% in 2000 to 25% in his last budget. And deficts grew significantly thru Bush's two terms taking the country from three straight years of Surpluses to the highest total deficits under any president in our history. Bush added more than $6.1 trillion to the national debt. So, I'm not sure what you are looking at. It sure wasn't liberal tax policy that was at fault....

[Skydave]

12:31 AM on 04/20/2011

The smoker you drink, the piano you get! Oh Oh Oh, the wrong Joe Walsh. This is the Eagle one.

[bluepond]

05:11 PM on 04/19/2011

On opposite day. I guess you can just say anything now, as long as it supports your ideology. I miss the fact-based world.

[DeTex]

04:19 PM on 04/19/2011

High Unemployment? = Cut Taxes
Growing National Deficit = Cut Taxes
Unrest in the Middle East? = Cut Taxes
Pay for two wars and TNTC "police actions"? = Cut Taxes
Cat had Kittens? = Cut Taxes

Talk about the dumbing down of America. Now the Teapublicans only have to remember one talking point.

[Mingpeke]

08:10 PM on 04/19/2011

It's all they ever did remember except if they thought there were unborn to protect.

[daveat1910]

03:29 PM on 04/19/2011

Walsh ideology preludes contradicting facts. He's a believer as opposed to being on the take from special interests. Unfortunately he is a congressman which can be corrected and not a CEO for the next 30 years.

[sposton]

02:58 PM on 04/19/2011

This country is beyond help and it will remain so until we withdraw our consent from the people who are doing the governing for the 1% of the population. As long as people actually vote for kleptocratic agents and give them a glass of legitimacy, we will fix nothing. The only direction we can now travel is DOWN!

We no longer discuss facts - we discuss myths.

[bluepond]

05:10 PM on 04/19/2011

Very true. It is some sort of idolatry.

[sposton]

05:27 PM on 04/19/2011

glass = gloss

[dannywanny]

02:26 PM on 04/19/2011

Obviously. Look how well tax cuts have worked in the last ten years. The U S is rolling in excess cash as a result of the Bush tax cuts.

Isn't there anybody in the GOP who can reason?

[billw8017]

04:41 PM on 04/19/2011

All of them can reason and they have had as much as 7 times as many $reasons as their Democratic opposition in particular races. It is a marvel that Democrats control the White House and the Senate when Republican $reasons to doubt their will and judgment are everywhere.

Maybe Republicans would have a better reputation if their $reasoning didn't occasionally put them in positions to pursue them.

[seeksthetruth]

12:03 PM on 04/19/2011

According to GOP logic, doing away with taxes should yield record revenues. No wonder why we're in such a mess.

[skyleg]

09:05 AM on 04/19/2011

He is living in another universe, can't read, hear or see. This is one dumb monkey!

[Jeffer]

09:04 AM on 04/19/2011

Using the republican's math, we should cut all taxes to zero and then the government would have infinite revenue.

[LucieLee]

08:56 AM on 04/19/2011

This is what's called 'sticking firmly to Right-wing talking points" despite evidence to the contrary!!

[kurios]

08:53 AM on 04/19/2011

The stupid thing is that these liars do not get called on their lies by the pundits...but why would they...they are required to repeat the same talking points

[RandyK100]

10:41 AM on 04/19/2011

"The stupid thing is that these liars "---get reelected time after time. What's going on here?

[dannywanny]

02:29 PM on 04/19/2011

Doesn't say much for the critical-thinking skills of the average American voter does it?

[dmsdzinr]

08:12 AM on 04/19/2011

Either this guy refuses to acknowledge REALITY or he needs to go back and start learning arithmetic all over. Maybe BOTH!

[Danilo Gurovich]

07:34 AM on 04/19/2011

The Mullahs of Teabagistan have a new phrase - "This statement was not intended to be anything but dogmatic."

These Mullahs preach that tax cuts cure any economic ills -- they cure cancer. They make rain. They put out fires. They make puppies and babies even cuter.

What they really do is transfer the wealth and treasure of the United States to a privileged few that donate money to the Mullahs -- and the cycle of BS repeats.