Republicans in Congress are threatening to blow up the global economy if President Obama doesn't roll over and accept massive cuts in services and programs for the poor and middle classes, without any tax increases for the wealthy.
McConnell and Boehner have repeated the Orwellian GOP strategy that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it (one that worked with Iraq's non-existent WMD).
This time, the falsehood they're promoting is that cutting taxes automatically spurs GDP and job growth, and that raising taxes does the opposite.
But what does history show? Let's look at the data, shall we?
In the 3rd quarter of 1981, Pres. Ronald Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a tax cut of $264 million.
What happened?
GDP fell the next two quarters.
Reagan later signed four tax hikes (not that you'd know that by listening to Republicans today).
And as you can see above, the economy enjoyed 28 consecutive quarters of growth afterward.
So what about George H.W. Bush? Here's another chart:
When Bush41 famously broke his "no new taxes" pledge in November 1990 to staunch spiraling budget deficits (see above, re: Reagan tax cuts), the economy was already headed into a cyclical recession. After one quarter of less-severe contraction, the economy expanded for nine straight quarters.
Then Clinton came along and signed another tax hike. What happened? Another four-plus years of consecutive growth.
And as for Bush's son, George W.? Take a look:
Well I'd call that a mixed record. Growth pretty anemic most of the time, with a few good quarters and a few crappy ones.
I'm no partisan who asserts the opposite of whatever the Republicans say, so I'm not going to claim that tax cuts cause recessions or tax hikes end them (or spur growth).
But this reflexive distaste for raising taxes, claiming that it limits growth, simply isn't borne by the facts.
It's time for the Democrats to fight back on this point and show the facts. The alternative is dangerous, regressive, and unfair.
Tomorrow we'll look at the connection between tax cuts/hikes and the unemployment rate. (Preview: No correlation.)
Follow Paul Tullis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ptullis
Americans are afraid of devaluation, inflation, closing the doors on Small Business !
Historical Relationships portrayed in these Charts simply do not reflect the State of
the Nation !
Borrowing 40 % of every Federal Dollar spent has finally exceeded our ability to pay it
and Aggregate Demand is stunted by FEAR of a Crisis and the resulting lack of Liquidity
and a DEPRESSION !
Come on Paul, wake up ! Obama has instilled FEAR in our Hearts and Souls !
I would submit that it is Republicans who capitalize on fear to win elections: fear of African-Americans (see Bush41's "Willy Horton" ad from 1988), fear of immigrants (see Calif. Gov. Pete Wilson's 1994 re-election campaign), fear of terrorism (Republican Congressional Committee's 2002 campaigns, and Bush43's 2004 re-election campaign). A little fear of a crisis, lack of liquidity, and a depression in 2003-2008 might have prevented the GDP, budgetary, job-growth, and debt situation we're in now.
I'm baffled by your assumption that people will believe your post hoc logic when you don't even mention other variables. Oh, can I get an explanation on why two of the most significant back-to-back increases in Bush 43's entire graph came IMMEDIATELY after a cut and were not offset by losses for TWO YEARS? Probably not.
Any chance I could get a quote from you on which Congressional Repubs assured us of "automatic" growth after tax cuts? Doubtful as well, because that's a disingenuous misinterpretation. How about telling us what happened in the 2009 recession, when the graph took the biggest growth period in the past DECADE (6.9%) and flipped it into a loss (6.8%)?
See, what you're pushing here is EXACTLY what Repub lawmakers are fighting. They don't want distractions of future cuts, deferred budgets, and temporary "fixes" with no actual solutions ("dangerous"). They don't want to give the government a backhoe before they have some assurance they'll start digging upward instead of down ("regressive").
As you say, claiming that tax hikes limit growth isn't borne by the facts, but neither is the reverse. You say outright you won't claim tax cuts cause recessions, but a scant 2 sentences later, you call on Dems to make that claim ("unfair").
Point 2: Took about 15 seconds to find this: "Lowering taxes to fuel economic growth is a historical reality." -Rep. Mike Coffman, 10/17/10
Your third paragraph is incomprehensible to me.
Point 3: "Unfair" refers to the regressiveness of tax cuts typically advocated by Republicans, and enacted by them under Bush43, not to the notion that tax cuts cause recessions.