Isn't it time the media told the truth about Bush Tax cuts?

I feel like I am beating a dead horse on tax cuts, but facts are extremely important if we want to get the economy growing. 

I get extremely aggravated when I read material like the following paragraph by Paul Waldmen in the Washington Post, because it is so demonstrably false. Of course the notion that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves is repeated so often that either the media has no idea that it is false or they don’t care. My guess is they don’t care because they have had almost 14 years to research the Bush tax cuts and instead of the Democrats and the media telling the truth, they just repeat bald faced lies.

“Sixteen years ago, President George W. Bush made exactly the same arguments you’re making, in defense of a similar tax cut. The results were abysmal: a huge deficit; poor growth in GDP, jobs and incomes; and eventually a financial cataclysm. What did Bush do wrong?”

Something you rarely see in the diatribes about how disastrous Bush tax cuts were for the government and the economy are actual numbers. If they used actual numbers the public would get to see the lies. It is a shame that Republican politicians don’t show the actual numbers to the public.

The media and Democrats just repeat over and over again that tax cuts cause deficits and don't help the economy, hoping that the public becomes indoctrinated. It is exactly the way they handle climate change. Facts haven't mattered for a long time.  

This website, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/, shows federal revenue and expense numbers for all years in recent history. It also shows debt and deficit numbers. Anyone can download the information. The media must not be interested in the facts. Here are a few numbers and facts:

In 2002, the top income tax rates for individuals was 38.6% on ordinary income and dividends and 21.2% on capital gains. George W. Bush got Congress to lower taxes across the board and the top bracket to 35% on ordinary income and 15% on dividends and capital gains. (Bush had inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market in 2001 and the economy had been stagnant or slowing up to these tax cuts). Instead of the tax rate cuts costing the government money, revenues skyrocketed. From FY 2000 to FY 2003 income tax proceeds had declined from around $1.2 Trillion to around $900 Billion in FY 2003. After the across the board cuts, income tax revenues skyrocketed over 60% to over $1.5 Trillion by FY 2007. The deficit also went down to $161 Billion by FY 2007, including both wars and Medicare Part D. Obviously, the tax rate cuts and the increasing revenue did not increase the deficit as we are repeatedly told.

The tax cuts gave the economy the boost that it needed. It is an extremely simple concept that the more money that is left in the hands of individuals and businesses, the more opportunity there is to spend, save and invest -- and all are good for the overall economy. It is also a simple concept that the more money the government confiscates, the less opportunity there is for growth.

As for jobs, in January 2001 when President Bush took office, there were 132.7 million non- farm workers. By May 2003, when Bush passed the tax cuts, employment had dropped to 130.2 million. At the end of 2007, employment had jumped to 138.4 Million. If employment was trending down before the cuts and jumped substantially after the tax cuts occurred it certainly appears that there is both a correlation and causation related to the tax rate cuts as to the significant boost to the economy

It seems that Democrats have a major interest in not simplifying the tax code and not lowering rates. They obviously have more power if they can control special tax breaks and tax penalties, picking winners and losers, and the more people they can make dependent on government, the better. The biggest winners in a complicated tax code with high rates is government itself and especially the career politicians and bureaucrats.

In 2008, candidate Obama said in so many words that he would raise capital gains rates even if that didn't raise revenue because of "fairness."  That truly shows the Democrats and the media's mentality. They don't care about helping the economy. They will spend the money even if the revenue goes down, and just charge it to future generations. They obviously don't like individuals and business being able to keep more of the money they earned.

No one should believe that Google, Facebook or any of the other pretend fact checkers care about sorting out the news because not one of them will challenge all the reporters that say Bush's cuts decreased revenue and increased the deficit. They obviously have exactly the same agenda as the Democrats. 

Jack Hellner is a CPA with more than forty years' experience on tax matters.

I feel like I am beating a dead horse on tax cuts, but facts are extremely important if we want to get the economy growing. 

I get extremely aggravated when I read material like the following paragraph by Paul Waldmen in the Washington Post, because it is so demonstrably false. Of course the notion that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves is repeated so often that either the media has no idea that it is false or they don’t care. My guess is they don’t care because they have had almost 14 years to research the Bush tax cuts and instead of the Democrats and the media telling the truth, they just repeat bald faced lies.

“Sixteen years ago, President George W. Bush made exactly the same arguments you’re making, in defense of a similar tax cut. The results were abysmal: a huge deficit; poor growth in GDP, jobs and incomes; and eventually a financial cataclysm. What did Bush do wrong?”

Something you rarely see in the diatribes about how disastrous Bush tax cuts were for the government and the economy are actual numbers. If they used actual numbers the public would get to see the lies. It is a shame that Republican politicians don’t show the actual numbers to the public.

The media and Democrats just repeat over and over again that tax cuts cause deficits and don't help the economy, hoping that the public becomes indoctrinated. It is exactly the way they handle climate change. Facts haven't mattered for a long time.  

This website, http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/, shows federal revenue and expense numbers for all years in recent history. It also shows debt and deficit numbers. Anyone can download the information. The media must not be interested in the facts. Here are a few numbers and facts:

In 2002, the top income tax rates for individuals was 38.6% on ordinary income and dividends and 21.2% on capital gains. George W. Bush got Congress to lower taxes across the board and the top bracket to 35% on ordinary income and 15% on dividends and capital gains. (Bush had inherited a recession and a collapsed stock market in 2001 and the economy had been stagnant or slowing up to these tax cuts). Instead of the tax rate cuts costing the government money, revenues skyrocketed. From FY 2000 to FY 2003 income tax proceeds had declined from around $1.2 Trillion to around $900 Billion in FY 2003. After the across the board cuts, income tax revenues skyrocketed over 60% to over $1.5 Trillion by FY 2007. The deficit also went down to $161 Billion by FY 2007, including both wars and Medicare Part D. Obviously, the tax rate cuts and the increasing revenue did not increase the deficit as we are repeatedly told.

The tax cuts gave the economy the boost that it needed. It is an extremely simple concept that the more money that is left in the hands of individuals and businesses, the more opportunity there is to spend, save and invest -- and all are good for the overall economy. It is also a simple concept that the more money the government confiscates, the less opportunity there is for growth.

As for jobs, in January 2001 when President Bush took office, there were 132.7 million non- farm workers. By May 2003, when Bush passed the tax cuts, employment had dropped to 130.2 million. At the end of 2007, employment had jumped to 138.4 Million. If employment was trending down before the cuts and jumped substantially after the tax cuts occurred it certainly appears that there is both a correlation and causation related to the tax rate cuts as to the significant boost to the economy

It seems that Democrats have a major interest in not simplifying the tax code and not lowering rates. They obviously have more power if they can control special tax breaks and tax penalties, picking winners and losers, and the more people they can make dependent on government, the better. The biggest winners in a complicated tax code with high rates is government itself and especially the career politicians and bureaucrats.

In 2008, candidate Obama said in so many words that he would raise capital gains rates even if that didn't raise revenue because of "fairness."  That truly shows the Democrats and the media's mentality. They don't care about helping the economy. They will spend the money even if the revenue goes down, and just charge it to future generations. They obviously don't like individuals and business being able to keep more of the money they earned.

No one should believe that Google, Facebook or any of the other pretend fact checkers care about sorting out the news because not one of them will challenge all the reporters that say Bush's cuts decreased revenue and increased the deficit. They obviously have exactly the same agenda as the Democrats. 

Jack Hellner is a CPA with more than forty years' experience on tax matters.

RECENT VIDEOS