LOWERING TAX MYTH

There are those who think the myth that lowering taxes, especially on the wealthy, improves the economy. I have been fond of pointing out that lowering taxes is an inefficient way of improving the economy (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/05/effectiveness-of-taxes.html).

A more recent analysis that comes to the same conclusion is by Fareed Zakaria

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-romney-is-wrong-on-tax-cuts/2012/06/07/gJQAy1pHLV_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions_Fri).

OK, the drill is that when the wealthy get more money, they buy more non-productive things like Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and buying existing stock does nothing for the company the stock represents, only the IPO and bonds benefit the company. Also when the wealthy get more money they do things that might benefit the global economy (like buying chalets in Switzerland, Bombardier personal jets from Canada, and islands in the Bahamas). When the middle class gets more money they pay down debt.

It is quite clear that Bush-41 and Clinton raised taxes, and we had the best economy of my lifetime and the Federal government had four years of positive cash flow. Bush-43 got the biggest tax cut in history and the economy tanked, from which we still haven't fully recovered. Even job growth from 2002 - 2007 was the poorest since the Great Depression. And all the tax cuts that Obama has given (e.g. extension of the Bush-43 tax cuts, a third of the stimulus package, the payroll tax cut and its extension, the small business tax cut, etc.) may have kept us out of a deep depression but haven't pulled us out of the poor economy, though we may be slowly coming out of it.

Though all the evidence is to the contrary, the myth of the benefits of tax cuts continues.

NOT JOBS; IT IS DEFEATING OBAMA THAT IS IMPORTANT

The minority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said in July on Fox News that the number one goal of the Republican Party is to have President Obama defeated in the 2012 election.* He has said this more than once. For example, he said something to the same effect in October on 2010 in an interview with the National Journal. * Note the number one goal is not to increase employment or to get the economy running again but to defeat Obama. So he is willing to let the U.S. unemployment and economic picture limp along until after the next election when, if all goes according to plan, President Obama will be defeated. Well, isn't that nice? Such an attitude might backfire. If the employment picture remains grim up to the next election, I suspect that many of the Tea Partiers will be sent home. The electorate expected more of them than to protect or, better, increase the fortunes of the wealthy.

Republicans carry this myth that by firing government employees and government contractors, you increase employment. Huh? By firing people you increase employment? Well, the idea is that you will more than make up for this loss by increases in private industry. Um, perhaps, but it won't happen right away, and I don't know of any examples. In fact, we just went through the FAA fiasco where 4,000 government workers and more than 70,000 contract workers were laid off because of disputes over the unionization of the FAA. They were going to let this situation go until September, but a deluge of criticism caused the Senate to work out a temporary bridge to September to reemploy those laid off. Republicans probably didn't care about the government workers, but those 70,000 plus contract workers got notice.

Republicans also take on faith that increasing taxes will add to unemployment and decrease the well being of the economy. They point to Pres. Reagan's tax cut, but ignore Reagan's increasing of taxes too several times that made up for about half the revenue lost in the tax cuts. Even Reagan became alarmed at the size of his budget deficits (He never came close to balancing the Federal budget.). Then, of course, Pres. G.H.W. Bush raised taxes and Pres. Clinton raised taxes again and employment as well as the economy flourished in the 1990s, though Republicans squealed that these tax increases would ruin the economy. Then Pres. G.W. Bush lowered taxes, and the economy went into the toilet. Where's the proof that increasing taxes adds to unemployment? The evidence over the last 20 years points to the contrary.

*http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/mitch-mcconnell-r-ky-maintains-gop-s-priority-is-defeating-obama-2012