- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
It's the Economy, Stupid
Tax Cuts Do Not Equal Increased Revenue
Let me begin this column by apologizing to my readers. Normally, in an opinion column the writer presents the highlights of an issue without needing to present, in detail, the facts underlying the issue being discussed. However, this column is going to go back and demonstrate that my opinions do not come from either pure ignorance or deceit but, instead, are informed by creditable sources. In this case, my figures are coming from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The apology is because of the data-laden presentation that may put some people to sleep. The issue being discussed is the relationship between tax cuts, deficits, and revenue.
The benchmark that will be used is a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP). This allows one to compare relevant figures, such as revenue and spending, in relation to the overall growth of the economy and allows for apples to apples comparisons. Since Reagan lowered taxes and Clinton raised them on the top 2%, I will use these two Presidents to illustrate my points
The claim was made that Reagan tax cuts almost doubled federal revenue over the following decade. When Reagan took office in 1980, individual tax revenue stood at 9% of GDP. That fell to 8% by 1988 when he left office. Corporate tax revenue fell from 2.4% of GDP to 1.9% during the same period. Total revenues for the government fell from 19% to 18.2% of GDP. Even though GDP grew from almost $3 to $5 trillion, government debt grew from 26.1% of GDP to 41%. What actually happened was that federal debt almost doubled, not revenue. The moral of this story: A thriving economy plus tax cuts equals less revenue and increased debt.
On the other hand, Clinton raised taxes on the top 2% of the population. In 1992, individual tax revenues were 7.6% of GDP and grew to 10.2% by 2000. For corporations, it was 1.6% and 2.1% respectively. Total revenues grew from 17.5% of GDP to 20.6%. GDP grew from $6 to almost $10 trillion but total government debt dropped from 48.1% of GDP to 34.7%. Taxes went up, revenue went up, and national debt went down. A thriving economy plus tax increases equals more revenue and less debt.
Revenue is one side of the coin, spending is the other. So how do these Presidents stack up on the spending side of the equation? The charge was made that spending tripled under Reagan because of the Democrats. At first blush, you must wonder if they held a gun to Reagan’s head to force him to sign all of that spending legislation. But what do the facts tell us? Did spending increases cancel the effect of Reagan’s tax cuts? Well, discretionary spending dropped from 10.1% of GDP to 9.3% under Reagan and from 8.6% to 6.3% under Clinton. Mandatory spending dropped from 10.7% of GDP to 10.1% under Reagan and from 11.5% to 10.5% under Clinton. Total spending dropped from 21.7% of GDP to 21.3% under Reagan and from 22.1% to 18.2% under Clinton. In other words, total spending dropped under both Presidents but only under Clinton did tax increases on the top 2% produce enough revenue to reduce the national debt — significantly.
Under both Presidents there was a thriving economy as measured by GDP growth. Both Presidents reduced both discretionary and mandatory spending. One cut taxes and one raised them. One President almost doubled the national debt and one actually reduced it. One President proved that tax cuts along with spending cuts do not reduce the debt. Conservatives can continue to spout the tax cut equals increased revenue manta all they want but they lack an understanding of economic reality. They can continue to beat the drum that tax cuts coupled with reduced spending will reduce the debt but economic history is not on their side. Chambliss (R-GA) and Ryan (R-WI) are beating this drum right now. Beware.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
That’s what the spouse said when I wrote him how surprised and disappointed I was to discover that Michelle Nunn has gratuitously endorsed the XL pipeline from Canada, because buying oil from “neighbors” is better than from overseas, as well as to read a report that Nunn wants changes to Obamacare to allow cheaper policies for the young. Like they don’t have car accidents and sports injuries, etc? (Read the other day that there’s a chance auto and workmen’s comp insurance rates are going to decrease now that people have health insurance. Ripple effect). He went on to observe that “Kenny and Tracy hav Read on →
You knew in the beginning it was folly, no good -- like that girl who lived around the corner your Momma said was "fast." “She's gonna take your money and your stomp on your heart,” Momma said. You knew it too ... but you went anyway. YOU You promised yourself you would not get involved this time. You knew all about the probabilities ... the impossibilities, really. You knew all about the odds against success, heard Nate Silver -- or somebody -- use $5 words like “implacable,” “infinitesimal” and “asymptotic” to assure Charlie Rose the odds were ridiculous. And yes, you knew it was a Fool's Notion Read on →
Do the 2014 elections look promising for the Democrats? Not so far as I can tell. Do the Democrats have a bold plan to inspire the American people to turn the House back over to them? Not so far as I’ve heard. Is there a solution available? I think there is. We’ve got a Supreme Court that just doubled down on its disgraceful 2010 decision in Citizens United, continuing in the new case (McCutcheon vs. FEC) to pretend to believe that opening the floodgates still wider for big money to flow into our elections does not corrupt our political system. And we’ve got poll Read on →
"Government should prevent an immoderate accumulation of riches." -- James Madison In a previous post, we revisited Martin Luther King, Jr.'s iconic "Beyond Vietnam" speech of April 4, 1967. King, confronting head-on America's "triple evils" of racism, economic injustice and militarism, challenged America to find its true values and "come home." Polls and statistics suggest that, in the 47 intervening years, America has not "come home" and sadly is further from home than ever. King knew "Beyond Vietnam" would be controversial. He devoted more effort into preparing it than to any other speech. As feared, he was roundly criticized -- by blacks Read on →