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
There may be treasures in your attic or in some seldom-visited closet. You can never tell. We stumbled upon quite a treasure the other day, something we did not know was there. It was a large-format book, in a box of textbooks and other literature, probably from one of our children. Going through this box to help re-stock our Little Free Library, here was this older book with 86 stunning black-and-white photographs. The book was titled Say Is This The U.S.A. and the authors were Novelist Erskine Caldwell (born in Moreland, Ga.) and Margaret Bourke-White, the famous photographer. My initial question was why Read on →
A bronze statue stands in front of Jadwin Gymnasium at Princeton University. It’s a statue of All-American Dick “Kaz” Kazmaier, who won the Heisman trophy in 1951 - the last Ivy League player to do so - and who famously declined to pursue a career in professional football after being drafted by the Chicago Bears. Instead, he went on to Harvard Business School and proceeded to build an impressive professional resumé that included serving as ... director of the American Red Cross; director of the Ladies Professional Golfers Association, trustee of Princeton University; director of the Knight Foundation on Intercollegiate Athletics; chairm Read on →
No, no, not that kind of ED, which always seems to feature one of those slightly discomforting situations where you see the happy afterglow of couples strolling hand in hand and smiling lovingly, presumably after the little blue pill has worked its magic. The kind of ED I’m talking about is entirely different. This ED is the nineteenth-century Belle of Amherst, the reclusive poet in white named Emily, and her ties with a fellow writer named Henry. I’ve just finished two classes featuring a rather eccentric novelist, playwright, and essayist and an equally eccentric poet. I am a tad saddened to see Read on →
The great satirist, song writer and pianist Tom Lehrer had me wondering about and laughing at his songs even as an adolescent just beginning to appreciate the sardonic view of life. Who could hear and ever forget his black humor in "Poisoning Pigeons In The Park"? Although separated by time, he and I both served in the Army as "enlisted scum" and both achieved the rank of "Specialist Four," which he described as "a corporal without portfolio." He held onto his identity as a sartorial dandy even draped in his wrinkled and ill-fitting uniform, describing his olive drab duds, "If it Read on →