The study done by two economist
"
The study was conducted by economists William Beach and Scott Hodge using a highly reliable computer model of the U.S. economy.
What the model does is simulate economic activity. By feeding the many "variables" that affect the economy into the model -- from changes in tax and budget policy to data on population growth and other demographic factors -- a seasoned economic forecaster can predict future economic activity.
Beach and Hodge turned the clock back to January 1993, before the new administration pushed the $241 billion tax hike through the 103rd Congress. Without getting into all of the mind-numbing technical details, they then ran the model on "fast-forward," asking it to tell them what the economy would look like today if tax and budget policy had not been changed in 1993.
What they found was not good news for the White House.
They found that another 1.2 million Americans would have jobs today if the economy hadn't been saddled with the tax increase. They learned that the U.S. auto industry would have built and sold an additional 1.1 million new cars and light trucks. And they learned that the typical U.S. wage-earner would have taken home an additional $2,600 in after-tax income.
The big numbers are equally disturbing. For example: The overall U.S. economy would have grown an additional $208 billion between 1993 and 1996. And business investment -- the key factor in creating jobs -- would have been $42.5 billion higher."
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED051696b.cfm
AND the Congressional Joint Economic Committee report.
Your simplistic listing of figures has been discounted many times and is not a higher authority than the two sources I provided.
Err, right. Maybe in Stingerworld, 1995 projections by the Heritage Foundation (there's an objective organization) are a "higher authority" of economic performance during the Clinton administration than actual economic data published by the US Govt.
But if you don't have to take my word for it. Here's what the highly respected Center for Budget and Policy Priorities had to say, relying on actual data and not some right-wing projections from the first part of Clinton's term:
Marginal tax rates and economic performance during the 1990s
The history of the 1990s raises further questions about the impact of marginal tax rates on the economy. In 1993, as noted above, the top marginal tax rate increased from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. When these marginal tax rate increases were passed as part of the 1993 budget agreement,
many prominent conservatives predicted an economic disaster would result. For example, then-Senator William Roth stated that the marginal tax increase would "flatten the economy."19 Then-Representative Newt Gingrich stated that the "tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and actually increase the deficit."20 Professor Martin Feldstein of Harvard University wrote of the "harmful effects of higher marginal tax rates on the economy" and warned that many higher earners "are asking themselves whether life wouldn’t be better if they worked a little less and enjoyed a bit more leisure."21
History has betrayed these predictions, raising questions about the significance of marginal tax rates on economic performance. Instead of a recession,
the economy experienced its longest economic expansion in history during the 1990s.
Real GDP grew by an average of 4 percent per year from 1993 through 2000, almost 50 percent faster than the average from 1973 to 1993. Since 1995, productivity growth has averaged 3 percent per year, roughly double its average of 1.4 percent per year between 1973 and 1993. Unemployment and poverty rates have declined substantially.
To be sure, some may argue that economic growth would have been even more rapid, and income gains among top earners even more dramatic, were it not for the 1993 marginal tax rate increases.
But the evidence in support of such a proposition is weak, and on its face it seems implausible. The upshot is that the experience of the 1990s, which is not reflected in most of the studies mentioned above, provides yet another reason to remain skeptical that marginal tax rates have dramatic effects on the economy.
Marginal Tax Rate Reductions and the Economy - 3/15/01
Refuted.
Here's some more
"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Interest rates were falling before he raised taxes, and they started rising almost as soon as he did — not to fall again until Republicans took Congress. The economy slowed down after the tax increase: The growth rate from 1993 to 1995 was below the norm for an economy in the early stages of recovery. The best that can be said for Clinton's tax hike is that it did not hurt the economy as badly as its Republican critics at the time foolishly predicted."
Washington Bulletin on NRO
LOL - oh, the National Review -- another objective perspective! Let's look at how their claims compare to actual data:
1991 7100.5 -0.2%
1992 7336.6 3.3%
1993 7532.7 2.7% <-tax increase passed
1994 7835.5 4.0%
1995 8031.7 2.5%
1996 8328.9 3.7%
1997 8703.5 4.5%
1998 9066.9 4.2%
1999 9470.3 4.4%
2000 9817.0 3.7%
Yep, those case at the National Review are right on the money. The economy sure hit the skids after that tax increase! LOL!
Refuted.
And since we are looking at other sources, it was interesting to read about what has the Bush tax cuts done for the economy:
... tax cuts have been the single largest contributor to the reemergence of substantial budget deficits in recent years ...
Myth 1: Tax cuts “Pay for Themselves." Reality: A study by the President’s own Treasury Department recently confirmed the common-sense view shared by economists across the political spectrum: cutting taxes decreases revenues.
Myth 2: Even if the tax cuts reduced revenues initially, they boosted revenues and lowered deficits in 2005 and 2006. Reality: Strong revenue growth in 2005 and 2006 has not made up for extraordinarily weak revenue growth over the previous few years.
... this year’s budget would be essentially balanced were it not for the tax cuts....
Myth 3: The current economic expansion has been strong as a result of the tax cuts. Reality: The current economic expansion has been sub-par overall, and job and wage growth have been anemic.
...Also striking is the fact that the recovery of the 1990s followed a pattern similar to the current recovery, especially with respect to investment growth (which the dividend and capital gains tax cuts were supposed to encourage). Investment initially was weak in the recovery of the 1990s and then began to improve about two years into the expansion. But in the 1990s, that improvement coincided with a tax increase. If one accepts the notion that any economic change that follows a tax change must have been caused by the tax change, one might conclude that tax increases promote stronger growth. The more reasonable conclusion, of course, is that weak recoveries eventually tend to return to historical norms. ...
Myth 5: Extending the tax cuts is important for the economy’s long-run health. Reality: Extending the tax cuts without paying for them would be more likely to reduce economic growth over the long run than to increase it. ... The reason behind these results is that, even if tax cuts have modest positive effects on work and savings decisions, those effects are outweighed by the negative consequences of higher budget deficits.
More interesting analyses and data can be found in the article: TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES at Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities, Revised 10/12/06.
Which pretty much refutes those arguments you've been making about how the Bush tax cuts have increased revenues and helped the economy.
It's really a lot easier to cut-n-paste articles than actually pulling the data. Thanks!
