On the whole I should be happy to see this opinion piece in the Boston Globe ("Youths don't want our IOUs") about the Concerned Youth of America, who are taking the initiative in educating rising fiscal obligations:
"In about 30 years, when these kids would be in their peak earning years, you will have a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 200 percent," says Bob Bixby, executive director of the deficit-battling Concord Coalition. "They would be looking at stupefying tax rates and a stagnant economy or slashed programs for everything they might want to spend their money on. It really is a generationally immoral fiscal policy."But, this being the mainstream media in general and the Boston Globe in particular, they just can't hide the bias:
To sound the alarm, members of Concerned Youth of America plan to start chapters of their group at their colleges next year.
We've got a Republican president who has presided over large budgetary increases, but who won't give an inch on the tax cuts that have eroded the revenue base.Some erosion: "Sharp rise in tax revenue to pare U.S. deficit" and this (via Tax Prof Blog)
Extra - From Greg Mankiw: "The growth effects of tax policy"
7 comments:
Here are the percent changes per year in real taxes collected per capita between selected non-random blocks of dates.
1952 – 1960____1.41%
1960 – 1963____5.46%
1963 – 1968____4.12
1968 – 1974____1.36
1974 – 1976___-1.17
1976 – 1980____4.28
1980 – 1988____1.37
1988 - 1992____0.32
1992 – 2000_____4.46
2000 – 2005____-0.95
(1952 – 2005 avg.__2.05)
Your non-random blocks of dates are strategiclaly selected in order to deceive.
Here's why: tax receipts decline during recessions (for obvious reasons), and the last date block includes the recessionary economy that was inherited from Clinton (that recession started in 2000 and the economy remained stagnant, though not technically in recession, for 1 or 2 more years).
You are using pre-tax cut revenue data (which included a recessionary period) in order to show that tax rate reductions cause a loss of tax revenue.
Clever!
What might be more interesting would be to compare growth in terms of GDP vs. receipts with a third axis for a tax cut/tax increase timeline.
Wish I had the time....
To TGK, the last fifty Presidential elections must also be "strategically selected in order to deceive."
Isn't it funny, though, how LBJ-- a Democrat following a Democrat-- has a large percent? Or how Ford-- a Republican following a Republican-- has a low one? Isn't it funny how GWB's economic woes are the hangover from his predecessor Clinton, but Bush Sr.'s woes weren't all Reagan's fault?
Isn't it odd that for half a century now, recessionary cycles are so partisan? As has been written, "A President can inherit a recession, but if stagnation is still around after a year, something is seriously wrong, and there’s a good chance that something is the President."
For Anonymous:
Percentage change in real GDP per capita:
Eisenhower: 1.11% annualized (-2.58% in his worst year, +5.30% in his best)
Kennedy/Johnson: 3.48% annualized (0.66% worst, 5.30% best)
Nixon/Ford: 1.70% annualized (-1.41% worst, 4.75% best)
Carter: 2.14% annualized (-1.37% worst, 4.75% best)
Reagan: 2.45% annualized (-2.87% worst, 6.25% best)
Bush Sr.: 0.93% annualized (-1.48% worst, 2.57% best)
Clinton: 2.49% annualized (1.30% worst, 3.26% best)
Bush Jr.: 1.57% annualized (-0.29% worst, 2.91% best)
On average, from top to bottom, it goes JFK/LBJ; Clinton; Reagan; Carter; Nixon/Ford; GWB; Ike; Bush Sr. Carter is the only Democrat to have a single year in which real GDP per capita shrunk.
But what about federal spending, I hear you ask? Doesn't that skew the numbers? It sure does.
Real GDP per capita, less debt
JFK/LBJ: 3.54% annualized
Nixon/Ford: 1.26%
Carter: 3.16%
Reagan: 1.82%
Bush Sr.: 0.64%
Clinton: 3.35%
Bush Jr.: 0.89%
Or if all of this data is too diabolical and "strategically selected" for TGK, he can go with this:
Bush Administration Lowers Its Forecast for Economic Growth This Year
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070606/bush_economic_forecast.html?.v=2
June 6, 2007-- The White House on Wednesday lowered its forecast for economic growth this year even as it slightly upgraded its outlook for unemployment.
Under the administration's new forecast, gross domestic product, or GDP, will grow by 2.3 percent as measured from the fourth quarter of last year to the fourth quarter of this year. That's down from a previous projection of 2.9 percent.
The main reason for the downgrade: The first three months of 2007 got off to an extremely weak start. Economic growth at that time had skidded to nearly a halt, increasing at a rate of just 0.6 percent, the worst showing in more than four years.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the administration and private economists expect the economy will rebound in the months ahead. The one wild card, though, is whether the nearly year-long housing slump -- which has been a damper on overall economic activity -- gets worse.
...The White House now expects consumer prices to rise by 3.2 percent this year. That's higher than the 2.6 percent increase previously projected.
Good grief -- so much energy, so little focus.
Are we talking about GDP now?
If so, you are responding to points that nobody made. You realize that, no?
A few points:
1) There are good Dems and bad Repubs? JFK reduced tax rates. That's good. Nixon did many things that weren't consistent with free market economics (new regulation, price controls, etc.). That's bad.
2) The economy was stagnant at the start of GWB's term. He implemented two rounds of tax cuts in the '02 and '03 budgetary cycles, and things improved markedly (I know, you think the economy sucks).
3) GDP forecasts get revised all the time (and they are, after all, just forecasts). That doesn't have anything to do with whether gross federal tax receipts are at an all time high.
TGK:
If so, you are responding to points that nobody made. You realize that, no?
Try a little less reacting, TGK, and a little more reading.
Anonymous (you know, the post left an hour and a half after yours?):
What might be more interesting would be to compare growth in terms of GDP vs. receipts with a third axis for a tax cut/tax increase timeline.
Of course, "Anonymous" is prettyy close to "nobody," so you can still claim you were right.
The conservative time machine is an amazing invention. The economy isn't GWB's fault, because he inherited the Clinton recession. 9/11 doesn't belong on GWB's rap sheet, because Clinton didn't properly avenge the Cole. But Rudy Giuliani cleaned up New York City through sheer political will. And Ronald Reagan defeated Communism, because he's, well, he's Ronald Reagan.
Don't show the above numbers to the "Worst ever? No way! GWB is better than Carter!" crowd. The financial data will ruin their day.
Post a Comment