Loading...
 
CONNECT    

Carl Gibson

Carl Gibson

GET UPDATES FROM Carl Gibson

Bush Tax Cuts: Will America Learn From History?

Posted: 06/ 8/11 02:09 PM ET

While millionaires and billionaires enjoyed another year of federal government handouts in excess of $100,000, I spent the better part of my day in a plasma donation clinic with dozens of others, all of us impatiently waiting to part with our lifeblood in exchange for $25.

This week marks the 10-year anniversary of the tax cut package signed into law in President Bush's first year of office. And while tax cuts were also parsed out to the American poor and middle class, the lion's share of the wealth has pooled into the hands of the richest 2 percent of Americans since Bush's "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act" became the law of the land. The result of that legislation has been anything but a relief for the other 98 percent of us.

Today's Republicans and corporate Democrats continue to fall back on tax cuts as the panacea for the deficit and the jobs crisis. Yet, by the end of the decade that followed the Bush tax cuts, America had experienced zero net job creation and the widest income gap between the wealthiest and everyone else since the dawn of the Great Depression. Today, that disparity is even more widespread in America than in third-world countries like Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and Pakistan.

When President Clinton left office in January of 2001, he had balanced the budget, erased the deficit created by his predecessors and turned it into a towering surplus. The CBO had predicted budget surpluses in the trillions for the coming decade. The BLS had predicted average to faster-than-average job growth in nearly all sectors. All signs pointed to an economic surge that would benefit all of America, assuming we stayed on course.

But by January of 2011, Bush's tax cut package alone had accumulated $2.6 trillion in debt. Median weekly earnings were in decline while the richest .01 percent of taxpayers enjoyed an annual $520,000 handout from Uncle Sam. Rich brats living on trust funds reaped great benefits from the phasing out of the estate tax while nearly half of America's entrepreneurs saw their new businesses fail in less than five years. And as the most recent jobs report indicates, the last 10 years of tax cuts for the rich has had no effect on a dangerously high unemployment rate. The party that tells us all to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps has, for the last decade, enacted and supported policy that flies directly in the face of their stated philosophy. In reality, hardworking, taxpaying citizens are being told to sacrifice more of the public services we depend on so our leaders can shove even larger tax breaks to the wealthy.

Just $2.3 of that $2.6 trillion could modernize America's infrastructure in the next five years and put millions of Americans back to work. That money could have been spent on small business loans that would foster sustainable economic growth in American communities. Folks like me wouldn't have to resort to selling plasma for gas money if we invested those trillions in our communities, instead of on lavish tax cuts for billionaires.

George Santayana famously said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." If our leaders still haven't learned from the last 10 years of failed tax policy, the road ahead will only become more perilous for the American people.

 

Follow Carl Gibson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/usuncut

While millionaires and billionaires enjoyed another year of federal government handouts in excess of $100,000, I spent the better part of my day in a plasma donation clinic with dozens of others, all ...
While millionaires and billionaires enjoyed another year of federal government handouts in excess of $100,000, I spent the better part of my day in a plasma donation clinic with dozens of others, all ...
See more
A Dozen Urge to End Bush-Era Tax Cuts for Rich - The Note
What a difference a decade makes: Effects of the Bush-era tax cuts
How Bad Were Bush's Tax Cuts?: This bad: The Bush tax cuts were followed by low GDP growth, negative median wag...
What a difference a decade makes: Effects of the Bush-era tax cuts
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
21 hours ago (4:23 PM)
its good that someone keeping their own earned money is a handout...­..its easy to see the difference­s in ideology. and giving someone else that 100k is a handup....­.i get it.
12:29 PM on 6/09/2011
Notice that the tax cuts NEVER stimulated the economy or created jobs.This is what they promised every time over and over again.The wealthy and corporatio­­­­­­­­ns just take the money out of the country. That is why economic growth shrinks after each tax cut. This is recent history. You can look the numbers up yourselves­­­­. The numbers are in and accurate.

Annualized Growth Rates, Before and After TAX CUTS

Clinton

1993 to 1996 Real GDP = 3.44%
1993 to 1996 Real GDP per capita = 2.22%

1997 to 2000 Real GDP = 4.44%
1997 to 2000 Real GDP per capita = 3.26%

1993 to 2000 Real GDP = 4.01%
1993 to 2000 Real GDP per capita = 2.81%

Bush

2001 to 2004 Real GDP = 2.62%
2001 to 2004 Real GDP per capita = 1.68%

2005 to 2008 Real GDP = 1.75%
2005 to 2008 Real GDP per capita = 0.79%

2001 to 2008 Real GDP = 2.31%
2001 to 2008 Real GDP per capita = 1.36%
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blueken
Finger Picking blues man
12:28 PM on 6/09/2011
Hold on there partner, when did "reality" get into the picture? I'm taken the next train to fantasy land, cause things is looking bad for us working folks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Perman
Unapologetic Progressive Liberal
10:34 AM on 6/09/2011
Many of our citizens live in the conservati­ve "Fact Free Zone".
Much like Willi E Coyote when he runs off a cliff. Gravity has no effect on him until he looks down.

Conservati­ves refuse to look down.
07:56 AM on 6/09/2011
"But by January of 2011, Bush's tax cut package alone had accumulate­d $2.6 trillion in debt."

The Bush tax cut package did not accumulate a $2.6 million dollar debt. Only spending money you don't have can cause that. An issue that is the responsibi­lity of the Congress. To balance the budget based on revenue against expenses.

And if we have learned anything, it has to be that we can't tax only half the country and expect the other half to pick up the tab indefinite­ly.

I don't mind giving folks who are struggling a hand up, I just don't expect it to be a life-long responsibi­lity.

And I'm not even rich.
09:07 AM on 6/09/2011
"The Bush tax cut package did not accumulate a $2.6 million dollar debt. Only spending money you don't have can cause that."

We don't have the money because of the "temporary­" cut - is that so hard understand­? Why do the defenders of voodoo economics always try to get away with such gibberish?
10:00 AM on 6/09/2011
You mean the "temporary cut" extended by who?

President Obama.

So this is now Obama's tax cut, not Bush's.

Why do the defenders of President Obama's unsuccessf­ul policies continue to try and get away with such gibberish?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grammasher
09:47 AM on 6/09/2011
Well, duh! If we hadn't had the $2.6 trillion tax cut, we would have had the money. Keep in mind that some of that 50% who don't pay income taxes includes the very wealthy, not just low income workers.

While I, too, would rather not pay for lifelong benefits, there are some in our society who will never be able to work. Some have severe health issues, some just don't have the cognitive abilities, and some just aren't people who you, or anyone else, would hire. What do you suggest we do with those people? Do we just let them die on the streets? (Oh, let me see. We're already doing that!)
11:38 AM on 6/09/2011
You'll notice the author of this hit piece used the date of Jan, 2011, as the cut off. Even though it is now June. Did it ever occur to you why an updated number isn't being used?

Obama signed the tax extension in Dec, 2010.

And yet, the author never mentions it. Not like there's an agenda or anything, but do you have any idea what the debt is now?

Accumulate­d since Obama extended the tax cuts?

And maybe I should of been more explicit with, "strugglin­g a hand," which would infer those capable. My bad for not specifical­ly mentioning supporting those who can't support themselves­. Of course, I wouldn't want to even suggest that's a family responsibi­lity first in such cases for fear of facing a diatribe from the left.
04:46 AM on 6/09/2011
Mr. Gibson:

A few points:

1) Letting people keep more of what they earned, isn’t a handout. That applies to the poor and rich alike.

2) Actually, the poor ending up paying a smaller percentage of tax and the rich a larger share following the Bush tax cuts. Also, Bush created a new low-income tax category and provided a host of new low-income goodies and he only reduced the capital gains tax rate, the main way the wealthy recognize income, by 25%, which pales in comparison to the 40% tax cut by Clinton. So, you may be angry at the wrong guy….not to mention that Clinton repealed Glass-Stea­gall (loves banks), bailed out banks through the Mexico debt deal and LTCM (loves bailouts), reformed welfare (hates the poor) grew a ruinous IT asset bubble, and signed NAFTA (hates workers). If you want to start playing class warrior, you need to go to the source. Clinton!

3) The tax cuts did not reduce normalized tax revenue, which is 18.5% of GDP, where it has been since Kennedy, the other great friend of the rich, cut taxes in 1959. More importantl­y, even though we are in the worst Recession in 80 years, we still have a tax revenue rate, 14.5%, similar to the 1950’s when marginal tax rates were much higher, we had a great economy, low unemployme­nt, trade surpluses, etc. So tax cuts do not seem to be the problem, spending is!

Kai
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sheldon archer
I am from the UK presently living in Indonesia. I
12:23 AM on 6/09/2011
"Will America Learn From History?" Never learned a thing from Prohibitio­n so I doubt it.
photo
oldwarhorse
USCG SEMPER PARATUS
10:00 PM on 6/08/2011
will we learn from history? Let me see.... ummm, uhhh, hmmmm..... nope.
09:58 PM on 6/08/2011
Rich are rich and will always be. Furthermor­e, the poor are poor and will always be. It has nothing to do with policy or taxes - it's a mentality. Both of these conditions are eternal as long as the mentality is unchanged.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grammasher
09:48 AM on 6/09/2011
Nonsense!
09:54 PM on 6/08/2011
The GOP cares nothing about the deficits, which they themselves created. If they did, they would undo the Bush tax cuts in a hot second. The reality is the GOP has a long range plan to starve the government of revenues in order to destroy what they believe are socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Today they are closer than they ever have been to achieving that goal. That's the dirty little truth.
08:05 PM on 6/08/2011
Half this country consistent­ly votes republican­. So, no they haven't learned a damn thing, and probably never will.
06:20 PM on 6/08/2011
We never seem to
03:55 PM on 6/08/2011
When President Clinton left office in January of 2001, he had balanced the budget, erased the deficit created by his predecesso­rs and turned it into a towering surplus. The CBO had predicted budget surpluses in the trillions for the coming decade.

THEN CAME GW..HIS TAX CUTS TO THE WEALTHIEST 2% SINCE THEN HAVE NOT TRICKLED DOWN TO US AND NO NEW JOBS CREATED...­.AND THEY WANT A DO OVER? I DON'T THINK SO..!!
09:55 PM on 6/08/2011
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Clinton's "surplus" came from diverting funds from SS and spending it. He was smart, he knew SS was on the path to bankruptcy - so money put there would be wasted.
12:03 AM on 6/09/2011
PUT YOUR PROOF WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS..OR ARE YOU LIKE ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE GOP..SHOOT THE MESSENGER AND DENY DENY DENY..TELL LIES TILL IT BECOMES THE TRUTH. FACT IS YOU HAVE NO PROOF. I DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS I CAN'T BACK UP..I WANT YOU TOO.
08:03 AM on 6/09/2011
"HIS TAX CUTS TO THE WEALTHIEST 2% SINCE THEN HAVE NOT TRICKLED DOWN TO US AND NO NEW JOBS CREATED."

Poor baby, let me get you a hanky.

I haven't heard of a contract between the government and the wealthy where any tax cuts they received was to be handed over to you. When it's quite apparent there is no demand.

It must be depressing to depend on some one else for support.

I'm sure you can find a liberal support group in your area where you can blame all of societies ills on the rich.

My dad the bigot used to do that. Except he used a specific race.
10:56 AM on 6/09/2011
You think it's right that you put all the problems of our deficit on the backs of 2% of America?
03:02 PM on 6/08/2011
Quotes from David Stockman, Reagan's Budget Director :

"This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts."

"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politician­s, the Republican push to extend the unaffordab­le Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing."

"It is a measure of how far off base both parties are - but especially the Republican­s - they had a chance to cut spending for 8 years and Bush didn't veto a single spending bill. They had a chance to cut entitlemen­ts and what did they do ? Nothing. They added Medicare Part D drug benefit, the largest entitlemen­t expansion since the 60's."