Image 01 Image 03

Blame the Bush tax cuts for creating the tax-free class

Blame the Bush tax cuts for creating the tax-free class

Peter Ferrara at Forbes, Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts, examines the propaganda perpetrated for a decade by the media and Democrats about the Bush tax cuts:

Because so many major media institutions, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, have been so duplicitous and dishonest in discussing the Bush tax cuts, most Americans don’t know much about them, even though they have been living with them for 10 years or more now. Indeed, most of what they think they know is not true….

President Bush and his Congressional Republican majorities at the time cut taxes for everyone in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Indeed, they cut more for lower and middle income taxpayers than they did for “the rich,” as Obama calls the nation’s job creators, investors, and successful small businesses. The top tax rate was cut by only 13%, while the lowest rate was cut by one-third, 33%.

According to official IRS data, the top 1% of income earners paid $84 billion more in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000 before the Bush tax cuts were passed, 23% more. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose from 37% in 2000, before the Bush tax cuts, to 40% in 2007, after the tax cuts.

In contrast, the bottom half of income earners paid $6 billion less in federal income taxes in 2007 than in 2000, a decline of 16%. The share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% declined from 3.9% in 2000 to 2.9% in 2007.

The Bush tax cuts also included a doubling of the child tax credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. Because of that, and the 33% cut in the bottom tax rate, nearly 8 million more people dropped off the federal income tax rolls entirely, paying zero federal income taxes. Indeed, under the Bush tax cuts, the bottom 40% of all income earners not only paid no federal income taxes, as a group on net. By 2009, they were being paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of all federal income taxes.

These Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018.

Ferrara then runs through the tremendous job growth after the Bush tax cuts, and concludes (emphasis mine):

Of course, the Bush tax cut boom was ended by the 2008 financial crisis. But as discussed in many previous columns, that was caused by the excessive overregulation of President Clinton’s home ownership promotion policies, creating the subprime mortgage market and the housing bubble, and by President Bush’s cheap dollar monetary policies. Obama’s foolish argument that the Bush tax cuts caused the 2008-2009 recession is so dishonest that abusive propaganda alone should disqualify him from office.

I blame Bush. 

For creating a situation in which at least 40% of wage earners pay no federal income tax (with some actually receiving subsidies), which allows propagandists like Obama to demagogue the top 2% risk free. 

Because federal income taxes are non-existent for a large percentage of the population, requiring even a small federal income tax payment, one miniscule by historical standards, is portrayed as an attack on “the middle class.”  The implicit marginal rate on such wage earners creates, as I once predicted, the threat of a permanent Democratic majority for whom normal rational economics — like earning more money to get ahead in life — does not apply.

I’m all for low taxation for everyone, but we have created a destructive situation where those to whom most of the services go pay the least.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  Who woulda thunk we have the Bush tax cuts, as much as anything, to blame for that.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I think I see a way forward to a compromise on the fiscal cliff. It can be like an AA meeting where everyone gets up and says “I’m xxx, and I blame Bush for this problem.” Of course, we’re blaming him for making the tax cuts temporary and giving a substantial proportion of the electorate the idea that taxes are something someone else pays while the Democrats are blaming him for living.

The Bush Family have devastated the Republican party with Bush senior signing Agenda 21 in Rio in 1992 and raising taxes – Bush junior spending and thus creating non-tax paying citizens, no child left behind, medicare prescription drug – conservatives need to lay blame and clean house of the Bush family.

This isn’t about scapegoating, the Bush Presidents have much to be blamed for.

    ASR in reply to ASR. | December 8, 2012 at 10:35 am

    One more thing . . . Bush senior enabled Clinton to proceed as he did and Bush junior enabled Obama to proceed as he is. It is sad to see.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to ASR. | December 8, 2012 at 10:35 am

    You are so right. I think Jeb should maybe try the priesthood. Or late-night infomercial advertising.

TrooperJohnSmith | December 8, 2012 at 10:34 am

To a Democrat:

“Middle-class” means: union household; blue-collar; votes Democratic.

“The Poor” means: single mother household, preferably a welfare queen; can’t pass a drug screen, so he/she will never be able to work outside janitorial/fast-food industry; without government he/she will starve and be homeless; very fertile making future constituents/voters.

“The Rich” means: any stupid SOB still clueless enough to work his/her ass off 10-, 12-, 16-hours or to better his condition and is then ‘insensitive’ enough to think the lion’s share of the end profit share belongs to him/her.

There is a special place in hell for socialists, communists, Democrats and news media. Why? They lie to the very people they’re supposed to be helping, so as to screw over the people who will really help them.

    Conservative Beaner in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | December 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    The Dems remind me of the PRI in Mexico. Every election they promise to make life better for the masses but end up emptying the treasury with handouts to their rich buddies. The masses are not for the better.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Conservative Beaner. | December 8, 2012 at 7:33 pm

      True dat!

      When Lopez Portillo came in as a ‘reformer’, the joke was that it was his only option, because his predecessor, Echeverria, had stolen everything worth stealing. Another irony is how PEMEX, the state-owned oil company can lose billions of dollars. Think there might be a little graft going on? You betcha! Mexican unions are some of the most corrupt, invasive and strident in the world. To attend university, you must join one of the students’ unions. But then that’s how the ordinary guys gets his mordida (bite) of the pie.

      And like the dash-Ds in Estados Unidos, the leftist PRI is back in power because the people, nursed on all kinds of welfare and subsidy, wanted no part of austerity. And who knows, maybe PRI can make peace with the cartels, but then again, they’re basically competitors…

      “The System” in Heh-hee-co is why a campesino, who has been from poor parentage all the way back since before Cortez, will come to the US and work three jobs to get ahead. In Meh-hee-co, if you’re born po’ you gonna die po’. Period. Game over. In the Land of the Big PX, a Mexican sees opportunidad.

      What perplexes me is why people leave that sh!thole, yet remain loyal to it until they die. Yeah, it’s home… but come on.

Yes, W was a firm believer in compromise. Some of it was inherent, some of it, I believe, was the fact he barely won his elections, and felt the other side deserved a place at the table.

I’ll also point out the fact that through most of his tenure you couldn’t even (re)name a post office without a “timeline to withdraw from Iraq” amendment attached, forcing W into concessions.

As the professor said: “For creating a situation in which at least 40% of wage earners pay no federal income tax (with some actually receiving subsidies), which allows propagandists like Obama to demagogue the top 2% risk free.
Because federal income taxes are non-existent for a large percentage of the population, requiring even a small federal income tax payment, one miniscule by historical standards, is portrayed as an attack on “the middle class.”

I believe these are excellent reasons to let the Bush tax rates expire for at least a year or even for good. Everyone should be paying something in taxes, and ending a system that allowed a huge percentage of Americans to get out of paying taxes, and becoming leaches instead, would be a good thing.

Ending the Bush tax rates might also bring a bit of clarity to those who think that only the rich benefited under that plan. Only a bit, however, as the majority of the American people have already proved themselves to be a thick as a brick.

    J Motes in reply to J Motes. | December 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Spelling error: I meant “leeches,” but on second thought I believe that “leaches” is an acceptable metaphor.

Jacksonjay’s axiom of life in America. “The more you do for people, the less they appreciate what you’ve done!” The more you do, the more people expect!
Will the payroll tax “holiday” ever sunset? The answer is obviously no! The argument was that poor people DO pay taxes, they pay the SS taxes. WELL, now that is being diminished never to return, at the expense of the so-called trust fund!
This goofy Psy rapper is a great example! Can anyone argue that South Korea would be worse off if America had left them alone? Do most Koreans today appreciate what we did for them. What we DO for them!! Kias, Hynduai, Samsung?

    jdkchem in reply to jacksonjay. | December 8, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Having been to South Korea in the 80’s, Poland in the 90’s and Panama in the 00’s my experience was yes. I doubt anyone here realizes just how much the Poles love Reagan. In S. Korea they did not even bother with shipyard security. Didn’t need to. When we stepped of the USS Peleliu in our service A’s we were mobbed by kids who wanted autographs.

Since Obama belongs to the Saul Alinsky School of Negotiation and will not budge, the first thing the Republican House should do in 2013 is pass the Bush tax cuts and make them retroactive to January 1st. Then we can wait and see how the Senate and Obama reacts.

    Rather than send a love letter they should have just passed the Bowles plan in the House and sent it on to the Senate. That however requires brains and balls.

“I blame Bush.”

100% agree. Moreover, his insipid domestic political pacifism did more to abet the rise of the Left than any other single factor I can think of.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. It’s time democraps paid their fair share.

I have never heard anyone respond with an argument to the assertion that having essentially any group in our society NOT paying for government is both immoral and terrible civics.

Wasn’t the whole justification for ObamaCare something about “free riders”…???

Blame the Bush tax cuts for creating the tax-free class

Blame the Clinton blue dress episode for creating tax-free

….our politics, policy, media coverage, et al, have never been the same since….

since all policy is now borne from a narrative, which replaced facts.