☰ Menu
Blog of Mass Destruction

Still Clinging To Voodoo

By The Reverend Published: December 22, 2007


Junior Bush took time for a press conference before the holiday break. The presser was a veritable treasure trove for progressive bloggers. Perhaps that's why he took the time......who really knows with this guy?

Junior explained more of his "faith-based initiatives", this time telling reporters and teevee viewers about his deep trust in the dark faith of voodoo.....

The question from the reporter was about Bush's pressuring of Congress to NOT pay for the Alternative Minimum Tax fix and "emergency" spending on Iraq, like Democrats wanted to do. Bush led Republicans threatened blockage if Democrats insisted on paying for the lost revenue. Those items added over 100 billion dollars directly to the national debt. The questioner is asking why shouldn't that be considered irresponsible.

Sidestepping the question entirely....Junior launches off into supply side voodoo economics chanting. Honestly, all that was missing was the drumbeat and the boiling cauldron.

Nothing Bush says, as he goes about NOT answering the question, is true. Nothing.

"It is amazing to me that people have treated this as though it is a debatable point, because it is really not," says economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research..... "It is one of the most extensively researched topics in economics, and virtually all the research has concluded that there is no way that any growth stimulated through an income tax cut can replace the revenue lost."...

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated the effects of a 10 percent income tax cut on federal revenues, using a number of different assumptions. Here's CBO's conclusion, from a summary by then-director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a well-regarded conservative economist: "The budgetary impact of the economic changes was estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss from the tax cut over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years."

So under the most optimistic assumptions, the economic stimulus from such a tax cut would replace about one-fifth of the lost revenue in the first five years and about one-third in the second. In the worst case, there would be no longer-term revenue replacement at all, but rather an even greater loss. Link

It may just be me......but hasn't this "faith-based" approach to everything, you know, kind of worn out it's welcome?



About This Blog

Prev Next