One of the main issues on the docket this election season is the subject of the Bush era tax cuts. Both sides of the political aisle are gearing up to debate whether or not the tax cuts should expire as originally intended or be given a full or partial extension.

In general, the Bush administration’s tax cuts have heavily favored wealthy Americans and although some of the cuts have increased middle class net income, for the most part the tax cuts accomplished nothing more than increasing the budget deficit.

One of the biggest arguments put forth by Republicans favoring an extension of the tax cuts is that they pay for themselves. This is counter to actual data showing the tax cuts prevented a budget surplus in 2005.

President Obama wishes to increase taxes on the richest 2 percent of Americans which would raise their income tax rate to 39 percent. The last time the tax rate was that high was under the Clinton administration when the entire country experienced a booming economy, rising incomes, a budget surplus and low unemployment.

Proponents of the Bush era tax cuts would have you believe that the cuts directly contributed to 52 straight months of job growth. While this record is true, only 8.3 million jobs were created; under Clinton’s reign 22.7 million jobs were created.

Economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics estimates that every dollar spent making the Bush income tax cuts permanent generates only 32 cents of economic activity. Comparatively, every dollar spent on unemployment assistance generates $1.61 worth of economic activity, a dollar of spending on infrastructure yields $1.57 and a dollar in assistance to states to prevent layoffs of teachers or first responders yields $1.41. Tax cuts for the wealthy are simply not a good way to stimulate the economy.

Republicans often tout the trickle down theory despite years of evidence showing it does not work. In fact, examining just the eight years Bush was in office is evidence enough. Republicans will claim that by taking money from the rich (who would save and do very little to stimulate a consumption-based economy) we will be hurting small businesses and future American prosperity. However, out of the 34.7 million filers with (small) business income only 1.4 percent of them would be affected by Obama’s proposed tax rate.

In the short-term a budget deficit will not equate to negative consequences. Since the United States has such a large economy we are able to make payments on our debt. The problem arises when our debt is so large that the lenders begin to feel uncomfortable and demand payment. This would cause a huge deflation of the dollar’s value, which would not only wreak havoc on your retirement funds and savings, but cause consumption and growth to suffocate. The Unites States cannot afford to let this happen during such an uncertain economic period. We must take charge of our out-of-control spending and raise taxes so that we may rein in this deficit.

Print PDF