George Will Disappears Years Of Economic Growth in Washington Post article

http://mediamatters.org/research/201111170011">MediaMatters.org


In a November 17 Washington Post column, George Will suggested "economic growth decreased" following a 1990 budget deal that included a tax increase. In fact, the United States experienced sustained economic growth soon after the debt deal, which continued for a decade.

In Fact, Soon After the 1990 Budget Deal, U.S. Economy Experienced Sustained Growth For A Decade

U.S. Dept. Of Commerce: GDP Grew Every Full Fiscal Year After 1990 Debt Deal. According to data from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) experienced growth every full fiscal year after the 1990 debt deal. Based on the Bureau of Economic Analysis' data, Media Matters created this chart:

was touted as "going to cause economic Armageddon" due to the tax hikes (touted as the Reagan-ignoring "largest tax hike ever!") ... and prosperity occurs through the nineties ... and the Repugniconvicts try to lay claim to being the source of the prosperity.

Why then, if they were the sole reason that prosperity occurs, is it that, as soon as Republicans had full control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency (along with the Supreme Court, and whatever else they could get their hands on), the economy tanked and languished in doldrums for years?

The deal was passed in 10/90. In '91 the economy had a downturn.

Economic output decreased after the deal was passed. It's unclear to me that this downturn wasn't already in the cards before the debt deal, so Will's comment is disengenuous.


On the other hand, there was positive economic growth every *full* fiscal year after the deal passed. It was passed in 10/90. The 90/91 fiscal year had begun already and so it wasn't a full fiscal year after the debt deal was approved. That means the first fiscal year after the debt deal there was positive economic growth, so Media Matters claim is true, but only because they've started the clock going 10 months after the deal was inked. In other words, they've defined data they don't like as being irrelevant to their claim.


What's mildly amusing is the idea that this growth was entirely Clinton's doing (seen elsewhere, not in the snippet in the oP). The election was in '92, inauguration in '93, but the recession was over months before the election and the "stimulus" to end the recession kicked in over 12 months after the end of the recession.

It takes a good year to start to have an impact. Changing the Federal withholding tax rate which is taken from people's paychecks is one way to have a much quicker impact on the economy (of course reducing people's taxes during a depression when they are worried about when they will be laid off doesn't really lead to increased spending. This is why the GOP demanded almost 40% of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) converted from stimulus spending to tax cuts - as the price of their cooperation in passage of ARRA. THey knew they would downsize the stimulus that way.)

MediaMatters was correct to recognize there is a delay of about a year before the legislation discussed started to have an impact on the economy. The affects of the legislation really couldn't be expected to be made manifest until early 1992.

would disappear.

same cell in Hell.