Kerry needs to rebut claims that Bush's tax policies are working

The Republicans are all over the airwaves claiming that the latest job numners are proof that the Bush tax cuts are finally beginning to work. The typical Democratic response is that one good month doesn't necessarily mean the Bush policies are working.

This is a lousy response, because it doesn't deal with the possibility that next month's numbers (and the months after that) will be good too.

The right was to respond is to point out that is a business cycle, and that an economic recovery was inevitable, with or without the tax cuts. Then Democrats can point at the the current recovery has been slower and weaker than the norm, and that, if anything, the Bush tax cuts made things worse by undermining confidence in the economy's long-term outlook.

They should also point to the Clinton recovery as an example of how things should be done. The Bush campaign always points out how Bush inherited an economy in recession. This is technically false, since the recession didn't begin until a few months after Bush took office. Democrats should point this out, but they should also point at that Bush inherited an economy that was much stronger than the one Clinton inherited in 1993. Bush inhereited a budget surplus and low unemployment. Clinton inherited a large deficit and higher unemployment.

Finally, the Kerry campaign needs to talk about how Democratic recoveries, like Clinton's, are accompanied by reduced deficits, Republican recoveries, like Reagan's and (if there is one) Bush's, are accompanied by massive structural deficits.

and another Dem says African American employment is above 10%. MPR.

So people took a shitty paying job as a last resort. That is HARDLY the GAINFUL employment created during the Clinton years. I say let Kerry formulate his message. I don't think he needs to panic everytime some good news accidentally comes out about the economy.

Democrats need to point out that there still is a net job loss under Bush of about 1.3 million jobs, even though under Bush, we have the largest deficits in history. As regards unemployment, democrats need to point out that under Clinton, there were four (4) years where the unemployment rate was in the 4% range. This is quite an accomplishment which democrats do not publicize.

Just look at Reagan. There was a really deep recession in 1982-83. But the economy turned the corner in 1984 and Reagan won in a landslide.

The Democrats need to be prepared to deal with the possibility that the economic numbers will continue to improve. They need to be able to get people to recognize that any recovery will be in spite of, not because of, the Bush policies. Otherwise, they're betting the entire election on a sluggish economic. And that's a lousy bet.

I'm in complete agreement with dolstein. :wow:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

It's pretty simple.

Bush has gotten 3 tax cuts. The third is the first of the three that can in any way be associated with any kind of job gains. But the rate of job gains is anemic for any recovery, tax cut or not.

The prime reason for any recent job growth is the business cycle itself. But even taking that into account the job growth is anemic. There will be jobs created going forward, but they will be subpar jobs growing at a subpar level.

A far greater level of stimulus is due to the Fed maintaining artificially low interest rates at the expense of destroying the currency and creating a housing and commodity price bubble. In simple terms, it's the Fed stupid.

The price we pay in the future for the Bush cuts are an exploding budget and trade deficit. Bush has mortgaged the future to get re-elected. The sad part is how ineffective it is turning out to be.

O

Greenspan has cut Bush interest rates to nothing.

Greenspan increased interest rates 13 times for Clinton .Even tho inflation was not a factor.

Major increases were in election years.

Nice Democrat is Greenspan!!

September 14, 2003
The Tax-Cut Con
By PAUL KRUGMAN


1. The Cartoon and the Reality
Bruce Tinsley's comic strip, ''Mallard Fillmore,'' is, he says, ''for the average person out there: the forgotten American taxpayer who's sick of the liberal media.'' In June, that forgotten taxpayer made an appearance in the strip, attacking his TV set with a baseball bat and yelling: ''I can't afford to send my kids to college, or even take 'em out of their substandard public school, because the federal, state and local governments take more than 50 percent of my income in taxes. And then the guy on the news asks with a straight face whether or not we can 'afford' tax cuts.''

But that's just a cartoon. Meanwhile, Bob Riley has to face the reality.

Riley knows all about substandard public schools. He's the governor of Alabama, which ranks near the bottom of the nation in both spending per pupil and educational achievement. The state has also neglected other public services -- for example, 28,000 inmates are held in a prison system built for 12,000. And thanks in part to a lack of health care, it has the second-highest infant mortality in the nation.

When he was a member of Congress, Riley, a Republican, was a staunch supporter of tax cuts. Faced with a fiscal crisis in his state, however, he seems to have had an epiphany. He decided that it was impossible to balance Alabama's budget without a significant tax increase. And that, apparently, led him to reconsider everything. ''The largest tax increase in state history just to maintain the status quo?'' he asked. ''I don't think so.'' Instead, Riley proposed a wholesale restructuring of the state's tax system: reducing taxes on the poor and middle class while raising them on corporations and the rich and increasing overall tax receipts enough to pay for a big increase in education spending. You might call it a New Deal for Alabama.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Bush is using the Right's Bug Lie: that irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy benefit everyone. This may be a religious issue with some them, but those on the Right in charge of generating compelling propaganda have to know better and perpetuate the Big Lie because it's the ONLY way to sell tax cuts to the rich.

The simple facts are that the vast majority of recessions ended WITHOUT tax cuts. Even if there had been a tax cut... where is the causal link? Clinton proved that a tax hike did not lead to a recession. The Reagan Recession began just as his ERTA tax cuts were about to be signed. The Reagan Recession ended a few months AFTER massive Reagan tax HIKES in 1982. The Right touts the JFK tax cuts but they occured some 2-3 years after a recession ended and the top rate was cut to 70%. So much for the trickle down bullshit.

Bush knows all recessions end... and he hoped to justify his irresponsible tax cuts by using the inevitable recovery as proof.

Kerry needs to walk the line on this issues in a way that allows him to be positive should there be good news... but bashes Bush for the DELAYS in the recovey his cynical and ill-conceived policies have caused. It's been known for a few years that most economists did NOT think Bush's "economic stimulus plan" would actually provide much in the way of stimulus. We might have been out of this jobless recovery 6 months ago.