Three years after taking over for George W. Bush, President Obama is still trying to win political points by attacking the “Bush tax cuts” enacted during the 43rd president’s first term in the White House.
In an article for Human Events, Donald Lambro rebuts the president’s arguments:
In “the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years,” Obama said.
Whenever Obama talks about paying for tax cuts, he means, but does not say, raising taxes on someone else. It never occurs to him, nor does he say, that the tax cuts can pay for themselves through increased economic growth and higher employment.
That is exactly what President Bush’s 2003 accelerated tax cuts did in the remaining years of his presidency, a five-year period when the unemployment rate fell well below 6%, and tax revenues rose by hundreds of billions of dollars, cutting the budget deficit in half, according to government revenue and budget deficit statistics. …
… Contrary to Obama’s anti-tax cut, zero-sum ideology, federal tax revenues didn’t fall as a result of Bush’s across-the-board tax rate cuts that affected every income bracket—including a new, lower 10% tax rate for low-income workers—they rose to the following:
—$1.88 trillion in 2004
—$ 2.15 trillion in 2005
—$ 2.4 trillion in 2006
—$ 2.6 trillion in 2007.
In other words, tax revenues rose by more than $800 billion in just four years by cutting tax rates and boosting economic growth that pushed the Dow to a record 14,164 points on Oct. 9, 2007.