I’m a scientist. Well, that’s probably an exaggeration. I actually teach science; chemistry and physics. But I know I tend to look at things somewhat “scientifically.” Which means I look at data and evidence. I try not to make excuses for facts that don’t fit what I think. While I’m sure there are times that I do that, I try really hard NOT to. That would not be good science.
A good scientist will not adjust data to fit his ideas. He will adjust his ideas to fit the data.
So I’m always surprised when I hear people talk about how we need to lower taxes to spur our economy. They say that by lowering taxes, the economy will grow, and the government will then actually collect MORE revenue, due to all that income increase. Really? When I look at the evidence, I just don’t see anything that justifies that.
In the early 80’s, Reagan lowered taxes. What happened? We had a huge deficit. Really. I know conservatives hate to think that. Honestly, I hate to think that as well. But that’s what the data shows.
Next came Bush 1. Despite his infamous “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge, he soon realized that without doing so, we were going to have huge deficits. So he raised taxes. Slightly. Deficits were still large, but less than they would have been.
In the early 90’s Clinton raised taxes again. The result? The deficit went away. We actually had a budget surplus! And the economy boomed. Incredibly.
Enter Bush 2. He lowered taxes. The result? Surplus gone, deficit huge. Really huge. Way more than anyone ever saw before. And the economy? Well, most people agree it’s the worst we’ve had since the depression of the 1930’s.
A good scientist will not adjust data to fit his ideas. He will adjust his ideas to fit the data.
So I’m always surprised when I hear people talk about how we need to lower taxes to spur our economy. They say that by lowering taxes, the economy will grow, and the government will then actually collect MORE revenue, due to all that income increase. Really? When I look at the evidence, I just don’t see anything that justifies that.
In the early 80’s, Reagan lowered taxes. What happened? We had a huge deficit. Really. I know conservatives hate to think that. Honestly, I hate to think that as well. But that’s what the data shows.
Next came Bush 1. Despite his infamous “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge, he soon realized that without doing so, we were going to have huge deficits. So he raised taxes. Slightly. Deficits were still large, but less than they would have been.
In the early 90’s Clinton raised taxes again. The result? The deficit went away. We actually had a budget surplus! And the economy boomed. Incredibly.
Enter Bush 2. He lowered taxes. The result? Surplus gone, deficit huge. Really huge. Way more than anyone ever saw before. And the economy? Well, most people agree it’s the worst we’ve had since the depression of the 1930’s.
I know we all believe what we want to believe (see this post) but really, if you’re looking at this information, how can you really say “We have to lower taxes to spur our economy?” I’ve looked hard the last couple years, and up to now at least, nobody has shown me any data at all that supports this idea. But they keep saying it anyway.
By nature, I’m a fiscal conservative. I’ve always thought the government should spend as little as possible, and they should always balance their budget. And just like everyone else, I want my taxes very low. But when I look at the evidence, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that in the America we know now, this model just doesn’t work like we want it to. And up till now at least, nobody has given me any significant data to refute this.
It’s pretty simple. If we want to decrease the deficit and spur the economy, it looks to me that we have to raise taxes somewhere. I really hate to say that. Maybe you can show me my facts are wrong. If so, that’s great. But by all the evidence I’ve seen, I can come to no other conclusion.
And if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll probably admit it as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment