In Giuliani ad fact-check, Kurtz asserted "fierce dispute among economists" on tax cuts and revenues, but cited only one economist
SUMMARY: In an analysis of Rudy Giuliani's new campaign ad, Howard Kurtz asserted that Giuliani's claim that "reducing taxes produces more revenues" is "a matter of fierce dispute among economists." As evidence of this dispute, Kurtz provided the opinion of only one economist, Larry Kudlow, who agreed with Giuliani's assertion. But a day before Kurtz's analysis appeared in print, a Washington Post editorial had quoted Edward Lazear, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stating, "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves." Several other current or former Bush administration officials have also disagreed with the assertion that tax cuts produce more revenue.
In a November 29 post on The Washington Post's The Trail blog, Post media critic Howard Kurtz offered an analysis of a new campaign advertisement being run in New Hampshire by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, asserting that Giuliani's claim that "reducing taxes produces more revenues" is "a matter of fierce dispute among economists." But as evidence of this "dispute," Kurtz provided the opinion of only one economist, Larry Kudlow, who agreed with Giuliani's assertion. From Kurtz's post, which was also published in the print edition of the paper on December 2:
Giuliani's insistence that tax-cutting "produces more revenues" is the supply-side gospel first preached by Ronald Reagan, and a matter of fierce dispute among economists. Indeed, Giuliani invokes National Review and conservative commentator Larry Kudlow to validate the claim. The former mayor did cut taxes and tame the New York bureaucracy, but slightly increased the number of city employees during his tenure.
By depicting his Democratic rivals as big taxers, Giuliani is looking past his Republican opponents and trying to appeal to economic conservatives who may disagree with his moderate stance on social issues.
Kurtz could have pointed out that numerous current and former Bush administration economists and officials have stated the opposite -- that tax cuts do not bring in revenue. For instance:
- Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson said during his June 2006 confirmation hearing, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."
- According to a November 15 Post editorial, Office of Management and Budget director Jim Nussle recently told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."
- In 2006, The New York Times quoted N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economics professor and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush, stating that " 'most economists' don't believe that tax cuts increase tax revenues for the government." The Times continued: "Mankiw writes: 'Some supply-siders like to claim that the distortionary effect of taxes is so large that increasing tax rates reduces tax revenue. Like most economists, I don't find that conclusion credible for most tax hikes.' "
- In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."
Indeed, on December 1, a day before Kurtz's analysis appeared in print, The Washington Post published an editorial, "Mr. Giuliani and the Tax Fairy," stating:
"I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani declares in a new television ad launched Thursday. "Democrats don't know that. They don't believe it."
There's a good reason for that: It's not true. Produces more revenue than what? Than if taxes had not been cut? No -- and no matter how many times Republican politicians caught up in the thrill of supply-side thinking pronounce that tax cuts pay for themselves, they cannot will it to be correct.
You don't have to turn to Democrats to refute this point; just read the studies and comments by Republican economists, including many from the Bush administration. President Bush's Treasury Department, analyzing the "dynamic" effects of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, found that even under favorable assumptions, the positive economic impact would make up for no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts' cost.
The editorial went on to quote Edward Lazear, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stating, "I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves." Lazear and several other current or former Bush administration officials have disagreed with the assertion that tax cuts produce more revenue.
The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby also noted the contrast between Kurtz's analysis and the Post's editorial:
This may very well be the Dumbest Ad Watch Ever. Indeed, Kurtz's assessment is especially striking, given the semi-decent editorial the Post had published just one day before. The headline on the editorial said this: "Mr Giuliani and the Tax Fairy." The editors discussed that same inane claim.
[...]
The editorial ... quotes a string of Bush Admin honchos as they debunk that famous claim. But so what? The very next day, Kurtz dragged the crackpot Kudlow out of the bushes and insisted there's a "fierce dispute among economists" about what Rudy said.
In his new ad, "Promise," Giuliani states:
GIULIANI: When I became mayor of New York City, things were out of control. I lowered taxes. I reduced the growth of government, made government more accountable, and New York City boomed. I would do these things for America because I know they work. I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues. Democrats don't know that. They don't believe that. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards -- here's a promise I assure you they'll keep. They are making the promise to raise taxes. The only thing I can tell you in addition to that is, they'll raise taxes even more than they promised. I'm Rudy Giuliani, and I approve this message.
From Kurtz's November 29 "Ad Watch" analysis:
The ad, airing in New Hampshire, is accurate -- but selective -- in saying that the three Democratic contenders would raise taxes. What Giuliani leaves out is that Clinton, Obama and Edwards have pledged to repeal the Bush tax cuts only for the wealthiest Americans -- Clinton pegs the level at over $250,000 in income, Obama at $200,000 -- while keeping the reductions for everyone else. The assertion that they will raise taxes even more is purely speculative.
Giuliani's insistence that tax-cutting "produces more revenues" is the supply-side gospel first preached by Ronald Reagan, and a matter of fierce dispute among economists. Indeed, Giuliani invokes National Review and conservative commentator Larry Kudlow to validate the claim. The former mayor did cut taxes and tame the New York bureaucracy, but slightly increased the number of city employees during his tenure.
By depicting his Democratic rivals as big taxers, Giuliani is looking past his Republican opponents and trying to appeal to economic conservatives who may disagree with his moderate stance on social issues.
How many times does this old Reagan myth have to be debunked before they stop trotting it out? I guess we know the answer: they'll never stop. Enough people believe it, and it helps them rationalize shifting the tax burden downward.
Nerz, you're ignoring the more important issue; The unauthorized use of "fact-check" by MMFA.
Justytroothy, unleash your wrath !
nerzog-"reagan myth"????---this is not a question of belief, just check the numbers.tax cuts spur economic activity and growth,and the tax revenues increase.the kennedy, reagan, and bush tax cuts all resulted in more tax revenue,not less.fact, not economic theory.
No they didnt. The Reagan tax cut DROPPED revenue for the next two years. As more people enter the economy it always grows, as more people PAY taxes there is more tax revenue but you are just flat out wrong. You hiveminders just repeat this BS as religious dogma. It is not true. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts PROVED that. It is possible that certain targetted tax cuts COULD raise revenue, or as in the case of the Kennedy tax cut it was joined to a closing of many loopholes it could but to just state that tax cuts raise revenue is not supported by the facts and even tax cut enthusiasts dont claim it does.
Ya gotta love it when MMFA supports their assertions on the backs of current and former Bush administration officials.
Is that selective expertise, or what?
Let's see MMFA do the same with similar Bush cronies who support the Iraq War, and this may have a little more credibility.
Important distinction there, Tommy.
Supporting the Iraq occupation is staying in line with the Bush policy.There's no shortage of GOPpers benefitting from promoting the invasion agenda.
A Bush economic advisor publicly stating that the GOP mantra of tax cuts paying for themselves is BS- that's worth noting. Possibly one of the remaining members of the party whose personal credibility and professional reputation is worth more to him than the big payoff?
I don't know. You don't know. But if you're looking for credibility, a dissident is often a better source than a dittohead.
Missing the point which is that EVEN TAX CUT PROPONENTS like Lazar dont believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. When you are arguing YOUR point you have less credibility than when you are grudgingly admitting a point that argues against your ideology
When you have reckless and up the wazoo pork spending, then nothing will ever pay for itself. Cut spending, cut taxes and they absolutely will pay for themselves.
In terms of tax rev, maybe but that would hurt the economy. Gov't spending helps the economy.
"Gov't spending helps the economy"
Only in ultra liberal land. I trust the people to spend their own money with more caution and care, than the unaccountable government spending somebody elses with reckless abandon.
Take an economics course. Government spending grows the economy, taxes shrink it. That's fact, not theory.
What's more - If you tax and spend at the same amount, equilibrium income grows by that very same amount. Spend more, and lower taxes, you get a double whammy - big time growth, but it's not sustainable. That whole "interest on the national debt" thing.
My mistake. I should know better than to discuss government spending and taxes with a die-hard liberal - and their suggestion to take an economics course. Perhaps you took far too many from elitist liberal college professors who preach this idiotic notion in their theoretical classrooms - but in the real world where the rest of us live, we know better.
Yeah, a whole lot of liberal professors in those business school classrooms. You know - where I got my MBA, graduating with honors?
It was my mistake to debate economics with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
And get off this "liberal college campus" crap. Makes it sound like you people either never went to school, or didn't grow much while you were there.
FYI - I work for a living. And I've seen my industry (automotive) as much decimiated by goofy republican "fair trade" policies and other such right-wing nonsense, as by greedy and unreasonable labor unions. (Who, to be fair, have done their part to hurt US Auto as well.) So knock off this "die-hard" liberal nonsense.
I'm not a die-hard anything. I've got this real moron thing I do called thinking. And I like to form my own opinions. It thinkig for yourself is liberla, you guys are in trouble. (Or would be, if anyone else in this bloody county tried thinking for themselves.)
That didnt even make sense. Cutting spending is another issue altogether the question is do TAX CUTS pay for themselves and the emprical evidence say they dont, even tax cut advocate economists say they dont and you can keep pretending your economics as religious dogma that they do but WISHING WONT MAKE IT SO.
It's catching the rats as they jump ship.
Truth(tm) Justice(tm)
ANOTHER FACT CHECK:
Howard Kurtz asserted that Giuliani's claim that "reducing taxes produces more revenues" is "a matter of fierce dispute among economists." As evidence of this dispute, Kurtz provided the opinion of only one economist,
fierce /fɪərs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feers] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective, fierc·er, fierc·est. 1.menacingly wild, savage, or hostile: fierce animals; a fierce look. 2.violent in force, intensity, etc.: fierce winds. 3.furiously eager or intense: fierce competition. 4.Informal. extremely bad or severe: a fierce cold.Not a single part of the term "fierce" relates to the "number" of people holding a position - only the intensity with which they maintain their position.
So Larry Kudlow is fierce (and correct!)
By definition, MMFA is simply "wrong" - I could say that MMFA is FIERCLY WRONG!
ALL RIGHTS RESERVERS
"...fierce dispute among economists..."
That's economists, plural. With much less effort, and several score fewer words than it took Justytroothy to be wrong, I demonstarte him to be wrong.
After much hesitation, and battling with my own compassionate and generous nature, as well as my aversion to picking on those less capable, my powerful sense of truth and honesty tells me I absolutely must call this one for me.
p.s. to Justytroothy - "plural" means more than one, and is indicated on many words by the addition of an "s" at the end.
Veracity and Just Desserts® in H.B. !
HBL:
Plural? So at a minimum I have ONE pro- and ONE anti- economist. There you have it - a "plural"!
My main point still stands.
Reminds me of when McDonalds sold "Cherry Pies" back a few years ago and claimed that a single cherry fulfilled their description - Cherry is "single" and not "plural".
And one day you MAY learn to read. It would since they said cherry PIES not CHERRIES pie. Better give that five year old that explains the post to you a raise he is allowing you to look like a fool again.
I reckon you is right - but since I went to public school you can't really blame me for being so unedukated.
Painful fact check:
Similar to a man claiming that his smashed thumb is due to the hammer, your failure cannot be blamed on the tool, but - more appropriately - on your own incompetence when presented with the opportunity to use it.
Your 5-year-old and your thumb agree that Mr. Beach, Mr. Solon, and public education get the call on this one.
I went to public school too and I am nowhere NEAR as stupid as you so maybe it wasnt the schools fault but your lack of basic cognitive function
Justy, you've missed the boat again. You argued that Kudlow was fierce, nobody else. Only one was fiercely disputing it, the non-pinheads are in agreement.
"Prostitute/Economist (singular) paid by The National Review fiercely disputes real-life economists who are smarter than he is" would have been accurate.
Yes, your point still stands, but if you wear a hat, nobody will notice. Valiant recovery attempt, though.
Not even close, you won!
No he is fierce as a wet noodle and WRONG. As the evidence of the last two tax cuts and the admissions of tax cut proponents that they DONT pay for themselves show.
glenn greenwald blasts kurtz in a salon column today, because he has refused to addtress the joe klein/time magazine controversy where klein smeared democrats by saying a bill they passed gave foreigners the same rights as americans when it comes to getting a warrant to tap a telephone. the bill specifically said that was not required with foreigners. time has also refused to print letters from congressional democrats who disagreed with klein's assertions.
Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on that fight too. Greenwald has more than blasted Klein, he has flayed Klein's partisan heart wide for all to behold.
Thats an impressive, p*ss off Democrats, from Time Warner. Or have they changed their name?
MrRuth, some details of the fierce dispute. Just so we can make our own desisions regarding the theorectical fierocity of this dispute. Was it logically fierce,emotionally fierce,bad names and bad language used? Physical threats with impliments of nerf? Irony and (shudder) sarcasm used indiscriminaty? Details man details!
Repubs are always right about taxation schemes that pay for themselves. Just take a look at Iraq, it's paying for itself, right? Taxes were reduced because the oil revenues would cover the cost of invasion and occupation. Taxes went down and fuel costs skyrocketed. The net loss for the middle class and working poor has been staggering, the only surge that has worked has been the surge in the wealth divide.
It's why Bush isn't demanding huge, carte blanche, discretionary budgets from the Congress. Iraq has paid for itself, he doesn't need to beg for more money for more death from the public. Iraq is paying for itself, privatized war, war for profit. It works right? Right?
What is Rudy saying? He's not going to bring the troops home, he's going to lower taxes even more and he's gonna let the invisible hand of the market do the heavy lifting for American families. He's saying more of the same.
Republicans are truly insane. They keep gravitating to the same dangerous privatization ideas that got us here in the first place.
Thank goodness for Progressives who know the best way to stimulate the economy and grow the middle class is to invest in the public infrastructure that enables prosperity and empowers our citizens participate.
It's called "Social Darwinism". An odd policy position from a party made up primarily of people who reject Scientific Darwinism.
S.N.J.,
...but cited only one economist.
Do you MM people think that Kudlow is the only one who knows that lower tax rates lead to greater prosperity and higher revenues?
Would 100% marginal rates bring in more revenue? You socialists won't be happy until that happens and we're all living in squalor. But at least we'll all be living equally in squalor, right?
I don't know about those other socialists, but your sage words have convinced me. Now, if we can just get those other bonehead lefties to agree to a marginal rate of 0% - resulting in infinite revenues - we can afford universal welfare and all live equally in fabulous government-sponsored wealth without working at all!
Not to mention the limitless socialized health care that can be covered by all those revenues pouring in. A glorious time to be alive, indeed...
Neon,
At least you seem to realize that maximum revenue (which really shouldn't be our objective) falls somewhere between 0% and 100%. JFK proved that it was lower than 90%(marginal), Reagan proved that it was lower than 75% and Bush Jr. has shown that it is lower than 39%.
Let's keep going!
No Bush jr showed no such thing. Did you notice the deficit and national debt. OR that revenues DROPPED after Bush jrs tax cut? I showed you that LAST time you tried this stupid argument.
Brutus, when you repeat things that the nice man on the radio tells you, remember, he has done a lot of drugs, and has confessed to being a liar and a Republican shill.
Would lowering taxes to zero bring in revenues raised to the ROOF? Your strawman argument was stupid. Tax cuts dont pay for themselves much less raise revenues. Even tax cut ADVOCATES admit this. Try to keep up.
Some time ago The Economist newspaper addressed this issue. Folks who support the proposition that tax cuts have increased Federal government revenues have presented the numbers: Cite the categories where revenues have gone up and then tie that to specific tax cuts. They don't do that because it can truthfully be done.
And if tax cuts really did raise government revenues, why not cut taxes to zero and see revenues soar?
Next up: How to lose weight by eating more food...
I believe that Howard Kurtz disseminates more misinformation than any other journalist not employed by Rupert Murdoch. Joe Klein may be ahead in quality of misinformation, but Howie has him easily beat in quantity.