Bush policies took about $3200 a year out of every tax payer pocket.

In a long overdue look at how the Bush administration took "surpluses as far as the eyes could see" and squandered it, David Cay Johnston shows us all how much better off we'd be today if we had just stayed on the Clinton policy track:

TRILLIONS LOST TO BUSH TAX CUTS COULD PAY ALL CAR, CREDIT, AND STUDENT DEBT: The Bush tax cuts, which were supposed to help lead to a more prosperous economy, have actually cost Americans as much as $6.6 trillion in personal income. 

David Cay Johnston wrote: "I calculated that enormous figure by comparing the average income Americans reported on their 2000 tax returns with what they reported each year for 2001 through 2012, adjusting for inflation and the growing population. Add up the income for 12 years and it turns out to be $6.6 trillion less than if we had maintained the prosperity of 2000 for a growing population. Total those 12 years and the net shortfall per taxpayer comes to $48,010 ($39,500 after taxes). It is the equivalent of $11 appearing in your wallet every morning from the start of 2001 through the end of 2012.”

“Had that $6.6 trillion shortfall been realized as income, it would have been enough to pay off all the student loans in the United States ($1.26 trillion), all the automobile loans ($892 billion) and all the credit card debt ($827 billion). After paying all that debt off and taking taxes into account, American still would have more than $2.4 trillion left in their pockets and bank accounts.”

Johnston went on to point out that Bush sold the tax cuts as ensuring the future prosperity of America.

“In a December 1999, speech to Iowa voters, the future President Bush vowed, if elected, to put into law a ‘tax cut designed to sustain our nation’s prosperity – and reflect our nations decency … The entrepreneurs of America create jobs, take risks and make their profits with honor. My tax cut plan will expand their ranks by encouraging American enterprise … Low tax rates are a powerful economic tool to promote a higher standard of living for all Americans.”

Well, now we see how that worked out. Are we going to change course or just continue with the same failed policies?

A look back: Bush economic policies that got us here. Republicans are promising to bring it all back too...

Rummaging through past blog posts, I found this potpourri of stories dissecting the Bush economic disaster that got us to this point. It's laced with warnings and bullheaded Republican economic theories that in retrospect should have been stopped in its tracks.

We were warned at the time. And despite the administrations support for off shoring (yes, they knew it would cost jobs), anyone with a half a brain knew that wasn't going to work well. But Bush and the Republicans said the pain would be short lived. Guess not.

Sadly, at the time, I didn't save the links to these stories (links that would probably be dead today anyway). I think you'll be amazed at all the information Americans ignored:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aug. 2003: What caused a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to become a projected deficit of $4.4 trillion? Of this extraordinary $10 trillion deterioration, approximately 36 percent comes from enacted or expected tax cuts, 31 percent from budget increases, especially for defense and homeland security … President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to the Congressional Budget Office

Feb 2004: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the single biggest cause of the deficit is the president's massive tax cuts for the wealthy -- which he conveniently did not mention. Specifically, 36% of the deficit comes from the tax cuts, while only 31% comes from defense/war related spending increases, And as the president starves veterans health care, low-income housing, and health care programs of funding, he is pushing more than $1 trillion in new tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy. 

2004: What we have here is a form of looting." So says George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics of the Bush administration's budget policies. The government is simply borrowing to make up for the loss of revenue. In 2004, the typical family will pay about $700 less in taxes than it would have --- but meanwhile, the government will run up about $1500 in debt on that family's behalf. 

February 10, 2004 NY Times: The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said … in the president's annual report to Congress on the health of the economy. "Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors. "More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that's a good thing." His advisors acknowledge that international trade and foreign outsourcing have contributed to the job slump. Although trade expansion inevitably hurts some domestic workers, the benefits eventually will outweigh the costs as Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and services and as new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy, the report said. "Maybe we will outsource a few radiologists," Mankiw told reporters. "What does that mean? Well, maybe the next generation of doctors will train fewer radiologists and will train more general practitioners or surgeons…. Maybe we've learned that we don't have a comparative advantage in radiologists. Mankiw said, "The market is the best determinant of where the jobs should be," he said. 

September 24, 2004: Responding to an election­ season request by Demo­crats, the Congressional Bud­get Office estimated that some of Presi­dent Bush's budget policies, plus other costs would add $1.3 trillion to federal deficits over the next decade.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

And finally, this amazingly futuristic and optimistic Salvador Dali plan for Social Security that will stun the senses:

Social Security also must be restructured to let workers put part of their retirement funds in private accounts, the report argues. Doing so could add nearly $5 trillion to the national debt by 2036, the president's advisors note, but the additional borrowing would be repaid 20 years later and the program's long-term health would be more secure. 

Scott Walker takes Credit for Obama Administrations Economic Recovery, Opposed by Republicans!!!

When a state has a huge, massive tax revenue surplus, could it mean that many of the past austerity measures were completely unnecessary and just more image building by the Republican Party?

Yes. In fact, we still don't have enough money in the transportation fund, a job creator if there ever was one. The tweet to the right said it all.

Yet the chart provided here by the Wisconsin State Journal tells me Walker's failure to create jobs and attract new businesses means he's trying to bolster his reelection image on the nations general economic recovery, a policy his party opposes.

Despite the numbers that say the opposite, Walker might just get away with this whopper:

WSJ: Gov. Scott Walker said in a statement that the additional revenue “is a sign Wisconsin’s economy continues to grow and add jobs, and it’s more great news for the hardworking taxpayers.”

Lessons Not Learned: Tax cuts, rebates, election year slogans like "give the money back to taxpayers" has proven to be bad economics in the past, and true to GOP ideology, will be in our future. We didn't learn our lesson with Gov. Tommy Thompson's refund, or George W. Bush's big tax cut, which he said would not wipe out projected budget surpluses "as far as the eye could see?" Walker would rather keep his job than create jobs or manage the economy:

(Walker said,) “The additional revenue should be returned to taxpayers because it’s their money, and my administration will work with the Legislature to determine the most prudent course of action.”

Why can't state's strengthen their economic futures when times are good?  And what happens when the state needs that revenue during another economic downturn? Are voters this dumb? Yes. I can't believe I'm writing this, but Republican Sen. Scott Fitzgerald had a good idea:

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said his caucus would like to erase the 2015-17 structural deficit — which previously was estimated at $725 million. There is also support for additional tax cuts this year, rather than holding onto the money as part of larger tax reform in the next biennial budget.

Not in an election year folks. From WKOW:



Walker is also still feeding off Democratic Governor Doyle's policies. The details HERE at Rock Netroots.

Middle Class Obama Tax Cuts don't Pay for Themselves? Now they tell us.

If the GOP is setting up any future debate over spending cuts, they're either about to do the dumbest thing possible, or they're as wily as a fox. I'm thinking their dumb as rocks, and Rachel Maddow proves that while spelling it out below so even teabillies can understand it:



The best graph this year, so far, pointing out who gave us our debt:

Election was a vote to tax rich. Now, watch the cartoon.

Wisconsin cartoonist Mike Konopacki is back in this nice animation that attempts to pass along what is obvious to most of us, except those dense hapless conservative voters, we've got a wealth gap problem.

Tax the rich: An animated fairy tale, is narrated by Ed Asner, with animation by Mike Konopacki. Written and directed by Fred Glass for the California Federation of Teachers. An 8 minute video about how we arrived at this moment of poorly funded public services and widening economic inequality. Things go downhill in a happy and prosperous land after the rich decide they don't want to pay taxes anymore. They tell the people that there is no alternative, but the people aren't so sure. This land bears a startling resemblance to our land. For more info, www.cft.org.

Did I miss something.....?

...or did the party of "courage" and "leadership" just take a pass on "making the difficult decisions" on spending cuts? Like the 2010 GOP candidates and the Romney/Ryan ticket, Republicans don't have a detailed plan. Are conservative voters just a little curious about those austere cuts to social programs?

Looks like these would be emperors have no clothes.

Tax hike only pays for 6 days of government spending? We’re not that stupid.

We all have a way of tolerating really ridiculous talking points from our tea party Republican partisans, but one in particular stands out after getting an urgent call from my conservative friend.

According to the Washington Post's fact checkers, despite having some basis in fact, it really is stupid, as the title above suggests. So the Post decided to expand on the idea:

The GOP’s claim that a tax hike on the wealthy would pay for only a week of spending ...
Over a decade, the rate hikes and other provisions affecting the wealthy would raise $968 billion, which is essentially one year of the current deficit. Republicans proposed raising an estimated $50 billion per year by eliminating deductions and closing tax loopholes. That covers only 4.8 days of government spending.

Republican members of the committee also proposed trimming Medicare and Medicaid spending by about $28 billion per year. That would reduce government spending by only 2.7 days if you use the McConnell-McCarthy metric.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)  spokesman said: “We are not disputing that raising taxes would decrease the deficit. We are saying it would not generate nearly enough revenue to reverse the dangerous trajectory our government spending is on.”

These are valid points. But just because a rate hike wouldn’t solve the deficit problem on its own doesn’t mean lawmakers should take the option off the table entirely.

The Clown Show Continues, as Republicans Criticize Obama for selling tax increase “campaign style” to the People.

How unfair of Obama to ask the American voters to send a message to their elected politicians about how they feel about a tax on the wealthy. Oh, the horror of it all.

Even funnier? The GOP is now planning their own campaign tour, but not to the American public. Instead, they’re going to listen to select business owners.  After all, they’re the ones running the country now anyway.

Frustrated Republican leaders took a swipe Tuesday at President Obama, reminding him “the election is over” as he opts for a campaign-style strategy to sell his tax-hike proposal to middle-class America and small business owners – rather than deal face-to-face with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “The target of the president’s rallies should be the congressional Democrats who want to raise tax rates on small businesses rather than cut spending,” Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said Tuesday.

I don’t know, I think voters might have to send this message again; elections have consequences. That's what we're hearing here in Wisconsin all the time, as nearly half the state's voters who didn't like Scott Walker get steam rolled with his far right wing agenda. So...

Meanwhile, Republicans will make their own appeal to Americans … House Republicans will take their own message to small businesses across the country … to emphasize “the threat to jobs posed by congressional Democrats’ small business tax hike.”

It's not a small business tax. It's an income tax. Oh boy...

Republican Watchdog Bozell: Free Speech + Money trumps will of the people. Good to know...

Money in politics trumps public policy and governing.

Let’s face it, Republicans have a blind spot when it comes to the power and corrupting nature of money in politics. Heck, the conservative Supreme Court justices couldn't grasp the concept, and they’re part of the intellectual elite legislating from the bench.

So in the most blatant admission yet that money amplifies “free speech,” long time partisan pundit Brent Bozell is now threatening to withhold money from GOP campaigns if they compromise and raise taxes on the wealthy.

Fox News: Brent Bozell, founder and president of conservative watchdog group Media Research Center, sent a letter to Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus on Wednesday promising to advise conservative donors to shun the party if its leaders in Congress sign a deal to raise taxes, The Hill reports.

“Reince, it pains me to say this, but if the Republican Party breaks its word to the American people and goes along with President Obama with tax increases, it will have betrayed conservatives for the final time,” Bozell wrote. “I will make it my mission to ensure that every conservative donor to the Republican Party that I have worked with for the last three decades — and there are many and they have given tens of millions to Republican causes — gives not one penny more to the Republican Party or any member of Congress that votes for tax increases.”

Bozell also sent letters to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell earlier in the week, pushing them to reject Obama’s call to raise taxes on the wealthy. “…both sides are making opening gambits and the talk so far is alarming,” Bozell wrote.

Bozell thinks the minority party, should be in power, and that money trumps the will of the people. Simple message, isn't it? 

Historian Whines Tax Increase on the Rich waste of time and too Small. Dem's Conspire to Pit Tea Party against GOP.

They even have tabloid writers doing nonfiction in the tea party movement.

I couldn't resist passing along this “blame game” editorial by a conservative historian, that supposedly brings to light another Democratic conspiracy theory pitting tea party extremists against moderate Republicans. 

It’s almost comical to hear all the Republican excuses as to why we should not cut a $3 billion deduction for private jets, or allow a $67 billion yearly increase in taxes on the wealthy. It’s just not enough money to make a big difference in deficit reduction. Yet smaller amounts, measure in the millions (like funding for PBS), will magically wipe out the deficit.

With that in mind, check out this totally ridiculous editorial that starts with the false premise that any of this makes sense:

Fox News: Historian Arthur Herman: The goal of getting Republicans to agree to raise taxes is not to raise new revenues. After all, allowing the Bush tax rates to expire for wealthier Americans will bring in perhaps $67 billion a year; Warren Buffet’s plan for a thirty percent minimum tax rate for millionaires another $5 billion. That’s spit in the ocean compared to annual deficits of $1 trillion and counting–let alone a $16 trillion national debt.

The Democratic conspiracy theory is just more conservative projection:

The real goal is to detach Republicans from their Tea Party and conservative base, and wreck any chance of a repeat of 2010's GOP surge–not to mention recapturing the White House in 2016. What a Republican capitulation on taxes will really mean is a future of political defeats stretching out beyond the horizon, as a disheartened base either stays home or wages bitter Tea Party versus Establishment primary fights like the ones that cost them the Senate this year. They don’t just want to take away Republicans’ voters.

Yes, it’s the Democratic Party’s fault for pitting tea party extremists against moderate Republicans:

They also want to destroy their sense of honor and integrity. They know it will make Republicans more compliant for future deals, and more alienated than ever from the voters they will need if they ever get another chance to salvage what’s left of this country.

And isn't saving and taking back our country the most insane and authoritarian objective ever?

Bush Tax Cuts Inflate Deficit!!

If you've seen this chart, you got to see the new and improved easy to understand, even for a teabillies, version from Randi Rhodes:

Tight Presidential Race, Voters Long for Bush Economy again.

Washington Post reporter Ezra Klein asks the question everyone is asking, is Romney's economic policy the Bush policy. A fundamental question every voter should have an answer to, since the last 10 years worked out so well for us.The message Klein delivers is important. Remember, he's an economics reporter, not Ed Schultz (Ed is often right on the money as well):

Ryan, Conservatives Surprised by Questioning Press, Belittle it for Demanding Honesty.

CBS’s Nora O’Donnell has apparently decided enough is enough.

A pioneer of right wing lunacy, Michelle Malkin, featured on her blog this moment of conservative outrage by Doug Powers, who wrote: “Paul Ryan won’t refer to extending over ten-year-old code as ‘cutting taxes,’ CBS host scoffs.”

And well she should. Nora O’Donnell is doing what most reporters should be doing, treating Republican talking points like the ridiculous statements they usually are. Paul Ryan is a master at reframing and rewording simple truths into wonkish mumbo jumbo that the press interprets and genius. Far from it.  

Powers: Rep. Paul Ryan tried to explain to CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Norah O’Donnell why he doesn’t refer to extending the same tax rates that have been in place for over a decade as “tax cuts,” but with the election and Dem talking points in the balance, O’Donnell was having none of that:

Amazing isn't it. Temporary tax cuts that add to the deficit and should be allowed to expire, have now been extended so long now, that they're no longer tax cuts? Spin, con or just more Ryan condescension?

It's the Bush Tax Cuts Stupid!!

The numbers are in on who is offering the best deal for the poor, middle class and rich. It's not even close, and yet, the Mitt'ster is still doing well in the polls. Voting against ones own best interest is the name of the game, and the tea party has bought into the scheme completely.

Citizens for Tax Justice: New figures from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) compare Congressional Republicans’ proposal to extend all the Bush tax cuts to President Obama’s more limited proposal to extend most, but not all, of the tax cuts ... the richest one percent would pay $50,660 less under the GOP approach than under the President’s approach next year. 

The situation is the reverse for lower income groups ... in 2013 taxes for the poorest fifth of Americans would be cut by $120 on average under the Republican approach and by $270 on average under the President’s approach ... the poorest fifth of would pay $150 more on average under the Republican approach than under the President’s approach.  

There's more bad news coming our way if Republicans get what they want:

The President’s approach would cost $1 trillion dollars less (including interest payments on the resulting debt) over the next decade than the GOP approach,

Bush and Republican Congress Spent and doubled debt, now sending bill to Poor and Middle Class.

A quick look at the Bush years (click to enlarge):

Here's Rachel Maddow and Ezra Klein with a few more important details.

Missed Message: A tax increase by any other name is a tax increase.

How hard is this message; Republicans break their pledge, raise taxes on the middle class?

Even though the payroll tax holiday is ending, Republicans don’t consider that a tax increase. The Bush tax cut holiday is ending too, but that's different? The Bush tax cuts were passed under reconciliation, which means they have to expire, because they add to the deficit.  

In the story below, never once is breaking the no tax pledge used against the Republicans for raising taxes. It almost seems like the media wants to perpetuate the "no tax" party line ;myth:

NY Times: The No. 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl, expressed concern on Sunday about President Obama’s proposal to continue a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax … Senate Democrats want to offset the cost by increasing the tax on income over $1 million a year. Obama says that if Congress does not extend the tax cut, “the typical family’s taxes will go up $1,000 next year.”

Richard Durbin, said on “Fox News Sunday … “I can’t believe that at a time when working families in this country are struggling paycheck to paycheck,  the Republican position is, they’ll raise the payroll tax on working families. I think that just defies logic.”

Again, the message is easy and missed by everyone in the story: Republicans are breaking their pledge, raising taxes on the middle class.