Ah, the fallacy of the Clinton-era tax rates


As the “fiscal cliff” gets closer, Democrats are continuing their argument that a higher tax rate on the wealthy will bring back the good old days under President Clinton. As I outlined yesterday afternoon for the Tea Party Patriots, however, this comparison has a number of major flaws and fallacies:

First, the simple fact is that President Clinton spent much less than President Obama. While the Fiscal Year 2012 numbers are not out yet, some perspective is available: the federal budget went up by 60% in inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars between 2001 (the last year of a Clinton budget) and 2010.

As Michael Medved noted: on November 24, raising taxes only on the wealthy wouldn’t institute the same tax system as seen in the 1990s — the left often fails to point out that most of the much-maligned Bush tax cuts went to those making under $250,000 annually. So if President Obama wants the same tax rates that allegedly helped give us surpluses in the 1990s, he should be willing to raise tax rates on all Americans.

Third, the Clinton-era economy ended with a recession in 2000 and a deficit of over $100 billion, meaning the land of milk and honey ended rather nastily. Of course, proponents of big government never talk about these two facts.

The technology boom fueled the good economy under Bill Clinton (and, of course, a Republican Congress), something Washington never could have envisioned or launched. Much like the housing boom that crashed a few years later, though, that boom ended in a recession. So if Clinton is going to get undeserved credit for the technology boom, he should get undeserved blame for the recession.

Fifth, Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, before being overridden by his Republican colleagues in Congress. Which means one of the major deficit reduction laws under President Clinton was opposed by Clinton.

Sixth, the major liberal policy pushed by President Clinton — HillaryCare — never became law. After the GOP takeover of the House and Senate, Clinton became a very moderate President. So for Bill Clinton to travel the country talking about his success as President, and how those successes would be relevant in today’s world with the very liberal current resident of the White House, is very intellectually dishonest.

Seventh, many proponents of centralized control of our lives say the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a major cause of the 2008 financial crash, as it deregulated many aspects of the financial industry. Assuming for the moment that these people are correct, Gramm-Leach-Bliley was signed into law by Bill Clinton (and voted for by Vice President Joe Biden, then a Senator) and backed by Clinton staffer (and future Obama staffer) Lawrence Summers.

The fact is that Bill Clinton was a liberal President forced to be moderate, so using him as a standard is to use one of the least principle-bound Presidents America has had in quite some time. Using him as a standard also ignores the basic facts surrounding his Presidency’s tax rates, and the good economy that took place despite them.


Related Articles

4

The news from Cali isn’t getting any better

“Riverside’s Hillcrest High: What if they built a school and nobody got to go?” A $105 million high school–yes,: $105 million–will

14

Larry Summers Economic Memo To Obama: The Stimulus Was Never About Stimulus

The New Yorker has a lengthy piece on Barack Obama and his rise to power (which never seems to mention

5

Jesse Jackson Calls for Looting Pension Funds

As Margaret Thatcher observed, sooner or later socialists run out of other people’s money. But the looting won’t stop until