First, the jobs:
Now, the tax revenues:
So, there it is, end of argument. But, not exactly. Since the Bush tax cuts expire next year, which means that ALL readers of this blog are going to see their tax rates increase (not just the "rich"), then we should expect an explosion of new jobs and revenue. Will Krugman make that claim?
No, he won't. Krugman will argue that the economic conditions are different now than they were during the 1990s, when "Depression Economics" rules had not kicked in. However, it seems to me that he wants it both ways. He is claiming the following syllogism:
- Clinton raised taxes during the 1990s, and Bush cut tax rates in 2001;
- Job growth was greater during the 1990s than during Bush's presidency, and tax revenues increased at a faster rate during the 1990s than they did a decade later;
- Therefore, raising taxes is better than cutting taxes.
Furthermore, Krugman totally ignores the economic background (which he likes to bring in when he is discussing his view of "Depression Economics"). In 2000, the Clinton stock bubble burst, and shortly thereafter, there were the 9/11 attacks. As soon as he took office, George W. Bush had to deal with a recession (that Krugman's political allies were claiming was the result of the proposed tax rate cuts), which definitely would have changed the economic landscape.
There is another point. Whenever Krugman brings up tax revenues during the Bush administration, he fails to note that there was a recession when Bush took office, a recession that would have cut into what taxes would have been collected. What he does is to claim that the ENTIRE fall in the collection rates of revenues in those early Bush years was due to cuts in tax rates, and that job growth during that time was not as good as it was during the Clinton years because of the tax rate cuts. That is a most curious omission, and I wonder why he does not do the same thing for the current Obama administration.
So, Krugman uses the current economic situation to justify the government's imposing a mountain of debt on taxpayers, but then he ignores the economic background when discussing the Clinton and Bush years. This is classic "Heads I Win, Tails you Lose" argumentation. Not that Krugman nor his groupies care.