More evidence that this isn’t 1994
The economy is in tough shape and every historic trend suggests that that’s bad news for Democrats, the party in power.
But a new spate of polls and surveys out this week suggests that comparisons to the tidal wave election of 1994, when the Republican Party swept to power, are shaky at best.
The reasons are pretty simple: This time around, American voters are mad at everybody.
Here’s a list, from the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, of the most popular and well-liked political institutions in descending order.
The number reflects “total positive” sentiment:
Michelle Obama (50%), Barack Obama (46%), the Democratic Party (33%), the tea party movement (30%), the Republican Party (24%), Nancy Pelosi (21%), Harry Reid (10%).
Obviously, these are tough numbers for the Democrats, when the two top congressional leaders are that low. This is a congressional election, after all.
But remarkably, the GOP has seen its ratings continue to slide as well. Here’s how the Wall Street Journal summed it up:
The sour national mood appears all-encompassing and is dragging down ratings for the GOP too, suggesting voters above all are disenchanted with the political establishment in Washington.
Just 24% express positive feelings about the Republican Party, a new low in the 21-year history of the Journal’s survey.
If nothing else, this survey makes it clear just how important the tea party movement has become for the modern Republican Party, propping up its fortunes and giving a desperately needed shot of charisma and caffeine.
But it also makes clear just how far the GOP itself has to go in terms of rebranding and redefining itself, regardless of November’s outcome.
Tags: election10
.jpg)
Those of us on the right want the Republican party to be rebranded. It has been hijacked by moderates, and losing because of it.
The Republican party needs to stand for lower taxes and smaller government.
As far as the economic outlook goes, it will be very similar to what Jonathan Edwards described as, “every 100 points down on the Dow and we pick up another seat in the house”.
Except in this case, it will be the “R’s” turn.
i think this notion of rebranding is really essential to understanding the rise of the tea party. as a commenter at tpm recently put it,
a little off topic, but I think you’re on to why the “Tea Party” was created, i.e. to give conservatives a way to rally with the Republican brand name in ruins, nothing more. They’re the Altria of politics.
that aside, i never cease to be amazed by the disconnect from reality exhibited by the gop rump. this time we have jdm asserting that the gop “has been hijacked by moderates, and losing because of it.”
whereas here on planet earth the gop has moved consistently, inexorably rightward since the 70’s, ronald reagan wouldn’t be conservative enough for today’s party, the ongoing purge of “moderate” republicans continues apace, and the party got creamed in 2006 and 2008 because of george bush’s disastrous foreign and economic policies, essentially all of which was embraced by conservatives at the time it was instituted.
I can appreciate that conservatives want lower taxes and smaller government. I just wish they would provide specifics on how they would go about making government smaller and lowering taxes. And, really explain how lower taxes will pay for themselves. And, if you are going to use the “trickle down” explanation, please show some hard data that “trickle down” actually works.
PNElba:
The evidence is too prevalent. If I knew how to post a chart here, it would easily show the direct correlation between lowering taxes and increasing economic activity and government revenue.
Yes. Government revenue increases every time taxes were lowered because of the resulting increase in economic activity. The opposite is also true.
We have before us hard evidence that raising taxes slows economic growth. Thank you Obama.
So my first inclination is that any amount of evidence presented will be poo-poo’ed away.
However, let’s do this. Here is a Newsweek article about Governor Christie. Let’s just watch the economic numbers in NJ for a year. While the rest of the country tanks, what will lower taxes and smaller government do to NJ?
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/24/is-chris-christie-the-best-governor-in-america.html
Here is an excerpt:
In short, Christie is governing like a one-termer, enacting every conservative proposal he campaigned on and mounting, as Weigel puts it, “the most energetic challenge to the liberal consensus [anyone] can remember.”
See you in a year. I’ll stand (or fall) on how NJ makes out.
I am for getting rid of income tax at both the State and Federal level. Besides collecting income taxes yields about 50 cents on the dollar. Whereas, property tax yeilds about 90 cents on the dollar. Sales tax I am not sure about. It obviously costs something to collect a dollar but I’m not sure what. Next we need to recognize we can only get money from people who have some. Getting rid of exceptions for age would help. I don’t care if you’re 18 or 81 If you own property buy property or sell property you need to be taxed. Simple easy to collect. Finally I would like to incentivize work. For example; if you have a job(any job even an unpaid job) you have health care. Would this be enough to generate all the gov’t services we need? Probably not. But the income tax system makes liars out of people and people hide lots and lots of income.
Vote Green!
The Republicans have been long controlled by corporations. The Democrats, since Clinton, have let themselves be bought by corporations too. The Tea Party is a bunch of extremists given far more media attention than any other activist group. Basically you have two groups that have no ideas and one group that has terrible ideas and the one group with good ideas (Green Party) gets no attention from the corporate media. This explains the rise of the Tea Party extremists. Politics abhors a vacuum. Unfortunately that means that any ideas, even horrible, intellectually disingenuous ones, will beat no ideas.
How about if our elected officials begged for donations to the government instead of begging for donations to run for office?
You want smaller government? Then you need a smaller country? How about if we pass a law that charges men and women when they become parents instead of offering them tax deductions?
How about if We the People could vote on the State and Federal budgets directly instead of our elected representatives voting on the budget?
What would our budget votes be if we could say yes to one government agency and no to another?
I’m sorry but I think the problems are systemic and can not be solved by any one party.
Pete,
The problem is that too many want smaller government in theory but not when it actually affects them. It’s always programs that help someone else that should be cut. My project is worthy; someone else’s identical project is “pork.” A great example of this hypocrisy was hearing Tea Partier Doug Hoffman rationalize why underutilized prisons in the North Country as well as Ft. Drum shouldn’t be the subject of budget cuts. Another is hearing all these supposed small government conservative public officials arguing in favor of keeping the big government prisons open… not because they’re needed but because they would ruin the local economy. Where should prison system cuts be made instead? In other parts of the state, of course! NIMBY.
We can have a smaller government and a bigger country because the country is more than just government.
Government has taken over services that the private sector is much more efficient at.
Grow the private sector and shrink the government. Lower taxes at the same time. It really is possible, and works every time.
The problem is, it takes power away from the elitists who like to tell the rest of us how to live.
JDM, I don’t need to see a chart. I know how to interpret data. But, how about posting some references? And please make the references from economic reports by economists or some other academic source (not Newsweek).
For instance, in Principles of Economics by Karl Case & Ray Fair they write: The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts. I guess that statement could be some kind of liberal lie, but textbooks typically cite data and references to back up their statements.
I’ve had no luck using google to find evidence that tax cuts improve economic activity.
When the Supreme Court ruled that money equals speech we were all doomed. We’re all up against the Powerman and the Money-go-round.
PNElba:
“I’ve had no luck using google to find evidence that tax cuts improve economic activity.”
Dow Jones 1980: 753
Dow Jones 2000: 11500
Nuff said.
JDM, sorry to be a pest but that is not “nuff said”, it’s just simplistic thinking. I was hoping for more.
From 1980 to 2000 taxes were increased by Reagan, Bush I and Clinton.
Dow Jones Jan 3, 1992 3201
Clinton tax increase
Dow Jones Jan 7, 2000 11522
But even I don’t believe it is that simple.
From 1980 to 2000, Congress was in charge of spending.
Reagan was in charge of revenue.
And simple is happy :)
Well, look at it this way. If you have $100. in your paycheck and the Fed gov’t takes $30. and the state takes $15.00 and the county takes $7.00 you now only have $48.00 to pay your bills with, purchase you food and clothing, fuel, other taxes, health insurance, homeowners insurance, car insurance, maybe save a little.
OTH, if the Fed gov’t only took $10. and the state only took $10. and sales tax at the county remained the same $7.00 you’d have $73.00 to spend which would give you a lot more cash flow to maybe make more purchases which would increase the sales tax revenue, would it not? And if we were talking some guy whose paycheck was $100K instead of $100.00 then he’d have money left over to invest, hire new employees or buy that second home in Placid, would he not? Of course we’d have to cut spending and that’ the sacred cow no one seems willing to touch. No matter what we do it’s going to hurt, sooner or later.
JDM brings up another point- gov’t competing with private industry. IN the town I grew up in there used to be 6 ski areas within a 15 mile radius or so. Today there is one State owned area. Now the state owned area employs lots of people and it’s great boon to the local economy. But there are 5 other areas that, to the best of my knowledge, are history at best. IOW, the state ran 5 other businesses out with tax payer dollars. I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time, but instead of that area having 6 ski areas and becoming something like Vermonts ski section, it’s just one state owned area and few people travel to stay in town, they stay elsewhere or commute home.
How has that made things better?
greg mankiw, chair of the council of economic advisors from 2003-2005 under bush, has compared the notion that tax cuts increase revenue to a “snake oil salesman trying to sell a miracle cure.”
andrew samwick, another cea chairman under bush, has said with regard to the bush tax cuts (my emphasis) “You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know that the first effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. The ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.”
from a 2007 article on the bush tax cuts: “Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves–and were never intended to.”
here’s a chart detailing tax measures enacted during the reagan years, which shows that the centerpiece 1981 tax cut was a big revenue loser.
oops, sorry, i forgot to actually put my emphasis in the second one! how about:
“You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know that the first effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. The ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.“
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters nationwide say that tax cuts generally help the economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that only 17% disagree and believe that tax cuts will hurt the economy.
Thoughtful people?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/january_2009/57_say_tax_cuts_will_help_economy
H-T keyword “thoughtful” You are absolutely correct. So, get rid of personal income tax. Then there is nothing to fight over.
JDM, rasmussen? clearly you are not thoughtful.
Betty:
When you can’t dispute the facts, attack the messenger.
Having looked into Rassmussen’s polling techniques I choose not to put much faith in them. By the way, I don’t understand your problem I don’t want any personal income tax at all. That is a major tax cut, right, 100% cut. You and 57%of the US should be all for that.
Economics by polling! Great idea. But don’t stop there, let’s do everything by polling. Nuke Iran? Sure, if 50.1% say so. Impeach Obama. Repeal the 14th Amendment. Hey, we could have a lot of fun with this!
hermit:
I did look at your wikipedia chart that you referenced. There is a dispute on the page.
“The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. ” Feb 2010.
So, we can all bash Rasmussen and we can all bash wikipedia, and we end up with no useful knowledge to support any of our claims.
jdm, are you some kind of joker? first you try to refute the judgments of highly credentialed conservative economists and rigorous economic research with a poll of the general public, never mind that it’s a rasmussen poll. then you don’t even do that right, as the question polled isn’t even the original one under consideration. and finally you try to discredit my citation of wikipedia by noting that one of the sections in the article is under dispute, but it’s a different section than the one i linked to. just to remove any doubt whatsoever, the data in the chart comes from this office of tax analysis paper (see page 17).
i mean, really, send in the clowns.
hermit:
You really go attack mode when challenged. If your facts are correct, they will stand on their own merit, and our discourse can be civil. Lighten up.
First of all, the tax analysis paper you reference is valid, and supports your point.
Secondly, the wikipedia challenge, as far as I can tell, applies to the section where the chart is located. Right or wrong, a reader has to take that into account, if wikipedia is their source.
Thirdly, I find the only way to succeed in making a point on this blog is to have good facts and good sources.
Name calling comes to easy from some that hang out here, and tends to be the way some hope to win arguments. Some try to make themselves look tall by cutting off the legs of others.
The CBO (www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf ) offers chart with actual dollar amounts of revenue collected for the federal budget (billions $$). I will post the numbers here as well. Some charts use percentage of revenues as compared to total GDP (which shows negative increase). But look at real dollars collected.
Reagan:
1980 517
1981 599
1982 617
1983 600
1984 666
1985 734
1986 769
1987 854
1988 909
Bush 1
1989 991
1990 1032
1991 1055
1992 1091
Clinton
1993 1154
1994 1258
1995 1351
1996 1453
1997 1579
1998 1722
1999 1827
2000 2025
My point stands. Tax cuts increase revenue to the government.
During the Clinton Era there were tax hikes! Remember how that ruined the economy of the 90’s JDM?
“Read my lips; no new taxes.” Now who was it who said that?
That’s fine, all. My point still stands. Reagan’s tax cuts increased government tax revenue.
Oh, by the way, Clinton modestly raised taxes 1993 – 1996, and the economy was already in growth mode.
Clinton modestly cut taxes in 1997. Notice the continued increase in tax revenue.
Once again, the larger the country, the larger the government. The more people you have under one government, the more demands are made upon the government. Of course, there is a breaking point.
Rome grew and grew and grew, then broke apart. The USSR grew and grew and grew, then broke apart.
Even now, Russia struggles to hold its self together as does China and the so called European Union.
If you look around the word, the trend is to break up countries into smaller and smaller units of my brother and me. Tribalism. This is what is going on whenever the “ethnic” code word is used. You see it here when people talk about this or that community, this or that culture, this or that political party, etc., etc. etc.
Lower taxes? Great idea but as Brian pointed out, keep my beloved programs but get rid of the ones I don’t want or use.
I think the problem we have here in the good, old US of A is that we have become spoiled. Everyone wants to live large at the expense of someone else. What’s the saying? “He who has the most toys when he dies wins?” Oh, really. I guess the hell with “Live free or die.”
Taxes? Sure. Let’s get rid of them. But the question remains. How do you pay for the things you want and demand? Roads? Schools? Energy? Defense? Criminal Justice system? Water? Sewer? Air Traffic Control? Hospitals? My lord but the list does go on and on, and I haven’t even scratched the surface.
There’s many economists who believe tax cuts increase revenue in the long term. At the same time, there’s economists who dispute such a notion. What is agreed upon is that you can’t exponentially increase gov’t expenses while at the same time instituting huge tax cuts, i.e. cutting revenue.
To use a real life scenario, let’s start two wars, create an extremely expensive new entitlement program commonly called the Medicare drug plan (since god forbid we actually negotiate drug prices with big pharm) create a hugely expensive and ineffectual intelligence apparatus, and piss more money down the drain by creating the Homeland Security dept. And give the Pentagon a blank check for at least a decade. All this while instituting a very large tax cut that disproportionally benefits the top 5% of the population.
What’s become apparent is that no amount of tax cuts could have spurred the economy enough to raise revenues to cover the tab for all these things. But our elected officials could still tell their constituents that they now have a drug plan, have fought the terrorists to a stand still (even though we are no more secure now than on 911), and Fort Drum was able to build a new bar in its latest on post housing (because there’s apparently no entertainment of post)…..As posted earlier, it’s all a sham. Neither party has any answers on how to really fix the mess we’re in and both share the blame of “Big Government.”
I don’t mean to get into the middle of the JDM argument, but there are those that claim that Reagans tax cuts and trickle down theory are what fueled the 90’s tech boom.
Just a brick to add to the wall.
Let me ask those of you on the taxes are good side a question- Why? Why do you support the idea of forcing people to give up their earnings to the gov’t to redistribute as they see fit? Taxes ARE legal theft, no arguing that. We submit to the idea in order to support our gov’t and the services it allegedly provides. But I simply cannot understand why some people seem to want to see everyone pay more taxes. I mean, when will it be enough for you?
Bret, I for one want no personal income tax at all on a State of Federal level. Also, taxation is legal. To call it legal theft makes no sense. Saying it is legal theft does nothing but get people angry. Again the tax code is way to large and should be done away with. tax property and services.
“Why? Why do you support the idea of forcing people to give up their earnings to the gov’t to redistribute as they see fit?”
Because we have a nation, a government, and a society that is supposed to promote the general welfare. Paying taxes is patriotic and moral. We elected people to represent us and if we don’t like the the laws they enact, we can elect someone else or go before the courts. It’s all there in the Constitution.
Of course, it would all work much better if we could keep the big money bribes out of the electorial system. It might also work better if States got back, in proportion, what they send to the federal government. It’s ironic that the “Blue” state’s tax dollars are subsidizing many of the “Red” states.
And, I agree, there are some who argue that Reagans tax cuts and “trickle down theory” are what fueled the 90’s tech boom. But, let’s remember that Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all raised taxes during that time period as well.
Clearly taxes were raised by Bush I and Clinton. 90’s went BOOM no doubt. I am still against any form of personal income tax.
Betty, but it IS theft. Or maybe extortion would be a better word. If people started thinking in those terms and realized how much of their income is devoted to taxes there’d be a lot more people involved in the system expressing their views. That woudl be a good thing IMO. Everyone bad mouthed the oil companies when gas was pushing $5.00 a gallon, but something like a $1.10 of that was STATE taxes. My memory may be off a bit on the numbers, but it was a very significant amount. When was the last time you thought about that?
P- Patriotic and moral? Holy smokes, sounds like a Ted Kennedy sound bite. Okay, I can agree to a certain point. The problem is that we are no longer promoting the general welfare. What out taxes are doing is paying interest on debt for pork, failed programs like The Great Society, social services that often are duplicated at multiple levels, wars that need to end, social medical programs that are terribly inefficient and that cause doctors to stop accepting patients in those programs…..the list is long. You may not agree with some of what I included, but bridges to no where, bottomless money pits and the “gimmee mines” attitude are siphoning off the money we “contribute”.
Isn’t it time the endless outflow of money ended and we started seeing some fiscal discipline?
Bret,no problem with tax on gasoline and the like. Put all the tax you want on soda, beer, cigs, clothes, guns, ammo, cars, planes trains,automobiles,toll roads go ahead even property. That way I can choose. GET Rid of income tax where people lie, cheat and steal.
jdm,
i did get a bit overly fired up, and i apologize for that. but the guts of my 1:18 comment was plainly focused on the “substantive” points made in your earlier comments. and i’m sorry if this is harsh, but i really do think those points are terrible and they deserve every bit of ridicule that comes their way. i mean, a poll, really!
as for wikipedia, the chart i linked to is located in section 2 (“economic record”), subsection 1 (“tax receipts”). neither of these sections bear any kind of disclaimer. the disclaimer you quoted pertains to section 4 (“evaluation”). it has nothing to do with what i cited. all you’ve done is to kick up a cloud of dust to try to discredit my point and establish some kind of false equivalence between wikipedia and rasmussen. not to hurt your feelings, but this is baloney and it needs to be called out as such.
your point about reagan’s tax cuts causing increased revenue is, once more, total baloney. just have a look at the chart you cited. in 1972 revenues went up. in 1973 revenues went up. in 1974 revenues went up. in 1975 revenues went up. in 1976 revenues went up. in 1977 revenues went up. in 1978 revenues went up. in 1979 revenues went up. in 1980 revenues went up. in 1981 revenues went up. in 1982 revenues went up.
so how can you say reagan’s 1981 tax cut caused revenues to go up in subsequent years when revenues had increased each previous year since 1972? i’m sorry if this again hurts your feelings, but this is a completely preposterous logical error.
to go further, the fact of the matter is that in a growing economy, tax revenues will generally go up year-over-year unless there are really substantial cuts to tax rates. in the context of this discussion, the right question to ask about a tax cut is, will the tax cut result in the government taking in more or less revenue than it would have otherwise?
and while it’s hard to ever really prove anything in macroeconomics, i think the preponderance of evidence tells us that the reagan tax cuts resulted in less revenue than there otherwise would have. and that the bush tax cuts resulted in less revenue than there otherwise would have been. that if we repealed the bush tax cuts, the budget deficit would get better not worse.
Income taxes are legal for one simple reason. The government prints the money. If it didn’t, we would not have anything to tax.
Property taxes are legal for one simple reason. The government owns all the land. When you buy land, what you are really doing is renting it from the Federal government which allows the states, counties and towns to be responsible for the land and to collect taxes (rent) to provide services.
The most unfair of all taxes are sales taxes and excise taxes. Here your money is being taxed twice. It is also the most regressive because it hits low and moderate incomes the hardest and does not allow for any deductions.
Pete, I did not say income tax was illegal. It is clearly legal at both state and federal levels. I simply believe it should be abolished since it leads to fraud. this I believe is clear and obvious to anyone. To agree with income taxes is to agree with breaking the law. How much do you cheat the gov’t out of Pete?(Sorry if you were hurt by that). As for sales tax being regressive, I agree. However at least I have the choice of whether or not I buy and contribute to the gov’t coffers. You see I’m all about choice.
Pete I disagree that sales taxes are the most regressive taxes. Excise taxes, yes. But with sales tax at least one has an option. There is no option with income tax- the harder you work, the more you are punished.
Bret, How “hard” you work has nothing to do with how much you pay in income tax. Income tax has everything to do with taxpayers lying cheating and committing fraud to avoid their legal requirement.I say abolish it.
hermit:
I apologize for misreading the wikipedia chart and misreporting what it said.
How can form a causal relationship between Reagan tax cuts and increased tax revenues?
Two things. First, he cut taxes and the tax revenue increased. So, at least on paper, there is a direct correlation.
Second, the idea of cutting taxes stimulates economic activity. If you get $800 a pay check, after taxes, and suddenly, without a raise or review or anything, you start getting $900, then the inclination is that you go out and buy something.
Multiply that times every working American, and you an economy that takes off like a blow torch. It happens every time taxes are cut.
President Obama cut payroll taxes for millions. When will the economy take off? Or does the economy only take off when Republicans cut taxes?
PNElba:
He did not. He changed the withholding tables. Different.
All his administration did was temporarily require the government to withhold less, even though your tax liability didn’t change.
Mean trick to pull on people when tax time comes around.
Lowering real tax liability rates, especially capital gains tax rates, but also personal income tax rates is the real engine.
Don’t reply with tax cuts for the rich. Anybody who has a Federal Withholding will be positively affected.
JDM, you keep making my case for me. Abolish personal income tax and we will all be in your shining city on a hill. Put all the tax you want on anything else and I’ll use my freedom of choice to make my life. 1 car garage fine, 20 car garage significantly more(notice I did not say 20 times more. Maybe more than 20 times, maybe less)
JDM, sorry, for a minute there I forgot that Democrats cannot cut taxes. Only Republicans can do that. I guess that extra money you see in your pay check is just in your imagination. Oh but my tax liability didn’t change!!! Well hell, if over half the people in the USA don’t pay federal income taxes, as conservatives remind us everyday, what difference does a change in tax liability make to those individuals. I’m an individual that does pay federal income taxes and I got back more last year when compared with the last several years. And that was with a stagnant income.