Yet more McCain supply-side "straight talk"

Jon Chait catches the latest supply-side flim-flam from John McCain:

Mr. McCain proclaimed himself a believer in the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government by spurring economic growth. “Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes,” Mr. McCain told supporters gathered here under a tent in a driving rain. “Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues. And is there anybody here that needs to have their taxes increased?”

The campaign did not put a dollar figure on the cost of the tax cut. Asked later how he would pay for it, Mr. McCain said that he would start by eliminating pork-barrel spending.

As Chait notes, the statement is obviously false yet it was not fact-checked by the New York Times, which reported it without comment. They have little excuse -- McCain and the other Republican presidential candidates has made similar statements numerous times before. Here's a timeline I compiled from my previous posts to illustrate the point (it is posted permanently here and will be updated as the campaign continues):

Rudy 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." (11/29/07).

"Remember, you collect more money with lower taxes than you do with higher taxes. I reduced the income tax in New York by twenty-four percent, and I was collecting forty percent more revenues from the lower tax than the higher tax" (9/28/07).

"I regard myself as a supply-sider for sure. I mean, watched Ronald Reagan do it and learned it, saw it work. Taxes get reduced, more revenue come in" (3/27/07).

John McCain
"Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes. Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues" (1/17/08).

"I would suggest that most economists agree that there was an increase in revenues... associated with the tax cuts" (12/5/07).

"Tax cuts—tax cuts increase revenues. The tax cuts, the revenues increased because of it. The spending outpaced the tax cuts" (11/27/07).

"Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues. So what’s the argument for increasing taxes? If you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts?" (3/5/07).

Mitt Romney
"If you lower taxes enough, you create more growth. And if you create growth, you get more jobs. You get more jobs, more people are paying taxes. You get more taxes paid, the government has more money by charging lower tax rates" (3/29/07).

Fred Thompson
"The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

"In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half" (4/14/07).

Even President Bush's economists disagree. So when are reporters going to start speaking up?

(PS McCain's quote doesn't really make sense -- presumably he is saying not to listen to the "siren song" of raising taxes, not cutting them. And just to point out the obvious, he doesn't need to explain how to pay for his tax cut if it will increase revenues. Even answering the question exposes the absurdity of his claim.)

Comments

[clm]

constantly referencing the president's economists no longer adds anything to these arguments.

[The Objective Historian]

Hi Brendan,

You have alerted me to the speciousness of the supply siders claims. But I thought of this; is the data accurate enough to provide evidence as conclusive as you think it is. What if, but for Bush's tax cuts in 2003 (and Reagan's in 1982 forward), the economy would have entered into a recession or depression. If you hypothesize that, then theoretically, tax cuts might raise revenue RELATIVE TO WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, i.e., relative to depression-era tax revenues. I don't think there is an economist in the world that would deny that at tax cut that thwarted an inchoate depression would be one that indeed did "raise tax reveune" all other things being equal. Do I have a point?

TOH