Reagan Economic Advisor Debunks the Biggest Tax Myth

Former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett only needs a minute to debunk the prevailing notion that keeping taxes lower on rich people creates growth and jobs.

Low taxes on the rich do NOT result in growth and jobs. That's a myth.

Well, actually it's a lie. An expensive lie paid for by the rich who had their taxes lowered by G W Bush, which contributed to the economic crisis. A lie perpetuated by the Romney campaign, possibly because Romney and Ryan are extremely rich and prefer to have their tax rate lower than ordinary working people.

Higher taxes on the rich do NOT result in economic decline or recession or loss of jobs or growth. Quite the opposite. Reagan raised taxes in 1982 and the economy did better. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy boomed. It was the longest peacetime boom in American history.

So saying low taxes on rich people is a good idea is a myth. A lie. A big lie. A dangerous lie.

Think about it. This isn't the opinion of some socialist elitist European professor. It's the evidence based argument of Ronald Reagan's economic adviser, Bruce Bartlett.

Why aren't the pundits and the newspeople on TV listening to him or considering the mass of evidence? Maybe because they are rich and prefer to have their taxes lowered.

Share this information with your Republican or independent brother-in-law. It may persuade him. Or it may cause his head to explode, which would make him ineligible to vote in this election.

Republicans Are Bad For Business

According to this story in The New Republic, business leaders are starting to doubt their allegiance to the Republican Party.

Reason: the Republicans' willingness to endanger the entire economy to score political points, as happened last summer in the insane debt ceiling stand-off, which wound up lowering America's credit rating and affecting the interest rates we all pay. Uncertainty is the enemy of business, and Republicans are using uncertainty as a political weapon.

Besides, recent decades have shown Democratic presidencies are far better for American business than Republican ones.

Bloomberg reports that private sector jobs increase far more under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

"Since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.

"Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. Through April, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector paychecks per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans."

Business Week reports that investment dollars have yielded five times greater returns across the past five decades of Democratic presidencies than the same period's Republican presidents.

"$1,000 invested in a hypothetical S&P 500 tracking fund beginning when JFK was president and measured only during subsequent Democratic presidencies would have yielded $10,920 by the time the market closed yesterday. Alternatively, $1,000 invested when Richard Nixon was president and measured only during Republican presidencies would have yielded $2,087 on the last day of George W. Bush’s presidency."

USNews reports that Democratic presidents beat Republicans on 11 of 12 economic indicators. The source is a new book written by a business lawyer and the head of a financial services company. When we started writing, we did not cherry pick any of the data," says Deitrick, who said he knew only the stock market data when he began and "had no idea where the rest of the chips would fall."

"It was overwhelming and surprising to see the Democrats win on almost all of the economic indicators," said one of the authors.