Do tax breaks for the rich improve the economy and create jobs? A nonpartisan study says no!

Republican lawmakers don’t want you to hear about THIS:

The New York Times reported on Thursday that Senate Republicans applied pressure to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) in September, successfully persuading it to withdraw a report finding that lowering marginal tax rates for the wealthiest Americans had no effect on economic growth or job creation.

“The pressure applied to the research service comes amid a broader Republican effort to raise questions about research and statistics that were once trusted as nonpartisan and apolitical,” the Times reported. Democrats in Congress, however, have resurfaced the report and published it in full.

Republicans told the Times they had issues with the tone, wording and scope of the report, but they clearly objected most strongly to its findings, which undermine the governing fiscal philosophy of the party, that tax cuts for the wealthy will spur growth and benefit everybody.

GOP officials told The Times that the decision by the CRS came after a cooperative discussion, but Democrats have suggested that the move is part of a broader effort by Republicans to squelch legitimate research that runs counter to their economic principles.



  1. I guess when you submit a report to congress don’t use the words tax cuts for the rich when referring to tax cuts for the rich.

  2. Raising taxes on the rich also has no effect on the deficit.

  3. Good thing Romney is offering tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich, which will improve the economy and create jobs.

  4. Clinton’s tax rate reduced the deficit, Bush’s tax rate increased the deficit.

  5. Clinton controlled spending and had a booming economy.

    Bush spent wildly and had a good economy.

  6. Nef said: “Good thing Romney is offering tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich, which will improve the economy and create jobs.”

    You mean like Obama has been doing? So what you’re saying is, that has been working for Obama, so Romney is going to copy it.

  7. doc said: ” Bush spent wildly and had a good economy.”

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Do you write comedy doc. That’s funny. You’re right he spent wildly. But he didn’t have a good economy. He had to do 2 tax cuts to try to spur the economy. Those only worked for a short time and the economy continued its decline. Besides everything looks fine when you put it on the credit card. Then when the bill comes, the good times are over. That happened just when Obama was elected. Those tax cuts and GWB wild spending came due. Those tax cuts and his wild spending continue to add to the deficit. Obama had to continue those tax cuts to get the economy out of the ditch GWB put it in.
    Unemployment was 7.8% when GWB left office. Doesn’t sound like a good economy to me.

  8. Even better. Bush spent wildly and had a terrible economy.Thanks for making my point.

    Federal tax revenue is driven by economic growth. Terrorizing big business with new taxes and regulation will not stimulate growth and therefore will not maximize flow to the federal coffers.

  9. Luke Fredrickson

    In specific, which new taxes and regulations are going to “terrorize big business”? And please do not trot out your fiscal cliff squirrel again.

    Sane minds know there will certainly be another (albeit superficial) compromise to avoid the defense cuts and middle class tax increases that neither side wants.

  10. Luke Fredrickson

    If Romney, as “wealthy job-creator in chief” gets the tax cut he proposes, how will he personally use that money to create jobs? Shouldn’t he be the examplar of his economic theory?

    He has been enjoyed preferential tax rates for 10+ years and there is NO evidence he has contributed that subsidy to US job creation. None.

    I would certainly consider tax relief for wealthy investors in OUR economy. You know…for patriots.

  11. Luke Fredrickson

    Sry, meant enjoying, not enjoyed…

  12. Here is a start Luke.

    Coincidentally, the hospital where I am working today just announced major shakeups directly related to the ACA. Employee pension contributions were halted. None of the employees will receive COLA this year and multiple positions were eliminated.

    But don’t worry, that won’t impact access to care at all.


  13. Reagan was forced to raise taxes because his tax cuts couldn’t brake even. Like Reagan Bush’s tax cuts along with his misadventure in Iraq caused the economy to spiral out of control. All facts the Republicans can’t seem to accept.

  14. Luke Fredrickson

    How is the ACA making those things happen doc? Or are your execs scapegoating a law that is only partially in effect?

    And is the ACA the only example of “terrorizing big business” you’ve got for me? If so, pretty weak sauce.

  15. I think that question can easily be answered by looking back at the last decade.

    The answer is an emphatic HELL NO.

    There is only one way to create jobs. Create a demand for a companies products or services. The best way to create demand is to put money into the hands of people who will spend it, the consumers.

    So, if someone were really interested in creating jobs they would give tax breaks to consumers and not the wealthy.

    Consumers are the real job creators.

  16. Sorry, I meant company’s not companies.

  17. The article I linked has examples and a study which shows how many jobs have been lost because of the looming fiscal cliff. (FYI it is double what have been created in the entire 4 years of the Obama administration.)

    The specifics on the ACA are this:

    Today, I am working at a smaller hospital (about 100 beds) that has a high population of governmental patients (Medicare/Medicaid). The administration has calculated that they stand to lose 3 million dollars next year due to decreasing reimbursement for these patients. They already run on a very thin margin and need to “right size” their operational/capital budget so that they don’t lose money.

    As a result, capital expenditures (new equipment, upgraded equipment etc) have been suspended and multiple HR moves have been made. This includes the changes I mentioned above as well as *gasp* eliminating 10% of their executive overhead either via demotions or eliminations of positions.

    Fortunately, there has been no change (that I am aware of) that will directly limit access of patients to care, i.e. no programs or services have been eliminated.

    The changes may make care less convenient or less cutting edge and certainly the front line employees may be less cheery about coming to work, but given all the changes that are coming down the pike, that’s the way things are going to go, whether we like it or not.

  18. Todd,

    then you should vote for Mitt Romney.

  19. Luke Fredrickson

    Wow, so limiting Medicare reimbusements is “terrorizing big business”?

    I am so glad you are in favor of Romney’s plan to do the opposite – increase Medicare reimbursements – and thus defeat this terrorist threat.

    In fact, Romney favors no such thing, as you know. He would force this mandate on the states, with even LESS money to cover the care your hospital provide.

    And BTW, did they give you specifics on how much the reimbursements will decrease? Or are they just limiting the increase?

    One other note…running a small hospital so entirely dependent on government-subsidized care is a BAD business model. Has been, and will be no matter who wins this election.

  20. Liberals are so funny (and not in a ha ha way).

    -It is gut level common sense that if you take away money from a business (increase taxes or decrease revenue) the business will either have to decrease overhead or increase prices. In a non health care business you can raise prices to increase revenue. In a health care business you can try to do that too and in the past hospitals have done that to great success by shifting costs to non-governmental payers.

    However governmental payers (and to an ever increasing extent commercial insurance payers) do not allow that. If you want to stay viable you must cut overhead.

    This is a rural hospital. It is the only hospital in town and it takes care of the patients who come through the doors.

    -Reimbursement will decrease 3 million actual dollars next year.

    -The big business and medicare discussions are separate. Read my initial link if you want to about how the threat of the fiscal cliff has cost us 1 million jobs, but don’t comment on it if you haven’t read it.

  21. Let’s all shed a tear for doc and his hospital that is losing money. Now let’s compare that to HCA (Hospital Corporation of America), whose biggest shareholder is none other than Bain Capital. Bain Capital owned HCA before it went public. HCA’s earnings are up 500% for the 3rd quarter. For the first nine months this year profits are $1.29 billion. Not hardly a money losing company. In 2002 HCA lost a $2 billion settlement to the government for Medicare fraud. They now have a pending lawsuit for price fixing. That has been conveniently been put off until next year, so there wouldn’t be a connection to Romney before the election. Romney is no longer connected to Bain, but HCA is using the policies of Bain, which were put in place when Romney was with Bain.

    Do you understand why medical care and health insurance premiums are going through the roof? The ACA will restrict health insurance companies to 20% profit.

  22. I would save your tears for the employees who lost their jobs or their benefits cut.

    FYI- most hospitals are not for profit, including the one I have referenced.


  23. Now doc is worried about employees losing benefits? So you won’t be voting for the ridiculous pension “reform” bill then?

    Thanks for the advice on Romney. No thanks, I know which side my bread is buttered on and I will be voting for Mr Obama again.

  24. Which pension reform bill?

    Something in Illinois maybe?

    I don’t get to vote for bills, just candidates.

  25. doc said: “FYI- most hospitals are not for profit, including the one I have referenced.”

    This link shows how non-profit hospitals operate. They are not non-profit. They obtain tax exempt status, but cut services to charity, and cut workers to increase profits. That shifts costs to the local governments. They make huge profits by not having to pay taxes. http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13698/california_hospitals_not_for_profit_but_not_for_the_poor/

  26. Doc, sorry, it’s a constitutional amendment not a bill.

    It is CA49 the so-called pension “reform” amendment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *