Liz Peek at FoxNews.com congratulates me for writing about the importance of economic growth. So in the spirit of maximizing growth, I want to pose a question: Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?
Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7.
This actually gets to a point I've been trying to make for a while...
If the Bush tax cuts were "good", then why were the 2000s (even if you cut the decade off before the Great Recession) the slowest decade for growth in the post-WW2 era?