That's merely lowering the bar. Prior to the tax-cuts, the country ran four years of surpluses and the
CBO projected in January 2001, a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion for the 2002–2011 period. That means that CBO was projecting surpluses under the Clinton tax policies -- not "only" a $166 billion deficit and a peak $400 bil deficit.
I could care less about CBO crystal ball projections they are historically wrong and inaccurate. The fall in revenue as a result of the 2000 slowdown which turned into a recession in March of 2000 wiped out the surpluses. The Bush tax rate cuts were barely in effect by 2004...
July 1, 2001 1% Reduction in rates in all tax brackets above the 15% bracket. Since this is effective on July 1, 2001, each bracket only receives a 1/2% reduction in 2001 with the other 1/2% reduction effective January 1, 2002. Utilization of this negates the necessity of having to do straddle computations for a mid-year change in tax rates as had to be done with earlier tax law changes.
January 1, 2002 All brackets except the "Initial Bracket Amount" bracket are adjusted for inflation.
All Brackets above the 15% bracket are reduced by the second 1/2 of the 1% rate reduction.
January 1, 2003 All brackets except the "Initial Bracket Amount" bracket are adjusted for inflation.
Rate Changes in 2001 Tax Act
then they were fully implimented and then revenues took off and hit record increases. That is what had us heading back to surplus.
And the Clinton tax rate increased SLOWED revenue growth and tbe economy and almost cost him reelection along with losing the Congress.
ear - Revenues - % chng
1990 1,032.0 4.1%
1991 1,055.0 2.2%
1992 1,091.2 3.4% <- NopeClinton tax increase. Nope
1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993
1994 1,258.6 9.0%
1995 1,351.8 7.4% <-"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf
1996 1,453.1 7.5%
1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
1998 1,721.7 9.0%
1999 1,827.5 6.1%
2000 2,025.2 10.8%
2001 1,991.1 -2%
2002 1,853.1 -7%
2003 1,782.3 -4% Bush tax rate cuts accelerated
2004 1,880.1 5%
2005 2,153.6 15%
2006 2,406.9 12%
2007 2,568.0 7%
2008 2,524.0 -2%
2009 2,105.0 -17%
2010 2,162.7 3%
2011 2,303.5 7%
2012 2,445.0 6%
2013 2,775.1 13%
2014 3,021.5 9%
2015 3,249.9 8%
Note the Clinton came into office on strong revenue growth. Note his tax rate increases deferred additonal revenues till 1995 and 1996. Note how once the higher rates were in effect amd even with the deffered revenues tax revenue growth slowed.
In a way you have to wonder what point there even is in trying to argue here. But anyway, look: it’s been a long time since Morning in America. We’ve now been through four two-term administrations, two of which raised taxes, the other of which cut them. Which looks like it presided over a more vibrant economy?
To look solely at presidential administration versus presidential administration is folly because you ignore Congress which controls the budget and fiscal policy.
There is no evidence that cutting taxes from levels that are not confiscatory increases economic growth or increases revenue. None.
There is plenty but what are you saying taxt rates do not effect tax revenues?
