From John Kerry’s “Lifetime” commercial:
“He broke with his own party to support a balanced budget. Then in the 1990’s, cast the decisive vote that created 20 million jobs.”
I thought mentioning Kerry’s voting record was not allowed- every time a Republican does it, they are accused of questioning his patriotism. At any rate, if raising taxes is the key, then why don’t we double our taxes and create 40 million jobs?
Talk amongst yourselves. BTW- Is John Kerry crediting Congressional Republicans for the Clinton era balanced budget? Sure sounds like it.
Also, the economy is rebounding, and it is just killing the Democrats:
“Any step forward in the job market is good news for America’s workers, but let’s be clear: we still have a long way to go to get America working again. America is still in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression, with 2.2 million private-sector jobs lost in the Bush presidency, 8.1 million Americans still looking for work, and long-term unemployment at the highest level in twenty years.
Jay
What decisive vote is he talking about? If it was Clinton’s 1993 budget with the tax increases, the decisive vote was cast by Bob Kerrey.
Maybe he got himself confused with the former Nebraska Senator.
Kimmitt
You know, the record is fairly complex — Clinton raises taxes in 1993 and touches off the largest boom in postwar history. Bush slashes taxes in 2001 and becomes the first President since Hoover to preside over a net job loss.
It’s obviously more complicated than “tax cuts = economy good” and “tax increases = economy bad.”
John Cole
Kimmitt- You and I agree- it is more complicated than that, which is why I was making fun of the Kerry commercial.
Steverino
You know, the record is fairly complex — Clinton raises taxes in 1993 and touches off the largest boom in postwar history.
You’ve got to be kidding. The economic expansion actually started in Q2 1991, long before Clinton took office. To state that Clinton’s tax increase “touched off” a boom is to overlook historical facts.
Chris P
I hate to burst any Democratic bubbles (OK, not really, but anyway) but here’s a little something from my favorite non-partisan site FactCheck.org about Kerry’s decisive vote that supposedly created 20 million jobs (emphasis is theirs):
“One of the ads makes the dubious claim that Kerry “cast a decisive vote that created 20 million new jobs.” That’s a reference to Kerry’s vote for the 1993 Clinton economic package, which contained a large tax increase and some spending cuts aimed at reducing chronic federal deficits. It’s true that the Clinton package passed the Senate by a single vote when Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaker. In that sense, EVERY Democrat who voted for the measure has an equal claim to casting the “decisive” vote.”
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=179
Just because he cast A vote doesn’t mean he cast THE vote.
Furthermore:
“But it is going too far to say that Clinton’s package alone — let alone Kerry’s vote — was responsible for the historic economic boom. Clinton himself often acknowledged this, for example during a campaign appearance with Vice President Al Gore on August 15, 2000. Speaking of lowered unemployment, he said it was “not just us; nothing we did in Washington could have accomplished that…”
I will frankly admit that Bush has made some equally dubious claims, but c’mon…Kerry’s ONE vote created 20 million jobs?! Gimme a break!
Kimmitt
“The economic expansion actually started in Q2 1991, long before Clinton took office. To state that Clinton’s tax increase “touched off” a boom is to overlook historical facts.”
The expansion began in 1991, but it was so long and so strong because of Rubinomics.
CadillaqJaq
So Kerry cast the “decisive” vote and Al Gore invented the Internet… Oy, progressive rascals all.
Kimmitt
Every senator who voted for that bill cast the decisive vote.
Of course, there were many more decisive votes cast by Democrats than by Republicans, but we all know how much the Republicans dislike either fiscal sanity or a proven method of generating economic growth.
Sav
Those Rubinomics petered out after the Dot-Com boom expired. Thus, the ecomomy began heading down hill 10 months before Clinton left office.
Kimmitt
The Clinton Administration abandoned its commitment to balanced budgets ten months before it left office? Fascinating. And what color is the sky on your planet?
Fresh Air
The argument that balanced budgets are responsible for the boom is specious. Rubinomics claimed (still claims?) that balanced budgets = lower interest rates. Hence, the reverse must also be true, No? So here we sit with the lowest interest rates in 40+ years and guess what? WE’RE RUNNING A DEFICIT! So much for Rubinomics.
Clinton did one thing right: he reappointed Alan Greenspan. Beyond that, about all you can say is he got the hell out of the way.
BTW, read Krauthammer’s Time column regarding the limited power of presidents to control economies.
Kimmitt
Krauthammer’s a hack and a liar, and as a graduate student in the field, I know more about economics than he ever will.
“The argument that balanced budgets are responsible for the boom is specious. Rubinomics claimed (still claims?) that balanced budgets = lower interest rates.”
Rubinomics also claims that balanced budgets = lower risk premia and higher asset prices, a claim which was most certainly borne out. That said, deficits induce higher interest rates. So does economic growth. In the absence of growth, the Fed has no problem pushing rates down, but once the economy starts recovering (despite Bush’s best efforts), rates are going to jump, because I guarantee you that the deficit is most certainly not going to decrease as long as we have a Republican in the White House. The plan is to bankrupt the Federal Government, and it’s working.
Fresh Air
Kimmitt:
Krauthammer’s a hack and liar, huh? I guess the Pulitzer Prize Committee’s standards have been permanently lowered since Walter Duranty got one. His article is well-done, and frankly expresses a sentiment that the electorate would do well to absorb, no matter who is in the White House.
OF COURSE interest rates are going to move up as the economy moves into third and fourth gear. The whole idea is to control inflation. You remember inflation, don’t you? It was the bugaboo of the Carter administration.
Claiming that balanced budgets equal higher asset prices is ludicrous. Balanced budgets provide a squishy and incremental benefit to an economy. How balanced? one might ask. Do we need to sell $100 billion in T-Bonds or $500 billion?
What would the timing of these sales be? What is the appetitite of the foreign investors who hold our securities? Etc. You mean to tell me the reason my house has increased in value by 50 percent over the past three years is because of the annual budget? I thought it was due to lower interest rates, which, again, have appeared in the ABSENCE of a balanced budget.
And you know, as a student of economics, as a percentage of GDP our debt is not high, and indeed much lower than most countries around the world.
Moreover, since you obviously support the Democrat (i.e. Keynesian) approach, kindly explain how additional stimulus is inconsistent with what Bush has done?
(And don’t rant about income tax cuts, which are only a miniscule portion of the current deficit, and directly responsible for the dramatic growth we are now seeing. You don’t have to believe in the Laffer Curve to know that income tax cuts help the economy.)
Lastly, geeze I am sure the president is trying to “bankrupt the Federal Government.” That’s a great way to get re-elected and ensure a conservative legacy.
Why do liberals have to resort to hyperbole all the time? You might have a principled argument (I don’t buy it), but inane comments like that one don’t help you.
And since you brought up your qualifications: My advice is grow up and get a job. After you’ve paid off your student loans and start paying taxes at the 40-percent bracket for a while, you will appreciate the conservative point of view.
As long as you remain in school, you’ll never get it.
kelly
Thanks for the fresh air, Fresh Air. I’ve been dropping by this blog for some time now and have wanted to refute some of the drivel Kimmit spouts but have been too busy at work to respond.
“Krauthammer’s a hack and a liar, and as a graduate student in the field I know more about economics than he ever will.”
That, besides bringing a great big belly laugh from me, really says it all. Lil’ Kimmit’s a big shot grad student all ready to share the vast wealth of his inexperience.
Get back to us when you get a real job (not some puny TA) and start making decent dough, i.e., earning at least above the FICA limit (c’mon, a grad student in econ knows what that number is.)
Until then, thanks for the laughs.
Kimmitt
“OF COURSE interest rates are going to move up as the economy moves into third and fourth gear. The whole idea is to control inflation. You remember inflation, don’t you? It was the bugaboo of the Carter administration.”
And it wasn’t a problem under Clinton. Since I was discussing Clinton’s record and not Carter’s, your statement is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
“And you know, as a student of economics, as a percentage of GDP our debt is not high, and indeed much lower than most countries around the world.”
Yes, but our debt owed to foreign holders is relatively high as a percentage of GDP. This indicates that we are tapping out our domestic savings and producing a “crowding out” effect. Further, you must be aware that we will be enduring a demographic bulge starting in 2010 or so which will massively increase Federal obligations.
“Moreover, since you obviously support the Democrat (i.e. Keynesian) approach, kindly explain how additional stimulus is inconsistent with what Bush has done?”
What absurdity. Bush’s tax cuts are for the explicit purpose of “starving the beast” — making it impossible for the Federal govenrment to meet its obligations to seniors and the indigent. They have nothing to do with stimulus, and you know it. Their structure bears this out; if the Administration were interested in economic stimulus, it would be increasing consumer demand through a reduction in the payroll tax, instead of antimeritocratic reforms such as ending the estate tax.
“And since you brought up your qualifications: My advice is grow up and get a job. After you’ve paid off your student loans and start paying taxes at the 40-percent bracket for a while, you will appreciate the conservative point of view.”
Ah, yes. The ancient cry of the political conservative — “I’ve got mine, so fuck you.”
Thanks, my wife and I paid taxes happily at those brackets for a few years between college and graduate school. Some people are actually capable of looking beyond their selfish interests.
It’s bad enough that you pretend that you know something about economics. But assuming that you know my career arc is particularly insulting. I just hope you’re young enough to live through the double-digit inflation we’ll enjoy in the 2010’s as a result of this idiocy.
Chris P
Kimmitt, you HAPPILY gave 40% of your hard-earned pay to the government?! What are you planning to do with your graduate degree in economics? I hope it’s not engineering the future course of U.S tax policy. Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.
Kimmitt
“First of all, ad hominem means “to the man,” if I had attacked YOU (which I sort of did later), THAT would be an ad hominem attack. My comment about Jimmy Carter was an aside.”
It was an ad hominem attack on the Democratic Party as an institution, of course.
“crowding out refers to the position (oft-held by conservatives) that too much government spending “crowds out” private investment.”
…no. “crowding out” refers to the idea that too much government borrowing pushes out private borrowing (and thereby restricts the availability of credit).
“Don’t forget, though, that the payroll tax is largely borne by employers, which are considered EVIL by progressive Democrats and therefore not worthy of tax relief.”
Don’t tell me you’re advocating the flypaper theory of tax incidence now.
“Kimmitt, you HAPPILY gave 40% of your hard-earned pay to the government?! What are you planning to do with your graduate degree in economics? I hope it’s not engineering the future course of U.S tax policy.”
I had enough for myself, and I was getting a lot of services for my money. I had a military that defended me, a Federal government that was committed to retiring the debt, a grandfather who was receiving the Social Security he’d paid for his entire life — and was happy and independent because of it, a grandmother who recieved two years of cancer treatments she would otherwise never have been able to afford, Federal student loans so that others could follow in my footsteps through college and to good jobs . . . I was paying a lot, but I had a lot and I was getting a lot. Since my job was with a nonprofit that provided services to the working poor, I had a pretty good dose of perspective every day; they also needed the services provided by the state, and it seemed particularly benighted and selfish to deny them when I was so comfortable.
“Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.”
Jefferson, maybe. But Hamilton was more realistic.
Christopher J. Arndt
A “to the man” attack on an institution.
You certain can be an economics major, because we can certainly rule out you being an English major.
CJA