With respect to this quote from the article:
Tax collections fell off a cliff after the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
You know, something unanticipated happened in 2001. It's reasonable to believe that something had a severe adverse economic impact. If the idea of tax cuts is that it will cause more economic activity and thereby generate more tax revenue, it's kind of hard to say that such an idea was "disproven" by a economic downturn when something unanticipated and historically unprecedented happens to cause an economic downturn. Under such circumstances you can say that revenues declined. But you can't say that they would not have declined even more if the tax cuts hadn't been put into place. You don't really know one way or another. You can have economists offer opinions on what may have happened without the tax cuts one way or another. But you can't know.
Now look at the graphic below. Notice that there is an uptick in revenue during 2004 through 2007. So how is it that the authors are said "Tax collections fell off the cliff" after the 2003 tax cuts? Here, assuming the revenue numbers are correct, we CAN know. And what we know from those numbers is that revenues CLIMBED immediately after 2003. And they continued to climb until, it looks to me, about the time we had the big economic crash around 2008.
So once gain, liberal pundits are shown to be totally full of crap. As though people aren't going to actually look at the graphic they presented and see if it really supports what they say...which this one does not with respect to 2003...and have memories good enough to remember things like the 9/11/2001 attacks being associated with a dramatic economic downturn. Also as though people can't read graphs like the below that indicates that the declining trend in revenue that ended around 2004 started before George W. Bush's tax cuts were effected.
Mothers, don't let your babies grow up to take people like Bill Moyers and those who would associate with him seriously.
