NBC's Gregory: Idea That Tax Hikes Hurt Economy 'One of the Falsehoods That's Peddled in Washington'
In an interview with Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, host David Gregory dismissed concerns that raising taxes could harm the economy: "But the notion that tax cuts or tax increases somehow impact economic growth, we know historically that's simply not the case....Isn't that one of the falsehoods that's peddled in Washington?" [Audio available here]
Gregory cited supposed evidence for his argument: "President Clinton raised taxes during boom times. President Bush lowered taxes did not spur great job creation." In reality, over 8 million jobs were created in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. And about Clinton's tax hikes, Norquist pointed out to Gregory: "If you take a look at when you cut marginal tax rates, the strong growth in the last six years of the '90s started the day the Republicans captured the House and Senate. Didn't happen in the first two years, certainly didn't happen with the tax increase..." [View video after the jump]
Gregory followed up by touting poll numbers in support of raising taxes: "Here's the reality in terms of how Americans feel about taxes and, indeed, how Republicans feel about it, which seems to be at odds to where you are. Marist polling out earlier this month indicates 53 percent of Republicans agree, yes, taxes should be raised on higher income Americans as part of a debt deal."
On the November 20 Meet the Press, Gregory asserted to Arizona Senator Jon Kyl: "The Bush tax cuts...real deficit hawks, many of them happening to be Republicans....said let them all expire for everybody. For the rich, for the middle class. If you really want to get serious about the deficit, let the Bush tax cuts expire for everybody."
At the top of Sunday's interview, Gregory played a sound bite of former Senator and deficit commission co-chair Alan Simpson slamming Norquist: "...megalomaniac, egomaniac, whatever you want to call him....he ought to run for president because that would be his platform, no taxes under any situation, even if your country goes to hell." Gregory wondered: "What do you say to that?"
Norquist proceeded to list occasions when Republicans agreed to tax increases after being promised large spending cuts and how Democrats later prevented such cutting. He concluded: "Twice taxes were increased, spending was not reduced at all. So the American people aren't falling for that again."
Gregory then insisted: "But, Mr. Norquist, don't times change? Isn't that what Alan Simpson is saying? I think his conservative bona fides are pretty well established, and he's saying, 'Look, times change. There requires a balanced approach, and in this kind of economy, after a financial crisis, revenues have to be part of the picture.'"
Later, after citing the latest polling on the issue, Gregory proclaimed that opposition to raising taxes "is also against the backdrop of history of Ronald Reagan raising taxes, a conservative icon." Norquist reiterated: "Yeah, and my point was that when Reagan did it in '82 as part of a deal, the Democrats never actually cut the spending. Taxes went up, spending didn't go down."
Here is a transcript of Gregory's November 27 exchange with Norquist:
10:44AM ET
DAVID GREGORY: Let me turn to the man now in the middle of the debate over taxes and spending, anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform.
Mr. Norquist, welcome to Meet the Press. Your name has been mentioned prominently throughout the week here in Washington. And in profiles done of you, Alan Simpson, who we've been talking about, the head of the Simpson-Bowles commission, he was interviewed in a profile about you for 60 Minutes. And this is what he said.
ALAN SIMPSON: He may well be the most powerful man in America today. So, if that's what he wants, he's got it. You know, he, megalomaniac, egomaniac, whatever you want to call him, if that's his goal, he's damned near there. And he ought to run for president because that would be his platform, no taxes under any situation, even if your country goes to hell.
GREGORY: What do you say to that?
GROVER NORQUIST: Well, look, the tax issue is a very important issue. It's odd some people have tried to personalize it, but the American people have had their taxes raised in the past. In 1982 the Democrats said, "Gee, if you let us raise taxes, we'll cut spending $3 for every dollar of tax increase." Taxes were raised, spending didn't go down, spending went up.
Same thing happened in 1990, although George Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, was promised $2 in phony spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Taxes went up, spending actually increased. It wasn't cut. Twice the Democrats have said, "Let's raise taxes and cut spending." Twice taxes were increased, spending was not reduced at all. So the American people aren't falling for that again. We know that if you raise taxes the politicians in Washington simply spend it. And they can promise anything they want, but Lucy and the football, Charlie Brown just isn't going to fall for this again.
GREGORY: But, Mr. Norquist, don't times change? Isn't that what Alan Simpson is saying? I think his conservative bona fides are pretty well established, and he's saying, "Look, times change. There requires a balanced approach, and in this kind of economy, after a financial crisis, revenues have to be part of the picture."
NORQUIST: No. Raising taxes slows the economy. Raising taxes kills jobs. Government spending does not create jobs. The idea that if you take $1 out of the economy and then – from somebody who earned it, either through debt or through taxes, and give it to somebody who's politically connected that there are more dollars around? That if you stand on one side of the lake and put a bucket into the lake and walk around to the other side in front of the TV cameras, pour the bucket back into the lake and announce you're stimulating the lake to great depths. We just wasted $800 billion on stimulus spending that added to debt that killed jobs. There are fewer jobs than before.
GREGORY: But the notion, but the notion that tax cuts or tax increases somehow impact economic growth, we know historically that's simply not the case. President Clinton raised taxes during boom times. President Bush lowered taxes did not spur great job creation. Isn't that one of the falsehoods that's peddled in Washington?
NORQUIST: No. If you take a look at when you cut marginal tax rates, the strong growth in the last six years of the '90s started the day the Republicans captured the House and Senate. Didn't happen in the first two years, certainly didn't happen with the tax increase, and there was a cut of the capital gains tax that helped stimulate economic growth there.
The Bush tax cuts 2001 were not designed to be stimulative to the economy. There were a lot of tax credits in there, they weren't real reductions in rates. The 2003 rate reductions you had on cap gains and others, that gave you four years of strong economic growth that lasted until the Democrats won the House and Senate, and you knew those tax cuts were going away.
GREGORY: Here's the reality in terms of how Americans feel about taxes and, indeed, how Republicans feel about it, which seems to be at odds to where you are. Marist polling out earlier this month indicates 53 percent of Republicans agree, yes, taxes should be raised on higher income Americans as part of a debt deal. I mean, this is also against the backdrop of history of Ronald Reagan raising taxes, a conservative icon.
NORQUIST: Yeah, and my point was that when Reagan did it in '82 as part of a deal, the Democrats never actually cut the spending. Taxes went up, spending didn't go down. It's just for a number of reasons tax increases are what politicians do rather than reform government, rather than make tough decisions.
(...)
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
"Falsehoods"
Submitted by mad53PA on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:14pm.
Another Falsehood that's peddled:
Gregory and NBC are "neutral" in all of this.
Again
Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 4:27pm.
As well as "David Gregory knows his ass from first base"
Republicans will increase taxes
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:15pm.
If the Republicans do indeed control congress and the Presidency after the 2012 election then increased tax revenue will begin coming to Washington ...because of increased business activity.
Saw about 2 min of this Sunday AM - TURNED OFF
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:25pm.
Gregory: What a lying traitor to our Nation. Networks who hire traitors, God willing, will go under. May they be hung by their own treason & deceit. Occupy that LSM!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Again laziness
Submitted by octavioj on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:27pm.
It has been widely debated, and even some big tax proponents acknowledge, that tax increases do indeed hurt growth. Here is a paper by the OECD that states it clearly:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/3/41000592.pdf
From the summary: "Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes. Recurrent taxes on immovable property appear to have the least impact. A revenue neutral growth-oriented tax reform would, therefore, be to shift part of the revenue base from income taxes to less distortive taxes such as recurrent taxes on immovable property or consumption."
That is precisely what some Republicans have been proposing but they get no traction with the media because they are not "soaking the rich"...
"That is precisely what some
Submitted by ThePickle on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:52pm.
"That is precisely what some Republicans have been proposing but they get no traction with the media because they are not "soaking the rich"..."
And that is precisely why these types of fact based arguments never seem to work on Libs. Their lives are controlled by envy and hate two emotional states that are not susceptible to a reasoned argument.
They want these things because they somehow feel they have been wronged by those that have achieved more in their lives, as if their failure is a direct result of someone else's success.
They have been fed a lie about some imaginary "pie" and how they are not getting their "fair share" of said pie because some, always conveniently nebulous, "other guy" is keeping their "fair share" for himself.
They have been schooled to believe that they are not lazy, greedy, parasites demanding their share of the fruits of another's labor. They have been taught that they are "entitled" to these things. That these things are their "right".
Try as one might to introduce facts into any argument with a liberal the fact remains that more times than not you will be met with an emotional reaction. You will be vilified and pilloried but rarely will you be proven wrong. In short presenting facts to a liberal during the course of an argument is an exercise in utter futility. Even if they do accept your facts they will "bitterly cling" to their ideals about the way things "should be". and how if we (Republicans) would just embrace their ideals we could usher in a "Utopia" wherein we all have what we "need" and "The Government" will always "take care of" the people.
"In short presenting facts to
Submitted by Smartypants on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 3:28pm.
"In short presenting facts to a liberal during the course of an argument is an exercise in utter futility."
Congratulations on coming to this epiphany. It took me years to realize this, after spending enormous time debating issues with liberals and getting absolutely nowhere with it, only to be countered with emotional arguments and anecdotal stories. Arguing with a committed liberal is like arguing with someone about their favorite color, because so much of what they believe is true is based on that simple of a notion.
Hey it wasn't until a few years ago
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 11:46pm.
that I FOUND OUT that I am a racist. Imagine, after 50 years of never having been called this I am informed of this because I asked how is this guy that appears out of nowhere running for president?
True dat
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 5:00pm.
Even if they do accept your facts they will "bitterly cling" to their ideals about the way things "should be".
An excellent example of that type of thinking from the left is Obama himself, here.
it's how I got banned at Al Reuters
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:33pm.
I got so overdosed on the completely stupid inability of libtards to admit to actual real world facts and real world history that I started just making fun of them. Apparently openly demonstrating the stupidity of libtards and mocking them is forbidden over there. I'm so not shocked.
It's just that one has hopes that a poster that spews up some silliness IS possibly just malinformed and that pointing out facts that counter lies and BS will at least cause them to think about it and eventually find their way back to the real world.
Alas, the odds are not in favor of such. *sigh* [ "Sancho, saddle my horse I see another windmill." ]
No worries
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:54pm.
Ridiculing libtards is encouraged by me. In-fact, I will help!
David, why don't you take on Anthropometric Climate Change?
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:42pm.
That is one of the falsehoods, but the tax item is not. Try this one on and tell me how it works:
If tax increases do not hurt economic activity, then all Democrats should immediately call for 99% tax rate across all income levels. But the economic activity will not abate, right?
When I took economics, I learned about the ability of the private investment (e.g. banking) vs government investment being able to expand the economy. The government gave about a 50% expansion, while the bank could give about a 500% expansion with the same amount of money (without strings, of course).
It is so good that Gregory is a "pretty boy" because he has no intellect to win his way in the world.
Dennis Prager
With a bonus
Submitted by KornKing on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:58pm.
What some call "unintended" consequences(which anyone above idiot intelligence level knows full well are intended): More government spending means more government employees, with the accompanying addl long term baggage, all financed by DECREASING overall revenue.
I wonder if Gregory remembers Christina Romer.
Submitted by Par for the Course on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 2:55pm.
Christina Romer, a former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, wrote a paper, The Macroecononic effects of Tax Changes: Estimates base on a new measure of fiscal shocks. In the conlcusion, starting on page 40:
First, they continue to
Submitted by Smartypants on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 3:29pm.
First, they continue to misrepresent the economy that was present during most of GW Bush's term in office. Even after 9/11, which was supposed to ruin the economy for years, the growth experienced after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented was strong. The unemployment rate and job creation numbers speak for themselves. The media has tried to paint what happened in 2008 as fully a result of Bush's economic policies, which is a blatant canard. Second, they try and tell us that tax increases do not hurt the economy but, even if we accept that false notion, it begs the question: Are tax increases necessarily good for the economy? With the abundant evidence that tax cuts actually lead to increased government revenue and tax increases have historically led to decreased government revenue, what is the real reason for wanting to raise taxes? This is the question that should have been asked.
Wicked RULER over a poor people
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 4:37pm.
This seems to apply:
Proverbs 28:15-16 English Standard Version (ESV)
15 Like a roaring lion or a charging bear
is a wicked ruler over a poor people.
16 A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor,
but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
THE LIBERTARIAN TAX DILEMMA
Submitted by Osamas Pajamas on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 1:03am.
Libertarians generally take the view that we should "starve the beast," firstly on moral grounds, and secondly to foster capital accumulation in private hands, to grow the private economy.
By lowering tax rates, we generate more revenue for government --- the beast which we are trying to starve --- and, therefore, one might argue that we should "raise" taxes --- because this crime will deny greater revenue to government.
I think I'll go eat some worms.
what alternate universe history is he referring to?
Submitted by wizardjr on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 6:24pm.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
GREGORY: Here's the reality
Submitted by Reaver on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 7:48pm.
GREGORY: Here's the reality in terms of how Americans feel about taxes and, indeed, how Republicans feel about it, which seems to be at odds to where you are. Marist polling out earlier this month indicates 53 percent of Republicans agree, yes, taxes should be raised on higher income Americans as part of a debt deal. I mean, this is also against the backdrop of history of Ronald Reagan raising taxes, a conservative icon.
David Gregory, meet David Gregory –
REP. BACHMANN: That's right, you don't mess with the full faith and credit of the United States. That's why I introduced the bill that I did that would have prevented any form of default. It's President Obama who failed to put any sort of a plan forward. That's what led to uncertainty. I was at another business here in, in west Des Moines, Competitive Edge, and, and the owner of that company told me that their problem right now is, again, uncertainty and the fact that they didn't know what was going to happen with interest rates, they don't know what's going to happen with Obamacare, and so they're on hold right now for hiring. The president is not sending the right signals. And again, let me just answer your question because you said, well, all the people in Washington said we had to raise the debt ceiling, all the people out in America said don't raise the debt ceiling. That's the problem with Washington.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But, but why does that make it...
REP. BACHMANN: They're not listening to the people.
MR. GREGORY: ...why does it make it the right thing to do? I mean..
.
REP. BACHMANN: Well, because, because, because representatives are supposed to represent the people that they serve. The people that they're serving are saying, "You guys don't have it figured out. Stop spending money you don't have."
MR. GREGORY: But so public opinion will be the sole determinant of how you vote on a particular issue?
So just to summarize, public opinion is good except when it’s bad. What a partisan hack.
Good catch on Gregory's
Submitted by HypocriteHater on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 11:00pm.
Good catch on Gregory's discrepancy!
I love how Norquist gives an insightful response to Gregory's inane question and the best Gregory could do is wave his stupid polling data around about the "reality" of how Americans feel about taxes. He had nothing to say about the reality of Norquists' statements, probably because Gregory didn't understand one word of what was said, so what better time than to drag out the opinion polls!
TAX INCREASES VERSUS ECONOMIC GROWTH
Submitted by Osamas Pajamas on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 12:38am.
I'm trying to recall a quote from Ludwig von Mises or possibly Murray Rothbard --- something far more felicitous and succinct than what follows --- to the effect that "we are not required to study the subject of economics, but if we do not care to investigate its principles, then no one is obliged to pay attention to our pronouncements on that subject." It was a brief, powerful remark, which, alas, has leaked out of my brain. Anyone got a clue?
Gregory does it again! His
Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 1:48am.
Gregory does it again! His knowledge of economics is without question, genius! I guess I'll have to throw away my degree in economics because this Einstein has figured it all out! wow, I 've been wrong all these years...
NBC should be proud
Submitted by NotFondOfLibs on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 8:43am.
The folks at NBC should be proud that they have a pompous oaf in David Gregory who is a match for his counterpart nitwit at CBS, Bob Schieffer. Gregory has never let facts get in the way of an accusation against a Republicans or an issue that liberals favor and Republicans oppose.
If there should be a civil war, God forbid,
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 11/29/2011 - 12:46pm.
These lying LSM guys (Gregory et al) are going to be on the other side and will be responsible for causing and starting it. They have no clue what damage they do. However, the people have been awoken and now these pokes just make us all the more determined to precipitate change WE want.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.