Anyways, a few words about the economy during the Bush years. The centerpiece of Bush's economic platform would most likely be the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which were supposed to deliver robust growth. In this post, I'll look at how his numbers measure up against the postwar average. Just to be clear, these numbers are all measuring the period between the official end of the 2001 recession (March 2001) to December 2007, just prior to the financial crisis.
I don't have time to go too in-depth about this stuff, but this chart basically sums up just about everything that needs to be said:
"I mean this as a serious question, not a rhetorical one: Given this history, why should we believe that the Bush tax cuts were pro-growth?Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.The theory for why tax cuts should create growth and jobs is a strong one. When people are allowed to keep more of each dollar they earn, they are likely to work longer and harder. The uncertainty is the magnitude of this effect. With everything else that’s happening in a $15 trillion economy, how large of an effect on growth do tax cuts have?"