…we have a big deficit problem. We have a great jobs problem. Better to put the money into deficit reduction creating jobs than give it to the millionaires and billionaires.
Schumer ran two phrases together as if doing so made sense:
- “put the money into deficit reduction,” and
- “creating jobs.”
His obvious motive was to deceive the audience in 5 ways:
- Schumer’s operating assumption, that a higher tax rate will produce more revenue, is not the verifiable certainty he wants you to believe it is. As the chart shows, tax revenue from the rich declined from 2000 to 2003 when the tax rates Obama wants to reimpose were in effect. Then, after the lower, Bush tax rates were enacted, tax revenue from the rich went up, not down, for four years. Due to the financial crisis and recession, revenue from all tax brackets decreased in 2008, the latest statistics available from the IRS.
- The phrase “deficit reduction,” when spoken by Charles Schumer is a meaningless slogan. He has always supported massive spending initiatives, without any consideration of the deficit. If he did care about the deficit he would not have supported President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus, enacted 22 months ago on the promise that – somehow – it would create jobs.
- There is no logical argument leading to the conclusion that a tax increase on high income people – who, as business owners and investors are the source of the capital that funds business start ups and expansion – will result in more jobs. Leaving less capital in their hands can only result in fewer jobs.
- By putting these two phrases together Schumer suddenly reversed his and Obama’s position of the past two years, that massive government spending of borrowed money was the formula for job creation and prosperity. Indeed deliberate deficit spending to create jobs was the stated goal of the Obama stimulus!
- The government will not, by maintaining the top tax brackets at the same rates that have been in effect since 2003, “give” money to millionaires. The money in question belongs to the tax payer who earned it, not to the government. The question is not how much to “give” to taxpayers, but how much of the fruits of their labors and investments will be taken away from them