McConnell: 'No evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue'

There are fiscal theories that I disagree with, and that I think are cruel, and that make me upset. But very few actually make me sad. Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, hit my sore spot today. "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue," he told Brian Beutler of TPMDC. "They increased revenue because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject." In other words, this is why Republicans don't think tax cuts need to be paid for. They pay for themselves.

Why does this make me sad? Because it's hard to see the country prospering when one of its two major political parties is this economically illiterate. McConnell isn't some backbencher. He's Senate minority leader. And he thinks there's "no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue."

There's an ontological question here about what, exactly, McConnell considers to be "evidence." But how about the Congressional Budget Office's estimations? "The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

There is some stimulative affect from tax cuts. They increase economic activity somewhat, and that means there's somewhat more taxable revenue for the government to pick up. But not much. Not nearly enough to cancel out the cost of a tax cut. It's important to remember that the Laffer Curve is actually a curve. You can no more drop taxes to 1 percent and make up the difference in revenue than you could increases taxes to 100 percent and sustain enough economic activity to fund the government. You'll recall that the last time we saw budget surpluses was under Clinton -- and higher taxes.

Further, if tax cuts don't need to be paid for because they generate so much taxable economic activity that they pay for themselves, then neither do unemployment checks. After all, the two work very similarly: A tax cut puts more money in your pocket. Unemployment insurance puts more money in an unemployed person's pocket. The difference is that the unemployed person is likelier to spend that money, which will generate more taxable economic activity than if that money is saved. That's why Mark Zandi, an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, estimated (pdf) that a dollar spent extending the Bush tax cuts would generate .32 cents of taxable economic activity, while a dollar spent on unemployment benefits would generate $1.61 of taxable economic activity.

In other words, using the theory under which tax cuts pay for themselves, unemployment benefits are a lot likelier to pay for themselves. But John Cornyn, another member of the GOP's Senate leadership, hasn't run the numbers. "I think the urgency of deficit-neutral extension of unemployment insurance has increased because of the size of the deficit and the size of the debt," he said. It's enough to make you very, very sad.

Photo credit: By J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press