Congressional Research Service Report removed under pressure from Congress objections

[benld74]

Source: TPM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/crs-withdraws-study-taxes-growth-mcconnell-hatch.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) voiced concerns with the study. McConnell’s spokesman Don Stewart told the Times that his boss “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws” and said CRS “decided, on their own, to pull the study pending further review.” The Times reported that McConnell objected to CRS’ use of the phrases “Bush tax cuts” and “tax cuts for the rich,” noting their political connotations. Stewart didn’t immediately respond to a request to elaborate on the concerns about the study’s methodology.


Only place to read it now, THANKS to the DEMS is below:

http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=193




Read more: Link to source

[KansDem]

1. Funny...

If there was any evidence of economic growth, I'd wager the GOP would want the terms “Bush tax cuts” and “tax cuts for the rich," left in the report!

Any takers?

[99th_Monkey]

4. I think that sums it up pretty well

Why can't the CRS simply leave Bush out of it, and call it what it is:
tax cuts for the very wealthy, and republish it.

Better yet, publish an insert with this "correction"?

It's stupid, counter-productive, wasteful and weak-kneed to pull the
whole report, just because the GOP can't stand to hear the truth
about their own policies.

[Angry Dragon]

11. You are so correct...........

[Roland99]

2. A little more detail >>>

The author of a Congressional Research Service study, who found no evidence that tax cuts for high income earners lead to economic growth, is standing by his work, after the legislative branch’s nonpartisan research arm withdrew the report under pressure from Republican leaders. And Democratic principals are demanding to know why CRS caved to GOP pressure.

CRS quietly and quickly pulled the six-week old report, despite the wishes of the research arm’s economic team, the New York Times reported Thursday.

“I wasn’t involved in the decision, as a matter of fact I was on vacation when the decision was made, so I can’t really add anything to what was reported in the NY Times,” Thomas Hungerford, the author of the study, told TPM in an email Thursday afternoon. “However, I certainly stand behind my work.”

[yends21012]

3. Thanks for the report

The politicians should keep their hands off all reports. If there is any way to give this broad distribution, it should be done.

[jody]

5. Summary says study was inconclusive. That's probably true for stimulus packages with borrowed $.

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it
is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the
1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP
increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was
1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive
evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the
top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax
rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top
tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top
of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families
increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009
recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with
regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how
the economic pie is sliced.

[hootinholler]

10. What? That doesn't say the study was inconclusive

It says there is no conclusive link between cutting the top tax rates and economic growth, which is the assertion the study was looking at.

[jody]

13. Agree, summary says "There is not conclusive evidence". "Definition of INCONCLUSIVE : leading to no

conclusion or definite result"

The study is "inconclusive"!

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. That last bolded section ...

is what the gop objected to ... They couldn't care less if the study had flat out refuted the tax cut/economic growth narrative; but they would strongly object to the report saying exactly what everyone knows and feels ... the wealth gap.

[Smilo]

6. More revisionism from the GOPT. n/t

[hootinholler]

7. You should say what the report concerns: Tax cuts for the rich do not stimulate the economy.

I would love to hear the reasons behind why the CRS pulled the report. They are not supposed to bend to partisan pressure.

[CBHagman]

8. Perhaps McConnell and Hatch ought to look at the House hearings roster.

The very titles of the hearings in the GOP-run House of Representatives are nakedly partisan. Just have a look at any committee website.

[url]http://www.house.gov[/url]

[Angry Dragon]

9. Fuck the Turtle and his friends

[Rain Mcloud]

14. Rec it up for the media.

The lie that is bleeding America to death needs to be called out.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. HaHa: The GOP are still running away from their only living two term Prez! nt

[Pryderi]

16. K&R n/t

[Overseas]

17. K&R. DOn't let Mitch McConnell suppress the truth!

[animalcrackers]

18. Huff Post did a nice write-up on it as well

citing the NYT article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/congressional-research-service_n_2059156.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


This should get way more attention than it is. If a majority of the undecided electorate are truly basing their decision on the economic concerns, then this should be a big deal. To be honest one would think at this point that the actual truth of the matter would be common sense, as we have had other data prior to the report that discredits "tax cuts for rich = job creation" or even "tax increase to rich = less jobs".

Here is an article written by Rick Unger in Forbes (7/17/2012) - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/07/17/the-truth-about-the-bush-tax-cuts-and-job-growth/

"Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy may create a few jobs for the foreign bankers who get to count the extra money funneled into into the off-shore accounts of the rich, but there is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work."

Or Ezra Klein dimanteling the myth that tax increase to the rich would hurt small businesses - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/20/does-raising-taxes-on-the-rich-hurt-small-businesses/

Henry Blodget'as article from Business Insider (Dec 12, 2011)

"Rich people don't create the jobs.
Our economy creates jobs.
We're all in this together. And until we return to more reasonable tax policies that help the 99% instead of just the 1%, our economy is going to go nowhere."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12#ixzz2B4CoHDQk

It may not be an official study like the CRS report, but according to Romney, this would be a legit "study".

It's not enough that the GOP has practiced obstructive governance as a political game (while the economy was on the verge of collapse until today), or that they have relied on lies and misinformation to distort the truth, actively pursued to undermine the core values of any democratic system (universal suffrage and free and fair elections), practiced blatant race baiting and class conflict, attempt to buy an election with dark PAC money, or politicize sensitive national security concerns at the worst of times. Nope, to top it off, they are suppressing knowledge. I can only wonder how this report could of impacted on the election had it been released back in September. How any person, even remotely intelligent,could support a Romney/Ryan presidency is beyond me.