Minnesota GOP Gubenatorial Candiate Tom Emmer has finally started in with his campaign advertisements, and as expected, it's the same tired, out and (imho) highly discredited saw of "lower taxes and the rich will give you good jobs."
Emmer talks about 'job killing taxes" and "pro-growth tax cuts" in a clip that could have been played in 1983 or 2003, nothing changes, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts for all ills - it is the only policy position on which the GOP seems consistent.
In boom times, in normal times in lean times, it's tax cuts, first, last and always. The saw remains as always, "you don't need it, not only send it back, readjust the codes, you're taking in too much." Now, notwithstanding that tax burdens decrease as those who used to be on welfare find employment in boom times, and notwithstanding that receipts naturally grow, this attitude of cutting taxes in boom times seems unable to grasp that you build up reserves, you plan for when times return to normal (that is, you do if you are prudent).
In normal times, it's tax cuts to stimulate higher growth. I remember when Jason Lewis used to claim that "we cut tax rates on the upper incomes by .5% and look what happened, receipts increased $200M per anum."
Now, Mr. Lewis of course didn't bother to mention that this was done during the mid-90's, that wages in general were in high growth, nor did he bother to mention that later cuts seemed to have no effect - nope, just point to fact A which happened to be in time coincidence with point B, and say "A caused B."
Some realities, when we cut taxes dramatically on the wealthy in the middle 80's, in what was supposed to lead to the creation of new factories, new industrial sectors and (yes, you guessed it), "better jobs", what instead happened was that industrial manufacturing was gutted, moved overseas, and was only EVENTUALLY replaced by technology more as an outgrowth of the expansion of technology in general than investment by the "uber-rich" in the mid and late 80's. What we also saw was an explosion in real estate investment, an explosion in speculation on real estate as well that ultimately lead to the Savings and Loan collapse (and bailouts and Resolution Trust Corp). It was a collapse Japan in many ways still hasn't recovered from.
In the 2000's, the tax cuts (again mostly for the wealthy), didn't, by any means, result in new jobs. Instead, again we saw speculation in real estate, again we saw a over-concentration of assets chasing too few good investments, and again, we see no materialization of new jobs, new factories, new industries. Those tax cuts (the Bush cuts) have been in place for eight years, presumably we're supposed to have seen these 'new jobs' by now, but where are they? We've moved 10 Million technology jobs to China and India between the US and Europe - most heavy manufacturing is done offshore now.
No, instead we're looking to lower the minimum wage so the poor get less and lower the taxes on the rich so that they can keep much more? The rich have seen their assets vastly increase in the past 30 years, income of the upper 5% is four times what it was in 1981, while the rest of us languish. If giving them more is supposed to mean a better life for the rest of us, I have to ask, "WHEN??!!!" It hasn't happened, and it won't happen quite simply because those who are at the top of the food chain economically didn't get there by giving their money away, they got their by being shrewd enough to move jobs overseas while asking the US populace to pay the same price for a cheaper product. They got their by getting water-boys like Tom Emmer to propose wage cuts for the poor, and they got there by duping voters into believing they are "job creators", that they'll spend tax savings to create factories to make products which their isn't a demand for (supply side economics) or at factories which they have to pay more for labor than they do offshore.
Why exactly should I give them more in tax savings? So they can gut my country/state by shredding tax receipts, outsource my job, and walk away to live like kings? We've played this game twice before, once in the 80's where debt driven/speculation based service sector job growth made it appear the economy did "ok" and in the 2000's where it was an indisputable failure, no jobs, weak economy, vast debt - well, I've been fooled once (maybe twice), but I think I'll try my hand at a different game now. I don't think Tom Emmer (or any of the 2012 GOP Presidential contenders) have the best interests of the country at heart when they enable people to gut our country for their benefit. They may wrap themselves in the flag, but they're nothing more than economic hit men.