Tax cuts are based on a politically unsound philosophy, which has never worked in history.

I am exciting to see how it turns out. At first glance, my opponent's numbers seem convincing; damning, even. However, through all the mulch and spreading tactics, Con attempts to pull a fast one by misinterpreting (and abusing) statistics. For example: "The real boom came after tax cuts were passed in 1997. The largest cut was in the capital gains tax rate, which was reduced from 28 percent to 20 percent. " Yes, economic prosperity happened to exist past the tax cuts. However, by 2000, the economy was slowing and in 2001 the economy slipped into a recession[1]. Speaker Newt Gingrich feared that the tax hikes of 1993 would lead to a recession, yet just the opposite happened. Moreover, when tax cuts were passed, the economy slips into a recession. Not quite causation, by correlation nonetheless. And: "In 1980, the last year before the [Reagan] tax cuts, tax revenues were $956 billion (in constant 1996 dollars). Revenues exceeded that 1980 level in eight of the next 10 years. Annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level (in constant 1996 dollars). " There are two things wrong with this claim. First, the amount of money itself is irrelevant. A more correct tool for measuring tax revenue is percentage per capita[2]. Per that measurement, federal revenues only grew 19% during the Reagan years, far less than the astounding 41% achieved under Clinton[2]. Second, Reagan's tax cuts were followed almost immediately by a tax hike[3]. The "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" was designed to rescind some of the effects of Reagan's huge tax cuts the year before. The name of the act itself is a point for the Pro: it suggests that taxing is the only fiscally responsible method of governance. And: ". .. the Kennedy tax cuts. .. increased revenues. " (Author's note: the reason I left out the tax cuts of the 20s was because I was not able to find any information to confirm or deny th This is false. It is not an exaggeration or manipulation of data; it is simply false. The Revenue Act of 1964 actually decreased revenue by 1% of GDP, or roughly $54.9 billion constant 2003 USD[4]. It is the Heritage Foundation's - a conservative think tank designed to propel agenda - misuse of statistics such as the ones my opponent has used that likely discount the credit of the source in its entirety, invalidating a large portion of Con's case. As I mentioned before, Con has used all 8,000 characters in an attempt to spread Pro out of the round, calling upon many short, disjointed facts and figures. However, this debate boils down to two key areas of interest - the Clinton years and the Reagan years. Thus, I will spend the rest of the round speaking about those eras. 1. Reagan My opponent mentioned the Laffer curve, which does indeed indicate that tax receipts nearly doubled under Reagan's tenure, meaning that the deficits incurred were simply because of the raising government costs. Once again, there are two things wrong with this explanation. Here are the four points of Reaganomics: Reduce government spending, Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates, Reduce government regulation of the economy, Control the money supply to reduce inflation. Notice the first point. That is the first problem with the Laffer argument, in that it contradicts the goals of tax cuts in the first place. Second, history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts[5]. Ergo, not only did the tax cuts not follow spending cuts (a point made by Pro in Round 1), revenue was actually less than under Clinton; a period when spending was down to begin with, as pointed out by Con. 2. Clinton No matter how you spin it, the Clinton administration oversaw the single longest peace-time growth American history. Clinton's major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted (as previously mentioned): "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit. " But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office[1]. Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton's handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we've had in a while. [6]" In summation, I would like to quote Gregg Easterbrook in his immortal phrase, "Torture numbers and they'll confess to anything. " Instead of looking to misleading interpretations, we must look to the original source material that give true meaning to numbers. Because my opponent's case is based, by and large, upon incorrect interpretations and because Pro has shown that Con's own statistics often work against themselves, vote Pro. Sources: 1. "Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics. " Business Week, 21 June 2004. 2. "Reagan and revenue. " Paul Krugman, New York Times, 17 January 2008. 3. Jerry Tempalski, "Revenue Effects of Major Tax Bills " OTA Working Paper 81, Office of Tax Analysis, US Treasury Department, July, 2003. 4. Joint Committee on Taxation; Tax Foundation. 5. Richard Kogan: WILL THE TAX CUTS ULTIMATELY PAY FOR THEMSELVES? March 3, 2003. 6. Felsenthal, Mark. "Greenspan faults Democrats on trade. " USA Today, 23 Sept. 2007