I would guess that the Democrats are trying to push more stuff through.
Of course if that is true, Ezra would not mention it.
Like the progressive talking point that Newt Gingrich had the most ethics complaints of any speaker when Democrat hack David Bonior was constantly filing frivolous ethic complaints.

Ezra, I realize that this isn't an assignment desk post, but I have a question/request. Do you have a chart anywhere, which shows, what programs over the last 8 years, doubled the national debt? I just watched the Frontline documentary on the national debt. One thing that I have often been confused by, is that folks like Krugman and other point to the Bush tax cuts as a major cause of the debt increase, whereas I often hear conservatives say that the tax cuts actually increased revenue. I don't quite know what to make of this, but I'd think a pie chart of what parts of the national debt increase over the last 8 years were caused by what events/legislation. Given that I can't find a chart like this anywhere online, I'm guessing that it's probably not that simple. I know that you're not an economist, but can you at least give me -- and others -- a sense of where the debt came from, given that conservatives argue that Bush's tax cuts actually increased revenue?

Yes Paul, because Democrats NEVER ran the Senate prior to 2007. That massive spike when noted Democrat Trent Lott was majority leader is also impressive.

Things that are broken: The Senate; Paul L.'s "brain."

tsulz: When you hear Republicans say things that flat out don't make sense, such as that tax cuts increase government revenue, you can bet that they are either lying or deluded. No, tax cuts do not increase government revenue. They never have and never will. Otherwise, a universal tax rate of 0% would result in infinite revenue.

Here's a discussion of this.

Of course, conservatives will continue to profess their religious like belief in this magical process. That won't change. But remember that Saddam did not have WMD, the earth is warming, Social Security is not going bankrupt, and Republicans are almost always wrong.

Rob Mac,

I'm not asking Ezra this because I believe conservative arguments about this. But I am assuming that conservatives have some number from somewhere, based on some study, which argues that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue. What I would like to know is how they got the number and why their methodology for getting it is wrong. For example, conservatives claim that unemployment during the 1930s remained above 20% the entire time. Their methodology for this is pretty weak (they don't count government jobs as actual employment), but it's not like they just pull a number out of the air. What I'm looking for is something similar to that with the Tax Cuts Increase Revenue claim. Thanks for the link, though. It makes a strong case that taxes do NOT increase revenue. I have a weird perspective though. I'm drawn to how people create constructs of reality that are false. Hence my question.

the Bush tax cuts increased revenue.

For the most part, revenue goes up all the time, in the same way that "total employment" goes up. Tax cuts generally ensure that you have less revenue to cover your costs than you would otherwise.

Revenue is higher now than it was in 1980. It was high in 1999 than it was in 1992. It was higher in 1960 than it was in 1920.

Did the Bush tax cuts cause more people to immigrate to the US, more babies to be born, more jobs to be created? Not really... job creation was notoriously stagnant, barely keeping up with the increase in population, but all of these things, including inflation as well, result in "higher revenues." That's the magic of tax cuts, though: you can credit them for having unintuitive effects that had nothing to do with their passage, anyway. Revenues, predictably, fell drastically in the first few years and then crept upwards along with the rest of the economy as it expanded. That's not to say that the tax cuts "paid for themselves."

I'd like to see a 2-line graph that shows, over the same period, which party initiated the filibuster. (Just partisan curiosity . . . )

Looking at the spikes it appears that they all occur during the lame duck session of an eight-year presidency. Not surprisingly, sensing that their party may be about to regain power in the Oval Office, the party out of power filibusters more often in the final two years; hence the spikes in 75-76, 87-88, 99-00 and 07-08. If there is some sort of spike in this session it may indicate something unusual, but it hasn't happened so far.

for dsulz post 12:35pm

The difference is an important one in measuring 'record revenues' and asking if tax cuts pay for themselves.

Imagine a school board talking about x% budget growth. The questions you would have to ask are (1) inflation rate and (2) increase in population served.

Bush's tax cuts removed about 220% of the governments revenue. It took 6 years, which represented about 15% inflation and approx 5% increase in population, to reach the point where in absolute dollars the revenue recovered. Problem is, per-capita inflation adjusted, revenues needed to be about 20% higher to be the same.

This proves, conclusively, that 'tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves'. The amount of federal deficit is about equal to the amount of money lost from unfunded tax cuts.

A final argument is also incredibly simple. Imagine I'm a business owner and taxes represent 20% of the cost of my item. The government reduces taxes to 16%. Now, for the goverment to make up identical revenue it must expect me to sell 20/16th, or 25%, more stuff. If I really believed as a business owner that a 4% reduction in 'cost' would lead to a 25% increase in sales, wouldn't I have made that cost reduction myself? Supply side theory holds that the free market, in this example, will sell 4x as much stuff for each 1% drop in tax rates. This defies logic; hence, its popularity.

Sorry, typo. I meant bush removed about 20% of gov't revenue (from federal tax being about 20% of GDP to federal tax being about 16% of GDP).

It took 6 years to reach the same absolute dollar level of the Clinton revenue. Meanwhile, inflation and incrase in population requires that revenue be 20% higher to meet the same level of revenue per citizen.

Hence, tax cuts don't pay for themselves, if evaluated in inflationadjusted and per capita terms.

A couple little points:
the graph looks at the number of cloture motions, not filibusters (I agree it's a good stand in, but it's not exact);
Brainster, the actual peaks are in: 73-74, 87-88, 93-96 (93-94 and 95-96 had about the same number), and 07-08.