The entire exchange between Senator Clinton and Greenspan was about the effects the tax cuts had on the federal deficit. NOTHING was talked about how the tax cuts affected the overall economy. But, as usual, liberals only see what they want to see, using the description of Greenspan's testimony from an article written by an obviously biased reporter, rather than looking to a transcript of the testimony. After all, a simple transcript of what was ACTUALLY said (by both parties) would leave out those colorfully biased phrases like "looking decidedly uncomfortable".
Of course, the reporter who wrote the referenced article gets most of his figures wrong, as well as other things. First, he claims we went from a "projected surplus of $US5.6 trillion by 2011, the budget deficit is now expected to be $US4 trillion by that date..." indicating a change of over $9 TRILLION dollars. Remind us, how much were taxes cut over 10 years? $9 TRILLION dollars, so the democrats can blame the Bush tax cuts? Or was it actually $1.7 Trillion dollars over the 10 years? Try looking it up yourself:
http://www.jct.gov So, all you "gotta blame Bush for Obama's incompetence" twits out there, where did the other $7 trillion dollars go? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly have not cost us $7 trillion (though some will probably make that claim). In fact ALL of the spending by Bush combined did not suddenly add $7 trillion to the deficit overr his 8 years in office. So, just maybe, the $5.6 trillion SURPLUS claimed by the outgoing administration was not real? Hmmm, something to think about.... (Not that liberals want to THINK about things, they just parrot anything their political masters tell them to.)
Then, in the same sentence, the reporter displays his utter ignorance of the entire topic with the phrase "if the tax cuts become permanent." HELLO? He's writing about the supposed effects of the tax cuts from 2001 to 2011, and the cuts were not supposed to sunset until 2011. So how could the permanence of the tax cuts make ANY difference, when the sunset of the cuts would not happen in the time span being discussed? At MOST there would have been a 21 day overlap, between the end of the Bush cuts, and the beginning of the 2011 Congress, which is the cutoff for the budget projections.
And, of course, the reporter focuses on Greenspan's statement "we all got it wrong" and, with ZERO evidence from the actual testimony given (other than that specific phrase) links the statement to Greenspan's support of the tax cuts. This is a perfect example of lying by (mis)use of factual information.
Bottom line: the article referenced is so chokingly full of errors, lies, innuendo, and blatant bias it is useless as a valid point to back any claims one way or the other.
OTOH, the transcript of the actual testimony clearly shows Greenspan AND Clinton are BOTH focused on the effects the tax cuts had on the DEFICIT. NOWHERE did they discuss the overall effect, or wisdom, of the tax cuts. Greenspan explains he made his decisions based on faulty data. And who should we look to for the mistakes made in THAT area? For all Senator Clinton's blustering ("Not all of us," snapped Senator Clinton. LOL She knows full well where the figures came from)
Greenspan was correct in that he was given incorrect data. And that data came from (wait for it) the OUTGOING CLINTON administration! Both democrats (ESPECIALLY democrats) and republicans of congress, as well as President Clinton were all about the projected "budget surpluses". The democrats, even today, go on and on and on and on about how Bush wasted these projected surpluses. (Hint: the surpluses were PROJECTED, and, in fact, never really existed. It was all accounting smoke-and-mirrors. The national debt went up every single year Clinton was president, proving the REAL budget did not follow projections.) If anything the new, dire projections being discussed in Greenspan's testimony were simply more realistic than the borrow-from-SS-to-pay-our-bills budget of the Clinton administration.
