Ann McLane Kuster....Let's just Call Her McLuster - Granite Grok

Ann McLane Kuster….Let’s just Call Her McLuster

Uh Hee hee, duh!Ann McLane Kuster, aside from having another one of those pretentious feminist names like Carol Seiu-Porter, has demonstrated to us that she is just another shill for the left wing narrative.  The road map to shill-dom (the most current public version at the very least) was printed in this morning’s Union Leader under the headline “Yes, The Bush tax cuts did harm our economy” in the Another View section of the editorial page.  Yes, it is another view, and while I’m no fan of GWB, her view just happens to be a biased view that is also wrong.

 

Before I explain why, let me get this out of the way.  I’m not writing ‘Ann McLane Kuster’ anymore. It is pretentious and annoying, it takes too long to write, so I’m just going to shorten it to McLuster.    And she should thank me.  Combining names is so “all the rage.”  Just think Brangalina! 

McLuster is also the first of a two–word phrase often used by McDonald’s mangers when everything suddenly comes off the rails.  And based on the way she “sees it,” it’s a short stumble from her rhetorical notion of economics to another full-blown federally-mandated McLuster- %$#@!

McLuster Point One. Can we call them Tax cuts for the rich?  She says yes, mostly  because toxins in her BDS hate gland have permanently altered her DNA, kind of like how Bruce Banner turns into the Hulk when he gets angry.  She, like most pretentious left wing feminists, as well as every other progressive across the entire expanse of the left wing gender manifold, just get dumber when you say "Bush"–and some of them turn into big green ugly monsters. So numbers don’t matter, particularly when they happen to contradict your rhetoric.

Several realities arise to meet McLuster’s charge.  First, the indexed percentage of taxes cut on the lower and middle class were larger.  The total income tax paid by the top 40% rose 4.6% under the Bush Tax Cuts while the bottom 40% paid 4% less.  The rich actually started paying more total taxes after the tax cuts.  The total tax burden on the nation dropped 3% while gross revenue to the Treasury (most of it paid by those rich bastards at the top and the economic activity they were creating) rose around 274 Billion annually by 2005 which could be a problem for McLuster and the democrats—it proves that the deficit Bush did leave behind—aside from being a product of democrat rule after 2006—was a result of the government spending more than we were taking in, which is why our economy sucks right now.

McLuster Point Two. Did these cuts go to the middle class?  If you made $50,000.00 you saved $700.00 on the tax bill which I assume we are meant to scorn as pitiful.  But she ignores the fact that families who made that much paid no taxes at all and actually earned some or all of that money as a subsidy.

McLuster Point Three.  Unemployment was at 4.3% in March of 2001 and never made it back there again.  Did the cuts help the economy at all.  She says no, but she is basing it on a percentage without bothering to tell you “of what.”  In March of 2003 unemployment was 4.3%.  It rose, particularly after 9-11, but it went back down, to 4.4% and landed around 4.6% by December of 2007.  But that percentage is reflective of the number of people looking for work related to those who have not found it, not how many people are actually not working.  In reality between March of 2001 and December of 2007 the Bush economy added 3.5 million jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  One might argue that having 3.5 million more people not just working, but collecting a weekly pay check and that paltry extra $700.00 every year from lower taxes is preferable to the democrats solution of adding trillions in new debt to prop up union jobs while the economy loses millions of jobs.

And look! McLuster loses her economy argument everywhere else as well making her third point ridiculously partisan, if not an outright lie.  After the second wave of 2003 tax cuts GDP grew faster than before, rebounding after the post 9/11 economic decline.  Private investment in the economy—post tax cuts–went from -0.6% to + 9.8%.  The S & P 500 grew almost 50%.  The actual number of people working rose as indicated above, and while wage growth was never great, people were working, the private sector was growing and the tax cuts actually increased the flow of revenue to the US treasury as a result of more private economic activity.  I’m sorry Ms McLuster, but I’d call that "better" than where we were in March of 2001.  Let me rephrase that.  You are wrong.

But the democrats in CD-2 are welcome to nominate McLuster if they want; but if they think she can win on rhetoric like this, they might want to Swett this one out with a different candidate.

 

Reference:

http://forum.belmont.edu/cornwall/archives/000984.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

http://bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/07/Bushs-2003-Tax-Cuts-Wildly-Successful

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2007/02/Top-10-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/The-Three-Biggest-Myths-About-Tax-Cuts-and-the-Budget-Deficit