A balanced budget is not just one simple step

Recent letters have repeated the current conservative mantra: low taxes equal growth while high taxes suppress growth. Jay Kacena (Wednesday) argues that “history has shown time and time again” that this credo is truth. History actually suggests the opposite.

If we look at the last 60 years, the GDP has remained strong in years with high tax rates. For instance, between 1951 and 1963 when top tax rates were at their highest, real annual growth averaged more than

4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top rate was cut to its lowest in decades, real growth was less than half that. This does not mean that higher tax rates caused this growth, but it certainly suggests that the conservative argument is either overly simplistic or simply wrong.

Even President Reagan, after large initial tax cuts, went on to repeatedly increase both spending and taxes. Clinton raised taxes and spending rates, yet left office with a budget surplus. If low taxes equate to economic growth, then we should have seen unprecedented growth over the last 10 years while businesses have enjoyed low tax rates.

In 2009, multibillion dollar corporations like GE and Exxon had no federal income tax liability (Exxon, meanwhile, paid $15 billion in taxes to other countries). Despite these low tax rates, growth and unemployment have remained stagnant.

We need a balanced approach to cutting our deficit that includes both spending cuts and taxes, but conservatives hold the country hostage with their false claim.

Glenn Freeman

Mount Vernon