Live Q&As

I think it was clear it was three. You really have to be over the top to say it was four. In the case of Reagan, I recall he sometimes felt he did not get as much in spending cuts as he hoped for. (That was at the time; as i point out, the picture looks different when placed into context and adjusted for inflation and the like.) In the case of the stimulus, as I noted it is technically correct that there are now fewer jobs than when the stimulus was passed. And so forth. In other words, his claims are not made completely out of whole cloth, but they are misleading and lacking context. 

I don't recall that it was scored--and a quick search does not find that it was. (Readers, correct me if you think I am wrong.) The left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities issued a report that makes the same point that you raised. They dig into the numbers quite closely, if you are interested. 

Yes, that is certainly a counter example, as is the growth that exploded after Clinton raised taxes.

Both sides make claims about the impact of tax cuts and tax increases, but it really is not so simple when economic theory hits the real world.  Clinton raised taxes, but no one anticipated the impact the computer revolution (and the runup in stock prices of computer companies) would have on the economy or government revenues. 

I would quibble with the idea that the 1993 economic act directly led to the creation of 22 million jobs (see answer just above.) There are many, many factors that affect the economy and a single congressional act is just part of the recipe. Still, you can have a good laugh if you go back and read all the gloom and doom predicted at the time Clinton's budget bill passed without a single GOP vote.

As for why the TV hosts do not call Norquist on his assertions, that I cannot answer. 

Again, there is economic theory and reality. In theory, a higher tax could mean a business owner decided not to hire an additional person. But then you also have to look at what that revenue is used for. Is it invested in another part of the economy (ie, to buy military jets)? That could lead to an additional job being added someplace else. Norquist treats it as a zero sum game and most economists would say that in all such government-engineered transfers, there are winners and losers. 

As I said in the column, I try not to fact check political philosophies. He clearly believes this to be the case, and that's fine. But most economists would take a more nuanced view.

The question is where you begin the stimulus effort. Does it start right after it passed? I don't think that is right, even if you believe the markets react immediately. 

I have proposed a simple solution: start counting job gains and losses from the official end of the recession (June 2009), as decided by the National Bureau of Economic Research. That gives the stimulus a few months to start kicking in, and also does not pollute the figures with the lingering impact of the recession.

If you do that, they still won't be throwing any victory parties at the White House. Even under that metric, Obama still has the worst job record of any modern president. 

No one has clean hands on this. Recall that Obama did nothing to support Simpson-Bowles when it came out. And Republican lawmakers have not wanted to accept the Simpson-Bowles recommendations on higher taxes. 

I got to know Grover Norquist well when I covered tax policy. (And I got to know his wife, an advocate for Palestinian causes, when I covered diplomacy.) I don't think people should blame Norquist for this state of affairs. He's a skilled and effective advocate for his cause who happened to come up with a brilliant way of making politicians stick to their pledges.

Rather than be angry at Norquist, aim your ire at the politicians who sign such pledges (no matter what they are) and then do not have the courage to admit they were wrong to have signed it in the first place. Clearly an oath of office trumps any such pledge.