DETAILED COMMENTS
The data in the above table clearly shows that there is no real evidence that Republican Presidents are better for the economy or your wallet than Democratic Presidents. The data strongly indicates that the opposite is likely true. So why do intelligent people keep complaining about Democratic tax policies or regulations, saying they are anti-business, while believing Republicans are by default better for business. I suspect the reason for this thinking commonly breaks down along the following lines (not necessarily exclusively).
1. Some people believe wealth creates wealth and that the tax cutting agenda of the Republican Party therefore must be better for the economy and that tax increases are not. This is a superficial argument that overlooks various other facts.
Post-tax income is just one indicator of wealth. Pre-tax income is arguably as important, if not more, to create wealth for a declining real income can only be offset meagerly by tax cuts for the majority of people. Declining pre-tax return on investments (whether it be on financial or capital investments) can more than offset any gains from tax cuts. Indeed, investments that lose money are going to gain nothing from tax cuts - if anything a lower marginal tax rate would reduce your tax refund from losses. Democratic policies are usually focused more on enabling people to get more value from work - and thus help in boosting pre-tax incomes. The marginal reduction of these incomes from progressive tax increases is something that intelligent people should worry less about than they do today.
If tax increases are so bad then why is it that tax increaser President Bill Clinton had the largest economic expansion in American history on his watch? Why is it that Conservatives applaud Ronald Reagan for his tax cuts and economic growth under his watch and conveniently forget that Reagan was also associated with the largest peacetime tax increase in American history at the time? As Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett wrote in 2003 in the conservative National Review:
Peter Wallison, who was White House counsel to President Reagan, responded to my analysis in the New York Times on October 26. He pointed to Ronald Reagan's resistance to tax increases in 1982, citing passages from Reagan's diary that were published in his autobiography, An American Life. The gist of Wallison's article is that Ronald Reagan successfully resisted efforts by his staff and many in Congress to raise taxes, thereby ensuring the victory of Reaganomics.
The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.
Moreover, if you believe the wealthy know best which party can create wealth, then perhaps you can let me know why is it that billionaires such as John Sperling, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Herb and Marion Sandler, and Peter B. Lewis support the Democratic Party and believe that the Democrats are better trusted to manage the American economy.
Moreover, the offsetting impact of local/property and state tax increases to balance state-level budgets is often ignored by proponents of federal income tax cuts - not to mention that the notion of "tax cuts" is a myth unless accompanied by spending controls. As this Washington Post article pointed out:
Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:46 pm by 
