Actually, it may NOT be technically true. First, the sentence stating "To the extent that higher tax rates affect behavior — inducing people to work fewer hours or save and invest less — the phaseouts adversely affect economic activity and growth" and spinning this to mean that Obama's plan is inferior for growth is extremely misleading. Obama's raising the tax rate on the upper tax brackets on a net basis may be more than compensated for with the much more generous tax cut he offers to the lower tax brackets relative to McCain.
Second... the sentence this signs off with states that these plans must be accompanied by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified. That contradicts the notion that economic growth cannot occur without a long term tax increase somewhere else.
Finally, I would argue that tax cuts to the lower tax brackets are MORE pro-growth than tax cuts to higher tax brackets. They spend more of their disposable income increasing demand and compelling businesses to expand. The argument that capitalizing the wealthy who will then invest in businesses compelling them to expand doesn't historically work because businesses are wisely going to respond to demand shifts when they expand and contract... not capital. If it doesn't make sense to expand, they would just stick that extra capital into accounts for interest/liquidity.
All Comments
Second... the sentence this signs off with states that these plans must be accompanied by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified. That contradicts the notion that economic growth cannot occur without a long term tax increase somewhere else.
Finally, I would argue that tax cuts to the lower tax brackets are MORE pro-growth than tax cuts to higher tax brackets. They spend more of their disposable income increasing demand and compelling businesses to expand. The argument that capitalizing the wealthy who will then invest in businesses compelling them to expand doesn't historically work because businesses are wisely going to respond to demand shifts when they expand and contract... not capital. If it doesn't make sense to expand, they would just stick that extra capital into accounts for interest/liquidity.