A few weeks ago we wrote about an independent study commissioned by the Common Sense Policy Roundtable looking at the economic impacts of Senator Rollie Heath's proposed $3 Billion tax hike over 5 years. The study found that if the tax increase were to pass it would kill up to 119,700 jobs in Colorado and cause 3,610 less people to move to Colorado per year. Some liberal trolls scoffed at our use of the 119k number, claiming we had made it up out of thin air. Well this weekend, the Pueblo Chieftain printed an op-ed using that exact same number.
ColoradoPols response to our post was to try to claim that because the study's author has an odd Twitter profile picture his fiscal impact analysis has no credibility. We found this line of attack odd, especially since economists are not generally judged by or known for their looks, but when you can't defeat the message, you have to kill the messenger. Turns out they didn't do such a good job of killing the messenger.
The fact that the Pueblo Chieftain printed the op-ed with the 119,700 job loss figure gives it enormous credibility. Before an op-ed is printed, the claims in it have to be scrutinized by the paper and justified based on factual claims. The Chieftain clearly found it derived from more than just thin air.
Beyond just the credibility gained from the Pueblo Chieftain, the economist who authored the study, Dr. Eric Fruits of Portland State University, has a successful track record on fiscal impact studies of tax measures. In January 2010 Oregon passed two initiatives that retroactively increased taxes on high income individuals and corporations — a favorite target of liberals (Measures 66 & 67). Dr. Fruits conducted a study, published in December 2009, with the predicted fiscal impact of the measures. Check out this graph for how right his analysis was:
(Graph courtesy of Cascade Policy Institute)
The green line represents the state of Oregon's economic forecast before the tax hikes were passed. The orange line is Dr. Fruits predicted forecast if the measures passed, and the yellow line is the state of Oregon's forecast after the measures passed. To us that's a pretty clear visual demonstration of credibility.
Before liberals get their panties in a twist, claiming it was the recession that caused this and not the tax hikes, remember one salient fact. The measure passed in January 2010, years after the recession began and the banks collapsed. Had the measure passed in January 2008, there might be something significant to quibble with.
All in all, it looks as if the 119,700 number is beginning to take hold and that is not a good sign for Rollie's hope of hiking your taxes.
I love how you desperately try to goad anyone to comment on your pathetic blog by posting drivel.
I also love your logic that if it appears on any op-ed page it has “enormous credibility”. Does that apply to all D-Post op-eds? Boulder op-eds? What a joke and you know it. It’s not like the Chieftan even wrote it. The guy that paid for the study wrote it.
Listen, I hope you continue to pull this number out of thin air and repeat it. It is totally wrong. I am going to explain it to you slowly so you will understand. You can go back and check with the Senate minority all you want, but maybe just reading the “independent” study will do the job.
For this 119,700 to be accurate, you have to believe that the numbers listed on the last line of Figure 2 in the report are annual job losses. You show this in your original blog post. You say that the annual job loss in 2012 is 5,500; 2013 is 14,300 etc. Following this logic, you then add the annual job loss and you get 119,700 jobs lost. Great.
The problem is that these are NOT annual job losses. The numbers listed in Figure 2 show the cumulative running total. Eric Fruits believes that the cumulative 5 year loss is 30,500. You have added the cumulative sums together to make a double cumulative. Math unfortunately doesn’t work like that.
ALLOW ME TO ELABORATE: Please refer to Figure 1. This Figure shows the estimated total amount of employment in Colorado. It then shows the estimated total employment if the Heath measure passes. (To be sure, I think this is also bogus, but I will allow it for the sake of arguing.) These are linear, cumulative graphs, so that the difference between Base employment and Heath employment in 2013 includes the change in 2012 and so on. The difference between the two numbers in 2017 includes years 2012-2016. That is to say, the 30,700 difference includes prior year losses. These numbers show the cumulative loss of employment year by year. Sure enough, the cumulative losses reflected by Figure 1 are the same as the cumulative losses shows in Figure 2.
Now let’s look at the text of the “independent study.” Look at this revealing quote that seems to line up with Fruits’ graphs. He says:
If this were to kill 119,700 jobs, wouldn’t it make sense for Fruits to say, “By 2017, employment would be 119,700 lower”? The answer is yes.
FACT OF THE MATTER: Fruits made some paper that showed his estimate for job losses. That number apparently wasn’t big enough for you so you artificially added together cumulative numbers to come up with some terribly unrealistic number.
WILLING LIARS: Yes Peak Pols, you are willingly perpetuating a lie. Please respond with math if you indeed are going to stand by this unrealistic job loss number.
Thanks for your time, and I really do hope to engage you around this number. <3
Do you appreciate the thick amount of irony spread on top of your post?
You also apparently struggled with math as a child. Is it your learning disability that made you so mad or just your sense that you’re standing very alone on the side of raising taxes in a recession?
Seems to me, having got all the way past Algebra in school, that it’s pretty simple. Let me explain it in middle school math for you, so you’ll understand what I’m saying.
Without the tax increase let’s say there are 100 jobs in 2012. With the tax increase there are 90. That drops to 85 in 2013, when there would have been 101 without the tax. In 2014 the tax increase means only 78 jobs, when there would have been 103 jobs without it. And so on and so forth.
How many less jobs were there after all the years due to the tax increase? See, math can be fun if you just calm down.
Thinking this through to 9th grade math. If you have 10 less income earners/taxpayers in 2012 and 15 less in 2013, how many income earners/taxpayers did you lose between 2012 and 2013? If you said 25, you get a gold star!
Do they have a Hooked on Phonics for math? I’d suggest looking into it.
fuzzy math. That troll loves spreading the LIE that the 119k figure is bogus (as RHINO clearly articulated), they do this because the ends justify the means in everything liberals love. Bottom line, raising taxes DOES NOT stimulate job growth as (see above) we BOTH agree on! Jobs will be lost and working families will suffer, at least short term, and since that term will be coming RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GREATEST RECESSION IN HISTORY (thank you Barry & congress), it probably isn’t a good idea to burden the voting public with…
But go ahead and try trolls, your “math skills” will make GREAT soundbites.
Colorado can’t AFFORD 119,700 jobs LOST on top of the current 8.8% unemployment rate (ya know, the people STILL receiving benefits versus those already OFF the unemployment rolls because Barry Obama hasn’t done a DAMN thing in 3 years to improve our situation…as was promised)
Must be that the cat is away and the mouse have decided to play! Kudos to the Chieftain for telling the truth!
This hereby is dubbed the Heath-Pace Job Killing Tax Hike.