Kent Conrad: “Mr. President, the reason I inquired of the Senator what his chart depicted was that he has only shown the tax cut…”

“Mr. President, the reason I inquired of the Senator what his chart depicted was that he has only shown the tax cut advocated by the President that has already been implemented. He did not show the additional effect of the tax cut the President has proposed, which is even larger than the one that has already been implemented. He showed on his chart that 25 percent of the $5.6 trillion surplus went to the President's first tax cut. He does not talk about the additional tax cut that costs $1.9 trillion when you add the associated interest costs. Second point: On the Senator's chart he attributes the additional interest cost of the tax cut to spending. Any fair allocation of the additional interest costs from the tax cut has to be attributed to the tax cut, not to spending. Those two things change the picture quite dramatically. What we see is, over the decade, if you take the President's tax cuts already implemented and the tax cuts proposed, and attribute the interest costs of the tax cuts to the tax cuts, the biggest culprit in the disappearance of the surplus, and in fact, moving to deficit, is the tax cuts. The Senator makes a very important point on what will work. The Senator believes the additional tax cuts the President has proposed will help grow the economy. I don't believe it. Not only don't I believe it, but a whole group of economists do not believe it.”