President Bush inherited a recession from the end of the Clinton administration, and his solution was to have an across-the-board tax cut (no, not just the top 1 percent of tax payers). Many of the Democratic presidential candidates said they would repeal some or all of these tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits, and that would only cost the middle class about $2,000 a year.

However, the evidence shows these tax cuts are invaluable to our nation’s recovering economy.

First, the air needs to be cleared of much of the propaganda the Democratic Party puts out about these tax cuts. The biggest of this is the top 1 percent of taxpayers getting most of the tax cuts.

What they don’t tell you is that the top 1 percent they are talking about is not the Warren Buffets or Bill Gates of this world, but rather a household income of slightly more than $200,000. However, even if that is left to pass, their 1 percent trick neglects the fact that many of these people making $200,000 a year are small businesses. Most sole proprietorships are small businesses, and all of their tax is income tax — take away this part of the tax cut and you hurt the very thing that is helping to fuel our recovery (including the 366,000 jobs added since August) — American small business.

Furthermore, the top 25 percent of taxpayers paid 80 percent of all taxes before the Bush tax cuts. If you want to have an economic stimulus, you need to cut the taxes of the people who are paying the taxes, or no money will be released into the economy.

Another big propaganda trick used by Democrats is claiming the Bush tax cut (only for the top 1 percent, of course) uses a trickle-down effect to get the economy going.

Their theory is that the Bush administration is releasing billions upon trillions to the richest people in America in the hope that it will somehow trickle down to the tired, poor, huddled masses.

Many can tell you a tax cut is actually an example of a multiplier effect. For example, if I spend $10 at a random company, it will cause its bottom line to get better and increase its investment in a facet of its company — such as labor or materials. It has to get that from yet another business, which will then see its bottom line get better, spurring even more investment.

So while Bush may release a certain amount into the economy, the amount of economic activity it will spur will be much greater than the dollar amount released. Historic data proves this — with Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s, tax revenue rose by almost 100 percent, despite the tax rate being lowered.

However, what both the Reagan Congresses lacked—and what the Bush Congress and Democratic presidential candidates—lack is a sense of fiscal discipline that needs to go with tax cuts. Simply put, the government cannot increase spending and cut taxes at the same time. Instead of repealing the Bush tax cuts that have added (and will continue to add) jobs, helped our parents help us out with those dreaded tuition bills, and helped the economy as a whole, Congress — certain people (cough — John Kerry) should look to cut the pork barrel and useless entitlement spending. I would much rather invest my money in myself, rather than a failed Social Security system (a healthy 23 percent of our budget), a rainforest in the middle of Iowa or a bloated farm bill authored by Tom Harkin that gives subsidies to factory farms.

The bottom line is that only one half of this equation is solved. Tax cuts have spurred the economy, but now it is time for the fiscal courage that will keep it going strong — not Democratic, or even Republican, pie-in-the-sky promises that promise more debt than our generation will know what to do with.

Jake Parr is a freshman in liberal arts and sciences-open option from Marion. He is a member of the Campus Republicans.