The Club for Growth links to another excellent article that debunks the “Bush’s tax cuts only helped the richest 1%” myth.

All animals have reflexes. Wake a sleeping dog and he’s likely to snap at you. Political animals have reflexes, too. Mention the Bush tax cuts and a liberal will go off on how they only helped “the top 1 percent.”

But the fact is taxpayers in the bottom bracket benefited the most from the across-the-board rate reductions, newly released Internal Revenue Service data analyzed by the Tax Foundation show.

For example, people who earned $1.75 million in 2000 paid $513,625 in income taxes, a rate of 29.35 percent. In 2004, the rate was down to 25 percent, so the tax liability on that income fell to $437,500, a tidy 14.8 percent tax-burden reduction.

Meanwhile, people with incomes of $35,000 in 2000 paid $2,989 in taxes, a rate of 8.54 percent. After the Bush tax cuts, the tax on $35,000 fell to $1,792, or 5.12 percent, or a whopping 40 percent tax-burden reduction.

So in short, a millionaire got a tax reduction of 14.8%, while a middle class American (making $35,000 a year) got a 40% reduction.

So much for all that “tax cuts for the rich” talk that liberals love to spew out.

In other news, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has broken the record for all-time closing high, and broken it yet again the very next day. The stock market is booming, unemployment is extremely low, and gas prices are falling (though OPEC is talking of cutting production). Did the Bush tax cuts on capital gains encourage investment, thus lending a hand to the booming economy? Does letting people keep more of their money lead to more consumer activity, more production, more job creation, thus more economic expansion? Does cutting taxes really bring in more tax revenues for the government due to the aformentioned economic expansion?

Every day, the data answers the previous questions with a resounding YES.