One of the most persistent myths amongst conservatives is that tax cuts magically produce an increase in revenues. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they continue to make this thoroughly debunked claim, keeping the story of the “tax fairy” alive and well.

Last year, during the debate over whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” Today, 2012 GOP hopeful Tim Pawlenty — after releasing a tax plan this week that would cost $7.8 trillion, three times as much as the Bush tax cuts — appeared on Fox News and made a even more audacious claim:

Keep in mind, whether it be the Bush tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, or other tax cuts, they always produce an increase in revenue. There’s no dispute about that…We don’t have to guess what will happen to revenues if we do bold tax cuts, and mine are amongst the boldest in the modern history of the country. We saw that the revenues increased dramatically because of President Reagan’s tax cuts, same with Kennedy, same to significant extent under President Bush the second. So it’s not a question of whether revenues are going to go up. They will.

Watch it:

This is simply nonsense. As this graph shows, the 1981 Reagan tax cuts and the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts were both followed by drops in revenue:

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote, “the revenue track under Reagan looks a lot like the track under Bush: a drop in revenues, then a resumption of growth, but no return to the previous trend. This is exactly what you would expect to see if supply-side economics were just plain wrong: revenues are permanently reduced relative to what they would otherwise have been.”

Earlier this week, Danielle Lazarowitz reported that Gov. Bev Perdue (D-NC), fed up with a recalcitrant legislature, issued an executive order to preserve unemployment benefits for residents in her state. This contradicted efforts on the part of conservatives in several states to gut unemployment benefits, even with long-term unemployment levels higher than they were during the Great Depression.

And Perdue now has an unlikely ally. Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) — notorious for signing Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB-1070, and for propagating false stories about beheadings in the Arizona desert — called a special session of the Arizona legislature today to try to ensure that Arizonans don’t have their benefits cut off:

“Extending benefits for the unemployed is the right thing to do both for our local economy and for Arizona families,” said Governor Brewer. “For our economy, these federal dollars represent an immediate cash infusion of nearly $3.5 million a week as recipients spend on necessities like food, rent and clothing. For as many as 45,000 Arizonans in need, these federal dollars may mean the difference between making the rent and living on the streets.” [...]

“The Legislature and I have taken concrete steps in recent months to turn Arizona’s economy around, and we’ve begun to see a lot of positive indicators,” said Governor Brewer. “But with the state unemployment rate still at 9.3 percent – and even higher in many rural areas – we can’t pretend there aren’t thousands of our fellow citizens who remain jobless and in need of assistance.“

Brewer, while wrong about so many things, is right on the money here. In a horrible job market, unemployment benefits provide a vital lifeline to workers who are out of work and can’t find a job through no fault of their own. As we’ve shown, unemployment benefits are critical to boosting the economy and reducing poverty.

However, the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature refused to play along, abandoning the special session this afternoon without extending benefits. “It’s shocking that we’re not going to fix this today,” said the state’s House Minority Leader Chad Campbell (D).

At the moment, eight states (Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Kansas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) and the District of Columbia are about to see their benefits expire. Other states, like Michigan and Florida, are actively cutting back on benefits. Brewer is on the right side of this issue, and the rest of Arizona’s lawmakers should join her.

Tucked into Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) much-discussed budget was a little-noticed provision to overhaul the state’s regulation of the beer industry. In a state long associated with beer, the provision will make it much more difficult for the Wisconsin’s burgeoning craft breweries to operate and expand their business by barring them from selling directly to restaurants and liquor stores, and preventing them from selling their own product onsite.

The new provision treats craft brewers — the 60 of whom make up just 5 percent of the beer market in Wisconsin — like corporate mega-brewers, forcing them to use a wholesale distributor to market their product. Under the provision, it would be illegal, for instance, for a small brewer located near a restaurant to walk next door to deliver a case of beer. They’ll have to hire a middle man to do it instead.

But more noteworthy than the provision itself is how it was enacted. The provision was quietly slipped in the massive budget legislation without any consultation from independent craft brewers, who are justifiably outraged by it. One group that clearly did have input, however, is one of the world’s largest beer makers — MillerCoors:

Chicago-based MillerCoors, which operates a brewery and eastern division headquarters in Milwaukee, supports the proposal because it shares concerns with wholesale distributors about the possibility of Anheuser-Busch buying wholesalers throughout the country, said company spokesman James Wright.

Joining MillerCoors in support of the provision are industry associations that have an interest in preserving the current business of beer distributors, including the industry’s lobby, the Wisconsin Beer Distribution Association. But craft brewers see the provision as “a power grab” by MillerCoors that is targeted at them. OpenMarket.org reports:

Craft brewers say that MillerCoors is pulling a fast-one on the states legislature by selling this as a bill that would protect small beer from the brewing behemoth [Anheuser-Busch] InBev’s plan to monopolize the Wisconsin wholesale market. Craft brewers say that this is clearly not InBev’s intent, as they have passed up opportunities to purchase wholesalers in the state no less than 16 times since 2008. They say the real competition that MillerCoors is trying to protect itself against is the growing craft beer market. The restrictions the measure places on any wholesaler wishing to start-up in Wisconsin seem to support the craft brewers’ claims.

The provision is a classic bit of rent-seeking from MillerCoors, who appear to be seeking to preserve their current market share with the power of the state government.

But why would Walker — who calls small businesses the “backbone of our economy” and has postured himself as their champion — side with a foreign-owned mega-corporation over locally owned small brewers? It may have to do with the fact that MillerCoors, which is joint venture with foreign-owned SABMiller, donated $22,675 to his campaign.

– With research assistance from ThinkProgress intern Jen Kalaidis.

Republicans in both the House and the Senate have been using various avenues to undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which was signed last year to rein in the financial industry following the 2008 financial crisis. House Republicans have been attempting to use the budget process to render federal regulators incapable of implementing the law, while Senate Republicans are refusing to confirm nominees to key posts, most notably the director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) confirmed yesterday that Senate Republicans will filibuster any CFPB nominee.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have hijacked non-controversial legislation to push their pro-Wall Street agenda. As the Wall Street Journal reports, three Senate Republicans — Sens. Jim DeMint (SC), Jerry Moran (KS), and David Vitter (LA) — have stuck amendments onto an economic development bill aiming to weaken Dodd-Frank or, in DeMint’s case, repeal it outright:

A fairly noncontroversial U.S. Senate bill to support economic-development projects could quickly become contentious next week if Republican critics of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul have their way. [...]

One amendment filed by tea-party Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) would repeal the whole financial law…Meanwhile, Sen. Jerry Moran (R, Kan.) has filed an amendment that would replace the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a centerpiece of Dodd-Frank that would have broad powers over the financial industry — with a six-person board…A third amendment, filed by Sen. David Vitter (R, La.) would repeal parts of the Dodd-Frank law that give a council of regulators, known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the authority to decide if a company is “too big to fail.”

The amendments suggested by Moran and Vitter are right in line with other GOP efforts to weaken Dodd-Frank. Moran’s amendment would turn the CFPB into an ineffective commission, rather than the strong independent regulator consumers need and deserve, while Vitter’s would prevent regulators from forcing the nation’s biggest banks into abiding by heightened regulations.

Wall Street has actually spent as much to undermine Dodd-Frank this year as it spent trying to shape the bill at the height of the financial reform debate. And Republicans have dutifully played along, attempting to block or undo key parts of the bill. However, this week at least, the banks did not get their way, as an amendment that would have delayed new regulations capping the amount banks can charge merchants for debit card transactions failed to pass the Senate.

Even with tax revenue lower than it’s been in more than half a century, Congressional Republicans continue to insist that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.” Sen. Orrin Hatch went so far yesterday as to claim that raising taxes just on the richest two percent of Americans would turn the U.S. into “a second-rate nation.”

As Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden pointed out today, contrary to Republican pronouncements, the U.S. is actually a very low-tax country. “Deficits do not stem from spending levels alone. They are the product of a mismatch between spending and revenue. And when revenue is as low as ours is, you end up with big deficits,” he explained. Here are some charts proving that the U.S. is, in fact, a low-tax country:

You can find 10 charts showing that the U.S. is a low-tax country here. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Republicans have outright refused to consider any new revenue during negotiations with Vice President Biden and Congressional Democrats over a deficit reduction package.

Large online retailers like Overstock.com and Amazon.com have exploited a loophole in state tax codes to avoid paying sales taxes. As ThinkProgress has reported, this brazen tax dodging has cost states across the country hundreds of millions of dollars in desperately needed revenue. Last month in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) vetoed legislation, passed by a bipartisan majority in the state Legislature, to end the loophole.

However, Republicans in the Legislature have struck back at Amazon.com lobbyists and are circumventing Perry’s veto. State Rep. John Otto (R) added an amendment to a “must-pass” spending bill restoring language to the tax code that would end the Internet sales tax loophole. Perry’s allies in the legislature moved to table the Otto amendment, only to be rebuked by a landside vote:

Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, filed an amendment to strip the language from SB 1, but his provision did not survive a spirited debate in the House, where members voted 106-34 to table it. [...] The fiscal matters bill still has to pass the House, and then likely would have to go back to the Senate for approval. If the online sales tax-related language from Otto survives that process, Perry would have to veto the entire fiscal matters bill to remove it.

The success of the Otto amendment to close the loophole shows the growing bipartisan support for ending corporate welfare and other tax giveaways. As Otto explained during the debate over his amendment, the effort has less to do with “raising taxes” and is actually about creating a “level playing field” with other “retailers who are competing against these companies.” Tax fairness creates a better business environment, and it strengthens the state’s finances.

Earlier this year, Texas Comptroller Susan Combs filed a report showing that Amazon.com’s exploitation of the loophole has cost the state $269 million in sales taxes it failed to collect from 2005 to 2009. As Texas struggles with a large deficit, Perry has moved to slash education, health, and other vital services.

This week, Commissioner Bart Chilton of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — the federal agency charged with overseeing the nation’s commodities markets — said that consumers are paying a “Wall Street speculative premium” at the gas pump. “I think there’s good evidence that excessive speculation is heating up the market and prices have gotten out of line as a result,” he said. In a speech yesterday, CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler confirmed this analysis, releasing data showing that nearly 90 percent of traders betting that oil prices will rise are speculators, not traders interested in ever holding actual oil:

Based upon CFTC data as of May 31, 2011, only about 12 percent of gross long positions and about 20 percent of gross short positions in the WTI crude oil market were held by producers, merchants, processors and users of the commodity. [...]

Based upon CFTC data, the vast majority of trading volume in key futures markets – up to 80 percent in many markets — is day trading or trading in calendar spreads. Thus, only a modest proportion of average daily trading volume results in reportable traders changing their net long or net short futures positions for the day. This means that only about 20 percent or less of the trading is done by traders who bring a longer-term perspective to the market on the price of the commodity.

As McClatchy explained, “that means that 88 percent of bets on price hikes for oil were held by financial players — mainly Wall Street banks and hedge funds that invest for the ultra wealthy — not interests seeking to use the oil.” Since 1990, oil speculators have more than doubled their share of the oil market, making up 68 percent of oil traders last month. Even ExxonMobil CEo Rex Tillerson admitted that speculation is driving up the price of oil, estimating that the price of a barrel should be closer to $60 if governed exclusively by supply and demand.

Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the CFTC was given the ability to crack down on excessive speculation in the oil market, but it has yet to act, due in part to reluctance on the part of conservative members of the commission. However, Gensler said yesterday that “it is essential to complete the task of implementing the aggregate position limits regime, Congressionally mandated to guard against the burdens of excessive speculation.” Last month, the CFTC finally charged traders for artificially driving up the price of oil in 2008.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), who is vying for the Republican presidential nomination, laid out his economic plan this week. The plan has drawn well-deserved ridicule from both the right and left for its “impossible” growth assumptions and its reliance on huge tax cuts that would be three times more expensive than the Bush tax cuts and dramatically skew towards the wealthy.

Part of Pawlenty’s tax plan involves cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, a deeper cut than the one embraced by House Republicans in the radical budget that they passed. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Pawlenty said this reduction will be paired with clearing out “all” of the credits and deductions clogging up the corporate tax code:

We will reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. We will get rid of all the deductions, credits, or exemptions, and you will compete not based on your connections to a congressman, but connections whether you can convince consumers if you have a good product. If you cannot do that, you should not be in business.

But just last month, Pawlenty was singing a very different tune on corporate tax credits. In fact, when asked if he would cut the $4 billion in subsidies that are given to oil companies every year, Pawlenty responded that such a move would be “ludicrous.” ” I mean the worst thing we could do is raise the cost burden on costs on energy and oil,” Pawlenty said. “It’s preposterous.”

But if Pawlenty isn’t willing to take on one of the most obvious, egregious examples of waste in the corporate tax code, how can he credibly say he supports eliminating “all” credits? For that matter, is he going to end deferral, which allows corporations to delay taxes on their overseas profits indefinitely, encouraging the outsourcing of jobs?

Pawlenty keeps claiming that his campaign is “not about telling people just what they want to hear. It’s about telling the truth.” But it seems that he can’t figure out what the truth is when it comes to his views on corporate taxes.