Wouldn't tax hikes be less harmful to the US economy?

[J. J.]

Clinton raised taxes, and had a net increase of 22.7 million jobs. Bush cut taxes, and had an increase of only 1.1 million.

Actually, it was more of the 1997 Clinton tax cut on capital gains that brought lower unemployment; most noticeably, it changed the trend from relatively flat to lower unemployment.

The 2003 Bush tax cuts also had a similar effect.

Both were capital gains cuts. 

Conversely, when income taxes cut or raised, the short term effect was negligible.

[J. J.]

Clinton raised taxes, and had a net increase of 22.7 million jobs. Bush cut taxes, and had an increase of only 1.1 million.

Actually, it was more of the 1997 Clinton tax cut on capital gains that brought lower unemployment; most noticeably, it changed the trend from relatively flat to lower unemployment.

Most of the decrease in unemployment during the Clinton administration occurred before the 1997 tax cut. 

When Clinton took office, unemployment was a little over 7%; by 1997 it was a little under 5% -- that's more than 2% drop prior to the 1997 tax cuts. 

Once those tax cuts took effect it dropped by less than 1%.

Well after the 1993 tax act.  The first year, unemployment was down less than 1%, and it started downward before the act was passed.  One it dropped, 1995-96, it stabilized, at a higher rate.

There seems to be a relationship between capital gains taxes and lower unemployment, one that isn't there with income taxes.

[J. J.]

There seems to be a relationship between capital gains taxes and lower unemployment, one that isn't there with income taxes.

I agree that there isn't an apparent relationship between unemployment and tweaks to the income tax;
but I am not convinced that there is a relationship between tweaks to the capital gains tax and unemployment. 

It looks stronger.  Capital gains might be the key (though not politically palatable).