All indications are that the Obama administration will cave into Republican demands to extend the Bush era tax cuts for the rich, people making over $250,000 a year.
Not only only will this increase the deficit by $700 billion over the next decade, but it will do virtually nothing to promote economic growth since there is no evidence that high income tax cuts result in economic growth.
At the same time, the Republicans stopped Congress from extending unemployment benefits to 2 million Americans who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks.
Not only is it cruel to deny financial support to American families who have lost their jobs, but it hurts the economy since unemployment benefits are a very effective form of promoting economic growth since the unemployed spend virtually every dollar they receive.
Rather than stand up for the nation's unemployed and for fiscal responsibility, President Obama has announced that he will freeze the pay of federal employees for two years. These public servants earn less than their private sector counterparts. More importantly freezing their pay has virtually no impact on the deficit since employee compensation is a very small component of federal expenditures. And it will actually weaken the economy since it will reduce spending at a time when the lack of demand threatens the very weak recovery.
In a little noticed blog a few weeks ago David Leonhardt, the New York Times economics reporter, asked: Why should we believe that extending the Bush tax cuts will provide a big lift to growth?
Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy.
What followed?
The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7. (See chart above that is adjusted for inflation)
The competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). The decade with the second-worst showing for growth was 1971 to 1980 — the dreaded 1970s — but it still had 3.21 percent average growth.
The picture does not change if you instead look at five-year periods. Here’s a chart ranking five-year periods over the past 50 years, in descending order of average annual growth:
I mean this as a serious question, not a rhetorical one: Given this history, why should we believe that the Bush tax cuts were pro-growth?
Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.
Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.
The theory for why tax cuts should create growth and jobs is a strong one. When people are allowed to keep more of each dollar they earn, they are likely to work longer and harder. The uncertainty is the magnitude of this effect. With everything else that’s happening in a $15 trillion economy, how large of an effect on growth do tax cuts have?
Every available piece of evidence seems to suggest that the Bush tax cuts did little to lift growth. I have yet to hear a good argument to the contrary, but I’d be fascinated to see another blogger or an economist take a crack at it.
Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy.
What followed?
The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7. (See chart above that is adjusted for inflation)
The competition for slowest growth is not even close, either. Growth from 2001 to 2007 averaged 2.39 percent a year (and growth from 2001 through the third quarter of 2010 averaged 1.66 percent). The decade with the second-worst showing for growth was 1971 to 1980 — the dreaded 1970s — but it still had 3.21 percent average growth.
The picture does not change if you instead look at five-year periods. Here’s a chart ranking five-year periods over the past 50 years, in descending order of average annual growth:
I mean this as a serious question, not a rhetorical one: Given this history, why should we believe that the Bush tax cuts were pro-growth?
Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.
Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.
The theory for why tax cuts should create growth and jobs is a strong one. When people are allowed to keep more of each dollar they earn, they are likely to work longer and harder. The uncertainty is the magnitude of this effect. With everything else that’s happening in a $15 trillion economy, how large of an effect on growth do tax cuts have?
Every available piece of evidence seems to suggest that the Bush tax cuts did little to lift growth. I have yet to hear a good argument to the contrary, but I’d be fascinated to see another blogger or an economist take a crack at it.
While no one has stepped up to answer Leonhardt's challenge, the Republican demand that the richest Americans be given a budget busting tax break has become a virtual certainty.
