Posted on 04/08/2017 5:21:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Drain the swamp.” It was one of President Trump’s most powerful messages on the way to victory. Shake up Washington. Break a few eggs to create a new omelet. Overturn the establishment.
Well, hats off to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for doing some swamp-draining when he exercised the “nuclear option” to overturn the filibuster for Supreme Court justices. McConnell busted an old 19th century rule, which was never in the Constitution, and cleared the path for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch -- as good a candidate as can be found. Good for McConnell.
But let’s shift our swamp-draining focus to fiscal policy. Back in 1974, in the aftermath of Watergate, it was established that House and Senate budget committees would come together to pass a bill with something called “reconciliation instructions.” In this way, they would move a product through the committees that would only require 51 votes in the Senate to pass.
The process was allegedly designed to promote fiscal sanity, such as curbing the nation’s appetite for debt. Well, that didn’t work. Federal debt in public hands was about 23 percent of GDP back in the mid-1970s. Today it is about 77 percent of national income. Not much discipline there.
But the key problem with reconciliation is the highly flawed economic model used to score tax bills. Namely, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) score tax relief as a revenue loser and tax increases as revenue gainers. Clearly, such modelling makes it very difficult to reduce marginal tax rates.
And in recent years, this static modelling has led to the notion that tax cuts need a “pay-for.” If you don’t cut the budget enough, you don’t get your tax cut.
Almost weirdly, the scorekeepers are happy with tax hikes, allegedly to balance the budget. But tax hikes depress economic growth, which reduces GDP. And with a smaller income base, actual revenues decline, simply because most everybody is worse off.
In truth, the best way to balance the budget is to reduce tax rates and provide new incentives for faster growth, which then expands the income base and throws off more revenues.
In our book, JFK and the Reagan Revolution, Brian Domitrovic and I quote Democrat John F. Kennedy in his 1962 speech to the New York Economics Club. With high drama, JFK turned against the New Deal, saying, “it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today [91 percent top rate] and tax revenues too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. . . . The reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment.”
Twenty years later, Republican Ronald Reagan duplicated the JFK tax cuts to liberate a stagflationary economy. Today, the JFK-Reagan approach would rescue a stagnant economy.
But the scorekeepers stand in the way. They’re part of the swamp. They’re telling President Trump you cannot lower tax rates without pay-fors.
So I’d say it’s time for a “tactical nuclear option inside reconciliation,” as playfully put by Wall Street Journal reporter Richard Rubin. Throw out the static models and replace them with dynamic scoring that recognizes the positive impact of lower tax-rate incentives on growth.
The CBO estimates real economic growth over the next ten years will continue to stagnate at a 1.8 percent annual pace. However, looking at history, we know that growth will increase with more take-home pay and handsome rewards for business.
How about a 3 percent growth rate over the next ten years? It’s still below America’s long-run average. But if you slash tax rates, particularly on large and small business, it is reasonable to assume more investment, new companies, profits, productivity, wages, and job creation.
Get this: According to former Senate budget expert Mike Solon, an economy growing at 3.1 percent per year would generate $4.5 trillion more revenues than an economy growing at 1.8 percent. $4.5 trillion. Now that’s a pay-for.
Growth is the best pay-for.
Turns out, under the rules of reconciliation, dynamic growth estimates are perfectly legal. Don’t even have to blow up a filibuster. And Dan Clifton of Strategas Research Partners points out that the Senate parliamentarian says it’s fine to use dynamic estimates. Why has Congress been using static forecasts all these years? Nothing more than a bizarre tradition.
So if Mike Enzi, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, decides to use dynamic scoring, the Trump tax-cut proposals would sail through.
Reconciliation can be whatever you want it to be. It just takes a bit of bravery to buck tradition and drain the static-thinking economic swamp.
Give wage earners and the entire economy the rocket boost they so badly need.
This wiuld be true if spending did not increase to consume all new revenues.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
We should also budget nonsense that the baseline always increases every year.
I thought we were gonna get to talk about the B-61 thermonuclear gravity bombs stationed in Turkey that President Trump has control over. Damn liberal terminology
:(
Get this: According to former Senate budget expert Mike Solon, an economy growing at 3.1 percent per year would generate $4.5 trillion more revenues than an economy growing at 1.8 percent. $4.5 trillion. Now that’s a pay-for.
...
But then workers start to get pay raises, and for decades crooked politicians using the Federal Reserve have portrayed that as the worst possible thing that can happen in the Universe (they falsely portray wage increases as the cause of inflation). This gives the excuse for the Fed to invert the yield curve with artificial hikes in short terms rates, which is pretty much guaranteed to cause a recession with the drop in revenues that entails.
So until this crime against the productive citizenry is corrected, Kudlow’s growth ideas won’t work.
Use the NO or whatever it takes. Put all Trump’s people in Office ASAP. Put all policies into actipon, ASAP. I doubt the courts will fight him once all the positions are filled.
The other issue is we are going through an sea change in labor. Robots are replacing workers at increasing levels.
When you build an under class that can not work, because the jobs they used to do are automated, you have a problem.
You either find jobs for them to do, or tax those with jobs to support them.
Mike Enzi is not strong enough to push this through, in my opinion. I don’t know who is....Rand Paul, maybe.
The other issue is we are going through an sea change in labor. Robots are replacing workers at increasing levels.
When you build an under class that can not work, because the jobs they used to do are automated, you have a problem.
You either find jobs for them to do, or tax those with jobs to support them.
...
True, but that’s an old problem. See the Luddites.
The best way to handle it is to create new jobs and that comes from entrepreneurs starting new small businesses.
The problem is for every 100 people perhaps 10 are suited emotionally for the entrepreneurial life.
Note the above numbers were not derived quantitatively from any survey or statistics. They are a qualitative estimates from a lifetime of observation. So likely to be wrong and I hope the number is higher!
Good point, but we don’t need everybody to be capable of starting a business. We just need crooked politicians to stop standing in the way of those who are.
Agree!
Go to a lower class area.
Do you think the people on welfare, or working in McDonalds, are all small business people at heart?
Not to mention most companies pay good money to write regulations to hobble competition from small businesses.
For some, that will work. For the majority... Well go to the rust belt and see how that worked out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.