Posted on 06/01/2003 1:45:37 AM PDT by TomAdkinsCC
WHY TAX CUTS WON'T WORK---Not so fast, folks!
by Tom Adkins .......CommonConservative.com 6/1/03
Debates are raging over the 330 billion dollar tax cut passed last week. Democrats squealing about the "cost" of the tax cuts. Republicans crow about the doubtless "boom" that will result. It's time someone threw a bucket of water on the rhetoric. They're both wrong. Here's why
First, let's take on the Democrats claim that tax cuts "cost" revenue, with a little history. In 40 years, no tax cut (Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton 95, Bush II) has resulted in less treasury income. Never. With the exception of the miniscule 2001 cut (flat revenue so far), every cut dramatically boosted treasury revenue. And they all boosted economic growth, including Bush II, which arguably saved the economy from the Greenspan/9-11 mini-recession. (Five straight quarters of positive growth, a respectable 3% average). And every tax increase (Carter, Bush I, Clinton 93) slowed the economy and revenue growth. Remember, Clinton's retroactive tax hike barely gave us 1% growth for two years. Apparently, conservatives are right about the famous Laffer curve, which shows you can get the same tax receipts with two different tax rates, proving growth beats the cost of tax cuts.
But what about the conservative prediction that the latest tax cuts will boost the economy and send revenues soaring? Sorry, supply-siders, not this time. It's important to understand a few facts here. First, a $330 billion tax cut sounds massive. But that's measured over ten years, only $33 billion per year. Compared to a 2 trillion dollar budget? That's less that a 1.6% cut, a mere deck chair off the Queen Mary. Exactly how will that turn the ship around? And we're still fighting a war. But it gets worse.
The GOP front loaded the cuts, with sunset provisions. In other words, they end in 2-3 years and revert back to the current higher rates. Then, Republicans will dare Democrats to raise those taxes back up in the 2004 elections, gambling on a position play. If the economy is booming, they'll claim the tax cuts get credit, and we should do it again. If the economy is slow, they'll claim the larger cut was needed, and dare Democrats to demand higher taxes in an election year. Great politics. Bad economics.
The reason the last three tax cuts worked is because they were permanent. People knew they could buy a car, house, or invest money with a future tax rate that was predictable. And long-term tax predictability meant businesses could invest their new profits, expand, know the future net from their write-offs and profits and (drumroll, please) hire people. That's why the Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton 95 tax cuts worked so incredibly well, and the Bush I and Clinton 93 tax hikes crushed the economy.
On the other hand, consumers can't gamble on a large future purchase if tax cuts are temporary. If a family is debating a car purchase, they'll hesitate if the marriage penalty is lowered for only two years. How will they make a payment in year 3, 4 and 5? And businesses? They can't plan anything with only two years of certainty, especially with large-dollar equipment investments. In short, this small, temporary tax cut will lead to small, temporary results.
It seems as though Republicans folded without fighting all that much. They certainly didn't make the case as if their political lives depended on it, gambling that a smaller temporary tax cut will be successful in an election year without knowing what the interim brings. And Democrats are cheering their "victory" over the President while tacitly acknowledging tax cuts work, ignoring the obvious logic that a larger cut would work better. And Neocons will need additional revenue -and public support- to complete their vision of pre-emptively attacking our global enemies for national security. In a lame-duck second term, Presidents have far more latitude to conduct adventurous foreign policy. But not without money.
The irony is that higher growth and higher revenue is good for each party. Republicans would ratify their fiscal philosophy of lower taxes and staying atop the global food chain. Democrats would get more money to experiment with, possibly learning how to add some common sense to their compassion. But without permanent tax cuts, neither will reach their goals.
And we haven't even addressed wasteful spending. But if an American Congress can't grasp a minor tax cut, you can bet they'll endlessly debate how much the taxpayers fork up to keep their political oxen in the barn, away from the gore. ==========================================
Tom Adkins is the Publisher of CommonConservative.com, and a frequent guest on Fox, CNN, CN8
I thought it was all front loaded, and going to sunset in two or three years, which is why it is smaller.
I'm puzzled by this reaction; is it because the author's opinion does not march lockstep with that of President Bush? Even though he makes the case for a permanent tax cut, it's drivel?
Why must support for the President be of the complete and total sycphant variety? Why can't a fella say to the President (like Mr. Adkins is doing): "Mr. President, heaven knows I love a tax cut as much as the next guy, and God bless you for working to get one for us. But maybe you haven't entirely thought this through (I know you've a lot on your mind). Or maybe your advisors - also very busy people - haven't completely gone through this. For sustained economic growth, the American people need the assured stability of a permanent tax cut. The one-time shot in the arm is nice, but short-sighted."
Or would this be "complete and total drivel" as well?
And, as Mr. Adkins wrote, we haven't even discussed the spending yet.
Yep... that sums up this piece -- the author fails to decipher the "tactics" from the "strategery"... Bush's $330 billion tax cut can't be simply divided by 10 and assumed to be $33 billion of tax cuts per year. About $250 billion of it shows up in the first 2-3 years. And by working on the margins (capital gains, dividends, and all the individual tax rates), it provides strong growth-oriented, investment oriented incentives. And the "strategery" of the sunsetting provisions means that the Fall 2004 election will feature a revisiting of the issue: "the Democrats want these Tax Cuts rescinded! They want to raise your taxes!" For people (voters) on the margin (at say the 10% marginal tax rate or enjoying the dividend tax cut), reversing those tax cuts will mean Tax Rate INCREASES of 50-100%! How well do you think that will play, Mr. Mondale?
Like you, I can see what the author intended but he didn't do a very good job of making his point.
Remember, I'm just asking, but it seems to me that if the AMT is not substantially adjusted, most all other tax reductions are going to be irrelevent for the 25% or more of tax payers that currentlt pay AMT.
If anyone has any insight on this, it would be appreciated.
I agree, his case that tax cuts don't reduce federal revenue was well made, when trying to give the democrat spin he waffled. First by argueing that the cut was only 33b per year, when it can be argued that the sunset provisions will never be allowed to take place if the economy still needs a boost. and Second by not informing us that the president asked for far higher cuts and was beaten back by the democrats and the left leaning senators still in the republican party.
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.