Jewish World Review Jan. 13, 2003 / 10 Shevat, 5763

Bob Tyrrell

Bob Greene
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Why is it that Official Washington still believes that a tax reduction means a revenue reduction? | The president's economic proposals unveiled in Chicago Monday have ignited a debate between Official Washington and the administration.

The administration has some ideas about what makes an economy tick. As the president put it in Chicago, "The role of government is not to manage or control the economy." Rather, government's economic role, he declared, is "to remove obstacles standing in the way" -- for instance, taxes. Official Washington seems to have no ideas for economic growth other than to raise taxes. Admittedly that always helps Washington's economy grow, but what about the rest of the country?

Two decades after President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts opened the floodgates on the longest, lushest period of economic growth in American history, most of Official Washington remains in the dark as to how it happened. In fact, many Democrats seem not even to know that it happened. In 1992, the Clintons campaigned as though the American economy were in a Depression. Listen to Hillary's response to the President's Chicago speech. She still thinks we are in a Depression.

Actually, as one of the economy's most accurate observers, Brian Wesbury, has written, "Given the events of this past 18 months -- war, terrorism and corporate shenanigans -- the U.S. economy's growth rate of 3 percent is an absolute miracle, a clear sign of robust productivity growth." Of course, this economy could still use a vitamin boost. Growth at this point in a recovery should be in the 5 percent range, not 3 percent. The boost that the president obviously favors is tax cuts, particularly marginal tax cuts and taxes on dividends.

Most of Official Washington views the tax code about the way a Roman tax collector viewed the tax code under the Emperor Trajan -- as a way to feed a hungry government. The Bush administration has accepted the supply-siders view of the tax code, which is to say, as a way to encourage growth. Almost no tax encourages growth, but some taxes encourage more growth than others.

A reduction in marginal tax rates encourages economic growth. To Official Washington, a reduction in marginal tax rates only means a reduction in tax revenue proportional to the size of the tax cut. But recent history refutes Official Washington.

In 1980, the top federal tax rate was 70 percent. By the last year of the Reagan administration, the top tax rate had been lowered to 28 percent. Official Washington had anticipated a dreadful loss of tax revenue. In fact, tax revenue in 1990 was twice what it had been in 1980. More shocking still, the share of tax burden borne by those in the top tax bracket had increased.

Economic studies by such careful students of the economy as Martin Feldstein at the National Bureau of Economic Research add to the case. Much of the revenue supposedly lost in tax cuts is recovered by the cuts' increased economic activity.

Why is it that Official Washington still believes that a tax reduction means a revenue reduction? Official Washington uses a tax model that tells it so. Interestingly, it is a tax model that is always wrong. The model is based on what economists call static scoring, though it might more accurately be called "static prophecy." It never takes into account that economic behavior is influenced by taxes. It simply prophesies: higher taxes, more tax revenue; lower taxes, less tax revenue. After the president's Chicago speech, the adepts of static prophecy see those dollars left in the taxpayers' hands as merely dying and leaving a budget deficit.

Yet as the Coolidge tax cuts, the Kennedy tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts make obvious, increased economic activity follows tax cuts. With increased economic activity comes increased tax revenue -- perhaps not proportional to the size of the tax, cut but over time a growing economy is always preferable to a stagnant economy.

Now that the president has adopted tax cuts as an economic stimulant, he will make his argument for them stronger by accepting a tax model that is more accurate than "static prophecy" (and less biased towards high taxes). It is a tax model that recognizes that economic behavior is influenced by taxes. Official Washington might envisage the money given up in a tax cut as dead money, but the reality is that tax cuts encourage increased economic activity and an attendant increase in tax revenue.

There is a growing likelihood that the Republican Congress will adopt dynamic scoring to predict the consequence of tax policy. That is something the Bush administration should applaud. For too long, the "static prophecy" employed by the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Committee on Taxation has dominated debate over tax policy in Washington. Our suave president has called for tax cuts. Now let him make his case more compellingly by adopting a tax model that is accurate, "dynamic scoring" or shall we call it "dynamic prophecy"? After all, no economic prediction is ever completely accurate.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Bob Tyrrell is editor in chief of The American Spectator. Comment by clicking here.

01/02/03: Missing Moi
12/27/02: The grizzled and menacing-looking senator in Confederate drag is a Dem
12/24/02: Uprooting Christianity in the Holy Land
12/20/02: Under fire, Lott showed an ignobleness that is embarrassing
11/26/02: Bartley's enemies have been routed
11/14/02: Clarence Thomas and the segregationist Mississippi sheriff
11/07/02: I muffed up
10/31/02: Is the American university turning its back on change, on progress?
10/24/02: So why aren't the Dems buoyant?
10/17/02: Mourning the loss of the "yellow-belly"
10/10/02: American politics at its most ignominious
10/03/02: A man above the law, a bully
09/26/02: Is Bob Greene a victim of an anti-Clinton backlash?
09/19/02: I knew Mafiosi and
09/12/02: Chickens and poseurs
09/05/02: Sympathizing with the Europols
08/29/02: 9-11 did not change us forever
08/22/02: Public persons frivoling with serious matters
08/15/02: Beachcombing among the fat of the land
08/08/02: They pave the way for corruption, not personal responsibility
08/01/02: Believing the unbelievable
07/25/02: The congressional posse comitatus
07/18/02: Cosmopolitan Arab fashion
07/11/02: What the prez actually knows
07/04/02: The vindication of a truly original thinker
06/27/02: The perfect book for Hillary
06/20/02: To say that they were ordinary is not to slight them
06/13/02: Daschle must begin to act like an adult
06/06/02: Lack of "intelligence" --- and sheer stupidity
05/30/02: Revealing a carefully guarded media secret
05/23/02: In these times, thank Heaven for Clinton!
05/16/02: Fast Times at the Church of the Nativity
05/09/02: "Name the Prettiest Suicide Bomber"
05/02/02: Vindication for the Boy Scouts
04/25/02: A topic almost no other columnist will touch
04/18/02: 'Conventional Wisdom' --- and those who defy it
04/11/02: Let the Sun shine in
04/05/02: Hooded men of color in sheets
04/01/02: A McCain-Feingold Act for Hollywood
03/21/02: Yakkin' on Yates
03/15/02: No role for Paul Volcker in Enron: the movie
03/07/02: My membership in the Communist Party U.S.A.
02/27/02: This award is bestowed by 'contrarians'
02/21/02: Mike Tyson: Made for Washington?
02/14/02: Enron as underdog?
02/07/02: Freed from the presence of money -- hard or soft -- most politicians would be just as bad
01/31/02: Needed: Bush to make a preemptive strike against his enemies . Ones who'd like to see him fail even during war
01/24/02: Hucksters will move on to make their next marks
01/17/02: Debonair prez should begin to do the High Life
01/10/02: Move over Twinkies --- "the acne medicine made him do it!"
01/03/02: Leaving the Nazis looking comparatively humane
12/27/01: A "self-made journalist"
12/20/01: Calamities and unanticipated benefits
12/13/01: America's grief ought not to give comfort to those who caused it
12/06/01: Leahy, the strict civil libertarian!? A short-term exploiter of the Constitution is more like it
11/29/01: Welcome to Afghan, Maryland?
11/26/01: So, why don't more folks hate us?
11/15/01: America's quagmire and other certainties
11/09/01: No longer the smug statists, the prodigal Keynesians?
11/01/01: The New Seriousness
10/25/01: Bright lights and the Taliban
10/18/01: Is bin-Laden propaganda from Western intelligence?
10/12/01: No yellow ribbons
10/05/01: Bubba's back --- again!
09/28/01: Exposing peacetime's frauds
09/21/01: So protected, we're vulnerable
09/14/01: At Barbara Olson's home
09/11/01: Duh! All conservatives are racists
08/31/01: Arafat's terrorists have created their own hell
08/24/01: Time for some political prophecy
08/16/01: They claim to be doing so much good
08/10/01: Visiting the source of the White House braintrust
08/03/01: Morality and reality
07/31/01: Blinded by success?
07/24/01: The latest Kennedy capitulation in Massachusetts
07/13/01: Talk about tawdry
07/06/01: Delighting in the Dictator
06/29/01: The Godphobes
06/21/01: Fashionable Washington is sempiternally in a stew
06/15/01: The limits of hypocrisy
06/08/01: Flagging our general apathy

© 2001, Creators Syndicate