Understanding GOP Economics, An Exercise in Futility

Though I largely hold that trying to understand Republican economics is an exercise in futility, credit Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, for writing the single most brilliant takedown of the GOP's economic approach that I've read perhaps ever. In a column entitled The Political Genius of Supply Side Economics details the transformation of the GOP from the party of the responsible frugality of Dwight D. Eisenhower to the party of the irresponsible profligacy of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

To understand modern Republican thinking on fiscal policy, we need to go back to perhaps the most politically brilliant (albeit economically unconvincing) idea in the history of fiscal policy: “supply-side economics”. Supply-side economics liberated conservatives from any need to insist on fiscal rectitude and balanced budgets. Supply-side economics said that one could cut taxes and balance budgets, because incentive effects would generate new activity and so higher revenue.

The political genius of this idea is evident. Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party. It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending. Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?

How did supply-side economics bring these benefits? First, it allowed conservatives to ignore deficits. They could argue that, whatever the impact of the tax cuts in the short run, they would bring the budget back into balance, in the longer run. Second, the theory gave an economic justification – the argument from incentives - for lowering taxes on politically important supporters. Finally, if deficits did not, in fact, disappear, conservatives could fall back on the “starve the beast” theory: deficits would create a fiscal crisis that would force the government to cut spending and even destroy the hated welfare state.

In this way, the Republicans were transformed from a balanced-budget party to a tax-cutting party. This innovative stance proved highly politically effective, consistently putting the Democrats at a political disadvantage. It also made the Republicans de facto Keynesians in a de facto Keynesian nation. Whatever the rhetoric, I have long considered the US the advanced world’s most Keynesian nation – the one in which government (including the Federal Reserve) is most expected to generate healthy demand at all times, largely because jobs are, in the US, the only safety net for those of working age.

True, the theory that cuts would pay for themselves has proved altogether wrong. That this might well be the case was evident: cutting tax rates from, say, 30 per cent to zero would unambiguously reduce revenue to zero. This is not to argue there were no incentive effects. But they were not large enough to offset the fiscal impact of the cuts (see, on this, Wikipedia and a nice chart from Paul Krugman).

Indeed, Greg Mankiw, no less, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, has responded to the view that broad-based tax cuts would pay for themselves, as follows: “I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don’t.” Indeed, he has referred to those who believe this as “charlatans and cranks”. Those are his words, not mine, though I agree. They apply, in force, to contemporary Republicans, alas,

Since the fiscal theory of supply-side economics did not work, the tax-cutting eras of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush and again of George W. Bush saw very substantial rises in ratios of federal debt to gross domestic product. Under Reagan and the first Bush, the ratio of public debt to GDP went from 33 per cent to 64 per cent. It fell to 57 per cent under Bill Clinton. It then rose to 69 per cent under the second George Bush. Equally, tax cuts in the era of George W. Bush, wars and the economic crisis account for almost all the dire fiscal outlook for the next ten years (see the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

Today’s extremely high deficits are also an inheritance from Bush-era tax-and-spending policies and the financial crisis, also, of course, inherited by the present administration. Thus, according to the International Monetary Fund, the impact of discretionary stimulus on the US fiscal deficit amounts to a cumulative total of 4.7 per cent of GDP in 2009 and 2010, while the cumulative deficit over these years is forecast at 23.5 per cent of GDP. In any case, the stimulus was certainly too small, not too large.

The evidence shows, then, that contemporary conservatives (unlike those of old) simply do not think deficits matter, as former vice-president Richard Cheney is reported to have told former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill. But this is not because the supply-side theory of self-financing tax cuts, on which Reagan era tax cuts were justified, has worked, but despite the fact it has not. The faith has outlived its economic (though not its political) rationale.

The sad fact remains that too many Americans believe that taxes are too high (reality: among OECD countries only Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan have lower taxes than the United States as a percentage of GDP) and perhaps worse too many Americans believe that the only road to economic prosperity is cutting taxes. In this they have been duped by the GOP but we too are culpable in that we have not successfully made the case that a progressive tax scheme not only produces a more egalitarian country but a more broadly prosperous one.

What's even more depressing is the conclusion that Martin Wolf draws:


What conclusions should outsiders draw about the likely future of US fiscal policy?

First, if Republicans win the mid-terms in November, as seems likely, they are surely going to come up with huge tax cut proposals (probably well beyond extending the already unaffordable Bush-era tax cuts).

Second, the White House will probably veto these cuts, making itself even more politically unpopular.

Third, some additional fiscal stimulus is, in fact, what the US needs, in the short term, even though across-the-board tax cuts are an extremely inefficient way of providing it.

Fourth, the Republican proposals would not, alas, be short term, but dangerously long term, in their impact.

Finally, with one party indifferent to deficits, provided they are brought about by tax cuts, and the other party relatively fiscally responsible (well, everything is relative, after all), but opposed to spending cuts on core programmes, US fiscal policy is paralysed. I may think the policies of the UK government dangerously austere, but at least it can act.

This is extraordinarily dangerous. The danger does not arise from the fiscal deficits of today, but the attitudes to fiscal policy, over the long run, of one of the two main parties. Those radical conservatives (a small minority, I hope) who want to destroy the credit of the US federal government may succeed. If so, that would be the end of the US era of global dominance. The destruction of fiscal credibility could be the outcome of the policies of the party that considers itself the most patriotic.

In sum, a great deal of trouble lies ahead, for the US and the world.

Where am I wrong, if at all?


About the only quibble I have is Martin Wolf's hope that these radical conservatives are only a small minority. The fact that John McCain received 46.3 percent of the vote not even a month after the greatest financial collapse of the past 80 years suggests that they are not a small minority. To believe that we are immune to fiscal collapse is folly but to believe that the GOP is the vehicle that will drive us to the promise land of balance budgets is to ignore the historical record of the last 30 years. The GOP has done nothing but drive us headlong off the cliff of ever steeper deficits.

Tags: US Economy, Supply Side Economics, Reaganomics, US Fiscal Policy (all tags)




I spent the better part of last year on unemployment, from March through November. I sometimes came to near nervous breakdowns over my inability to find a job. I felt like a failure and even contemplated suicide. It was the most demeaning, embarassing experience of my life.

Today, I posted on my Facebook status "Has anyone who believes receiving unemployment makes a person not want to look for a job, actually been on unemployment themselves?" I thought I had the argument. If you haven't been there, like I had, you couldn't say what a person feels in that situation.

The response I got was 10 "Yes, I've been on unemployment and I think that" because, you know, they weren't lazy, but everyone else still is (I my mind I think secretly these friends of mine were lazy slobs on unemployment, won't admit it, but say others are like that) and a few "I know someone on unemployment who won't find a job until they run out" to "Maybe you weren't like that, but most are" 

The fact is there are a lot of sick twisted selfish careless people in this country, and I mean a lot. They think the unemployed are lazy and should just go get a job. I got it too, my conservative "friends" were willing to insult me if it meant defending their point of view. They believe what they want to believe and nothing you, I, the President or the Democratic Party says will change that.

I've given up. 

by DTOzone 2010-07-26 11:13PM | 0 recs
RE: Charles

Perhaps we have arrived the triumph of the id. Too many believe it seems buy into the Thatcherite view that there is no such thing as society, only the individual. There is no us only me. I think that a dangerous view. 

At this point, I think the only likely cure for these beliefs is societal collapse. Haiti is really the conservative dream state. The state is almost non-existant, almost all typical functions of government are private (for example, Haiti has the largest percentage of private schools in the Americas, 84 percent of Haitian children attend private schools, of course most Haitians can't afford to send their kids to school beyond elementary school; there are 6,000 police officers in Haiti, but 15,000 private security agents; there is one public hospital), the trade regime is the most liberal in the Americas, tariffs are low, it's a free trade haven, the regulatory environment is next to non-existent but the licensing regime very expensive. Yet Haiti has more millionaires per capita than any other country in the Western Hemisphere. Then again it is also the poorest and thus the most unequal. But Haiti is precisely where the belief in unfettered free markets leads. Corruption is endemic as Haitian elites effectively have monopolistic control over sectors. One family controls the ports, a few own the construction companies that get all the govt. contracts. Granted Haiti also has a deep racial divide and has long been poor and unequal but as a result of its free market experimentation that was forced upon it by Clinton, the country has gone from being self-sufficient in its food supply to being aid dependent in less than a decade. And functions that the state used to perform are now perform by NGOs and non-profits. Non-profits are a double-edge sword. All too often they are just another neo-liberal tool in dismantling the state. 

But we are on way to becoming like Haiti. We won't be as poor obviously but the social inequality levels are headed in that direction as we develop an aristocracy and a vast underclass of low wage earners without a social safety net. This is likely to have implications for the openness of our political system. It's not surprising to me that we are seeing calls to repeal the 17th Amendment nor even to restrict suffrage. Even Ann Coulter has wondered aloud about repealing the 19th Amendment which is bizarre than anyone would want disenfranchise themselves but that's Ann Coulter. Or look at various moves afoot to ban felons from voting. And no doubt to run for political office is now a rather expensive proposition. I'm not sure the number of individuals running for office who have net worths in the tens of millions in this cycle but it used to be rare and it's now commonplace. 

We'll see if there is a middle class reaction or not. Britain may be the test case. Cameron's budget is quite regressive and will fall hardest on the poor but there is increasing pressure on the middle classes in Britain. My expectation is that we are headed for a lost decade for a significant number of people. The Obama Administration now doesn't see the unemployment rate falling below 9% until 2013. The U6 is over 16%. A test of values is coming but if your friends are any indication, we are likely to fail that test.

by Charles Lemos 2010-07-27 07:23AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads