Quantcast

Economists Against Kerrynomics

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
368 Economists Against Kerrynomics
National Review | October 13, 2004 | J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda

Leading economists have a message for America: “John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.”

That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and — the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics — Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry’s policies “would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.”

Consider Kerry’s spending and tax proposals. Kerry claims he wants to balance the federal budget, but as the Washington Post pointed out last August, “Sen. John F. Kerry’s pledge to reduce record federal budget deficits is colliding with an obstacle that may be growing higher by the week: his own campaign commitments.” In fact, Kerry’s spending proposals would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending. To put this in perspective, $226 billion is roughly equal to the gross domestic products of Greece or Sweden.

Kerry’s oft-repeated budget solution is to raise taxes on “families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton.” This proposal would generate hundreds-of-billions of dollars over the next decade for the Treasury’s coffers. Kerry’s other proposed tax increases would generate billions more. Yet, these tax increases would offset only a fraction of Kerry’s new spending.

For instance, Senator Kerry’s government-run health insurance spending plan would by itself require a tax increase of more than $1 trillion. Two independent studies, one by the Lewin Group and another by the American Enterprise Institute, concluded that Kerry’s health insurance proposal would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And that’s just one of Kerry’s spending proposals. To close the funding gap between all of his spending and tax promises, Kerry would have to raise taxes by an average of $1,431 for everyone who files an income-tax return.

The stark disconnect between Kerry’s spending and tax proposals is what prompted 368 leading economists to conclude, “Kerry’s stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.” And given Kerry’s voting record in the Senate — he has cast 98 votes for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion throughout his legislative career — that is no idle threat.

It is no secret that John Kerry wants America’s foreign policy to be more like that of Germany and France. But perhaps even more disturbing, he has demonstrated that he wants to emulate their failed tax-and-spend economic policies, too. Over time, the consequences could be devastating. Consider the impact those policies have had on Europe. Germany and France once enjoyed standards of living comparable to those of the United States. Today, U.S. per capita GDP is 38 percent higher than that of Germany and 43 percent higher than that of France. Indeed, as economist Bruce Bartlett recently pointed out, “On average, Europeans only live about as well as those in the poorest American state, Mississippi.”

The 368 economists only briefly touched upon Kerry’s trade policies. As it happens, there is not much upon which to comment. Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers, and he has promised, if elected, to “review existing trade agreements.” His applause line is that he vows not to “sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place.” According to the 368 economists, “That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry’s trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.”

Finally, we have all heard John Kerry denigrate the present rate of job creation. Yet, according to latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report, 1.9 million jobs have been created since August 2003. And at 5.4 percent, the unemployment rate is below the average unemployment rates of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

We have also heard Kerry’s solemn vow to create 10 million new jobs during his first term as president. But you probably have not heard that the U.S. economy is likely to create about that many jobs over the next four years under current policy.

During the first nine months of 2004 — while Kerry was criticizing the pace of employment growth — payroll employment grew an average of more than 170,000 jobs a month. At that rate, the next administration would preside over the creation of roughly 8.2 million net new jobs. And yet, as Martin Sullivan pointed out in Tax Notes, Kerry has not presented one objective analysis to support his claim that his policies would create 1 million more jobs, much less 10 million more.

John Kerry has adopted the Walter Mondale approach to economics — increase taxes. Even advocates of Keynesian economics would not recommend raising taxes in the early stages of an economic recovery. Unlike Mondale, however, Kerry will wait until after the election to reveal all of the tax increases that will be required to pay for his government spending promises. Three hundred and sixty eight economists hope American voters will heed their warnings before it is too late.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
I don't think it matters much. It's either that plan (which will probably have a lot of the pie-in-the-sky goals fall out of it when reality matters instead of votes) or more spending well beyond our means...

I really don't see much realism in anyone's economics these days.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
It seems they both don't know economics, but 92 more economists think Bush is wrong...

NOBEL LAUREATES[10 of em], 450 OTHER ECONOMISTS
FAULT BUSH TAX CUT PLAN

Economic Policy Institute
Monday, February 10, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.

Dividend Tax Cut Called “Misdirected”
Ten Nobel laureates, joined by more than 450 other economists from all over the country, today
cautioned that the tax cut plan proposed by the Bush administration will not only fail to help the
economy in the short run, but will also weaken it over the longer term by deepening projected
deficits.

The warning note was sounded in a joint statement unveiled at the National Press Club today by
three of the Nobel economists: Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University), Franco Modigliani
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and Lawrence R. Klein (Universitiy of Pennsylvania).
The statement, along with the names of all of its endorsers, will appear as a full-page ad in
Tuesday’s (2/11) New York Times.

The economists’ statement notes that there are now more than two million fewer private sector
jobs than at the start of the current recession, and that the tax cut plan proposed by the
administration is not the answer to our current economic problems.

It further notes that the proposed tax cuts would not produce adequate growth or jobs and would
lead to fiscal deterioration that would, in turn, “reduce the capacity of the government to finance
Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure,
and basic research” and will “generate further inequalities in after-tax income.”

Kenneth Arrow, a Nobelist from Stanford University who is one of the statement’s signers,
summarized it this way: “The Administration's tax cut proposals will probably have a negative
effect on the current economic situation. The large anticipated deficits mean increased
government competition in the capital market and possible inflation and, therefore, higher longterm
interest rates. These higher rates, in turn, will inhibit new investment. There is no
compensating advantage in encouraging consumption.”
In addition to Drs. Klein, Modigliani, Stiglitz and Arrow, other Nobelists joining in criticism of
the Bush plan are Daniel McFadden and George Akerlof, both of the University of California at
Berkeley, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William Sharpe of Stanford University.

The statement acknowledges that the economy is experiencing some slow growth, but notes that
it is too slow to prevent unemployment from rising. To stimulate the economy, the statement
says, “a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to
expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment.”
The Economic Policy Institute coordinated the gathering of endorsements for the statement on
behalf of the Nobel laureates and other leading economists. The letter attracted widespread
support, garnering over 450 signatures in only a week.

“The enormous response we have seen among economists reflects deep concern that our
economy’s problems are not being recognized or adequately addressed by policymakers,” said
EPI’s president, Lawrence Mishel. “Our economy needs jobs, and the President’s proposal will
not create jobs either in the short or the long term.”

The full text of the Economists’ Statement follows:
ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT OPPOSING THE BUSH TAX CUTS

Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent
unemployment from rising. In fact, there are now more than two million fewer private sector
jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity, corporate scandals, and uncertainty
have and will continue to weigh down the economy.

The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of
how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a
permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term.
The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax
reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations,
is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.

Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected
chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance
Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure,
and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax
income.

To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax
measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for
investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth and jobs in the short term without
exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Nice to see all the "cut taxes, no matter what the situation" economists supporting Bush.

The Economist (a little rag out of the UK) did a survey in their last issue. As far as the economists they surveyed were concerned, Kerry is noticeably better.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
65
behind the viewfinder
quick quiz for you:

Q: how many spending bills has the "fiscally conservative" president vetoed since he's been in office?

A: zero.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,403
22,484
Sleazattle
Neither candidates policies are great but what really gets me about Bush is that his came up with his economic policy when there was a surplus, then did not change it at all when the economy took a dump he just changed his description of what the policies would do. I have the feeling he would do the same thing if the stock market went to 0 or inflation went out of control. Just makes me think his policies are not about helping the country but his wealthy buddies, this administration is nothing but a LOOTocracy raping this country for all it is worth.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
narlus said:
quick quiz for you:

Q: how many spending bills has the "fiscally conservative" president vetoed since he's been in office?

A: zero.
To dovetail (/derail): how much has he done for "individual liberties," the cornerstone of traditional conservative thought?

It blows my mind that individual liberties are a hallmark of the Left and not of the Right. Then again, when you get to extremes, either totalitarianist-stalinist-communism or facism, there's no room for individual liberties at either end.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
syadasti said:
It seems they both don't know economics, but 92 more economists think Bush is wrong...

I'll see your 92 and raise them by a score more...


470 OTHER ECONOMISTS THINK KERRY'S ECONOMIC PLAN JUST PLAIN SUCKS
Sam Houston Institute of Technology | 9 Oct

Read it
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
Actually your headline you linked to says,

"Candidates' focus on economy gives office too much credit, experts say
By Eric Heisler
Of the Post-Dispatch
10/12/2004

Whether you buy the incumbent's talk of an improving economy or the challenger's cries that it's stuck in a rut, experts issue this stern reminder: A president's power to sway the economy is less than voters think..."

N8 said:
I'll see your 92 and raise them by a score more...


470 OTHER ECONOMISTS THINK KERRY'S ECONOMIC PLAN JUST PLAIN SUCKS
Sam Houston Institute of Technology | 9 Oct

Read it
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
syadasti said:
Actually your headline you linked to says,

"Candidates' focus on economy gives office too much credit, experts say
By Eric Heisler
Of the Post-Dispatch
10/12/2004
Reeeeeeeeeally....???

and I thought I'd found 20 more experts to raise you by...

:p


*zzzzZZZZZWWWWWOOOOOOSSSSSHHhhhhhhh*
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
N8 said:
Reeeeeeeeeally....???
and I thought I'd found 20 more experts to raise you by...
You are the one who thought what either of them had in mind during the campaigns really mattered, so what's your point?

P.S. Four less Nobel laureates on your lineup :D