Category Archives: Congress

Is Growth Over?

Posted on by
Reply

                                             Is Growth Over?

In a recent New York Times op-ed column, Is Growth Over?, the Keynesian economist Paul Krugman argues that our current information technology revolution may not be potent enough to increase our economic growth rate beyond the American historical average of about 2%.

As much as we hope for a faster rate of growth, let’s assume that he is correct.  In fact our average rate of growth for 2010 – 2012 (since the recession ended in June 2009) is 2.1%.  What are the economic implications of 2% growth indefinitely into the future?  They are slower job growth, higher unemployment and therefore lower tax revenue.

High unemployment is bad enough for the millions of unemployed and underemployed.  But the fiscal implications are much worse because they affect the entire country.  We’ve already had four years in a row of trillion dollar deficits and the 2013 budget projections don’t look any better.  So continuing our present course presents a grim outlook, to say the least.

What are the alternatives?  We have two choices.  One is to boost the private sector with measures like pro-growth tax reform, relaxing onerous regulations, boosting domestic energy production and promoting international trade.  If such pro-growth policies are not politically doable, then the alternative is massive tax increases and spending cuts.

Our first priority must be to rapidly shrink the federal deficit down to zero.  Otherwise we are inviting fiscal calamity which can hit at any time without warning.  Fiscal conservatives should always remain focused on this #1 problem.  If no agreement can be reached for a rational plan to significantly reduce the deficit, then get the job done anyway that is possible.

We have got to wake up the American people to our urgent fiscal condition.  If going over the cliff is what it takes, then so be it!

No Deal is better than a Bad Deal

Posted on by
Reply

It is beginning to look like President Obama and House Speaker Boehner may not be able to negotiate an acceptable deal by December 31st to avoid going over the Fiscal Cliff.  The President wants tax rates to rise for incomes above $400,000.  The Speaker has offered to raise tax rates for incomes over $1,000,000 but it is not clear if House Republicans will go along with this, even if accepted by the President.

What is the effect of such increases in tax rates?  According to the Wall Street Journal, raising taxes for incomes over $500,000 would affect 750,000 small business owners, while an income cutoff of $1,000,000 would affect 311,000 small business owners.

What will be the economic impact of restoring Clinton era tax rates on small business owners?  A recent study by Ernst & Young predicts that employment would fall by 710,000 jobs and that economic output (GDP) would decrease by 1.3% on an annual basis.

Conclusion:  although more tax revenue is needed, as well as significant spending cuts, to get our fiscal house in order, it matters where this new revenue comes from.  What we really need is pro-growth tax reform.  This means lowering marginal tax rates and curtailing deductions and loopholes.

Yes, it is preferable to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.  But a deal needs to be structured which puts us on a sound fiscal and economic track for the long term.  Principle matters.  No deal is better than a bad deal.

Avoiding the cliff and restoring confidence

Posted on by
2

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed a sensible way forward with an Op Ed column, “Avoid the ‘Cliff,’ Restore the Confidence” in the December 12, 2012 edition of the Washington Post . His thesis is that businesses took on too much risk in the run up to the 2008 crash but now they are sitting on hordes of cash because they lack confidence that our political leaders can come up with a serious, credible plan to reduce the deficit and put our country on a sustainable path to economic growth and fiscal health.

His proposal for accomplishing this task is remarkably similar to that outlined by David Walker and discussed in my previous post on December 10, 2012.  That is, we should adopt the Simpson-Bowles framework, including tax increases and spending cuts.  At least a significant down payment on this plan should be agreed to before the end of the year.  The agreement would include a commitment to enact broader-based tax reform and entitlement reforms in 2013.

With trillion dollar deficits for four years in a row, now going on five, we definitely need more tax revenue as well as large spending cuts.  The biggest challenge in implementing this general framework is to figure out how to raise tax revenue in the least damaging way to the economy.

The tradeoff here is between raising tax rates versus eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.  Democrats (apparently) prefer raising tax rates rather than eliminating deductions.  This is unfortunate since it is well established in economic theory, as well as plain common sense, that the lowest possible marginal tax rates will provide the greatest stimulus to private risk taking and investment. This is the only sound way to create more jobs.

Democrats may have the strongest political position in the current negotiations but the Republicans have the soundest basic economic principles.  If the Republicans are able to keep the focus on the fundamentals, we will succeed in finding the way out of our current predicament.

My purpose in creating this site

Posted on by
Reply

I am so concerned about the federal deficit and the rapidly increasing national debt that I entered the recent Republican Primary for Nebraska’s Second Congressional District. The Primary was held on May 15, 2012 and the incumbent, Lee Terry, was re-nominated.  Mr. Terry went on to win re-election to an eighth term on November 6.

My platform was (and still is) to completely eliminate the deficit. I describe myself as a non-ideological fiscal conservative. By this I mean that I am highly focused on fiscal issues with no particular axe to grind besides cutting spending and increasing revenue through tax reform and economic stimulus.  Even though Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama are primarily responsible for our huge deficits in recent years, it is Congress which enables presidents to spend money and therefore Congress bears much responsibility as well. My attitude is that any member of Congress who is not actively and clearly providing leadership in cutting spending also bears responsibility for our huge deficits.

At this point, having spent so much time and effort in the political process, I am still highly committed in a personal and emotional sense to addressing this issue. This website will be used by me to continue raising awareness on the very same issues about which I recently campaigned as an active candidate.