With the presidential election tightening and Hillary Clinton still the favorite to win, more and more attention is being devoted to trying to figure out what will happen to the GOP after Donald Trump. William Galston from the Brookings Institute sees a three-headed Republican party:
Wall Street i.e. establishment (fiscal) conservatives.
Main Street i.e. small government conservatives who think that government is the main obstacle to growth.
Populists i.e. non-ideological working class people who feel left behind by the modern world.
The Wall Street Journal is analyzing the Trump phenomenon with a series of articles, “The Great Unraveling” based on an underperforming U.S. economy:
Technology has not led to broadly shared prosperity.
The Federal Reserve did not foresee the financial crisis and hasn’t delivered adequate growth.
Trade with China has put millions of Americans out of work.
Today’s WSJ, “Republicans Rode Waves of Populism until They Crashed the Party,” describes the transformation of the Republican party all the way from Richard Nixon’s southern strategy, Pat Buchanan’s anti-immigration appeal in 1992, the Tea Party uprising in 2009 and 2010 until today’s populist rebellion against the establishment.
The map above shows the huge political realignment which has taken shape between 1996 and 2012 and is undoubtedly even more pronounced in 2016. The main question for me is whether and to what extent the three main Republican factions can come together on important policy issues such as immigration and trade:
Immigration. In the last debate Mr. Trump said that after the border is secured, and the “bad guys” are deported, then we’ll figure out what to do with the rest of the undocumented immigrants. This suggests a workable approach to the illegal immigration problem.
Trade. The challenge is to figure out how to make the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement compatible with the interests of working Americans.
Conclusion. Regardless of the outcome of the November 8th election, Donald Trump has had a huge effect on American politics. Whichever party is most successful in appealing to the core working-class Trump voters will have a huge advantage in the 2020 elections.
One of my favorite political and economic writers is the Brookings Institute’s William Galston who writes a regular weekly column in the Wall Street Journal. Most recently his article, “The Three-Headed GOP After Trump, “ is particularly lucid.
Mr. Galston sees three factions in today’s Republican party:
Establishment conservatives who favor free trade, immigration reform, are broadly internationalist, believe in climate change, want corporate and individual tax reform, and also support entitlement reform. They would accept tax increases as part of a “grand bargain” to address our debt problem.
Small government conservatives ala House Speaker Paul Ryan and his “A Better Way” plan for American renewal. They believe that government is the principal obstacle to growth, especially with excessive regulation. They want major tax cuts and reductions in domestic spending as well as structural changes in Medicare and Medicaid. They are more nationalist than internationalist in outlook and oppose corporate welfare such as the Export-Import Bank.
Populist conservatives ala Donald Trump, many of them working class. They distrust all large institutions but do not have an ideological preference for small government. They strongly support Social Security, Medicare and Disability Insurance. They view the world outside the U.S. as more of a threat than an opportunity, and therefore oppose trade agreements and large scale immigration. “America First” is their demand.
Can these three groups coalesce into a single working majority? As I see it, Mr. Trump might have been able to accomplish this but has fallen short because he is such a sleazy individual. Mr. Galston thinks that, after Trump, the second and third groups will be able to come together but only without the first group. I see the challenge as the traditional Republican Party, consisting of the first two groups, figuring out how to join forces with the third group. Conclusion. A prosperous and secure future for our country depends on having a strong and viable (fiscally) conservative party. How will this be achieved?
In my opinion the two most serious problems facing the U.S. at the present time are 1) stagnant growth and 2) massive debt. As discussed by William Galston in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the U.S. presidential campaign is now beginning to address the first of these issues. For example:
Bernie Sanders rejects “growth for the sake of growth” and says that “our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount back from the top 1%.”
Hillary Clinton says that we have to build a “growth and fairness” economy. “We can’t create enough jobs and new businesses without more growth, and we can’t build strong families and support our consumer economy without more fairness.”
Jeb Bush argues that there is nothing wrong with household incomes that 4% growth wouldn’t solve.
The readers of this blog will have little difficulty figuring out where I stand on this continuum of economic values. My view is illustrated by the chart just below from the World Bank which shows that countries with the fastest growing economies also have the least amount of inequality. Let’s be more specific. Mrs. Clinton would achieve more fairness by:
Raising the minimum wage.
Guaranteeing child care and other family friendly policies.
Encouraging profit sharing.
Encouraging more innovation by increasing public investment in infrastructure, broadband, energy and scientific research.
These are attractive goals but how do we achieve them? The best way to raise wages is to get the economy growing so much faster that it creates a labor shortage. Then businesses will be competing for labor and wages will go up. This is exactly what is happening in Omaha NE where I live and the unemployment rate is down to 2.9% (2.6% in Nebraska as a whole).
Furthermore, in a tight labor market, businesses will automatically try harder to keep good employees by providing extra benefits such as childcare and profit sharing.
Public investment in infrastructure, etc. will be more easily affordable with the higher tax revenue generated by a faster growing economy. Conclusion: faster growth is the best way to create a more fair and equal society!
Prospects for future economic growth are decidedly grim. The Congressional Budget Office has just reported that after a brief improvement for a couple of years, annual GDP growth will likely hover around 2.2% for the remainder of the ten year window 2015 – 2025. This means, in turn, that the unemployment rate will also not likely fall much below its current level of 5.7% for the same ten year period. A new report from the McKinsey Global Institute makes the even gloomier prediction that average U.S. GDP growth rate for the next 50 years will be only 1.9% per year, given current trends and policies. A summary of this report is provided by the Brookings Institution social economist, William Galston.
On the other hand, according to New York Times columnist, Nate Cohn, the Democratic Party may be adopting a new policy direction, “The Parent Agenda, The Democrats’ New Focus.” By this new focus he means:
Paid family leave
An expanded earned-income tax credit and child tax credit
Free community college
Free four year college in time
Mr. Cohn points out that both President Obama as well as Hillary Clinton have endorsed such ideas. Initiatives such as these are unlikely to go far in the current Republican Congress but they may still sound very attractive to the many hard-pressed middle class families with stagnant incomes.
The problem is that to emphasize a “family” political agenda like this is in effect to accept the conventional wisdom that faster economic growth is unattainable. This is a defeatist attitude which is very harmful to the 20 million Americans who are either unemployed or under-employed. Here, briefly, is what could be done to boost economic growth in the short term:
Implement broad-based tax reform with lower tax rates for all, paid for by closing loopholes and limiting deductions.
Reduce regulatory burdens on business by, for example, streamlining (not repealing!) the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act.
Expand legal immigration with additional high-skill visas as well as an adequate guest worker program.
Expand international trade with new trade agreements.
These are all political footballs, of course, but also policies with much potential to speed up economic growth. Either we take initiatives such as these or we consign our country to a future of relative economic stagnation with slow wage growth, high unemployment and increasing income inequality.
“Low interest rates aren’t working, but we need a debate about what will,” declares The Wall Street Journal’s William Galston yesterday in “Soaring Profits but Too Few Jobs”. “Corporate profits after taxes in the fourth quarter of 2013 rose to an annual level of $1.9 trillion – 11.1% of GDP, a postwar high. Meanwhile, total compensation – wages and benefits – fell to their lowest level of GDP in at least 50 years.” “Businesses are sitting on tons of cash . . . and they’re choosing to invest their capital in hardware, rather than hiring. The reason: they believe that investing in technology is likely to have a better effect on sales than hiring more people.” Furthermore, “today’s (low) interest- rate regime lowers the cost of capital – and therefore of capital investment relative to labor.”
Meanwhile,” Republicans are banging away at the Affordable Care Act while Democrats are busy scheduling votes on a grab bag of subjects designed to boost turnout from the party’s base in the fall elections. The economic problems we face are getting lost in the partisan din.”
We are in a very tough situation. Raising interest rates might give a marginal boost to hiring more workers over capital investment but it will also greatly increase interest payments on our massive and rapidly increasing national debt. And meanwhile we have a stagnant economy with millions of people either unemployed or underemployed. What should we do? How about
Boosting the economy with lower individual and corporate tax rates, paid for by cutting back on tax preferences. This will especially help small businesses grow and hire more employees. It will also encourage multinational corporations to bring their foreign profits back home for reinvestment.
Addressing rising income and wealth inequality by establishing an annual 1% wealth tax on individual assets in excess of $10 million. This will raise about $200 billion per year and could be used to set up a huge infrastructure improvement program to put millions of people back to work.
Interest rates will eventually return to normal levels of 5% or so and this will create a big squeeze on the federal budget. So we also need to get federal spending under control as soon as possible. But this is a separate issue.
Just boosting the economy and putting people back to work while addressing inequality in a very visible way will get us started on a path to recovery.
Two of my favorite columnists are the Brooking Institution’s William Galston, a social economist who has a weekly column in the Wall Street Journal and the economics journalist Robert Samuelson who writes for the Washington Post. Most people agree that income inequality in the U.S. is steadily getting worse. Mr. Galston make a good case (see my last post) that it is primarily caused by the large gap between the rising productivity of American workers and the stagnant level of their pay which has developed since 1973. He thinks that we need a fundamentally new social contract which links worker compensation to productivity. This, of course, is a tall order and it is not at all clear how such a new order would be achieved. Mr. Samuelson has a different perspective: “Myth-making about Economic Inequality”. For example:
The poor are not poor because the rich are rich
Most of the poor will not benefit from an increase in the minimum wage because only 6% of the 46 million poor people have full time jobs
All income groups have gained in the past three decades, even though the top 1% has gained the most (see the above chart from the CBO, December 2013)
Widening economic inequality did not cause the Great Recession
These two perspectives on inequality are quite different but not contradictory. Basically what Mr. Samuelson is saying is that we have to be careful in how we address this problem or we’ll just make it worse. Raising taxes on the rich is unlikely to help and might hurt if it slows down the economy. Raising the minimum wage will only raise a fairly small number of people out of poverty and may cause a lot of unemployment along the way.
My solution: focus on boosting the economy to create more jobs in the short run (tax reform, immigration reform, trade expansion) and improved educational outcomes for the long run (early childhood education, increasing high school graduation rates, better career education).
But I agree with Mr. Galston that it is imperative to lessen income inequality, one way or another. Otherwise as a society we’ll have big trouble on our hands.
The social economist William Galston has a column, in last week’s Wall Street Journal, “Closing the Productivity and Pay Gap”, discussing the large gap between the rising productivity of American workers and the stagnant pay level which has developed since 1973 (see below). He points out that “the erosion of the compensation/productivity link has made it harder to sustain robust domestic demand for goods and services, which constitutes more than two-thirds of our entire economy. As the gap widened, U.S. households responded by sending more women into the workforce, expanding the numbers of hours worked, and taking on a greater burden of debt. These strategies have hit a wall. Unless compensation rises more rapidly, stagnant domestic demand will depress economic growth as far as the eye can see.” In other words, workers are no longer receiving their fair share of the productivity gains. And this retards the increased economic growth which we all desire. Without detracting from the seriousness of Mr. Galston’s argument, I would like to make several observations which are pertinent to the discussion. First of all, as pointed out by the Heritage Foundation (in the second chart), wage stagnation since 1973 does not take into account the growth of total compensation including healthcare and other benefits. And since healthcare costs are twice what they are in any other country, this is a huge drag on the growth of worker’s pay. In other words, if the U.S. were able to cut healthcare costs nearly in half, as should be possible with a more efficient system, then the hundreds of billions of dollars saved would give a huge boost to paychecks. Secondly (as shown in the last chart), there is a direct correlation between wages and education level for U.S. workers. Of course, boosting educational outcomes is much easier said than done and, in any event, is a long term process. Nevertheless, any highly motivated and ambitious person can increase their earnings prospects by succeeding in school. Finally, a combination of minimum wage increases and perhaps an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit can help those people at the lowest levels of the income scale earn a living wage as long as they are willing to work. As Mr. Galston said in an earlier piece, “We need nothing less than a new norm – a revised social contract – that links compensation to productivity. And because we cannot return to the conditions that once sustained that link, we need new policies to bring it about.”