Pawlenty proposes achieving Clinton
era prosperity with failed Bush era
policies (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
In an op-ed
published this morning, Tim Pawlenty said we need a new economic plan:
Let's start with a big, positive goal. Let's grow the economy by 5 percent, instead of an anemic 2 percent.
It's been done before: Between 1983 and 1987, the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9 percent annually. Between 1996 and 1999, under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the economy grew at around 4.7 percent annually.
First of all, Pawlenty's goal of sustained 5% growth over a ten-year period is unrealistic; at least over the past six decades, it hasn't been done.
But setting aside his overoptimism, how does he propose returning economic growth last seen during the Clinton era? By doubling down on the failed Bush tax policy:
Pawlenty's plan for economic recovery stands largely on modifying the tax code. He proposes a three-tiered individual income tax. Those who currently pay no income tax would continue to pay nothing. After that, he suggests the first $50,000 of income - or $100,000 for married couples - would be taxed at 10 percent. Everything above that would be taxed at 25 percent. Pawlenty says he would also eliminate the capital gains tax, interest income tax, dividends tax and the estate tax.
Cutting the individual tax rate would spur job growth, Pawlenty argues, since small and medium-sized businesses are often taxed under individual rates.
He also proposes slashing the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.
You'd think that maybe Pawlenty would realize that if we want to return to Clinton era economic growth, it would be smarter to return to Clinton era tax policy than to double down Bush's jobs-killing tax cuts, but apparently Pawlenty isn't all that interested in thinking. For example:
Calling regulations a "hidden tax," Pawlenty suggests requiring the sunsetting of all federal regulations, unless specifically sustained by a vote of Congress.
So under his plan, we'd eliminate all federal regulations unless Congress were to specifically extend them. That means every single rule designed to protect the environment and consumers woud disappear, overnight, and given the mindset of the current GOP majority in the House, you can damn well be sure that none of them would be restored. If that happens, good luck trying to pour a clean glass of water, or inhale a fresh breath of air...and you can forget about holding financial institutions accountable for anything.
Amazingly, it gets even stupider:
One of the more gimmicky items in Tim Pawlenty's economic speech today is the idea of a "Google test" — an assumption, when it comes to government spending, that "if you can find a good or service on the Internet, then the federal government probably doesn’t need to be doing it."
That might sound good up front, but it also leaves an almost infinite array of government services on the chopping block: Does the "Google test" mean public education is unnecessary, because private and parochial and online schools are available? How about police departments, in the age of private security? Does the Smithsonian get shut down because there are private and nonprofit museums?
Now that Pawlenty has announced his "Google test" for government, at least we know who he'd appoint to be Secretary of Education: Donald Trump. Because everybody knows Donald Trump University offers a truly terrific educational experience. Just Google it.