Skip to main content

You can fool some of the people all the time, and that's our target market.  On no issue has that time-tested Republican strategy been more consistently applied than the impact of tax cuts on the national debt.  But even after oceans of red ink washed away George W. Bush's bogus contention that "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail are once again trying to dupe the American people about so-called "dynamic scoring."  But the repetition of discredited GOP talking points that tax cuts "pay for themselves" and "never have to be offset" doesn't make them any more true.

Despite the fact that supply-siders Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush respectively tripled and doubled the national debt, House Republicans are back with H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act.  As Ed Kilgore explained in the Washington Monthly, the GOP resolution demands that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates also use dynamic scoring to incorporate "supply-side assumptions about the growth-generating magic of tax cuts into official budget estimates, enabling conservatives to evade the deficit-boosting implications (and various congressional barriers that come along with them) of their pet proposals for reducing the tax burden of 'job creators.'"

As Paul Krugman pointed out in the New York Times Wednesday, that sophistry is behind the budget-busting economic plans of all the Republican White House hopefuls.  It's not just that last week's report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) found that "Debt will swell under top GOP hopefuls' tax plans."  The real sham is why Republicans pretend it won't:

"Some commenters are declaring that it's all OK because of the voodoo "dynamic" effects of tax cuts for the wealthy. I guess my question is, what on earth would make anyone believe in that old nonsense at this point?...What conceivable evidence would convince people that supply-side magic doesn't work?"
If you're Mitt Romney or his water carriers at the Wall Street Journal, the answer to Krugman's question is none.

Facing a primary threat on his right, Romney last week raised the ante on his past proposal to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminate the estate tax and reduce the corporate tax from 35 percent to 25 percent.  On top of his previous plan which would deliver nearly 60 percent of its benefits to the top one percent of taxpayers, Mitt unveiled a new, 20 percent across-the-board tax cut and called for the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

But as ThinkProgress and the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery and Ezra Klein documented, Mitt Romney's gambit would pile up debt while guaranteeing yet another tax cut windfall for the wealthy. At a time when income inequality is at its highest level in 80 years while the total federal tax burden is at its lowest in 60, Mitt Romney's risky new scheme makes George W. Bush look like Karl Marx:

Romney's claim that his plan would promote job and economic growth while reducing the deficit is also likely false. The Bush tax cuts were promoted under the same guise, only to blow a $2.5-trillion hole in the federal budget that was accompanied by worst performance of any post-war expansion" for growth in investment, GDP, and job creation. Romney's tax cuts are even more expensive, clocking in at a cost of more than $10.7 trillion over the next decade and reducing revenue to a paltry 15 percent of GDP, according to Linden. Balancing the budget on those terms, as Romney claims he will do, would be next to impossible.
Impossible, that is, unless President Romney both savaged federal spending and eliminated deductions for workers, families and businesses that cost Uncle Sam over $1 trillion a year. But in typical Romney fashion, his campaign is refusing to say which loopholes it would close while promising to maintain the ones voters care about most. His economic adviser Glenn Hubbard admitted Romney's cowardice, explaining "it is not his intention to take on any specific deduction or exclusion and eliminate it." And as the New York Times reported, Romney promised last Wednesday his plan would somehow be "revenue neutral" and raise the burden on upper-income taxpayers, even as he balanced the budget.

As Erza Klein suggested in "The Dynamic Dodge in Romney's Budget," Mitt would need to resort to magic:

As a matter of theory, stronger economic growth could make Romney's plan work...if Romney really could double or triple the pace of economic growth, it would be much easier to make his numbers add up...

The technical term for the secret sauce that Romney is using in his budget projections is "dynamic scoring." The idea is that tax cuts make the economy grow faster. They make people work harder. They persuade rich people to stop hiding money away. And thus they don't cost as much as a "static analysis" -- one that didn't take into account all these effects -- would suggest.

And that, the Wall Street Journal joyfully declared, is feature and not a bug in the Romney Plan 2.0:
The Romney campaign is also shrewd to say it will assume some dynamic revenue feedback from his marginal-rate cuts. This does not mean that the tax cuts will entirely "pay for themselves" right away. It does mean that it can safely assume that his proposal would recapture about one-third of the revenue loss from the rate reductions through more investment and economic growth.
No, Americans can't safely assume that.  In fact, they do so at their peril.  We don't merely have the experience of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts which show otherwise.

As it turns out, Romney's 20 percent tax cut plan is basically the same one Bob Dole ran on - and lost on - in 1996.  And the architect of that debacle, former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett, has long since recanted his support for the "dynamic scoring" at the heart of virtually every Republican tax plan.  As Bartlett put it three weeks ago:

As the budget deficit increasingly inhibits Republicans' tax-cutting, they are planning ahead for tax cuts that they will insist are costless because they will so massively increase growth. But for that approach to work, the C.B.O. and the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official budget and tax estimators, need to be forced to play along...

My concern is that the Republican effort is just a smokescreen to incorporate phony-baloney factors into revenue estimates to justify unlimited tax cutting...In other words, it is an issue of credibility. Republicans don't really care about accurate revenue estimates; they just want them to show that tax cuts pay for themselves, so they can pass more of them without constraint.

As Klein and Kilgore point out, Republican don't want dynamic scoring used for federal spending which could fuel economic growth.  (William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center emphasized, "You didn't hear the Republicans clamoring for dynamic scoring of the stimulus plan.")  And it's not just that the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 cost the Treasury $3 trillion.  Its former head and later chief economic adviser to John McCain already debunked the GOP's dynamic deceit:
In 2003, Doug Holtz-Eakin was appointed by Republicans to lead the CBO during the Bush years, and he came under intense pressure to use more dynamic analyses. But studies he commissioned found that dynamic scoring was devilishly complicated and wouldn't lead to drastically different estimates. As he explained in a 2011 hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, "it is unlikely to change the bottom line very much over the budget window."

The infamous Laffer Curve, Bartlett now highlights, is literally a laugher.  Ultimately, Ezra Klein concludes, "If dynamic scoring is how Romney makes his numbers work, then his numbers don't work."  Or as George W. Bush so eloquently put it:

"Fool me once, shame on...shame on you.  Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
* Crossposted at Perrspectives *
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The real puzzle is why Obama and Frank (0+ / 0-)

    both support Bernanke.

    Bernanke and his ilk were in charge before the financial crisis.  Bernanke should have been fired long ago.  WHy does this proven failure still have a job?  

    When the dollar devalues where does this value go?

    If you have a dollar in your drawer for several years, and then try to make a purchase with this dollar what happened to the purchasing power?

    What happens is wealth is transferred from one class and given to another class.

    The banks steal the wealth of the people.  This is inflation.  

  •  This pretty much captures it. (0+ / 0-)

    Too bad the vast majority of Americans are too lazy, or too stubborn, or both, to worry about reading and digesting things like this for themselves, versus simply relying on distorted 60 second TV ads and unabashedly biased "news" networks for their information.

    Facts are so, like...last century, man...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site