Glenn Hubbard: The Romney Plan for Economic Recovery

Story first reported from WSJ.com

We are currently in the most anemic economic recovery in the memory of most Americans. Declining consumer sentiment and business concerns over policy uncertainty weigh on the minds of all of us. We must fix our economy's growth and jobs machine.

We can do this. The U.S. economy has the talent, ideas, energy and capital for the robust economic growth that has characterized much of America's experience in our lifetimes. Our standard of living and the nation's standing as a world power depend on restoring that growth.

But to do so we must have vastly different policies aimed at stopping runaway federal spending and debt, reforming our tax code and entitlement programs, and scaling back costly regulations. Those policies cannot be found in the president's proposals. They are, however, the core of Gov. Mitt Romney's plan for economic recovery and renewal.

In response to the recession, the Obama administration chose to emphasize costly, short-term fixes—ineffective stimulus programs, myriad housing programs that went nowhere, and a rush to invest in "green" companies.

As a consequence, uncertainty over policy—particularly over tax and regulatory policy—slowed the recovery and limited job creation. One recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this uncertainty reduced GDP by 1.4% in 2011 alone, and that returning to pre-crisis levels of uncertainty would add about 2.3 million jobs in just 18 months.

The Obama administration's attempted short-term fixes, even with unprecedented monetary easing by the Federal Reserve, produced average GDP growth of just 2.2% over the past three years, and the consensus outlook appears no better for the year ahead.

Moreover, the Obama administration's large and sustained increases in debt raise the specter of another financial crisis and large future tax increases, further chilling business investment and job creation. A recent study by Ernst & Young finds that the administration's proposal to increase marginal tax rates on the wage, dividend and capital-gain income of upper-income Americans would reduce GDP by 1.3% (or $200 billion per year), kill 710,000 jobs, depress investment by 2.4%, and reduce wages and living standards by 1.8%. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the large deficits codified in the president's budget would reduce GDP during 2018-2022 by between 0.5% and 2.2% compared to what would occur under current law.

President Obama has ignored or dismissed proposals that would address our anti-competitive tax code and unsustainable trajectory of federal debt—including his own bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—and submitted no plan for entitlement reform. In February, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner famously told congressional Republicans that this administration was putting forth no plan, but "we know we don't like yours."

Other needed reforms would emphasize opening global markets for U.S. goods and services—but the president has made no contribution to the global trade agenda, while being dragged to the support of individual trade agreements only recently.

The president's choices cannot be ascribed to a political tug of war with Republicans in Congress. He and Democratic congressional majorities had two years to tackle any priority they chose. They chose not growth and jobs but regulatory expansion. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act raised taxes, unleashed significant new spending, and raised hiring costs for workers. The Dodd-Frank Act missed the mark on housing and "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions but raised financing costs for households and small and mid-size businesses.

These economic errors and policy choices have consequences—record high long-term unemployment and growing ranks of discouraged workers. Sadly, at the present rate of job creation and projected labor-force growth, the nation will never return to full employment.

It doesn't have to be this way. The Romney economic plan would fundamentally change the direction of policy to increase GDP and job creation now and going forward. The governor's plan puts growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:

• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.

• Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.

• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.

In contrast to the sclerosis and joblessness of the past three years, the Romney plan offers an economic U-turn in ideas and choices. When bolstered by sound trade, education, energy and monetary policy, the Romney reform program is expected by the governor's economic advisers to increase GDP growth by between 0.5% and 1% per year over the next decade. It should also speed up the current recovery, enabling the private sector to create 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month, or about 12 million new jobs in a Romney first term, and millions more after that due to the plan's long-run growth effects.

But these gains aren't just about numbers, as important as those numbers are. The Romney approach will restore confidence in America's economic future and make America once again a place to invest and grow.

Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. He is an economic adviser to Gov. Romney.

A version of this article appeared August 2, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Romney Plan for Economic Recovery.

For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.

For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News  blog.

For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.

For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.

For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.

For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.

For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.

For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.

For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Rebalancing the Tax Code

Atlas won’t shrug.
That’s the view of some economists: They argue that higher taxes will not discourage the wealthy from working harder or slow the economy, unlike in Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel, “Atlas Shrugged.” Its hero, led a strike by industrialists and others against the government, partly because they thought they were too highly taxed.

The Top 1 percent earners now make 20 times the average, while they made only 10 times the average in the 1970s. If they worked hard then, they should continue working hard today, even if they are taxed at 50 percent. The top federal tax rate is now 35 percent.

The economists’ work is of more than just academic interest. The President’s former budget director has said that their research on income inequality helped to point the way for the administration in its pledge to rebalance the tax code. Senate Republicans last month blocked the president's plan to raise taxes on the rich via the so-called Buffet rule, arguing it would hurt the economy claiming that high marginal tax rates distort decisions to work, save, invest and start a business.

In France, the Socialist presidential candidate has called for a 75 percent tax on annual incomes of more than 1 million euros ($1.3 million), a proposal championed by a professor at the Paris School of Economics. Polls show him leading over the incumbent President in advance of May 6 elections.

‘Just Crazy’

The French professor asserts that the idea that we need to pay people many millions of euros per year to get them to work harder is just crazy.

He and a professor of economics at the University of California-Berkeley, agreed in a November 2011 paper that the rich do behave differently when their taxes are raised. They pursue financial strategies to reduce their taxable incomes and bargain for higher compensation, instead of cutting back on how much they work and save or becoming less entrepreneurial.

The man who won the 2010 Nobel Prize in economics, also sees little evidence that raising rates on the top 1 percent of income earners -- households making about $350,000 or more a year in 2010 -- would restrict growth.

‘Overwhelming Likelihood’

The overwhelming likelihood is that the revenue- maximizing federal tax rate is somewhere in the 50 to 70 percent range. If you are reluctant to overshoot, then you can only go up to 50 percent.

Lionized by Republicans, the late Ronald Reagan championed an across-the-board tax cut soon after he became president in 1981 that lowered the top rate to 50 percent from 70 percent. He subsequently pushed it to 28 percent as part of an overhaul of the tax code in 1986.

The economy actually grew faster in the 30 years before that tax cut than it did during the following three decades, according to experts. Gross domestic product per capita advanced at an average annual 2.2 percent rate between 1950 and 1980, compared with 1.7 percent between 1980 and 2010, their calculations show.

Internationally, advanced economies that have reduced top tax rates the most since 1975 haven’t shown a tendency to grow faster than those that cut less.

Data ignores such emerging-market economies as Brazil and India, which have lowered top tax rates and enjoyed faster growth than developed nations.

Brazil’s economy has expanded at an average annual pace of 3.6 percent since 2000, more than double the 17-nation euro area’s 1.4 percent.
The British government is worried enough about the economic impact of high taxes on the wealthy that it has said it will reduce its top rate to 45 percent next year from 50 percent now.

No government can justify a tax rate that damages our economy and raises next to nothing.

‘Reduced Work Effort’

It’s not only through “reduced work effort” by the rich that higher tax rates can hurt the economy. Stepped-up tax avoidance also can impede economic efficiency by diverting money and attention away from more productive purposes.

Such efforts -- which include taking more compensation in the form of tax-advantaged health-care benefits -- reduce revenue for the government and “increase deadweight losses” for the economy.

Very high top tax rates also may have long-run effects on growth that aren’t immediately discernible. New people coming into the labor force might decide it’s not worth it to try so hard to get ahead.

High taxes have depressed the labor supply in European economies, according to an expert economist, who argues that Americans generally work more hours because U.S. tax rates are lower. The result: U.S. inflation- adjusted GDP per capita in 2010 was about 40 percent higher than the average for the euro area, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris.

‘This is Nonsense’

Increases in top rates should be coupled with steps to close loopholes and broaden the tax base to limit the avoidance efforts Feldstein worries about.

Capital-gains taxes should be raised as well. That would discourage business leaders from trying to take more of their compensation in shares, rather than salary, to avoid paying higher income-tax rates. The top U.S. rate on long-term gains is 15 percent.

Taxes on capital and labor income earned by the wealthy “don’t have to match, but they should move together and shouldn’t be too far apart.

Hurt the Market

An increase would hurt the stock market and the economy. Because evidence suggests that higher dividend- and capital-gains taxes are capitalized in equity values, increasing those tax rates will reduce stock prices and the wealth of millions of Americans. A rise would discourage investment, leading to lower productivity, wages and output.

Based on data from tax returns, economists have concluded that the top 1 percent of U.S. earners have more than doubled their share of income during the last half century, to about 20 percent in 2010 from less than 10 percent in the 1970s.

The research says more about fluctuations in earnings reported for tax purposes in response to changes in the tax code than it does about inequality.

‘Increasing Inequality’

The general trend is still toward increasing inequality.

The Congressional Budget Office said in an October report that the share of income received by the top 1 percent grew from about 8 percent in 1979 to over 17 percent in 2007.

In its calculations, the Washington-based CBO takes account of government transfer payments, primarily from Social Security, and company-paid health-insurance benefits.

Even after those adjustments, the rapid growth of income for the top 1 percent remains “a major factor” contributing to growing inequality, the CBO report said.

That’s reflected in the Occupy Wall Street protest movement’s motto, “We are the 99 percent,” and its calls for a more even distribution of wealth.


For more national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the  Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.