Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama's Tax Cuts Leave Logic Behind
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama's proposed tax cuts to get the economy moving again may look good on the outside, but if you lift the hood, there's not much inside to get us where we need to go.

Obama's plan includes $300 billion in tax cuts, the heart of his $850 billion economic-recovery plan. But the core of his anemic, start-stop tax cuts to get consumers spending again is expected to total $150 billion over two years.

That is about the size of last year's one-time tax rebates that boosted the economy for a few months, then ran out of gas when workers either saved their rebate checks or used them to pay old bills, not make new purchases.

To be fair, $150 billion is still a lot of money, and Obama's advisers are considering several ways to give it away -- through lower Social Security payroll taxes or reduced income-tax withholding over a period of months. But a one-time $500 rebate does doesn't contain enough octane to drive a massive $14 trillion economy for the long haul. That requires permanent tax-rate cuts to fuel long-term growth.

"Decades of economic research has demonstrated that permanent, as opposed to temporary, reductions in taxes are keys to changing consumer behavior," said Stanford University economist John Cogan.

"The failure of the recent (Bush) tax rebates to help the economy is more evidence of this fact. Given that Social Security is projected to start incurring deficits in only a few years, a payroll-tax reduction would seem to be necessarily temporary. If so, we should expect such a tax reduction to have only a negligible impact on the economy," Cogan told me.

Other parts of Obama's tax-cut plan to stimulate the economy make no logical sense.

Take, for example, his proposal to give a business tax break for every new worker hired. Businesses are laying off workers in droves because sales are down and they can no longer afford to employ existing workers, let along hire new ones.

No amount of per-worker tax subsidy changes that stark reality. To help businesses get back on their feet, the government could permanently cut corporate tax rates (which are the second highest in the industrialized world). But Obama flatly opposes that. Indeed, he wants to raise corporate taxes on companies that do business abroad or drill for oil.

He does deserve credit for proposing that businesses be given more tax breaks to purchase equipment and expand their operations.

Expanding deductible expensing of capital purchases by businesses "will encourage growth," said Club for Growth president Pat Toomey in a statement at the organization's Web site.

"Unfortunately, most of the rest of what is being described as 'tax cuts' either won't change incentives or are not even tax cuts. Temporary, capped tax credits do not increase incentives and will not spur growth. 'Refundable tax credits' -- those paid out to people who do not owe taxes -- is an Orwellian description for government spending," Toomey said.

The problems with Obama's tax plan are fourfold:

First, the solutions are short-term when the economy's needs are long-term. To succeed, businesses must have tax policies that are not phased out in a year or two.

Second, he seems to have trouble understanding that businesses will hire more workers when their profits start to rise and business improves. Government can help boost profits (a word Obama rarely utters) by cutting corporate tax rates that will make businesses more competitive at home and abroad and boost their bottom lines.

Third, there seems to be no recognition among his advisers that capital is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy and the businesses that make it run. Raise the cost of capital, as Obama has proposed, by hiking the capital-gains taxes and dividends, and you get less of it. Cut the capital-gains tax -- or eliminate it, for that matter -- and you'll unlock needed investment capital and put it to work.

Fourth, a dynamic economy requires that we offer permanent incentives at all income levels to work, save and invest. Raising taxes on workers in the top tax brackets to redistribute their income to those on the lower brackets will not create economic growth; it will lessen it. Obama has wisely agreed to indefinitely postpone his plan to raise the top income tax rate to nearly 40 percent, but he hasn't abandoned it.

There seemed to be a collective sigh of relief among tax reformers this week when Democratic leaders said that work on the stimulus package he wanted to sign on Inauguration Day will take much longer than expected -- maybe a month or two more.

That offers his critics time to give his proposals a much-needed debate and the chance to argue that an economic system as big and complex as ours is going to need larger tax-cut incentives to put the economy back on the road to recovery.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Were It Only True
I agree with your assessment of the incoming President's "economic stimulus," but I doubt that he'll consider good advice. He was elected, as was his Congress, by folks who either forgot the economics or history lessons taught in school or never learned them in the first place. The supporters (mainly on the George Soros side) despise our free-enterprise system in particular and our country in general, and only opposition, up to an including permanent fillibusters from the GOP, will prevent the destruction of our country in the long-term.

forfeit of fiscal responsibility
The Republicans have lost this issue for a long time. The Obama tax plan may or may not be "good" -- but the spending in Iraq is so much worse (and more money).

Think about this: Bush fired Lawrence Lindsey in 2002 for suggesting that the cost of an Iraq invasion might exceed $100,000,000,000. The reality is that he was way off -- it is at least 10 times that amount -- and our committments will continue for the future.

If you want to get rid of a leader, why not be cost effective like we were with Allende?

we have heard all this before
this is exactly was failed for the bush administration.

every single thing proposed was done and look where we are at.

the paradigm has shifted but republican dogma remains the same.

here is what i mean.

when we were a manufacturing country, business would take a tax reduction or credit and use it to order more equipment, build new plants and hire new employees.

we are now a service country and the ceo's do not re-invest in their own companies.
they take the profits from the tax breaks and build mcmansions and spend the money on themselves.

that paradigm shift destroys the entire concept of tax breaks for corporations.

as greenspan said,

"i thought ceo's would be more concerned with the companies bottom line rather than their personal bottom line.

i was mistaken."

that is why republican proposals have not and will not work.

feargalx
just went to your blog.

interesting stuff.

you are objective and clear headed.

keep posting.

DEMOCRATS ARE GETTING A BIG PASS
Where is outrage over responsibility for the recession now that facts are clear in the rearview mirror?

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/01/democrat-respon sibility-for-economic.html

It was evident then, it is even more evident now. Yet no feet are being held to the fire. Can we assume Madoff arrived just in time to take the brunt of it, deflecting all attention from where it should be focussed?


pacificgatepost
you just flat out wrong.

answer this question before i give you links to disprove your hypothesis.

would bear-stearns, lehman brothers and aig failed without freddie and fannie.

yes they would have because they had "bundled" mortgages as investment tools that were now worth millions less than they had paid for them.

here are some links to counter your false claims.


http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archive s/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html



http://www.newsweek.com/id/161199

christianlib
Thanks very much for your encouragement. I am glad you found it interesting.

feargalx
you seem really interested in social security and retirement scenarios.

i am also.

i will go to your blog and leave a comment.

Ponzi Scheme c/o the experts..
I agree that Pacificgatepost is off base...Here's what you're missing: 1. The Banking Lobby KNOWS that they created this mess...2. The Banking lobby ALSO knows that most people have no idea how mortgage backed securities work....3. The Banking lobby realizes that they can get out-front and deflect blame by creating a far-too-simple answer to a far-too-complex problem by politicizing it and breaking it down to simplistic terms: Blame "minorities and poor people"..Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around but the lionshare rests with those who lobbied continously AGAINST reforming an outdated financial regulatory system...The Banking lobby fully understands this so they push the risk downward to Congress via Fannie/Freddie..See, the banking lobby KNOWS that there's plenty of emotion that can be garnered by shifting blame to incompetence in Congress...Let's see, we shift risk from one party to another to cover up the fact that we're the ones that are stealing everyone blind...There's a term for that. It's called a Ponzi scheme. Take note kool-aide drinkers.. You're being fleeced--- by the experts!

instead of that $700 billion bailout
We should have given everybody over 21 a cool $100,000

Congress, Obama; for the love of god don't increase our nation's debt.

who's next in line for taxpayer's cash

Economy 101
So many smart people, so little understanding. Until we reduce the power of government at all levels nothing will change our crash-dive into insolvency.

The Problem with Bush and B.O. ...
...is that neither is an economic conservative. President Bush lowered taxes and moved millions off the tax rolls, but he also injected the feds into primary and secondary education. His invasion of Iraq belies his belief in the transformational power of government, not markets. His "economic stimulus" and the TARP are further examples of him using the blunt instrument of government to attempt to change markets.

The Democrats in Congress are equally or more to blame as all spending bills must start in the House. The 1995 bolstering of the Community Redevelopment Act, which forced banks to lend to people who could not repay those loans is at the heart of the real estate bubble and today's foreclosures. Their blocking of tighter controls over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is another example of their intentional lying to the American people.

B.O. is headed down the same path, but at a more rapid pace. His "tax the rich, buy the poor's vote" plan of economic stimulus and greater spending will match the worst of the disasterous FDR administration. The only reasonably good news is that the people who put B.O. in power, the young, will suffer the most from his ill advised and long-term disasterous policies.

Will no one in government remember one of the finest Jefferson quotes, "the government that governs least, governs best"?

There will be no debate
Debate on tax cuts by Democrats? It won't even occur. The stupid details under the hood of this big stimulus gaff will be over-looked by the media, unreported by the journalists, and glorified by the alphabet TV networks. They are in love with this guy Obama, the Messiah. We won't be told the truth. There isn't a prayer that this stimulus package will do anything FOR America.

The people are not as easily
manipulated as Obama and other politicians believe.

Consumers don't just look at today or even next week. People who work, take care of families and know that eventually they won't be ABLE to work, must plan years ahead.

Businesses must do the same.

The high cost of gasoline caused manufacturers in the Elkhart area of Indiana to lay off thousands and close factories that make motor homes, campers and travel trailers. Even though the cost of gasoline has dropped dramatically, those manufacturers can't call workers back because they know as soon as the economy improves even just a little, those gasoline prices will shoot back up.

Obama's Tax Cuts and Logic?


I have never met a Liberal who thinks logically.

Lots of silliness here
Obviously there will be some debate whether fixing the problems of the last 8 years requires more supply side economics, or the rather different approach Obama seems to favor (with the support of most economists). But there is a lot above that is just silly.

First, while one should always be worried about long term consequences, the main problems that Obama faces are short term ones. The plan is to clean up the mess he inherits from Bush. In general the countries long term prospects are stronger than its short term ones, so many of the arguments above that Obama's plans do more to affect short term change than long term just miss the point.

It is also silly to see the way that entities are supposed to spend money differently depending on whether Pat Toomey classifies how they got that money as a tax or not. The debate about whether it will benefit the country to put more money in the pockets of the working poor (or even the non-working poor) is rather independent of whether one calls that an off-set against payroll tax or not.

Similarly, Lambro calls it ludicrous that companies will hire more workers if those workers are effectively cheaper for them (apparently he doesn't think the relationship between cost and demand applies to workers) but give them more money and they will hire those workers at the higher rate. Why? No explanation is given, not surprisingly since the difference has no economic basis.

The Ultimate Stimulus
We the people pay all taxes, and we are the only ultimate source of all tax revenue. Regardless where government initially collects the money, all tax money ultimately comes from us, the people, even though business has to pay thousands or millions of dollars at one time, and get it back from us one dollar at a time.
Since we the people are the one and only source of all tax revenue:
There should be only one tax to collect all tax revenue.
It should be a single, simple, fair, direct, graduated, individual, full-income tax levied on living persons for each level of government: One Tax and Done.
The best thing that government can do to help the country, the people, and even government, is to repeal all of the many hundreds, or thousands of existing taxes, fees, and charges. These taxes are the federal deficit. These taxes are the high price of everything. These tax eliminations are spending cuts. Every tax that is eliminated is a tax that we the people no longer have to pay. These taxes are the difference between the price we pay for health care and everything else, and the price we would pay if these taxes were repealed. Eliminating these taxes will remove them from the price paid for everything by everyone, including government.
One Tax and Done will provide many benefits to all, even government:
One Tax and Done will reduce the price paid for everything by one-third.
Congress can use the money saved to pay off the national debt.

Sorry Ron from PA

Liberals oppose simplifying the tax codes.

It makes too much sense. It provides more freedom. It takes power away from big government. It takes power away from elected Officials who take campaign donations to pass tax breaks.

So if you are sincere about simplifying the tax code, first you need to educate or get rid of Liberals.

Spending that's the operative word
Yo "christian lib" ! Building mcmansions and spending money DOES help build the economy (private sector) at least for those that want to work. I wonder if you think that construction jobs and selling "luxury" goods are jobs that Americans just don't want to do. What do you want, another 1960s war on poverty so you can create even more Detroits or better yet a 5 year plan?

And isn't being a "christian lib" really is an oxymoron anyway? Why don't you look up the word subsidiarity if you still have a dictionary.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.