Revised and updated January 26, 2009
The economy has been in recession for over a year, contracted
rapidly toward the end of 2008, and is likely to continue to
contract through the first half of 2009 and possibly beyond. The
new Administration and new Congress are developing a stimulus
program to soften the recession and accelerate the recovery.
Given the high level of economic pain, policymakers need to
pursue stimulus policies that work. The centerpiece of an effective
stimulus policy should involve two elements:
- Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions for as long as
possible--certainly through at least 2013 to prevent a tax
increase. Better yet, make the tax reductions permanent; and
- Reduce tax rates on individuals, small businesses, and
corporations through 2013 by lowering the top rate by 10 percentage
points and reducing rates by similar amounts for lower income level
taxpayers.
According to analysis using The Heritage Foundation's mainstream
model of the U.S. economy, relative to current law, these policies
would:
- Soften the recession in 2009 and speed the economic recovery
through 2010 and beyond;
- Increase employment by a half million jobs in 2009 and by 1.3
million jobs in 2010 and create 4.8 million jobs from 2009 through
2012; and
- Reduce federal tax receipts during the critical fiscal years of
2009 and 2011 by $636 billion.
The aggressive tax policy changes of Heritage's plan, plus the
intensive activities of the Federal Reserve, are the best
combination of federal policies to end or shorten recessions.[1]
Further, whereas the Heritage tax plan would strengthen the
economy, the types of tax proposals mentioned as part of the Obama
stimulus would have almost no effect on the economy, the proposed
increase in spending would have no effect on the overall economy
whatsoever, and the resulting deficits would be of such
unprecedented magnitudes as likely to trigger a recovery-stifling
rise in interest rates. Thus, rather than increasing spending,
Congress should reduce spending now and over the long-term through
entitlement reform to reduce the upward pressure on interest
rates.[2]
Focusing on What Works
The current recession is likely to be deep and may be more
severe than any economic downturn since the Great Depression of the
1930s--call today's economic mess the "Great Recession."
Fortunately, the economy and financial markets are working through
their difficulties and will, eventually, stabilize and strengthen
on their own. The economy will recover even absent an effective
federal fiscal policy response. However, an effective tax policy
response can meaningfully soften the recession and speed the
recovery, which is no small feat to an individual looking for
work.
Much of official Washington is focused on a big stimulus plan
based predominantly on increased spending, possibly including an
expanded infrastructure program plus aid to the states and to
low-income families. Whatever the merits of these programs on other
policy grounds might be, they would not stimulate--and indeed are
likely to weaken--the economy in the near term.
The American economy does not rise and fall with the level of
aggregate demand or deficit spending. Further, government cannot
simply pump up total demand through deficit spending. The deficit
for 2009 is already projected to exceed $1 trillion, so if deficit
spending were effective, the economy should already be poised to
take off.
Yet the economy is contracting despite these unprecedented
deficits because government spending in excess of tax revenues will
be financed by borrowing from the private sector, which deprives
the private sector of a like amount of purchasing power. In short,
deficit-financed government spending goes up and private spending
goes down, changing the composition of demand but not the
total.
Focusing on demand in this way is like focusing on the sound of
one hand clapping. The other hand is supply, and that is where the
economic action really is. There are normal processes that launch a
recovery and drive an economy. These processes involve individuals
and businesses responding to opportunities and incentives. When
they respond, these individuals and businesses produce more goods
and services valued in the marketplace, simultaneously increasing
production, demand, and income. An effective stimulus policy
recognizes these economic processes and seeks to accelerate them.
Lower marginal tax rates stimulate the economy because they improve
the incentives facing individuals and businesses to work, invest,
take risks, and seize opportunities.
Step One: Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax
Cuts at Least through 2013
The economy faces a massive tax hike in 2011 when the tax relief
enacted in 2001 and 2003 expires. President Obama has suggested he
would prevent most of this tax hike but not the increase in top
marginal tax rates, the increase in the dividend and capital gains
tax rates, and the return of the death tax. That policy view is
highly unfortunate: It is difficult for the economy to gain its
footing when facing the threat of a punitive tax hike. There will
be time enough to debate the progressivity of tax policy when the
economy recovers fully. The focus now must be on speeding the
recovery itself, and extending current policy in its entirety is
the first step. It is, however, a policy of avoiding harm, and so
it is only a necessary first step.
Step Two: Reduce Marginal Tax Rates
for Individuals and Businesses
Reduce the top tax rates on individuals, small businesses, and
corporations by 10 percentage points through 2013, and reduce the
individual income tax rates to three levels: 10, 15, and 25
percent. In addition, as part of this second step:
- The Alternative Minimum Tax should be repealed; and
- The death tax rate reduced to 15 percent with a $5 million
individual exclusion.
President Obama and Congress may want to consider additional tax
elements to build on this foundation, such as expanding bonus
depreciation for small businesses, but these additional elements
cannot match rate reductions as sound and effective tax policy.
According to analysis performed at the Center for Data Analysis
at The Heritage Foundation using the widely respected Global
Insight U.S. Macroeconomic Model,[3] these policy changes would
strengthen the economy significantly this year. Compared to the
economy's trajectory absent a stimulus policy, adopting the
Heritage tax proposal would mean that 493,000 more Americans have
jobs by the end of 2009, and, by the end of 2010, employment would
increase by 1.3 million jobs. Over this same two-year period, these
tax policy changes would add an additional $187 billion in GDP and
increase the economy's otherwise sluggish growth rate by six-tenths
of a percentage point.
This two-step tax policy would reduce tax receipts relative to
current policy by about $640 billion over three years. This figure
results from the fact that new growth in jobs and output would
expand the tax base for personal income taxes by an average of $204
billion and corporate income taxes by an average of $51 billion per
year over this critical three-year period, thereby significantly
reducing the net tax loss to the Treasury.
Economic recovery does not come from Washington, but Washington
can help. Economic recovery is achieved by the economy itself, and
Washington's effective help moves that process along at a swifter
pace. By far the most effective means of helping the economy
recover is to improve the incentives that drive economic activity,
and that means reducing tax rates on work, saving, investment, risk
taking, and entrepreneurial activity.
J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman
B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and William W. Beach is
Director of the Center for Data Analysis, at The Heritage
Foundation.
[1]Christina Romer and David Romer, "What Ends
Recessions?" NBER Working Paper No. 4765, June 1994.
[2]For
related discussions on effective stimulus policies, see Nicola
Moore, "Economic Stimulus: Dos and Don'ts," Heritage Foundation
WebMemo No. 2187, January 6, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2187.cfm;
Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., "Learning from Japan: Infrastructure Spending
Won't Boost the Economy," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder
No. 2222, December 16, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2222.cfm;
Brian Riedl, "Why Government Spending Doesn't Stimulate Economic
Growth," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2208, November
8, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2208.cfm.