Obama’s State of the Union Speech: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

January 25, 2012 RSS Feed Print

David Shulman is a retired Wall Street executive who is now a senior economist at the UCLA Anderson Forecast. He is also affiliated with Baruch College (CUNY) and the University of Wisconsin.

There was a lot to like and a lot not like about President Obama’s State of the Union address last night. First the good: his proposal to pay outstanding teachers more and replace poor teachers is long overdue. However, whether his allies in the teachers’ unions allow him to accomplish this worthy goal remains to be seen. Keeping with the education theme the idea of tying support for community colleges with job specific training programs certainly makes sense.

[Check out political cartoons about the economy.]

His “all of the above” strategy for energy development sounded like the John McCain of 2008. Support for increased natural gas production through the new hydraulic fracturing technology and increased offshore drilling were more than welcome. Of course the president would have more credibility on this issue if he supported the Keystone XL Pipeline which aside from bringing oil from Canada would hook up to the prolific Baaken oil fields in North Dakota.

More near term, the call for extending the payroll tax cut for all of 2012 would certainly improve the economic outlook. I like his ideas about increasing infrastructure spending, especially in this time of very low interest rates. The president talked about doing away with the “red tape” requirements for new projects, but unless this means waiving or fast-tracking environmental reviews and waiving the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act, not much will come of this.

[Read David Primo: Two Fundamental Flaws With Obama's State of the Union Message.]

Now for the bad: To be sure it is a good idea to encourage manufacturing, but to bringing more complexity to the tax code hardly seems the right way to do it. The government does a very poor job in picking winners over losers and this has been especially true in the energy field. Government policy has been supporting alternative energy since 1973 without a whole lot to show for it. While it certainly makes sense to support basic research in this area, running a venture capital fund is an open invitation to “crony capitalism.” The idea of allowing underwater homeowners to refinance their mortgages at lower rates has been around for a while, but at the end of the day it is recipe for extending the housing crisis. The strategy of delaying the pain hasn’t really worked.

As to the ugly the president’s proposal for a new 30 percent minimum tax on millionaires is hardly an incentive for economic growth and reads like recipe for a stock market crash. To be sure there are many loopholes in the tax code; most notably the capital gains treatment allowed for certain carried interest income.(Disclosure: In the past I benefitted from this provision.) It was that feature of the code that kept Mitt Romney’s effective tax rate at 15 percent on his $20 million a year income. A more serious proposal would call for a flatter loophole free tax code that would have far better results for both economic growth and economic equality. Of course the ugliest part of the speech was in what was left out. There was no mention of fixing the long term debt problem our nation faces. A full throated endorsement of the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations as a starting point for fiscal reform would have been most welcome.

Tags:
State of the Union,
economy,
Barack Obama,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

8234yuq234

dfzgtxdf of CA 3:32PM March 19, 2012

"Obama's SOTU speech his lowest rated ever"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obamas-sotu-speech-his-lowest-rated-ever/1

...his worst ever!

He's going down in 2012!

R.Farmer of CO 8:18AM January 26, 2012

Jay Saldana of PA

"The assumption on taxes is that if you make them pay for the system that makes it possible for them (millionaires) to make my money, they are gonna suck their thumb and not play anymore."

Been that way in 20's, JFK, Reagan, Newt and Bush. Will give short version to stay in 3000 one comment:

Bill C. increased taxes on rich and Newt reduced. Newt got better results. Have you missed Newt saying he balanced budget 4 times. Bill C. before Newt didn't. Liberal thinking is reduce tax on rich and revenue goes down. Newt sucess was reducing cost not allowing big Bill C. growth. Bill added debt and Newt surplus:

"Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy"

"MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth."

"FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997."

"Dr. J. D. Foster":

"Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . ."

"In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill":

"In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again." (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 5:36PM January 25, 2012

Economic Intelligence

Insights, perspectives, and commentary on the economy.

advertisement

On Energy

Lessons Learned Abroad on Energy Taxes

The United States needs to reform the tax code and abolish harmful policies that undermine affordable energy development.

Latest Video

advertisement