• Comment (3)

Obama's Energy, Tax, Monetary Policies Are Crippling the Economy

March 19, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Joseph Mason is the Moyse/LBA Chair of Banking at the Ourso School of Business at Louisiana State University and a senior fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Politicians and talking heads dedicate countless hours to theorizing about the measures we can take to "fix" the economy. While this issue is infinitely complex, the pillars of generating economic growth can be broken down quite simply.

The cheapest way to achieve economic growth is to produce products at a lower cost than other countries. We hardly want to compete with China and other developing nations in this matter. We've witnessed the result of unrestrained labor markets most glaringly in recent months at China's Foxconn camps, where nets had to be installed between dormitories to prevent worker suicides. But we have other tools outside of poor working conditions to reduce the cost of manufacturing products.

America's most effective tool for keeping manufacturing jobs here is offering favorable tax treatments. In 2005, the section 199 manufacturer's deduction was instituted in the United States to reduce the corporate tax rate for these activities. Unfortunately, it is tenuous at best for some of the country's most prolific job creators like the oil and gas industry, which President Obama has continually tried to exclude from the benefits. Additionally, the extremely high 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate (soon to be the highest once Japan lowers its rate in April) leaves even the most generous rate reductions uncompetitive against standard tax rates in other nations. As we continue to tax these jobs out of the United States, it becomes less and less likely that manufacturing will remain a pillar of the economy. But the United States has other inherent advantages we can leverage for economic growth.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

America is rich in natural resources, from the early gold strikes in California to the more recent surge in natural gas production from shale. Developing these resources is an important tool for boosting the economy. Jobs are created extracting these resources, preparing them for market, delivering them to market, and selling them. Our newfound abundance in energy resources led to 9 percent of all job creation in 2011, and we weren't even taking full advantage of these opportunities.

The president has kept large portions of the Gulf, areas off both coasts, parts of Alaska, and large swaths of federal land off limits to any energy production. Utilizing these resources would offer a significant economic boost, generating wealth and jobs right now. But that isn't in the cards. However we still have good, old-fashion American ingenuity.

[See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]

Innovation is a key component of America's economy. Companies like Apple invent a product like the iPad and generate huge amounts of wealth for the United States when this becomes coveted by people throughout the world (unfortunately these products are manufactured at Foxconn, but that returns us to manufacturing). Once would assume U.S. tax policy was encouraging investment in businesses and ideas to enable creative minds and driven people to become the next Steve Jobs.

Instead, start-up business owners whose companies net over a million dollars are being labeled "1 percenters" and now face significantly higher taxes from the White House. Progress is being stifled by taxes as the government pulls funds from innovators and places it in the hands of bureaucrats. Major American investors are tightening their belts in the face of these tax increases, limiting the monetary investments in the very innovation that the president has called for and applauded since taking office. And with the monetary policies we have seen, the few dollars being invested aren't going as far.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Has the Federal Reserve Overstepped its Mandate?]

Under this administration, the Federal Reserve has printed billions of dollars under its "quantitative easing" policy, flooding the country with money. This policy, intended to keep interest rates near zero, will eventually force Americans to pay more for food, gasoline, clothes, and other essential commodities as the value of the dollar goes down. We are already starting to witness this phenomenon. Meanwhile, tax rates and wages are largely remaining the same. This effort is meant to increase spending, but only does so by forcing Americans to pay more for the goods and services they need with a weaker dollar. These policies don't create any real value and have led to the stagnation we are now witnessing. 

High tax rates are chasing away the manufacturing jobs the United States once thrived on. Moratoriums are limiting resource development. And uncertainty and targeted tax hikes are limiting investments in innovation. To top it all off, monetary policies will force us to pay more for goods and services. If this continues, it appears President Obama's legacy may be one of economic stagnation and high inflation: a legacy that offers us little hope for the next four years.

Tags:
corporate taxes,
Federal Reserve,
energy,
economy,
interest rates,
Obama administration

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

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

lf we want to see that Companies will turn around and bring Manufacturing/ innovative Jobs to the US. However, this is only a small step on a longer path to getting more jobs like that here. In order for this to happen, the tax incentives will not be enough to convince all companies to come back (http://eng.am/wJ61AM). If regulations (environmental, financial or otherwise) continue to remain stringent then there will be difficulty bringing them here. Regulations continue to be the proverbial ball and chain for a lot of companies (http://bit.ly/w1yk0F) and the cost of red tape, compliance AND upkeep will be the to the detriment of this recovery by keeping almost too many rules in place. We just need to review, revise and implement Sensibly rather than just putting too many things in place at once.

Florian Schach of MI 5:53PM March 21, 2012

DeeToo of SC is BACK

1. YES recession was set when Bush became President. Bush WARNED AND those darn Democrats ignored Bush:

"Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn't Warn Congress About Financial Crisis… Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone"

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/05/pelosi-caught-in-major-lie-says-bush-didnt-warn-congress-about-financial-crisis-records-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/

2. Your answer _ RAISING TAXES:

“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”:

* “Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;

* Created a new $500 child tax credit;

* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;

* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;

* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;

* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;

* Established education IRAs;

* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and

* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . . ."

“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 7:10PM March 19, 2012

Funny - these things were in place during the Bush years - but those famous voices from the Right all applauded him as we all went lemming-like off the cliff.

Our tax rates are not high - not for those who are well off. The middle class should be hopping mad about taxes - they pay a higher % while havng less disposable income.

Manufacturing jobs are not chased away by taxes. They are not naturally inclined towards moving to the location with the lowest costs of production. If so - they would all be in Tanzania. Manufacturing usually moves closer to where it feels products will be sold - to their main markets. True - costs of production are cheaper in China - but also many companies moved there because they anticipated sales in an emerging enormous market. The USA is not the largest market in the world any more, and our companies are willing to hand over their patents and technology to get a slice of that pie in China.

Tax hikes here in the USA don't limit innovation - lack of modern infrastructure, complicated layers of state governments, inconsistent and often ineffective education systems that produce half-educated graduates provide insufficient labor forces to met high tech needs.

Eisenhower knew that - raised taxes and paid for an interstate highway system, good public schools for all, universities that were low cost, and the beginning of an advanced space program that sparked imaginations and advances. He knew that paying taxes and getting something while having no debt was better than paying less taxes and getting nowhere and never paying off the debt

I think the writer is expressing a political point of view couched in financial terms. His points belie the fact that other countries have all the things th writer decries - but have great success too. Germany has been producing high cost products in a high tax environment with national healthcare, incredible innovation, a strong economy, little natural resources of their own, and a democratic system. One difference - in Germany they maintain balance between the super wealthy and the very poor - with an enormous middle class that lives longer, healthier, more educated and secure lives.

ops - so much for your assumptions Mr Writer...

DeeToo of SC 6:49PM March 19, 2012

Economic Intelligence

Insights, perspectives, and commentary on the economy. Follow it on Twitter @EconomicIntel.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement