• Comment (13)

3 Conservative Myths About Government

April 5, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Chad Stone is chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Path to Prosperity blueprint of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan—the foundation for the budget that the House passed last week—reflects conservative politicians' war on government. As my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleagues conclude about a Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, analysis of the Ryan plan:

The CBO report, prepared at Chairman Ryan's request, shows that Ryan's budget path would shrink federal expenditures for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and interest payments to just 3¾ percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. Since, as CBO notes, 'spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year [since World War II]' and Ryan seeks a high level of defense spending…the rest of government would largely have to disappear.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Will the New Ryan Budget Plan Hurt the GOP in 2012?]

The conservatives' war is sustained by a series of myths.

Myth No. 1: Spending Is Out of Control, and Only Draconian Cuts Will Rein It In

As my colleagues at the center have shown, however, noninterest spending outside Social Security and Medicare spiked in the Great Recession but is scheduled to fall substantially as a share of GDP as the economy recovers (see chart).

Non-Interest Spending Outside Medicare and Social Security

To be sure, government spending will rise as a share of gross domestic product as the population continues to age, healthcare costs throughout the economy continue to rise, and more Americans become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. But, my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleagues have written:

When Americans hear talk of the government exploding in size and reach, they don't usually think this means that more people will receive Social Security and Medicare because the population is growing older or that Medicare will cost more because of factors like the aging of the baby boomers and advances in medical technology that improve health and prolong life but at significant cost. Outside of those demographic and health cost factors, the portrait of a rapidly growing federal behemoth is simply at odds with reality, since costs are shrinking to levels well below their historical averages.

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

Myth No. 2: The Country Faces a Looming Debt Crisis Due to the Debt Incurred In the Past Few Years

That myth fueled irresponsible brinksmanship over legislation to raise the nation's debt limit last year, and it stands in the way of meaningful deficit-reduction.

While the policies that Presidents Bush and Obama and Congress enacted to combat the financial crisis and Great Recession helped drive up deficits after 2007, those policies were temporary and will have little effect on deficits and debt going forward. The weak economy and the legacy other policies enacted under President Bush (especially his tax cuts) play a far larger role. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that under current law (which calls for the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at the end of this year), deficits would fall over the coming decade as the economy improves, and debt would fall to 61.3 percent of GDP in 2022.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

Yes, the gap between spending and revenues will rise again as a share of GDP in later decades if we don't take prudent action to rein in future deficits. Policymakers and analysts who are not ideologically committed to radically shrinking government recognize that this will require a balanced mix of revenue and spending measures. But such a balanced policy runs up against myriad tax myths, including the following:

Myth No. 3: Americans' Tax Burden Is High and Rising

That's certainly the impression the Tax Foundation wants to convey in its latest "Tax Freedom Day" report released earlier this week: "Americans will work 107 days into the year, from January 1 to April 17, to earn enough money to pay this year's combined 29.2% federal, state, and local tax bill. "

But notice, the report does not refer to "every" American or the "typical" American. That's because, as this Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report demonstrates, four out of five U.S. households likely pay a much lower average tax rate than the one highlighted in the Tax Foundation report. Moreover, average federal income rates are at historic lows for typical taxpayers. When total taxes, including federal and state and local taxes, are taken into account, the United States has one of the lowest average tax rates among all industrialized countries.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Is Obama's Corporate Tax Plan A Good Idea?]

So, here's the question:

Are those who advance these myths interested in fixing the deficit and debt problem, as most Americans would hope, or are they conducting a bait-and-switch in pursuit of antitax advocate Grover Norquist's quest to "reduce [government] to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub?"

Tags:
Paul Ryan,
deficit and national debt,
economy,
Grover Norquist,
federal taxes

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

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

I mean, in order to even claim that the Reagan tax cuts were a MAJOR factor in growth, you'd have to assume that MOST RICH PEOPLE IN AMERICA BACK THEN WERE PAYING 70% OR MORE. However, I've heard many of these same people CLAIM THAT HARDLY ANYONE ACTUALLY PAID THOSE RATES, AND THEY USED ALL KINDS OF LOOPHOLES, so their effective tax rates were much lower. This would, at least theoretically, make the effects of the Reagan tax cuts MUCH more muted, right?

...WHICH IS IT?? DID most of them pay the high rates and HAD NO LOOPHOLES, or did they use a lot of them so hardly anyone paid? You can't have it both ways.

And what about the economic growth that happened from about 1945/46-Kennedy's tax cut?? THAT was a time of DAMN HIGH growth, was it not? Plus, Eisenhower came damn close to balancing the budget, esp. for a Republican, unlike Bush and Reagan. Good jobs were plentiful, and they paid pretty well. There was greater income equality, and CEOs weren't making 400x what average employees did, either.

Stop promoting this debunked voodoo economics nonsense already! TAX CUTS ALONE DO NOT PRODUCE GOOD ECONOMIES!

Brandon of MO 8:10AM May 30, 2012

Funny how ALL THOSE TIMES TAXES WERE CUT AND REVENUE ROSE, "coincidentally", they ALSO happened to be major boom years in the 21s Century! IMAGINE THAT...

But that COULDN'T have anything to do with rising revenues... right? It's ALL b/c of the tax cuts... REALLY? Do you hear yourself? THAT'S NONSENSE! First of all, correlation is NOT causation. Secondly, have you DONE even a quasi-study on what the revenues would be WITHOUT the tax cuts?? If not, then you can't say FOR SURE that revenues were THAT MUCH HIGHER B/C OF THE CUTS!

Besides, the year-to-year cuts AREN'T that impressive considering how much the GDP and output were supposedly growing.

I mean, is the economy REALLY this simple?? You can just wave a magic "tax cut wand", and THE ECONOMY WILL EXPLODE WITH GROWTH AND MORE TAX REVENUE?? No, I don't buy it. Besides, the Bush top marginal tax rate cut was ONLY 4.6%! From an already-low 39.6%. HOW is that supposed to "generate a lot of revenue"? I mean, is a businessman REALLY gonna give a sh*t that he now has 5% MORE in income in 2002 than in 2001? GTFO

Economies are WAYY more complex than this supply-side BS. Here's what would really have to happen to "prove" your "tax cuts pay for themselves" nonsense: Cut taxes and then the economy just "magically" got out of recession in a very short amount of time, revenues rose, yadda yadda. Otherwise, you're getting confused by changes that probably had more to do with a GROWING ECON. than tax cuts themselves.

Besides, didn't tax revenues DECLINE SIGNIFICANTLY by 1990 or '91 under Bush Sr.? If "tax cuts pay for themselves" and "low taxes work", revenues should've stayed fairly stable, all things considered, right?

And, perhaps most of all, exactly HOW does this work?? It seems like most of the righties who say that "Tax cuts help generate business expansion and investment" NEVER speak from personal experience; it's always just ideological and a VERY shallow reading of the numbers. I mean, come on... DEMAND is what creates jobs and growth! If your business gets lots more profits than before because DEMAND IS NOW HIGHER, then it has a REAL reason to expand, invest in R&D, create more jobs, etc.

The idea that a business, esp. a LARGE one that probably had WAY MORE THAN ENOUGH in profits to hire all the people it needs, ALL OF A SUDDEN does MASSIVE expansions just b/c it gets a few million in tax cuts (or even just a few hundred grand) is LUDICROUS! Demand for your products is what counts; taxes are minimal factors. If your co. is profitable enough, will it REALLY matter how high the rate is as long as you can pay off your various debts and costs and stay in great shape? Of course, you don't want rates TOO HIGH, but we're not even CLOSE to that level anymore.

I think businesses can handle a mere 35%, although MOST of them DON'T EVEN PAY THAT RATE. The highest any single industry pays is an average of only 25%, I think. EFFECTIVE tax rates are much diff. from statutory oftentimes.

Brandon of MO 8:02AM May 30, 2012

Here's a simple look at our situation. Tax Revenues 1.1Trillion. Revenues from Fica- 1.1 Trillion. Deficit- 1.1 Trillion.

So if FICA isn't a "tax", that means we are spending twice the amount we take in.

Simply put, we would have to eliminate Medicaid and all Discretionary spending to accomplish this, assuming we leave Defense spending alone.

This is the Republican plan. (as a note, 40% of discretionary spending is veterans disability benefits").

Cletus Amlung of KY 9:17PM April 08, 2012

Economic Intelligence

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

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement