TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.01.2009
Baker: Is This Stimulus Big Enough?

Another expert I consulted yesterday was Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Progress. Here's what he wrote me:

The business tax cuts are presumably mostly political. The EITC -type cuts are progressive and will be spent, so they are not bad. As you get higher up the income ladder with the $500 tax cut for workers, the percentage spent is likely to drop.

The track record on accelerated depreciation tax cuts and tax cuts for adding employees are not great. I will say that of all the business tax breaks, accelerated depreciation probably gives the best payback. So if you have to give business something, it is not a bad break to do.

Tax breaks for hiring new employees can and will be gamed. I am not a big fan.

On the other hand, the break that allows businesses to write-off losses against taxes paid 4-5 years ago (as opposed to 2 years in current law) is simply a give-away to the financial industry and homebuilders. These are likely to be the only businesses that will have losses so large that they can't fully deduct them from earnings over the last two years.

This tax cut has nothing to do with stimulus. It is difficult to imagine that this sort of tax break would even be considered if it were not for the political power of the financial industry.

I am somewhat concerned that if we're looking at a $700 billion stimulus and $300 billion is going to tax cuts, some of which will not be very effective stimulus, then the package will be far to small to deal with the size of the contraction.


On the other hand, my hope is that he will have some big boosts to health care spending coming later this year as part of his health care reform plan. We will need much more than $700 billion over two years to combat the downturn, but it does not all have to be in his initial stimulus package.

I've put that paragraph in bold type because I think, ultimately, that's what progressives should be thinking about. The big worry probably isn't the tax cuts themselves, at least some of which make sense; it's whether the overall package is sufficient to rescue the economy. Paul Krugman makes a similar warning on his blog today.

But I think Baker also is right when he says health care reform might offer additional opportunities for stimulative spending, at least in the short- to medium-term. For more on that, I'd recommend Jacob Hacker's contribution to our current issue.

--Jonathan Cohn 


 

Posted: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:42 PM with 4 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

The Ignorant Populist said:

Super column by Krugman.

Why the hint at a 80 vote target in the Senate? I don't understand it. How much of a mandate do Democrats need before they do a George Bush on it and deliver on their mandate while ignoring the defeated party. Dubya did it with no madate.

My fear about Obama is that he likes to be liked and reaches out for bi-partisan support when there is no need, or benefit.

Looking behind the stimulus curtain that <2% employment impact is really minor stuff taken into account the mandate and once-in-a-generation economic context. Throw in the lack of change on FP and you start to wonder where the "Change" is going to come from....apart from health care, and I suppose the Obama kids are cute.

Time for proportional representation in the US.

January 6, 2009 1:19 PM

sjberke1 said:

Two problems with this kind of analysis:

1) Practical.  As Krugman has said elsewhere recently, you can spend only so much so quickly, especially if you are doing infrastructure.  (You could spend more I suppose if you were just giving money away, but that was tried a year or so ago).

2) Political.   Whatever economists may think or say, when politicians see the number 1 trillion, they freak--and not just conservative Republicans.  A $1 trillion+ bill might not get the 59-60 votes needed to pass the Senate, much less 80 votes.

January 6, 2009 1:47 PM

The Plank said:

Having just posted two separate items expressing concern, although not outrage, over the way Obama&#39;s

January 6, 2009 2:50 PM

GSpinks said:

I don't know, Iggy Pop. It seems to me Obama has already been happy to take less popular stances on issues with the gas tax debacle during the primary and more recently with leading progressives whining up a storm about either an appointment or policy proposal or both.

Also, I'm not so sure there is such a thing as "no need for bipartisan support"; we are coming to a close on the 8th year of bitter partisan politics in the US Government, and as of right now the final grade is not looking good. It seems to me that it is about time we start having real dialogues focused on creating real solutions to real issues between Democrats and Republicans.

January 6, 2009 5:35 PM