iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Extending Bush Tax Cuts WON'T Create Jobs, Says Leading Economist

Unemployment

First Posted: 07/28/10 06:25 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:10 PM ET

As Congress debates whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at least one prominent U.S. economist has already cast his negative vote.

"Not all budgetary dollars are created equal," said Alan Blinder, professor and co-director of Princeton University's Center for Economic Policy Studies, in a conference Wednesday morning. "Some have a lot of bang for the buck, and some have very little. The GDP increase per dollar of budgetary cost is in the range of 1.6, 1.7 for things like food stamps and unemployment benefits, and in the range of .35 for extending the Bush tax cuts. We could get some substantial job creation by simply reprogramming the $75 billion that would be saved over the next two years by not extending the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts and spending it instead on unemployment benefits, food stamps, and the like."

Blinder's economic advice supports the tax policy of President Obama and the Democrats, who would like to maintain tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans, while letting the cuts for those with incomes above $250,000 expire. Letting the tax cuts lapse is projected to trim approximately $675 billion from the deficit over 10 years, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

The GOP, by contrast, is aiming to extend the Bush tax cuts across the board, and has tried to block the billions in deficit spending to extend benefits to the long-term unemployed.

Blinder said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would only exacerbate an ever-increasing income gap.

"One of the objections a lot of us raised back in 2001 when the Bush cuts were originally enacted was that they were...adding further post-tax income inequality to an economy that was already producing a lot of pre-tax inequality," he said. "I still feel that way. On the other hand, unemployment benefits and food stamps tend to go to people with much much lower incomes [who] need it a lot more, and you get substantially more GDP boost and job creation than if the same amount of money were spent extending tax cuts at the top."

After the U.S. has dug itself out of this recession, Blinder said, Congress should then make it a priority to start digging the country out of debt.

"What we really need in terms of fiscal policy is one step to the left and then multiple steps to the right. I think there's a strong case for some fiscal stimulus, and the extension of unemployment benefits is just a perfect piece of that broader policy. But a commitment to deficit reduction down the line would be just what the doctor ordered."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
As Congress debates whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at least one prominent U.S. economist has already cast his negative vote. "Not all budgetary dollars are created e...
As Congress debates whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at least one prominent U.S. economist has already cast his negative vote. "Not all budgetary dollars are created e...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,003
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (51 total)
08:58 PM on 08/02/2010
Check out Nassim Taleb's column about the ethically challenged Alan Blinder. Another dirty weasel.

The Regulator Franchise, or the Alan Blinder Problem
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nassim-nicholas-taleb/the-regulator-franchise-o_b_667967.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
429freckles
Ex Republican Now Devoted Democrat
02:00 PM on 08/02/2010
End the upper tiers of tax cuts NOW.
12:32 AM on 08/02/2010
Republicans dont like economists from Princeton University.
They prefer ones from Pat Roberts' college
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dangerous Dan
Because I can!
12:47 AM on 08/01/2010
Anyone ask how many jobs it would SAVE?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FreedomFreedomFreedom
Its A Choice Between Fear And Love
12:45 PM on 08/19/2010
That isn't what was promised. Supply-side economics promised that cutting taxes for the wealthy would CREATE MORE JOBS. This did not happen. We have tried trickle-down for 30 years and it has failed, miserably.
04:31 PM on 07/31/2010
If $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.60, I have a much better idea.

Just 5 cents spent on printing shiny new $100 bill generates between $80 and $95 (the rest will be stolen). It is 160,000% return on government investment.

Let's print trillions of $100 bills and mail them to all households in US.

I wonder if Keynesian minded opponents can show what is wrong with this idea and if they will be able to see that Pelosi idea to tax the rich and to give money to unemployed has the very same flows.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:47 AM on 07/31/2010
The GOP still believes in trickle-down economics from the Reagan era.

George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics".
10:15 PM on 07/31/2010
But his sun used it to save the US economy from Clinton's dot-com bubble recession double-dipped by the 9/11 attack.

What depression? - you might ask.

This is precisely the point. Bush's tax cut and business friendly approach in 2001 turned economy around so quickly, that crisis did not become a depression.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dangerous Dan
Because I can!
12:45 AM on 08/01/2010
I suppose the buck stops at the top policies of Obama are vastly better.

Someone asked me what I meant by passive leadership.

Passive leadership is accepting watered down legislation,
and legislation that FAVORS the intitutions it is meant to control,

For the sake of claiming passage of a bill, based on its title.
A legasy check mark beside an agenda item.

True leadership would veto the crap passed by Congress, and would send it back for immediate revision.

That is true leadership.

Someone missed that boat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
02:46 AM on 07/31/2010
The tax cuts DID NOT CREATE JOBS.

"Job Creation

A principal Administration justification for its tax cuts, particularly over the past year, has been their importance for job generation. The tax bills passed by Congress were somewhat less inefficient at stimulating the economy than the President’s original proposals. Even so, the results in this area have been poor.

* The Administration’s February 2004 Economic Report of the President itself noted that: “The performance of employment in this recovery has lagged that in the typical recovery and even that in the ‘jobless recovery’ of 1990-1991.”
* Employment remains substantially below its level at the start of the downturn, an unparalleled development this far into a post-World War II recovery. (Substantial job growth typically occurs by this point.) As of March 2004, there were still two million fewer jobs than when employment last peaked in March 2001.

For three years, the Administration has been claiming its tax cuts would boost employment. But for three years, actual job growth has fallen far short of Administration expectations..."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TruelyFedUp
Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.
06:47 PM on 07/30/2010
"We the undersigned believe:

Actual unemployment in America equates to 44 1/4 million Americans out of work. TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence (TMI), a company that monitors unemployment data, believes that the true unemployed -- and underemployed -- rate is far higher than the government reports-- over three times higher. According to data gathered by TMI, the actual rate of unemployment in the United States stands at 28.6 percent or around 44,250,000 Americans.

That is double the entire population of Australia or equal to the total population of Spain or 72% of the population of the United Kingdom.

Our government has failed and continues to fail to be responsible for the well-being and happiness of a third of the American workforce and families depending on them for survival. The government has no long term solution and recent predictions indicate a minimum of 10 years of recovery time for the jobs we have lost. We must take action ourselves and demand an immediate solution.
In the United States only 3% of land is in use for urbanization. Three percent of our land is now in use for the places that we live and work. The government controls nearly 30% of U.S. territory. Some of that land is parks and military bases; it is necessary to allot at least another 3% of viable government-held land to provide communities to house and feed those that do not work in America but who need help."


http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/766/237/867
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
429freckles
Ex Republican Now Devoted Democrat
02:07 PM on 08/02/2010
What? I'm proud of our parks. I'm glad that land is preserved for future generations. I don't want Yellowstone National Parks to be turned into a housing project. For goodness sake, if we need to house & feed those that do not work but who need help... let them reside in some of the foreclosed homes that are riddled throughout the country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TruelyFedUp
Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.
02:52 PM on 08/02/2010
Good grief, think! If only 3% of American land is urbanized then the rest is used for everything else. The government holds 30% of the land of this country. You can't believe that another 3% taken from that 30% is going to devastate our national forests... Also, our federal government budgets about 8 billion dollars annually a portion of which is automatically and arbitrarily assigned to the purchase of more land. And at least 25% of the millions of acres that are alloted to the oil industry is never used. We do NOT have a shortage of land. That is propaganda to keep us crammed into cities and paying huge sums for the privilege of living in tiny plots of land for profits to benefit the elites.

Putting people into foreclosed homes, while better than nothing, does not handle the food problem as creating farms would but it is also vastly more expensive in terms of keeping them lit, warm in winter and in maintaining them.

Americans are so used to using 30% more than an equal share of humanity's resources that we cannot concieve of living in balance with nature and living economically.

Please read the entire petition. It is a viable solution that can eventuallly eliminate the need for other citizens to work harder to provide food stamps and unemployment benefits via taxation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TruelyFedUp
Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.
02:58 PM on 08/02/2010
I misspoke, Americans use 30 TIMES more resources than an equal share with the rest of humanity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TEHelms
Still learning....
04:29 PM on 07/30/2010
I believe this is exactly what the present administration has proposed. Thank you, sir.
04:15 PM on 07/30/2010
"Extending Bush Tax Cuts WON'T Create Jobs, Says Leading Economist"

But it will save 5 million jobs. Now prove me wrong! The Obama standard not mine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TEHelms
Still learning....
04:32 PM on 07/30/2010
Can't be proven any better than the stimulus saving jobs...but, it is still the right thing to do. Read it again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FreedomFreedomFreedom
Its A Choice Between Fear And Love
12:52 PM on 08/19/2010
I think it is up to you to prove that it will save any jobs. After all, the promise of supply-side economics is that lower tax rates for the wealthy will CREATE jobs, not that it will save them. This has been proven without a doubt to be WRONG. These tax cuts did not create a single job and no matter how much longer we continue to make the upper 2% richer and the rest of us poorer, it will not create any jobs. Since that was the intention of the tax cuts, to create jobs, it can be called a failure. A complete and utter failure that will add trillions to our deficit. If we are going to continue adding to our deficit then we need to add to unemployment insurance and food stamps, where it is proven the money spent actually benefits the entire country and not just 2% of our citizens. Supply-side or trickle-down economics has failed. Continuing a failed policy is not only ignorant, it is destroying our economy.
04:03 PM on 07/30/2010
The real question is why some Democrats support extending the tax cuts.We must get back to fiscal sanity and those calling for an extension are seriously out of touch with reality. The Bush years are an example of complete failure and ineptitude on every level. That tired old mantra of tax cuts for the wealthy has been completely proven false. POWER TO THE PEOPLE
01:39 AM on 08/01/2010
So taxing people more is the best solution? Oh scratch that...taxing people even more with a gross, slimy and unbelievably evil income that is more than $250k/yr is a great thing.
Power to the people you decide, is more like it.
03:32 PM on 07/30/2010
Here we are 10 years later almost and we are still debating the failed policies of W. Utterly failed. Stupendously failed. Unequivocally failed. Extend the W tax cuts? They should wipe everything that man did off the face of this government.
01:40 AM on 08/01/2010
Funny, the same thing will be said of O.
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
02:17 PM on 07/30/2010
Actually, ending the tax breaks could actually help spur job creation. When is is harder for the rich to maintain their income, they will try to invest in someting more than Treasury bonds or foreign countries. Maybe, they will hire more US citizens to grow a real business.
01:41 AM on 08/01/2010
So when your tax burden increases how much more do you spend? How much more do you "create"?
Come on, you really think so?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
429freckles
Ex Republican Now Devoted Democrat
02:09 PM on 08/02/2010
No. It won't. The rich are just out to get richer. They reap the greatest benefits of this country... they should pay to help this country they have profited so very much from.
photo
lisaman
I am a liberal American so get over it
09:32 AM on 07/30/2010
Duh.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dee Turner
02:17 AM on 07/30/2010
You very right in your statement. My question is what happens if The Republicans get voted
back in, and they fair no better or even worse at creating jobs (how could they possibly create
jobs, when they prefer to send what remaining few "fair to good" paying jobs left in this country
overseas also at the pleasure of ceo managers!), what if they choose to not care alot about
the people struggling for finances in the gulf, what about the long term plan for clean up?
What if they make 85% of their agenda on tax cuts for wealthy people AGAIN? Where are
there plans? There're hardly to none, ever mentioned out in video print, or disscussed on the
Sunday Talks. Their talking points are "No"! In Other Words America, WHAT DO WE DO IF
WE PUT THEM BACK IN, AND NOTHING OF ANY SUBSTANCE (JOBS, THE COSTS OF
FOOD, HEALTHCARE, GASOLINE, BACK-TO-SCHOOL SUPPLIES. NO MOVEMENT ON
BANK SAVINGS/CD INTEREST RATES/401KS, SOCIAL SECURITY, WORKING TILL 80'.
THEY PICK ANOTHER COUNTRY TO GO TO WAR??????????? WHAT DO WE DO NEXT?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mootown
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
08:10 AM on 07/30/2010
You are exactly right---If people vote the thugs back in a fit of ignorant pique, I have no sympathy nor forgiveness for them. These people will deserve what they get, but I won't, nor my family as collateral damage. AND don't forget the SUPREME COURT. If the thugs get to put another reich wing freak to squat on the SCOTUS we are FINISHED. They have more power than congress because with one ruling, like the campaign funding disaster, the dominoes of destruction begin to tip even faster. We MUST keep Obama another term.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
429freckles
Ex Republican Now Devoted Democrat
02:11 PM on 08/02/2010
NOT just Obama... we need more Democrats in Congress to help booster the agenda forward.