Bartlett Gets It

TW: Bartlett, fmr. Reagan economist, and Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, are converging. In this piece readers will see more familiar angles: the need for spending to revive the economy; the paradox of thrift which leads folks to save rather than spend tax rebates/cuts; and importantly a reminder of the ignorance of those claiming "Obama is spending America into [name your bombastic abyss]". The deficits were going to be huge this year and for coming years regardless of who became POTUS. Most importantly contractionary policies this year would have been "nonsensical" (I would add "dangerous").

What folks neglect amidst the braying about "socialism" and "spending us into the abyss", is what alternative policies would the numbskulls have proposed?

From Bruce Bartlett at Capital Gains and Games:
"...According to the Congressional Budget Office's January 2009 estimate for fiscal year 2009, outlays were projected to be $3,543 billion and revenues were projected to be $2,357 billion, leaving a deficit of $1,186 billion. Keep in mind that these estimates were made before Obama took office, based on existing law and policy, and did not take into account any actions that Obama might implement.

Therefore, unless one thinks that McCain would have somehow or other raised taxes and cut spending (with a Democratic Congress), rather than enacting a stimulus of his own, then a deficit of $1.2 trillion was baked in the cake the day Obama took office. Any suggestion that McCain would have brought in a lower deficit is simply fanciful.

Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.

To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected, but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending.

It should be further noted that revenues are lower to a large extent because of tax cuts included in the February stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these tax cuts reduced revenues in FY2009 by $98 billion over what would otherwise have been the case. This is important because the Republican position has consistently been that tax cuts and only tax cuts are an appropriate response to the economic crisis.

...As if we needed further evidence that transfers have virtually no stimulative effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued a report on the 2008 tax rebate showing that only 30 percent of the money was spent; the rest was saved, thus providing no stimulus to short-run growth...On January 24, 2008, George W. Bush assured the country that a tax rebate was just the right medicine to prevent an economic downturn.

It continues to amaze me that no one on the left or right seems to have noticed that the essential factor causing the economic downturn is a decline in velocity: the number of times that money turns over in the economy, which is measured as the ratio of the money supply to GDP. In 2006 and 2007 this ratio was 1.9. I take that as normal. In 2008, velocity fell to 1.76 and currently is 1.69. (I divided end of year M2 into 4th quarter GDP; the latest figure is 2nd quarter GDP divided by end of June money supply.)

If velocity were 1.9 instead of 1.69, 2nd quarter GDP would have been $1.6 trillion higher. Therefore, no recession. The output gap would have simply disappeared. From this I conclude that a lack of spending in the economy is the central problem and the only policies that will help are those that increase spending - consumer spending, investment spending, net exports or government spending. How tax cuts would have helped - or at least the type of tax cuts advocated by Republicans - is a mystery to me.

I continue to believe that the Republican position is nonsensical. Final proof is that the previously cited CBO report shows total federal revenues coming in at 14.9 percent of the gross domestic product in FY2009. According to the Office of Management and Budget, one has to go back to 1950 to find a year when federal revenues were lower as a share of GDP. For reference, revenues averaged 18 percent of GDP during the Reagan administration and were never lower than 17.3 percent - 2.4 percent of GDP above where they are now.

I think there are grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration's anti-recession actions. But spending too much is not one of them. Indeed, based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious that spending - real spending on things like public works - has been grossly inadequate. The idea that Reagan-style tax cuts would have done anything is just nuts."
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts