By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
Conservatives tell two incompatible stories about tax
cuts.
The first story is the naïve supply-side story, that tax
cuts pay for themselves or even pay for themselves and then some. There isn’t
much evidence that this is true.
There are, in many circumstances, growth effects from
lower tax rates, sometimes large ones, and these can offset the expected
revenue losses associated with tax cuts. But in the context of a complex,
modern economy in a developed country without absurdly confiscatory tax rates,
what that means is that tax cuts may produce only 80 cents in lost revenue for
each $1 predicted by so-called static-scoring models. Growth effects might
offset 4 cents on the dollar of revenue losses, or 20 cents, or 55 cents, but
they do not offset 100 cents on the dollar, much less 125 cents on the dollar.
Arguments to the contrary usually fall into the error of attributing 100
percent of economic growth (and associated growth in tax revenue) to tax cuts,
when that is almost certainly in error.
The second story is the fairy tale called “Starve the
Beast.” This version is economically more realistic but politically a fantasy.
It takes to heart Milton Friedman’s advice about self-funding tax cuts: “If a
tax cut increases government revenues, you haven’t cut taxes enough.” The idea
behind Starve the Beast is that if you cut revenue enough, then either fiscal
pressure or political pressure will inspire politicians to make spending cuts
that they otherwise wouldn’t make.
Starving the Beast hasn’t worked at the federal level,
because the Beast has excellent credit and owns a factory that allows it to
throw a switch and exnihilate into existence all the Beast-Treats it likes.
Every election cycle, the out-of-power party gets religion about public debt
and deficits: Remember Senator Obama’s declaring George W. Bush “unpatriotic”
because of the debt that was run up during his presidency? Once back in power,
those same politicians tend to worry a great deal less about deficits. The
Starve the Beast theory relies on shame and eventual rectitude at the federal
level to eliminate deficits, and it fails like all political models based on
Washington’s capacity for shame and its care for rectitude.
But might it work at the state level, where legislatures
generally are bound to balance their budgets, at least on paper, from year to
year?
Let’s check in with Governor Sam Brownback and his
colleagues in Kansas.
Governor Brownback’s first tax-cut proposal was much more
restrained than the one that the legislature eventually passed. It significantly
reduced income-tax rates but offset many of those rate cuts by eliminating many
credits and deductions, including those for mortgage interest and child care,
along with the state’s earned-income tax credit. Brownback’s original proposal
also left standing a plan to increase the state sales tax, which would have
offset some of the losses from the income-tax rate reductions. (Relatively high
sales taxes and property taxes, and not mere thrift, is how states such as
Texas manage without a state income tax.) That model — cut rates but eliminate
deductions — will be familiar to those who follow federal tax-reform efforts.
The legislature did what legislatures always do: It kept
the popular bits (the rate cuts), jettisoned the unpopular bits (the offsets),
and sent the result to the governor, who signed it.
This has made Governor Brownback a hate totem for
Democrats across the country. But before they go getting on their high fiscal
horses, Democrats should consider the fact that their likely presidential
nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wants to keep the expensive parts of the
Affordable Care Act but nix the unpopular bits that help pay for it, especially
the “Cadillac tax” on the generous health-care packages enjoyed by her
union-goon constituency. It’s easy to be righteous about the other guys’
tax-cut shenanigans.
But these are shenanigans.
State government in Kansas is mainly a money-launderer:
It collects revenue that local governments forgo collecting and then
distributes it to those municipalities and school districts, a pass-through
that accounts for about half of state spending. Much of the rest of the money
goes to familiar expenditures: roads and other state-maintained infrastructure,
state universities, and compensation for the state’s not-inconsiderable work
force.
When Governor Brownback first started talking about large
tax cuts, the story for public consumption was naïve supply-side: A more
business-friendly Kansas would boom, and new jobs and investment would offset
the projected revenue losses. That didn’t happen, and it’s not entirely clear
that anybody really expected it to, inasmuch as Kansas Republicans were talking
Starve the Beast from Day One. Representative Owen Donohoe, for example, said
that the new fiscal dispensation was “the greatest thing that’s ever happened
to Kansas,” and that it would — here’s the delusional part — “force us to be
more efficient.” That’s a nice story, as he told it: “If we become more
efficient, that means we provide the same if not better services to the people,
and we do it at a lesser cost and save money.”
But that isn’t what happened. It never is.
Kansas just passed a new budget (in the middle of the
night, allowing editorialists and speech-writers to deploy one of their
favorite clichés: “under cover of darkness!”) that imposes general cuts (3
percent for most state agencies), large cuts to highway spending, significant
cuts to the state universities, and — this part is indefensible — it delays
state payments to the fund that sustains its government-employee pensions,
putting Kansas on the same unfunded-liability slippery slope that has helped to
make New Jersey and Illinois . . . New Jersey and Illinois.
Worse, all that doesn’t even balance the budget, as
required by Kansas law: The legislature’s budget bill would call upon the
governor to balance the budget with unspecified spending cuts, a proposal that
Democrats rightly have derided as “magic money.”
There is good and bad and ugly in this. Kansas isn’t a
bloated mess like California, but its agencies probably could stand 3 percent
spending cuts, though the presence of uniform, across-the-board reductions
usually means that the question has not been examined in sufficient detail. If
all the cuts are enacted and Brownback delivers on the magic-money reductions,
then Kansas’s cash reserves will grow from $27.4 million to $81 million, which
would be excellent. But that extra cash is dwarfed by the $96 million in
pension-fund obligations that the state will be refusing to pay until 2018.
Those obligations do not go away simply because the state treasurer doesn’t
write the check: They remain, and grow, with interest.
Unserious men promise to Starve the Beast and balance
budgets by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse,” the formulation relied upon
by, among others, Donald Trump, 2016’s poster-boy for terminal unseriousness.
Delusional politicians insist that significant tax cuts can be offset by simple
gains in efficiency — but if it were that simple, then why not implement those
cost-saving measures first and the
tax cuts afterward?
(Answer: Because it is not simple.)
There are gross spending abuses at every level of
government, from Harry Reid’s federally subsidized cowboy-poetry festivals to
million-dollar paydays for superintendents of small suburban school districts.
These are work for the meat cleaver, not the scalpel. But about 80 percent of
what the federal government does is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and
other health-care spending, national defense, and paying interest on debts
incurred by previous Congress’s refusal to implement taxes sufficient to pay
for that spending. Most of what state and local governments spend their money
on is public schools, state universities, police, roads, and ordinary municipal
services. Yes, it’s bonkers that Lubbock, Texas, spends about a quarter-million
a year on a city manager, but that’s still chump change compared with what
schools and police cost.
We are not going to balance the federal budget without
cutting Social Security and other popular entitlements as well as the military,
and Kansas is not going to bring its spending down to match a lower revenue
line without touching education and the roads. It isn’t going to happen.
Yes, conservatives believe in smaller government, but
conservatives also believe in prudence — and that our political calculations must
in the end take account of reality. And here’s the reality that every
politician eventually discovers: You can promise to Starve the Beast, but in
the end, the Beast is Us.
No comments:
Post a Comment