French Dressing


For most people, the alarming thing about a prospective recession is
the possibility of losing their jobs or not getting a raise. For me,
it's the horrifying thought that I'm going to have to go back to
refuting the same tax rationales I was refuting six years ago.The original reason we needed a tax cut was that a surplus meant
taxpayers were overcharged. Then the overcharge disappeared, but we
needed a tax cut on account of the recession. Currently, we need
tax cuts because the fact that the recession ended means the old
tax cuts are working. If the economy tanks, I assume we'll just be
told again we can't raise taxes during a recession.

This Orwellian spectacle has grown so familiar that it has simply
become an accepted fact of life in Washington. A New York Times
article earlier this month called the economic expansion "one of
the few positive developments President Bush and the Republican
candidates have been able to cite." But, the same article proceeded
to explain, "the threat of a recession would make it harder to
advocate allowing President Bush's tax cuts to expire, as the lower
rates are scheduled to do in 2010, and easier for Republicans to
argue that Democratic proposals to raise taxes on the rich risk
making the economy worse." So, if the economy keeps growing, it
helps the GOP. But, if it stops growing, it hurts the Democrats.
Sadly, this is probably an accurate summation of the debate.

Now, to be fair to conservatives, I should point out that no serious
person actually believes that long-term tax policy ought to be used
to combat a temporary downturn. It's a phony rationale trotted out
for the rubes. The more serious rationale for tax cuts is that they
can boost long-term growth. This rationale, however, doesn't hold
up terribly well, either.

There's no perfect way to test the effect of tax rates, but it's
pretty revealing to compare the current economic expansion, under
which taxes were cut, with the previous economic expansion, which
had a tax hike. Both the Clinton expansion and the Bush expansion
featured enormous gains for the very rich. The difference is that
the Clinton expansion also produced huge benefits across the income
spectrum, while the Bush expansion has not.

The most common measure of how average people have fared is median
household income, which captures gains by families right in the
middle. From the peak of the previous business cycle, in 1989, to
the peak of the Clinton-era business cycle, which ended in 1999,
median household income rose by 8.5 percent. During the Bush-era
business cycle, median family income has actually fallen, by 2.8
percent. This is extremely bad.

Once again, let's try to be fair to Republicans. It's not really
Bush's fault that his economic recovery has done far worse than
Clinton's. (And, who knows, maybe it will keep going for a few
years and start producing real wage gains.) Sure, I think Clinton's
mix of deficit reduction, free trade, and public investment did
more to foster growth than Bush's mix of tax cuts and corporate
pork. But I'm willing to concede that policies probably played only
a small role, and we can't give Clinton that much credit, or Bush
much blame, for their economic performance. Neither the Clinton tax
hike nor the Bush tax cuts probably did much to the overall

If we concede this, though, then we've knocked down the central
justification for GOP policies, which is that tax cuts have enormous
effects on the economy. If economic growth is mostly driven by
things other than fiscal policy, then we can return to the slightly
higher upper-bracket tax rates of the Clinton era and have lower
deficits, stronger government benefits for the non-rich, with
little or no trade-off for economic growth.

So the conservative argument fundamentally depends upon denying the
1990s. There is a two-step process here. The first step is
deviously brilliant: Insist that undoing the Bush tax cuts would be
some radical new left-wing experiment that's never been tried
before in this country. When Hillary Clinton proposed to restore
the top tax rate to where it stood before 2001, Lawrence Kudlow
fulminated, "This is France before Sarzoky stuff." Mitt Romney said,
"I don't think that her platform would get her elected president of
France, let alone president of this country." (This was in keeping
with the line of attack a Romney strategy document neatly
summarized as "Hillary=France.") Now, you might think that, if any
comparison could be drawn from a plan to bring tax rates in the
United States back to where they were in the '90s, it would be to
... the United States in the '90s. But conservatives understand
that this would not be sufficiently frightening, so they've decided
that France is the more apt parallel.

Having successfully severed the '90s from the administration that
presided over them, the second step is to suture those years onto
the Republican record. Numerous conservatives, most prominently
Kudlow, have begun speaking of the "twenty-five-year Reagan boom."
(Note that conservatives like Kudlow are able to assert this while
simultaneously asserting that, if we reinstated the policies that
held sway during the most prosperous stretch of that 25-year boom,
we would be just like France.)

A related trick is to find ever more statistically creative ways of
giving George W. Bush credit for the '90s. Earlier this year,
Republican Senator Judd Gregg asked the Congressional Budget Office
to calculate how low-income families with children fared since
1991. Why since 1991? That way it would lump together eight years
of low-wage growth with the four years of low-wage decline that
followed. Sure enough, the study found those families enjoyed
sharply higher income through the '90s and then have seen their
income drop ever since. The Wall Street Journal editorial page
seized upon this finding to declare that "the poor have been
getting less poor."

Earlier this summer, visiting American Enterprise Institute scholar
Arthur C. Brooks pulled the same trick. He triumphantly noted that
poor- and middle- income workers have seen their incomes rise
"between 1993 and 2003"--yes, eight of those ten years took place
on Clinton's watch, before incomes for the poor started to
drop--then proceeded to flay liberals for being obsessed with
inequality. This elementary-level statistical legerdemain was
considered so insightful that both City Journal and the Journal
editorial page decided to print it. Perhaps those esteemed
right-wing publications will also be interested to learn that Barry
Bonds and I have combined to hit 762 home runs, which surely
qualifies me as the greatest baseball player of all time.

For more stories, like the New Republic on Facebook:

Loading Related Articles...
Article Tools