Favorite

Spending vs. tax cuts 

Nothing dies harder than a cherished idea proved wrong. After 90 years and a score of failures, the Republicans in Washington last week raised the standard of tax cuts one more time. A giant tax cut, they said, would turn the sinking economy around, create jobs and rebuild individual wealth while President Obama's stimulus plan would simply raise the public debt to an intolerable level.

“Generational theft,” Sen. John McCain called the president's spending program because future generations would have to pay off the mortgage. Never mind that the tax cut that he and all the other Republicans backed as the alternative to the stimulus would load a far greater burden onto our children than the plan that the president signed into law this week.

You would think that the lessons of the past eight years, when four rounds of tax cuts produced the feeblest economic performance since the 1930s, were not lost on men and women whose political careers had to be grounded in empirical law. If something never works, don't you try something else?

But maybe George W. Bush's all-around incompetence denied the theory a fair test. Let's overlay the history of the American business cycle with the record of tax reductions and see what it shows. Let it be said that the cause and effect of tax cuts and economic performance is not absolute. Economists never agree on the precise events and factors that cause a business downturn or a recovery, but I think you can detect a pattern.

Let's start with Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, whose joint record compares dismayingly to that of George W. Bush.

Coolidge and a solidly Republican Congress cut taxes three times in the Roaring Twenties, in the election years of 1924, 1926 and 1928. Right after the second tax cut, the country fell into a long recession and recovered in time for the 1928 election of Herbert Hoover and another overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Coolidge's sharp 1928 cut in corporate and personal taxes proved so effective at the polls that Hoover and his Treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, repeated it in 1929. A tax cut would reflect confidence in the economy, which happened to be collapsing while the bill was wending its way to the president's desk. You know how that worked out.

Franklin Roosevelt did not reduce taxes and, in fact, raised them seven times from 1940 through 1944 to pay for the war, increasing federal receipts from $8.7 billion to $45.2 billion in four years, but still the economy expanded and unemployment sank to 1.2 percent.

Congress cut taxes at the end of war demobilization in November 1945 and again in 1948, both times over the objections of President Truman, who disagreed with the scope and shape of the reductions. The second one reduced total federal receipts by 13 percent. Six months later the country slumped into a yearlong recession.

Truman raised the income tax back to a top rate of 91 percent in 1951 to pay for the Korean War, and unemployment dropped by 50 percent.

President Dwight Eisenhower generally resisted his party's calls for tax cuts, but he relented and signed a tax cut after the country emerged from a 10-month recession that coincided with the Korean armistice and demobilization in 1954. That might be tax cuts' single success story. It would be nearly three years before the economy collapsed again.

President Nixon proposed a tax cut in the spring of 1971 and the Democratic Congress made it bigger than he wanted. He signed it anyway in the late fall. A yearlong slump followed. Another tax cut followed in November 1971 and the president on his own changed depreciation schedules to cut business taxes. Two years later, the economy plunged into the longest postwar recession.

A rebellious Democratic Congress forced a $19 billion tax cut — big for that day — on President Jimmy Carter in October 1978. The country struggled through a mild recession the next year and into 1980.

 Within 108 days of taking office in 1981, Ronald Reagan had signed his supply-side tax cuts, which phased in large income tax cuts over three years. The country slid into recession and by the end of 1982 unemployment had reached a post-Depression record of 10.8 percent. But in the midst of recession in 1982 and early 1983 Reagan and Congress raised income, payroll, cigarette and gasoline taxes, all of them quite sharply. Economic activity picked up for his last six years, producing an annual economic growth rate for his two terms that was only slightly lower than the average of post-World War II presidents.

Six months into a nine-month recession in 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed a bill raising the tax rate for high incomes to 31 percent, and two and a half years later Bill Clinton raised it to 34 percent. The longest and most robust peacetime economic expansion on record followed.

Then there was George W. Bush: four rounds of tax cuts in four years, two recessions, the worst jobs record since Hoover (1.9 million added in eight years, 20 million fewer than tax hiker Clinton) and a final calamity the bounds of which no one dares imagine.

So here is the Republican predicament: Count on the Obama program failing and the public buying the idea that Coolidge, Hoover and George W. Bush, given one more chance in 2009, would have taken us to the promised land.

 

Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Ernest Dumas

  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • Prelude to war

    President Trump's casual disinterest in the murder of Jamaal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia's leaders, a crime he once abhorred, may be only the final repudiation of America's ancient obedience to human rights, but what if it is much more? What if it is a prelude to war?
    • Nov 29, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Along the civil rights trail

    A convergence of events in recent days signaled again how far we have come and how far we have yet to go in civil rights.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • The Oval outhouse

    One thing all Americans finally can agree upon is that public discourse has coarsened irretrievably in the era of Donald Trump and largely at his instance.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • Shrugging off sulfides

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported a shocker on its front page Sunday. The rotten-egg odor from the Koch brothers' sprawling paper plant at Crossett is still making people sick, but the state's pollution control agency is unaware of the problem.
    • Mar 29, 2018

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • Prelude to war

    President Trump's casual disinterest in the murder of Jamaal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia's leaders, a crime he once abhorred, may be only the final repudiation of America's ancient obedience to human rights, but what if it is much more? What if it is a prelude to war?
    • Nov 29, 2018
  • More »

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: No leash

    • I used to believe I wasn't a cat person, till I had my first cat…

    • on December 18, 2018
  • Re: No leash

    • I once had a cat -- Earl was his name -- who loved to ride…

    • on December 17, 2018
  • Re: Beware of 'unity'

    • I like this opinion piece of yours published on my 71st birthday. My best friend…

    • on December 17, 2018
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation