I think there is a good case that it has. Sumner tries to sidestep this point by taking potshots at the NY Times.
"Don’t let the NYT tell you what is “popular.” I’ve already mentioned the opposition of liberal Washington and Massachusetts voters to a progressive income tax. I might add that although Governor Brownback is extremely unpopular among Republican legislators, it’s not clear that this applies to voters. Before the election last fall there was a flurry of articles telling us about how unpopular Brownback was with the voters. I expected a whole slew of follow up articles after he lost the election. But something kind of strange happened, he won. And those follow-up articles? I didn’t see them. Maybe Kansas voters liked the tax cuts."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29616
Sure. When in doubt bash the NYTimes. Red meat for his conservative friends and readers. Yet this is the best he can come up with. What's notable here is that the claim that fiscal conservatism has been stymied is not just being made at the NYTimes but by his buddy Tyler Cowen, Mr. Great Stagnation himself:
"It seems to me that, whether we like it or not, fiscal conservatism has been stymied at the state level. No, that’s not true for Illinois, New York, or California, but it does seem to be true for many other states, especially those governed by Republicans. (And yes, state pension obligations still do need to be reigned in and made subject to proper accounting.) More concretely, trying to cut taxes at the state level doesn’t seem like a useful or productive way forward.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/06/has-fiscal-conservatism-met-an-impasse-at-the-state-level.html#sthash.MXXWV59c.dpuf
If this were being said by the NYTimes it wouldn't speak in quite such high volumes. Then Sumner himself concedes that Brownback has egg on his face:
"On the other hand there’s no way to hide the fact that Brownback did screw up—his policies performed poorly. He cut the top rate, eliminated taxes on small business, and did little to cut spending. The result was predictable—suddenly everyone and his brother declared “I’m a small business.” and revenues plummeted. A deficit opened up, leading to the recent (regressive) tax increases. But even today Kansas has a tax regime that is more progressive than the regime in Massachusetts. And spending in Kansas is higher than in the other Great Plains states. A much better example is North Carolina, which slashed its top rate, and also cut other programs such as unemployment insurance, to avoid running deficits. Unlike Kansas, North Carolina is doing well, although in fairness it’s been doing well for decades. It’s hard to draw conclusions because most state level changes are small, and the effects show up very gradually. That’s why I prefer a cross sectional approach, and on balance that approach does suggest that people prefer states with no income tax. On average they vote that way with their feet, and in the case of Washington State, also at the ballot box."
So next time cut taxes for the rich and cut UI, food stamps and SSI. That will be more popular. I think Scott here is missing the whole premise of Supply Side policies going back to Jude Wanniski-and Bartlett who Sumner quotes-as well as Art Laffer. The GOP has to be Santa Claus if it hopes to be successful.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/26/two-santa-clauses-or-how-republican-party-has-conned-america-thirty-years
The Dems are the Santa Claus of government spending while the GOP has to be the party of tax cuts. Ie, both were different kinds of Santa Claus; either way, however, being Santa Claus means you do things that increase the deficit.
That was Wanniski's point: since Eisenhower during the post New Deal era the conservatives had ran on austerity-they wanted to cut taxes but believed they had to first cut spending. So they ran as Scrooge while the Dems ran as Santa Claus. The Reagan Revolution coincided with running as Santa Claus.
The idea is you cut taxes, which raises the deficit then you demand cuts to government spending to make up the difference. However, this hasn't worked in Kansas-though the poor are still being ripped off as the tax hikes are as Sumner admits quite regressive.
He does end by admitting that the future of state Supply Side tax cuts may hit a snag:
"Progressives can take heart from the fact that (in my view) the supply-side argument for lower top rates will gradually weaken over time. In the new economy firms have tremendous pricing power, and states have more taxing power than in the old commodity-driven economy. In the old days high taxes would make people and companies move to other states. Commodity industries are highly competitive on price. That’s Kansas and Louisiana. But the new economy in places like Manhattan and Boston and DC and Silicon Valley has companies with lots of market power, and people so rich they care more about amenities than a few extra bucks. So that works in favor of the progressives, but not yet in all 50 states."
If you have Scott Sumner and Tyler Cowen telling us that these state policies are in some peril then the takeaway has to be that: these conservative state policies are in some peril. They are being stymied.
"Don’t let the NYT tell you what is “popular.” I’ve already mentioned the opposition of liberal Washington and Massachusetts voters to a progressive income tax. I might add that although Governor Brownback is extremely unpopular among Republican legislators, it’s not clear that this applies to voters. Before the election last fall there was a flurry of articles telling us about how unpopular Brownback was with the voters. I expected a whole slew of follow up articles after he lost the election. But something kind of strange happened, he won. And those follow-up articles? I didn’t see them. Maybe Kansas voters liked the tax cuts."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29616
Sure. When in doubt bash the NYTimes. Red meat for his conservative friends and readers. Yet this is the best he can come up with. What's notable here is that the claim that fiscal conservatism has been stymied is not just being made at the NYTimes but by his buddy Tyler Cowen, Mr. Great Stagnation himself:
"It seems to me that, whether we like it or not, fiscal conservatism has been stymied at the state level. No, that’s not true for Illinois, New York, or California, but it does seem to be true for many other states, especially those governed by Republicans. (And yes, state pension obligations still do need to be reigned in and made subject to proper accounting.) More concretely, trying to cut taxes at the state level doesn’t seem like a useful or productive way forward.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/06/has-fiscal-conservatism-met-an-impasse-at-the-state-level.html#sthash.MXXWV59c.dpuf
If this were being said by the NYTimes it wouldn't speak in quite such high volumes. Then Sumner himself concedes that Brownback has egg on his face:
"On the other hand there’s no way to hide the fact that Brownback did screw up—his policies performed poorly. He cut the top rate, eliminated taxes on small business, and did little to cut spending. The result was predictable—suddenly everyone and his brother declared “I’m a small business.” and revenues plummeted. A deficit opened up, leading to the recent (regressive) tax increases. But even today Kansas has a tax regime that is more progressive than the regime in Massachusetts. And spending in Kansas is higher than in the other Great Plains states. A much better example is North Carolina, which slashed its top rate, and also cut other programs such as unemployment insurance, to avoid running deficits. Unlike Kansas, North Carolina is doing well, although in fairness it’s been doing well for decades. It’s hard to draw conclusions because most state level changes are small, and the effects show up very gradually. That’s why I prefer a cross sectional approach, and on balance that approach does suggest that people prefer states with no income tax. On average they vote that way with their feet, and in the case of Washington State, also at the ballot box."
So next time cut taxes for the rich and cut UI, food stamps and SSI. That will be more popular. I think Scott here is missing the whole premise of Supply Side policies going back to Jude Wanniski-and Bartlett who Sumner quotes-as well as Art Laffer. The GOP has to be Santa Claus if it hopes to be successful.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/26/two-santa-clauses-or-how-republican-party-has-conned-america-thirty-years
The Dems are the Santa Claus of government spending while the GOP has to be the party of tax cuts. Ie, both were different kinds of Santa Claus; either way, however, being Santa Claus means you do things that increase the deficit.
That was Wanniski's point: since Eisenhower during the post New Deal era the conservatives had ran on austerity-they wanted to cut taxes but believed they had to first cut spending. So they ran as Scrooge while the Dems ran as Santa Claus. The Reagan Revolution coincided with running as Santa Claus.
The idea is you cut taxes, which raises the deficit then you demand cuts to government spending to make up the difference. However, this hasn't worked in Kansas-though the poor are still being ripped off as the tax hikes are as Sumner admits quite regressive.
He does end by admitting that the future of state Supply Side tax cuts may hit a snag:
"Progressives can take heart from the fact that (in my view) the supply-side argument for lower top rates will gradually weaken over time. In the new economy firms have tremendous pricing power, and states have more taxing power than in the old commodity-driven economy. In the old days high taxes would make people and companies move to other states. Commodity industries are highly competitive on price. That’s Kansas and Louisiana. But the new economy in places like Manhattan and Boston and DC and Silicon Valley has companies with lots of market power, and people so rich they care more about amenities than a few extra bucks. So that works in favor of the progressives, but not yet in all 50 states."
If you have Scott Sumner and Tyler Cowen telling us that these state policies are in some peril then the takeaway has to be that: these conservative state policies are in some peril. They are being stymied.
No comments:
Post a Comment