Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit
History shows that when Congress gets more revenue, the pols spend it.
Article
Comments (300)
more in Opinion »
Email
Print
Save This
↓ More
+ More
Text
By STEPHEN MOORE And RICHARD VEDDER
The draft recommendations of the president's commission on deficit reduction call for closing popular tax deductions, higher gas taxes and other revenue raisers to drive tax collections up to 21% of GDP from the historical norm of about 18.5%. Another plan, proposed last week by commission member and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin, would impose a 6.5% national sales tax on consumers.
The claim here, echoed by endless purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, is that these added revenues—potentially a half-trillion dollars a year—will be used to reduce the $8 trillion to $10 trillion deficits in the coming decade. If history is any guide, however, that won't happen. Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.
In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.
We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.
We also looked at different time periods (e.g., 1947-2009 vs. 1959-2009), different financial data (fiscal year federal budget data, as well as calendar year National Income and Product Account data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis), different lag structures (e.g., relating taxes one year to spending change the following year to allow for the time it takes bureaucracies to spend money), different control variables, etc. The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship—between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.
View Full Image
Getty Images
Alice Rivlin
This is exactly the opposite of what the tax-increase lobby in Washington is preaching today. For example, Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of the president's deficit reduction commission, suggested at a briefing several months ago that there will be $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. Sound familiar? Reagan used to complain that he waited his entire presidency for the $3 of spending cuts that Congress promised for every dollar of new taxes he agreed to in 1982. The cuts never came.
We're constantly told by politicos that tax increases must be put "on the table" to get congressional Democrats—who've already approved close to $1 trillion of new spending in violation of their own budget rules over the last two years—to agree to make cuts in the unsustainable entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Our research indicates this is a sucker play. After the 1990 and 1993 tax increases, federal spending continued to rise. The 1990 tax increase deal was enacted specifically to avoid automatic spending sequestrations that would have been required under the then-prevailing Gramm-Rudman budget rules.
The only era in modern times that the budget has been in balance was in the late 1990s, when Republicans were in control of Congress. Taxes were not raised, and the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997. The growth rate of federal spending was dramatically reduced from 1995-99, and the economy roared.
We suspect that voters intuitively understand this tax and spend connection, which is why there is such hostility to broad-based tax increases. "Polls consistently find that a majority of Americans believe any new taxes will be spent by the politicians," pollster Scott Rasmussen told us recently in an interview.
The grand bargain so many in Washington yearn for—tax increases coupled with spending cuts—is a fool's errand. Our research confirms what the late economist Milton Friedman said of Congress many years ago: "Politicians will always spend every penny of tax raised and whatever else they can get away with."
Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Mr. Vedder is a professor of economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
More In Opinion
Email
Printer Friendly
Order Reprints
Share:
Journal Community
Add a Comment
We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules. All comments will display your real name.
Want to participate in the discussion?
Register for Free
Or log in or become a subscriber now for complete Journal access.
Track replies to my comment
Go to Comments tab
Clear
Post
Related Stories
Ryan's Hope Yesterday 12:01 A.M.
Can Washington Reach a Deal on Deficit Reduction? Yesterday 12:01 A.M.
Steven Malanga: The 'Build America' Debt Bomb Yesterday 12:01 A.M.
Henninger: 8-14-23 or Fight! 11/18/2010
State Tests Limits of Spending Cuts Yesterday 12:01 A.M.
Martin Feldstein: The Deficit Dilemma and Obama's Budget 11/18/2010
James S. Tisch: Andy Stern Sees the Light on Overseas Profits 9/24/2010
Arthur Laffer: A Growth Agenda for the New Congress 11/12/2010
Related Videos
11/17/2010
Sweeping Irish Aid Package in Works - News Hub
11/17/2010
New Deficit-Reduction Plan Targets Taxes - News Hub
11/17/2010
8-14-23 or Fight!
Most Popular on Facebook
Video
Opinion Journal: START Again
4:11
Opinion Journal: 'The Ben Bernank' Blames China
9:25
Opinion Journal: Obama v. Petraeus
6:26
More in Opinion
Steve Malanga: The 'Build America' Debt Bomb
Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder: Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit
O'Grady: Who Cares About Haiti?
The EPA Permitorium
North Korea's Non-Surprise
Most Popular
Read
Emailed
Video
Commented
Searches
1.
U.S. in Vast Insider Trading Probe
2.
Pope's Comments Set Off Firestorm
3.
Standout House
4.
North Korea Nuclear Fears Grow
5.
The New ATM Scam
Most Read Articles Feed
Editors' Picks
Cycling's New Rules of the Road
Can the Ashes Save Cricket?
Artsy Town Up in Arms Over Pair of Legs
Justin Bieber Wins Big at American Music Awards 2010
Nike Ad With LeBron James Asks for It
A WiFi Camera
Savoring the Fruits of Fall
Speakeasy's Guide to Holiday Cocktails
The Not Last-Minute Gift Guide
What Do We Want From Tiger?
Union Drops Health Coverage for Workers' Children
Northern Mexico's State of Anarchy
back to top
WSJ.com Account:
My Account
Subscriber Billing Info
Create an Account:
Register for Free
Subscribe to WSJ.com
Sign up for WSJ Professional
Help & Information Center:
Help
Customer Service
Contact Us
New on WSJ.com
Tour the new Journal
About:
News Licensing
Advertising
Advertise Locally
Conferences
About Dow Jones
Privacy Policy - Updated
Subscriber Agreement & Terms of Use - Updated
Copyright Policy
Jobs at WSJ.com
WSJ.com:
Site Map
Home
World
U.S.
New York
Business
Markets
Market Data
Tech
Personal Finance
Life & Culture
Opinion
Autos
Careers
Real Estate
Small Business
Student Journal
Corrections
Tools & Formats:
Today's Paper
Video Center
Graphics
Columns
Blogs
Topics
Guides
Alerts
Newsletters
Mobile
iPad
Podcasts
RSS Feeds
Journal Community
WSJ on Twitter
WSJ on Facebook
WSJ on Foursquare
My Journal
Portfolio
Digital Network
WSJ.com
Marketwatch.com
Barrons.com
SmartMoney.com
AllThingsD.com
FINS: Finance, IT jobs, Sales jobs
BigCharts.com
Virtual Stock Exchange
ProfessorJournal.com
WSJ U.S. Edition
WSJ Asia Edition
WSJ Europe Edition
WSJ India Page
Foreign language editions:
WSJ Chinese
WSJ Japanese
WSJ Portuguese
WSJ Spanish
Copyright ©2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment