Deficit Projections

Greg Mankiw writes:
Making matters worse, these bleak budget projections are based on relatively optimistic economic assumptions. The administration forecasts economic growth of 3.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, followed by 4.3 percent the next year. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office predicts growth of 2.1 percent and 2.4 percent for these two years. Lower growth would mean less tax revenue, larger budget deficits and a more rapidly increasing debt-to-G.D.P. ratio.

source

If the President’s proposals were enacted, the federal government would record deficits of $1.5 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. Those deficits would amount to 10.3 percent and 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), respectively. By comparison, the deficit in 2009 totaled 9.9 percent of GDP.

Measured relative to the size of the economy, the deficit under the President’s proposals would fall to about 4 percent of GDP by 2014 but would rise steadily thereafter. Compared with CBO’s baseline projections, deficits under the proposals would be about 2 percentage points of GDP higher in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, 1.3 percentage points greater in 2013, and above baseline levels by growing amounts thereafter. By 2020, the deficit would reach 5.6 percent of GDP, compared with 3.0 percent under CBO’s baseline projections.

CBO Estimates

2009: 1.413 trillion

2010 CBO baseline: $1360 billion
2010 CBO (Obama): $1500 billion

2011 CBO baseline: $995 billion
2011 CBO (Obama): $1341 billion

2012 CBO baseline: $641 billion
2012 CBO (Obama): $915 billion

Greg Mankiw on Chrylser and General Motors

Is it any surprise that Chrysler and GM are now in the process of going out of business?... Their bankruptcy should perhaps be viewed as a success of the market system.
Greg Mankiw

Mankiw Calls Out Krugman

The Obama administration is basing its budget forecasts on the economy growing an eyebrow-raising 15.6 percent above inflation between 2008 and 2013 - a drop of 1.2 percent this year followed by an average of 4 percent growth over the following four years. That's very impressive growth for any period of time. Even small deviations in growth rates can mean hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in the federal budget deficit...

If President Obama is correct that the economy will only shrink by 1.2 percent this year, despite all the rhetoric comparing our current plight to the Great Depression, this will be a relatively moderate recession. During the first four years of the Depression the economy shrank by 27.5 percent. For a more recent example, the economy shrank by 1.9 percent in 1982.

Harvard economics Professor Greg Mankiw thinks that Mr. Obama's growth forecasts are overly optimistic and that the federal deficit will be a lot larger than Mr. Obama thinks. He was chastised by Princeton's Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, who on his New York Times blog claims that Mankiw can only make the predictions that he does because of "more than a bit of deliberate obtuseness." He titled his post on Mankiw, "Roots of Evil."

Last Wednesday, Mankiw responded to Krugman's attacks by suggesting: "Well, Paul, if you are so confident in this forecast, would you like to place a wager on it and take advantage of my wickedness?" Krugman has still not responded. It seems even a Nobel Prize winner isn't willing to lay money on Mr. Obama's rosy projections.

read the article

My thoughts: Krugman does not have a leg to stand on. He is a partisan hack.

Greg Mankiw: The Problem with the Corporate Tax

Lost in this hubbub, however, is a bigger idea that Mr. McCain and his economic team have put forward: a cut in the corporate tax rate, to 25 percent from 35 percent. It is perhaps the best simple recipe for promoting long-run growth in American living standards.

Cutting corporate taxes is not the kind of idea that normally pops up in presidential campaigns. After all, voters aren’t corporations. Why promise goodies for those who can’t put you in office?

In fact, a corporate rate cut would help a lot of voters, though they might not know it. The most basic lesson about corporate taxes is this: A corporation is not really a taxpayer at all. It is more like a tax collector.

The ultimate payers of the corporate tax are those individuals who have some stake in the company on which the tax is levied. If you own corporate equities, if you work for a corporation or if you buy goods and services from a corporation, you pay part of the corporate income tax. The corporate tax leads to lower returns on capital, lower wages or higher prices — and, most likely, a combination of all three.

A cut in the corporate tax as Mr. McCain proposes would initially give a boost to after-tax profits and stock prices, but the results would not end there. A stronger stock market would lead to more capital investment. More investment would lead to greater productivity. Greater productivity would lead to higher wages for workers and lower prices for customers.

read the entire essay

Pigou Club: Raise Gas Taxes

Oil's climb to $122 a barrel has policy makers and presidential candidates scrambling for quick, feel-good solutions. Trouble is, their ideas are exactly the opposite of what straightforward market economics says is needed.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton want to send cash-strapped consumers on holidays from the federal gasoline tax. But the law they can't rewrite -- the law of supply and demand -- suggests it would backfire. Lower taxes would encourage people to drive more, meaning more demand that would push prices higher again. That would fatten the bottom line of Big Oil and suppliers like Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and add to global carbon emissions.

What the U.S. really needs, if it seeks a real fix to its energy-consumption problem, is less demand, not more. Mr. Market says there's a simple way to do that: Jack up the gas tax. Don't lower it.

Economists call it a "Pigovian Tax," in honor of English economist Arthur Pigou, who early in the 20th century examined economic activity that hurts innocent bystanders. To stop behavior that's not in the public good, you tax it more, not less.

Of course, a higher gas tax would hurt working-class Americans who rely on their cars, though other taxes, like the federal payroll taxes or state sales taxes on food, could be lowered to offset it.

Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, President Bush's former chief economic adviser, has proposed raising the tax by 10 cents a year for 10 years, to give the economy time to adjust.

read the entire article

Greg Mankiw on Bailouts

If you start bailing the firms out when they lose, you have to regulate the gambles they take. You can no longer count on the creditors to limit the firms' leverage, as the creditors are counting on Uncle Sam if things go wrong. But the more regulated these firms are, the lower their productivity will be.

The bottom line: The Bear Stearns bailout may have saved the economy from an episode of financial contagion in the short run, but in the long run it will likely leave us with a more regulated and less vibrant financial system.


source

My Comments: Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail.

Who Pays the Taxes?

read the entire Mankiw article