<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>US Policy Strategies &#187; Fiscal Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/category/fiscal-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com</link>
	<description>US Policy Metrics is a boutique advisory firm for hedge funds and asset management firms.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 18:45:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.37</generator>
	<item>
		<title>WSJ-Lessons From the Great Inflation of 1973-81</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-lessons-from-the-great-inflation-of-1973-81/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-lessons-from-the-great-inflation-of-1973-81/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2022 18:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Then as now, what drove higher prices was excess demand owing to runaway government spending. Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker understood. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon Aug. 2, 2022 12:49 pm ET History withholds its wisdom from those who ignore its lessons. Forty years ago this month, the fiscal policy of President Ronald Reagan and the monetary policy of&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-lessons-from-the-great-inflation-of-1973-81/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="css-u1dda4 e105m3c32">
<div class="css-1rlknzd e1of74uw8">
<h2 class="css-mosdo-Dek-Dek e1jnru6p0">Then as now, what drove higher prices was excess demand owing to runaway government spending. Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker understood.</h2>
</div>
</div>
<article class="css-p3nrv6 e105m3c33">
<div class="css-1rlknzd e1of74uw8">
<div class="ArticleBodyContent__BylineTimestampWrapper-sc-9g71ca-0 qsfok css-1skj0ht-Box e1vnmyci0">
<div class="css-179sdgx-Container e1575iv84">By <span class="css-oie75k-AuthorContainer e1575iv82"><span class="css-14s3v4b-PlainByline e10pnb9y1">Phil Gramm</span></span> and <span class="css-oie75k-AuthorContainer e1575iv82"><span class="css-14s3v4b-PlainByline e10pnb9y1">Mike Solon</span></span></div>
<p><time class="css-a8mttu-Timestamp-Timestamp emlnvus0" datetime="2022-08-02T16:49:00Z">Aug. 2, 2022 12:49 pm ET</time></div>
<div class="ArticleBodyContent__BylineTimestampWrapper-sc-9g71ca-0 qsfok css-1skj0ht-Box e1vnmyci0"></div>
<div class="ArticleBodyContent__BylineTimestampWrapper-sc-9g71ca-0 qsfok css-1skj0ht-Box e1vnmyci0">History withholds its wisdom from those who ignore its lessons. Forty years ago this month, the fiscal policy of President Ronald Reagan and the monetary policy of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker broke the back of the 20th century’s most destructive inflation, ushered in an economic expansion that effectively lasted a quarter of a century, and banished inflation—until now.</div>
<div class="ArticleBodyContent__BylineTimestampWrapper-sc-9g71ca-0 qsfok css-1skj0ht-Box e1vnmyci0">
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">The buildup to the Great Inflation started in 1966, when Congress, at the urging of the Johnson administration, expanded funding for both the war in Vietnam and the War on Poverty. This “guns and butter” policy produced a double-digit surge in federal spending. By 1973 inflation was running at 8.7% and would average 9.2% for nine years—far surpassing average inflation of 3.3% between 1946 and 1972 and 2.7% from 1982 through 2019. During the 1973-81 Great Inflation, even after adjusting for inflation, federal revenue rose by an average 4.1% a year. The share of the economy taken by the federal government in taxes rose by nearly one-eighth, from 17% to 19.1%.</p>
<div class="paywall css-1u1nl00-PaywalledContentContainer e1db8bjv0">
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">That’s astonishing, because Congress never voted to raise income taxes during that period. In fact, after LBJ’s 1968 temporary tax surcharge, which didn’t slow inflation, Congress cut federal income taxes in 1971, 1975, 1976 and 1977. So how did taxes rise at a record pace? Surreptitiously and automatically through inflation and bracket creep. As the Congressional Budget Office explained in 1980, “taxpayers with two dependents . . . earning $15,000”—around $57,000 in 2022 dollars—“and filing a joint return would pay $294 more in federal income taxes—a 23.8% rise in tax liability—if the family’s adjusted gross income and itemized deductions rose by 13.3%,” the inflation rate of 1979. With 16 tax brackets and 9% inflation over the period, bracket creep increased taxes as a share of gross domestic product by 2.1%, dwarfing the later Clinton and Obama tax increases combined.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">But record tax increases couldn’t keep pace with spending. Annual real federal spending increased by 4.3%, defense fell by 0.1%, and social spending exploded by 6.3%. As a share of GDP, total spending rose by 2.6%, defense fell by 1.5%, and social spending rose by 4.1%, almost a one-third increase in the share of national income being spent by the federal government on social spending. Compare that with the New Deal: Social spending rose by a then-unheard-of 2% of GDP from 1933 through 1939.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">Guns and butter ignited excess demand and inflation in 1966, but butter has fueled excess demand and inflation ever since. Monetary policy has accommodated these fiscal excesses; and supply disruptions, including those caused by the six-month Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the pandemic shutdown in 2020, exacerbated them. But federal spending has driven inflation in postwar America.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">When Reagan took office in January 1981, the inflation rate was 12.5%. The tax burden and the level of federal spending were both postwar highs, respectively 19.1% and 21.6% of GDP. By the end of the Reagan presidency, real average annual federal spending growth had declined to 2.5% from 4.3% and social spending growth to 1.9% from 6.3%. Real annual defense spending growth had risen to 4.3% from minus 0.1%. As a share of the economy, total federal spending had fallen by 1% and social spending by 1.5%; defense spending had risen by 0.5%.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">Reagan achieved this spending restraint during a deep recession, which saw unemployment rise to 10%. The Federal Reserve’s tightening sent prime interest rates to 20.5% in 1981. Neither Reagan nor Volcker ever flinched. In addition to dramatically reducing the real growth in government spending and excess demand, Reagan cut taxes, creating incentives to work, save and invest. Congress indexed individual tax brackets for inflation beginning in 1985. Reagan built on Jimmy Carter’s transformational deregulation effort, completing the decontrol of oil and gas prices and further lightening regulatory burdens across the economy. Those efforts cut the costs of moving people and products by 50% and gave America the world’s most efficient supply chain.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">In conjunction with Fed monetary tightening, cutting spending, taxes and the regulatory burden brought inflation down quickly. By fall 1982, inflation had been cut in half, and by the end of Reagan’s first term it was reduced to normal levels, where it remained until the 2020s.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">With the sharp drop in the inflation rate, bracket-creep revenue the CBO had assumed would be generated in 1982-84 failed to materialize. The drop in inflation alone reduced bracket-creep tax increases by $108 billion in those three years. The double-dip recessions of 1980-82 slashed revenue by another $184 billion. According to CBO, the plummeting of inflation and the 1980-82 recessions cost the Treasury $292 billion, more than the static cost estimate of $280 billion for the Reagan tax cuts during 1982-84. The Reagan tax cut reduced the tax burden from 19.1% of GDP to 17.8% in eight years, reversing 68.5% of the nine-year bracket-creep tax increases. By 1984 runaway inflation was over, real GDP growth hit 7.2%, and it was “Morning in America.” The economic recovery effectively lasted 25 years, until the Great Recession of 2007-09.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">During the pandemic, total federal spending exploded as government spent in two years what it had spent in the three years before the pandemic. The Federal Reserve accommodated this fiscal explosion by buying or offsetting three-fourths of all the government debt incurred. The money supply expanded at the fastest rate in postwar history.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">With inflation running at 9.1% and negative growth for the past two quarters, President Biden continues to press for massive increases in taxes and spending. Even though stimulus spending has ended, the Biden budget for fiscal 2023 calls for spending 30.2% more than the pre-pandemic 2019 nominal level. By executive order, regulatory appointments and antitrust actions, Mr. Biden has imposed the nation’s heaviest peacetime regulatory burden. He continues to attack big oil, big banks, big tech and big grocers and continues to search for price fixing, all policies that failed in the 1970s.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph">Mr. Biden is pursuing policies that are the exact opposite of the policies Reagan used to stop the inflation and revive the economy. Mr. Biden may think he can tax, spend and regulate America out of the inflation and recession. History suggests otherwise.</p>
<p class="css-xbvutc-Paragraph e3t0jlg0" data-type="paragraph"><em class="css-i6hrxa-Italic e1i5tkwa0" data-type="emphasis">Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a nonresident senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</article>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-lessons-from-the-great-inflation-of-1973-81/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ-The Folly of ‘Modern Supply-Side’ Economics</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/the-folly-of-modern-supply-side-economics/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/the-folly-of-modern-supply-side-economics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2022 14:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Janet Yellen tries to sell even more spending as a growth and anti-inflation policy. It’s the opposite of what’s needed now. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon Feb. 7, 2022 5:14 pm ET With inflation at 7%, the highest rate since 1982, and the Federal Reserve set to tighten monetary policy, you would think the president and Congress&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/the-folly-of-modern-supply-side-economics/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 class="sub-head">Janet Yellen tries to sell even more spending as a growth and anti-inflation policy. It’s the opposite of what’s needed now.</h2>
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Mike Solon</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">Feb. 7, 2022 5:14 pm ET</time></p>
<p>With inflation at 7%, the highest rate since 1982, and the Federal Reserve set to tighten monetary policy, you would think the president and Congress would be looking for ways to end the spending spree in Washington. Yet remarkably, bipartisan discussions abound to increase this year’s omnibus appropriations by 16%—almost a quarter of a trillion dollars—pass another round of Covid stimulus, and resurrect the $1.7 trillion Build Back Better bill. It is hard to recall a greater disconnect between economic reality and public policy in American history.</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>This inflation has been driven by an explosion of federal spending, which was set to average 20% of gross domestic product in 2020 and 2021. Instead it doubled to 40% of GDP in a 12-month period as pandemic spending exploded. The multiple stimulus bills did more than fill the gap in aggregate demand. Spending surged as the pandemic shutdown reduced employment and production during that period by an average of 7%. In this textbook case of inflation, $1.20 of income began chasing 93 cents of goods and services, a process greased by expansive monetary policy, and that mismatch sent inflation to a 40-year high.</p>
<p>Checking-account <a class="icon none" href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WDDNS" target="_blank">balances</a> are still 350% of their pre-pandemic level. Of the $5.8 trillion in total Covid stimulus approved by Congress, some $400 billion has yet to be spent. Massive state surpluses have emerged from federal grants. All states <a class="icon none" href="https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NASBO/9d2d2db1-c943-4f1b-b750-0fca152d64c2/UploadedImages/Fiscal%20Survey/NASBO_Fall_2021_Fiscal_Survey_of_States_S.pdf" target="_blank">combined</a> are sitting on $113 billion in ready cash. Median household real wealth has surged by $27 trillion since the pandemic began, generating a potentially massive wealth effect on consumption.</p>
<p>The producer price index, a key driver of consumer prices, rose 9.7% in 2021, while import prices, usually a moderator of inflation, rose 10.4%. And 75% of the 17% rise in housing costs last year has yet to show up in consumer prices because rental leases cause shelter costs to lag behind increases in housing costs. Shelter costs make up a third of the consumer price index.</p>
<p>Inflation permanently increases entitlement spending via automatic indexing. The current 7% inflation will add $1.5 trillion in new spending over the next decade. Under current services budgeting, discretionary spending will rise by $641 billion. Given everything that’s going on in the economy, how is it possible to justify a massive increase in the omnibus appropriations bill, a new stimulus bill, or the resurrection of Build Back Better?</p>
<p>In a final desperate effort to save Build Back Better and elevate government to the center of American life, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is trying to pitch the Biden economic agenda as “modern supply-side economics.” But whereas real supply-side economics creates a private incentive to work, save and invest, Ms. Yellen’s approach expands government benefits as a way of “fixing supply-chain bottlenecks” and substitutes “public investment” for private investment.</p>
<p>In virtually every case where Ms. Yellen claims Build Back Better will expand employment and production, experience and logic suggest otherwise. Almost 43% of the first year’s cost of the bill is funding the expanded child tax credit with no work requirement. A quartet of University of Chicago economists have <a class="icon none" href="https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BFI_WP_2021-115-1.pdf" target="_blank">concluded</a> the expanded child tax credit would reduce labor supply by 1.5 million workers, just as soaring pandemic transfer payments resulted in 2.5 million workers dropping out of the labor market. More than 20% of the bill’s first-year cost, $52 billion, would fund tax cuts for rich people in high-tax states, not exactly a supply-chain fixer.</p>
<p>Build Back Better would expand ObamaCare and other healthcare subsidies, which the Congressional Budget Office has consistently found reduces the supply of labor. The CBO <a class="icon none" href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-11/57631-Paid-Leave.pdf" target="_blank">concluded</a> that it is “unclear” if family and medical leave would have a positive or negative effect on employment but “the magnitude would probably be small.”</p>
<p>Ms. Yellen’s modern supply-side economics argues that government can invest based on enlightened political motives more efficiently than the private sector can invest based on the profit motive. But “federal investment is estimated” <a class="icon none" href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/presentation/51286-presentation.pdf" target="_blank">by the CBO</a> “to yield half of the typical returns on investment completed by the private sector.” The European Union, with its larger government benefits, greener policies and more government intervention in the marketplace, doesn’t seem to be benefiting from modern supply-side economics. Europe has grown at 1.57% for 20 years while the U.S. has averaged 2.1% growth—that’s more than a third higher. All of Ms. Yellen’s claims ignore the negative economic effects sure to be produced by Build Back Better’s tax increases.</p>
<p>At some point, the Biden administration and Congress must accept a corollary to Adam Smith’s truism: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” When government gives people the things they normally must work to be able to buy, many will butcher, brew, and bake less. This is the lesson of the War on Poverty. When means-tested transfer payments rose dramatically, the share of prime work-age people in the bottom 20% of American income earners who actually worked fell to 36% from 68% over the ensuing 50 years. All analysis of the labor component of the supply chain must recognize that if the government gives people things they typically get by working, many people will quit working.</p>
<p>Instead of offering a phony version of President Reagan’s supply-side economics, Democrats would be better off trying to replicate President Clinton’s approach to welfare reform and spending restraint. He didn’t expand the size of government, but in his last four years in office he did preside over 4.5% average annual growth, 2.3% inflation and a reduction of the federal debt. Do Americans want more prosperity or a bigger government?</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.</em></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/the-folly-of-modern-supply-side-economics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ-The Democrats’ Inflation Blame Game</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-democrats-inflation-blame-game/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-democrats-inflation-blame-game/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2022 19:30:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Everyone and everything is responsible except the government spending that’s actually fueling it. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon Jan. 12, 2022 1:26 pm ET Despite Wednesday’s inflation report indicating that consumer prices have risen by 7% over the past 12 months and accelerated to 9.1% over the past three months, the president and Democrats other than Sen.&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-democrats-inflation-blame-game/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 class="sub-head">Everyone and everything is responsible except the government spending that’s actually fueling it.</h2>
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Mike Solon</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">Jan. 12, 2022 1:26 pm ET</time></p>
<p>Despite Wednesday’s inflation report indicating that consumer prices have risen by 7% over the past 12 months and accelerated to 9.1% over the past three months, the president and Democrats other than Sen. Joe Manchin remain firmly entrenched in a state of denial. In their telling, this inflation has nothing to do with their spending policy. This is the same argument we heard in the mid-1970s.</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>When we both began our careers in public service, the U.S. was suffering from the high inflation of the late 1970s. The federal government had squandered a decade in denying that its policies had anything to do with inflation. Politicians made convenient scapegoats out of big oil, big banks, big communications and even big grocers. Government made the problem worse with price controls, investigations into price fixing and antitrust actions. It embarrassed itself with WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons and Inflation Gardens. Mounting voter outrage finally ended the charade.</p>
<p>President Carter responded by leading the deregulation of airlines, railroads and trucking and appointing Paul Volcker chairman of the Federal Reserve. Congressional Democrats created the budget-reconciliation process to cut spending, but in the end they lacked the resolve to make significant cuts.</p>
<p>Voters lost patience in 1978, adding three Republicans to the Senate and 15 to the House. They were joined by a dozen newly elected conservative Democrats. In 1980 President Reagan was swept into office with a Republican Senate majority and a bipartisan House majority of conservative Democrats and Republicans. Voters’ voices ultimately drowned out the inflation deniers, as the Reagan program ended the inflationary spiral, brought interest rates down to earth, ignited economic growth, and won the Cold War. Democrats and Republicans offered competing tax cuts to undo the inflation-driven bracket-creep tax increases of the 1970s, which the Senate passed by a voice vote.</p>
<p>For 40 years, the pain of inflation was only a fading nightmare. Then last year, piled on top of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/topics/person/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>’s ill-advised postelection spending surge, the Biden administration, the Democratic majority in Congress, the Federal Reserve, and a chorus of intellectual supporters assured the nation that with accommodating monetary easing by the Fed, they could increase federal spending by 54% without causing inflation. When—shockingly—prices started to rise, those same voices harmonized in assuring the nation that any inflation would be minor and temporary. To this day, they blame the inflation on supply-chain problems and the usual suspects: big business, insufficient antitrust enforcement and greedy profiteers. They never blame government.</p>
<p>Obviously the pandemic disrupted the economy and contributed to inflationary pressures, but U.S. production is higher today, and U.S. ports are moving 27% more goods than before the pandemic. Inflation, driven by excess demand, always faces supply-chain problems as production struggles to keep up. But supply-chain problems increasingly are the result of inflation rather than its cause.</p>
<p>What was billed as minor and temporary inflation has risen at rates unseen for four decades. So rapidly have prices risen that despite increases in nominal wages, real median weekly wages are $11.58 lower today than when President Biden took office. That decline in real wages is 19% larger than the decline that occurred during the entire subprime financial crisis.</p>
<p>But as American workers suffer declining real wages, Democrats and outside experts assure us that spending another $4.9 trillion to fully fund the Build Back Better plan is the key to ending inflation. This claim, which Minority Leader Mitch McConnell describes as Democrats’ “inflating their way out of inflation,” reminds us of the old George Orwell observation: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”</p>
<p>As in the late 1970s, inflation is punishing workers, consumers and savers. But the government is largely protected. More than half of the federal budget is composed of entitlements, most of which are automatically adjusted for inflation (with a one-year lag). The remainder of the budget is set at a “current services baseline” that assumes all government programs will be increased by at least the inflation rate.</p>
<p>But if government and its beneficiaries are protected from inflation, who bears its brunt? The people who do the work, pay the taxes, and pull the wagon in America—especially blue-collar workers who have no automatic inflation adjustments in their employment contracts and who put their savings in certificates of deposit—will find no shelter in this storm. Those who were paid extra to come back to work and those who got big government checks will take a smaller hit, but the biggest losers will be the Americans who soldiered through the pandemic, stayed at their jobs, cared for the sick, kept food on our tables, and kept the country secure. No Democrat in Washington is standing up for their interests—except Mr. Manchin.</p>
<div class="wsj-body-ad-placement"></div>
<p>If history is any guide to the future, and of course it is the only guide, the voters will render judgment in 2022. At this point in the inflation cycle of the late 1970s, conservative Democrats were winning primaries and being elected to Congress and the Carter administration was changing policy. The real question is not why Mr. Manchin is standing up against inflationary spending but why the senator from West Virginia stands alone. Is compassion now something Democrats can feel only for people riding in the wagon? Is the Biden administration so dominated by leftist zealots that, unlike the Carter administration, it is more committed to its transformational agenda of expanding the dominance of government than it is to stopping the inflation?</p>
<p>Based on the history we have lived through, our guess is that other Democrats who will face voters in 2022 will wish they had joined Mr. Manchin, or at least offered an “amen” to his efforts. We’ve seen this all before. The intelligentsia and their politicians may be confused, but the working people of America are not.</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.</em></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-democrats-inflation-blame-game/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ: The Biden Stagflation Is Coming</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-stagflation-is-coming/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-stagflation-is-coming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2021 21:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[His approach to the economy is already causing prices to rise. It will soon stifle growth as well. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon Dec. 13, 2021 1:07 pm ET The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-stagflation-is-coming/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header class="article_header module ">
<div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="19" data-module-name="article.app/lib/module/wsj/articleHeadline" data-module-zone="articleHeadline">
<div class="wsj-article-headline-wrap">
<h2 class="sub-head">His approach to the economy is already causing prices to rise. It will soon stifle growth as well.</h2>
</div>
</div>
</header>
<div class="column at8-col8 at12-col7 at16-col9 at16-offset1">
<div class="module">
<div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="17" data-module-name="article.app/lib/module/articleBody" data-module-zone="article_body">
<div id="wsj-article-wrap" class="article-wrap" data-sbid="SB10014667547045503982704588083214030162892" data-immersiveads="" data-modernads="">
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap">
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Mike Solon</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">Dec. 13, 2021 1:07 pm ET</time></div>
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap"></div>
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap">
<p>The White House continues to insist that inflation will soon fade away and the country will return to its pre-pandemic prosperity. But the Biden administration’s regulatory agenda virtually ensures that the post-pandemic economy will be nothing like it was before. The mounting regulatory burden of Mr. Biden’s executive orders, his regulators’ open hostility toward America’s economic system, and the return to Progressive-era antitrust enforcement will stifle growth. All the ingredients will be present to turn the current inflation into stagflation.</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>America’s experience with regulatory excess is both recent and painful. When the subprime recession ended in mid-2009, economists predicted a strong recovery. In early 2010 the Office of Management and Budget projected 3.7% average real gross domestic product growth through 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated 3.3% growth for the same period and the Federal Reserve expected 3.5% to 4% through 2014. Instead, GDP growth slumped to an 80-year low of 2.1% during the 2010-16 recovery.</p>
<p>Democrats claimed the nation suffered from secular stagnation. But when subsequent deregulation and tax cuts revived the economy and the Biden administration needed justification for more stimulus spending, Democrats suddenly decided that Mr. Obama had stopped stimulating the economy too soon. While federal spending in 2009 hit the then-postwar high of 24.4% of gross domestic product, the 23.3% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2011 were the second and third highest postwar levels. By 2012, some 3½ years after the recession ended, federal spending was still 22% of GDP, then the fourth-highest postwar level.</p>
<p>Soaring spending and massive monetary accommodation couldn’t offset Mr. Obama’s stifling regulatory burden. While ObamaCare’s taxes harmed the economy, the wet blanket of his regulatory burden smothered the recovery, long before the 2013 tax increases.</p>
<p>In imposing ObamaCare, government increasingly dominated the healthcare industry, the green energy agenda hit auto producers and power plants and stifled the domestic energy industry with regulatory actions such as blocking the Keystone pipeline. Large banks were regulated as if they were public utilities, forcing them to replace tellers and loan officers with lawyers and compliance officers. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) investigated and harassed mortgage companies, as well as auto and personal lenders, and the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate the internet as a 1930s monopoly. With some 279,000 federal regulators churning out more than 650,000 pages in his Federal Registers, Mr. Obama bound the economy in red tape and imposed 50% more costly “major rules” than had ever been issued.</p>
<p>Despite strong private investment levels during the Obama era, labor productivity—the mother’s milk of wage gains—averaged less than half the growth of the previous 20 years. The problem was business “investment” was made to meet regulatory requirements, rather than to increase efficiency and expand the productivity of the economy.</p>
<p>During the first days of the Biden administration, the cold dead hand of government regulation reached further than it had during the Obama years. Initial executive orders eviscerated cost-benefit analysis as the basis for regulatory policy by <a class="icon none" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizing-regulatory-review/" target="_blank">defining benefits</a> to include “social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity and the interests of future generations.” Executive orders opposed business mergers and acquisitions independent of consumer benefit and targeted the oil and gas industry for extinction.</p>
<p>In seeking to reregulate railroads, Mr. Biden is trying to overturn the deregulatory legacy of President Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose achievements made the American transportation system the most efficient in the world and cut the cost of moving people and shipping goods in half. In antitrust enforcement Mr. Biden seeks to reverse almost a half century of bipartisan reform that junked Progressive-era regulations and profoundly expanded productivity, especially in transportation and high-tech communications.</p>
<p>Nowhere is the Biden administration’s radical regulatory agenda more evident than in his appointees. President Clinton appointed Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt and Alan Greenspan to regulate in the consumers’ interest and to grow the economy, not to transform it radically. Mr. Clinton’s regulators and regulatory policy let America prosper.</p>
<p>While Mr. Obama’s regulators stifled business and job creation, Mr. Biden’s are openly hostile to the industries they regulate and to the American economic system. They seek not to protect investors and consumers but to make business serve government goals.</p>
<div class="wsj-body-ad-placement">
<div id="PLACEMENT_wsj-body-AD_UNRULY" class="wsj-body-ad">
<div id="wsj-body-AD_UNRULY" class="wsj-responsive-ad-wrap dynamicAd" data-google-query-id="CLa2ia7U4fQCFZKCpgQdHTwI9A">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/2/interactive.wsj.com/opinion_4__container__">Lina Khan, Mr. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission chair, rejects the long-held consumer-benefit standard for antitrust action. She has called for breaking up leading tech firms simply because “big is bad,” despite no evidence of consumer harm. When consumer benefit is no longer the test of antitrust policy, consumer restitution is no longer the remedy. Threatening breakups, divestment and treble damages rather than enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, the FTC can shake down business and exercise control over America’s most successful firms. U.S. tech policy now mimics the Chinese antitrust model where only government should be large and influential.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Mr. Biden’s CFPB chair, Rohit Chopra, hopes to hunt down big tech, forgive student loans and promote equity and diversity. Mr. Biden’s Securities and Exchange Commission chair, Gary Gensler, wants to compel private wealth to serve public goals such as fighting climate change and advancing social justice rather than protecting and promoting investors’ interests. And while President Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency, Saule Omarova, withdrew because of her Soviet-era ideology, he is now considering Richard Cordray as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve for banking supervision. Mr. Cordray’s only experience in banking was harassing, politicizing and intimidating those he regulated as Mr. Obama’s CFPB chairman.</p>
<p>Through Mr. Biden’s executive orders and regulatory policy the American economy is being transformed from the great colossus of world capitalism into a subservient Vichy capitalism, whose master is government and not the consumer. We aren’t in Kansas anymore.</p>
<p>If the regulatory stagnation of the Obama era is repeated by a doubling or tripling down on Obama-era regulatory policy, slowing growth seems destined to follow the current post-pandemic economic surge. If new stimulus spending and monetary accommodation is employed to stimulate sagging growth, that stagnation could easily turn into stagflation.</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-stagflation-is-coming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ: Will Joe Manchin Stand His Ground on Inflation?</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-will-joe-manchin-stand-his-ground-on-inflation/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-will-joe-manchin-stand-his-ground-on-inflation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 17:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal spending is its biggest driver. He has demanded an honest accounting, due this week. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon Nov. 18, 2021 12:05 pm ET Long before the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported inflation had hit a 30-year high, Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) raised concerns about how President Biden’s Build Back Better bill would affect&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-will-joe-manchin-stand-his-ground-on-inflation/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header class="article_header module ">
<div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="19" data-module-name="article.app/lib/module/wsj/articleHeadline" data-module-zone="articleHeadline">
<div class="wsj-article-headline-wrap">
<h2 class="sub-head">Federal spending is its biggest driver. He has demanded an honest accounting, due this week.</h2>
</div>
</div>
</header>
<div class="column at8-col8 at12-col7 at16-col9 at16-offset1">
<div class="module">
<div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="17" data-module-name="article.app/lib/module/articleBody" data-module-zone="article_body">
<div id="wsj-article-wrap" class="article-wrap" data-sbid="SB11156204854322273910404588183763143618262" data-immersiveads="" data-modernads="">
<div id="articlebody-i18n" data-i18n-hide-caption="HIDE CAPTION" data-i18n-show-caption="SHOW CAPTION" data-i18n-advertisement="Advertisement"></div>
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap">
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Mike Solon</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">Nov. 18, 2021 12:05 pm ET</time></div>
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap"></div>
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap">
<p>Long before the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported inflation had hit a 30-year high, Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) raised concerns about how President Biden’s Build Back Better bill would affect the economy, the national debt, entitlements and especially inflation. To assess the bill’s potential consequences, he demanded, among other things, a complete budgetary scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, with no gimmicks, program sunsets or phony savings.</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>Based on all precedents, the CBO report, expected to come out this week, will chronicle all the bill’s budgetary games. When all the gimmicks and sunsets are taken into account, the White House claim that the bill is fully paid for is the most fraudulent scoring claim ever made for a major policy proposal in the modern era. And the bipartisan bar is high.</p>
<p>The CBO will dutifully accept the absurd assumption that a program aimed at permanently expanding the role of government in American life will be funded only temporarily. None of President Biden’s supporters in Congress plan to let funding for their programs lapse—ever—but they will seize on estimates based on temporary funding and claim the bill is at least largely paid for. The clock is ticking, so it seems doubtful that the CBO will include any dynamic scoring, which considers the bill’s effects on economic growth. This omission will benefit Mr. Biden, allowing Democrats to continue to claim that the bill will strengthen the economy and reduce inflation.</p>
<p>While Covid-19 disrupted the world’s supply chains and the Federal Reserve accommodated to a degree unprecedented in its history, the explosion in federal spending is the primary driving force behind surging inflation. Total federal outlays skyrocketed by 47% in 2020 and 54% in 2021. This spending created a 35% surge in personal government transfers, some 4.2 times the postwar average. Americans hold $4.7 trillion in their checking accounts, more than three times their pre-pandemic holdings. Sen. Manchin’s repeated concerns have at least focused the public debate on federal spending.</p>
<p>The most important question: Will the bill add to the total wave of spending that threatens to accelerate and sustain inflation? Democrats Larry Summers and Jason Furman have sounded the alarm about the surge in federal spending and the building inflation crisis. But both have tried to minimize the effect the bill will have on inflation. Their argument is that since the spending is spread out over 10 years, the effect will be muted. But as the CBO report will show, the spending is not actually spread out over 10 years. Many programs are set to expire sooner. The true cost of the bill without sunsets is about $4.9 trillion, not $2.4 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Only about a third of it would be paid for.</p>
<p>As written, the bill is almost totally front-loaded. The new monthly child tax credit costs $1.13 trillion over a decade, but Democrats pretend it will only last a year, with the cost falling to $130 billion. The cost of the earned-income tax credit expansion, the child care and pre-K program, and the ObamaCare subsidies are reduced to $530 billion from $1.47 trillion with fake sunset dates.</p>
<p>With the current cap of $10,000 on the deductibility of state and local taxes set to expire in 2025, the House plan would increase the deduction to $80,000 retroactively, which represents an immediate tax cut for the richest Americans living in the richest areas of the country. The provision then supposedly <em>raises </em>taxes after the fifth year to pay for the tax cuts in the first five years.</p>
<p>The CBO has signaled that it won’t score President Biden’s claimed savings of $480 billion for hiring an army of Internal Revenue Service agents and unleashing them to extort the most productive and overtaxed of our fellow citizens. Imposing drug price controls is assumed to save $250 billion. Whether CBO will accept that claim seems questionable. Together those provisions are supposed to pay for almost half of the claimed cost of the bill.</p>
<p>If the CBO does provide a dynamic score, it likely won’t be good news for the Democrats. In 2017 the budget office scored the Republican tax cut as generating a growth dividend of an extra $451 billion in federal revenues. Four months later, the CBO increased its baseline by $1.1 trillion in extra federal revenues, more than twice the original dividend. Raising taxes can be reasonably expected to yield a significant decline in economic growth and federal revenues, the reverse of the 2017 tax cuts. Also based on the CBO’s scoring of ObamaCare, a dynamic score would show a surge of government benefits cutting employment levels and GDP growth.</p>
<p>No doubt those who are determined to prolong the spending spree will pick and choose the parts of the CBO document that seem to support their position. But if Sen. Manchin looks at the scoring with no gimmicks, sunset programs or phony savings, as he has promised, he will either decide to end this dangerous debate—or delay it until the spring to get a clearer picture of the inflation problem.</p>
<div class="wsj-body-ad-placement"></div>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-will-joe-manchin-stand-his-ground-on-inflation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ-Inflation Punishes the Unprotected</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-inflation-punishes-the-unprotected/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-inflation-punishes-the-unprotected/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Government shields its employees and beneficiaries, but not ordinary workers, from higher prices. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon Aug. 11, 2021 6:14 pm ET The Labor Department reported Wednesday that consumer prices have risen in the past year by 5.4%. Prices have risen at an annualized rate of 7.1% in 2021 and 8.4% in the past three&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-inflation-punishes-the-unprotected/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 class="sub-head">Government shields its employees and beneficiaries, but not ordinary workers, from higher prices.</h2>
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Mike Solon</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">Aug. 11, 2021 6:14 pm ET</time></p>
<p>The Labor Department reported Wednesday that consumer prices have risen in the past year by 5.4%. Prices have risen at an annualized rate of 7.1% in 2021 and 8.4% in the past three months. The underlying drivers of consumer inflation are rising at least as fast, with the annual Producer Price Index for 2021 up 10.6% through June and the Import Price Index up 15.8%.</p>
<p>With virtually every inflation warning light flashing red for the first time since the early 1980s, why is there so little concern in Washington about what a growing number of Americans fear is a building crisis? Congress is readying another $4 trillion to $5 trillion of spending fuel for the fire, the White House urges lawmakers to do more and do it sooner, and the Federal Reserve advocates, aids and abets. In America, those who work and sweat for a living gather around their kitchen tables trying to make ends meet as their dreams of homeownership or a new truck slip away. Is it possible that Washington and its principal constituencies are now so protected from inflation that to the president, House speaker and Senate majority leader a new wave of inflation is a small price to pay for the progressive dream of an America dominated by government?</p>
<p>Even a cursory accounting reveals the great divide between the protected and the unprotected. The seven largest benefit programs—Social Security, Medicare, Supplemental Security Income, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, civil-service retirement and military pensions—all automatically receive adjustments to benefit levels to offset the effects of inflation. This protection covers roughly 127 million people. And 169 million beneficiaries receive automatic inflation protection in programs ranging from Medicaid and ObamaCare tax credits to student loans, and any program whose eligibility is tied to the poverty rate, which itself is adjusted for inflation.</p>
<p>For those federal programs not automatically adjusted for inflation, Congress uses a budget process called “current services baseline” that sets the federal budget for every department, agency, program, project and activity at the previous year’s spending level plus an adjustment for inflation. In this wondrous world, more spending is not an increase unless it’s above the inflation rate, and an increase in spending by less than the inflation rate is deemed a cut.</p>
<p>In the past 75 years, total federal spending has grown by more than the inflation rate in all but 11 years. Those years mostly occurred after a previous surge in defense spending was reversed, such as after the U.S. exited from Iraq in 2011, or after a targeted spending surge, such as when the 2009 stimulus</p>
<p>Partial taxpayer protection against inflation began only after the devastation of “bracket creep” in the late 1970s drove taxes up almost 50% faster than inflation. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, the 1980 inflation rate of 13.3% <a class="icon none" href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/97th-congress-1981-1982/reports/doc25-entire_0.pdf" target="_blank">increased the tax liability</a> by an average of 23% on families of four with incomes between $15,000 and $50,000 (the equivalent of roughly $50,000 and $165,000 today), creating tax increases of “an unprecedented level.”</p>
<p>While indexation of tax brackets was added in the 1981 Reagan tax cut, capital gains, corporate profits and other federal taxes have never been indexed. When the 1993 Clinton tax increase subjected Social Security above a certain income level to taxes, that income level was never indexed. While today personal income-tax brackets are indexed for inflation, the price index used to adjust the tax brackets for inflation is a different index from the one used to adjust spending for inflation, yielding adjustments in tax brackets that are some 12% less than the inflation adjustments that increase spending. So either the level of government spending overcompensates for inflation or personal-tax brackets undercompensate for it.</p>
<p>While virtually every aspect of the federal budget is to some degree protected from inflation, either automatically or under the rules of government budgeting, if you work for a living in the private economy you are largely unprotected from inflation. Those who run the government, and those who are protected by the government from inflation, may be confused about the threat posed by current price increases, but nobody needs to tell American workers that they have an inflation problem.</p>
<p>Average weekly earnings since January are up $15.59, but with inflation surging to levels not seen since the early 1980s, real weekly wages are down $8.99, the largest real-dollar drop in wages since Bureau of Labor Statistics data were first collected in 2006. By comparison, real wages have fallen more in the past seven months than they rose in the final 27 months of the Obama presidency.</p>
<p>Historically inflation has been particularly cruel to the working poor. Despite the economy’s growth in 1981, the 12.5% inflation rate pushed some 2.5 million people, 2.2 million families and a million children into poverty.</p>
<div class="wsj-body-ad-placement"></div>
<p>Perhaps the greatest insult that is added to the injury of inflation is how the people pulling the wagon are so much less protected than those riding in it. When funding for the War on Poverty started to increase in 1967, 68% of Americans in the bottom quintile of earners who were between 18 and 66 and neither full-time students nor retired had jobs. By 2017 the average real level of federal transfer payments to the bottom quintile of households exceeded $45,389, and the labor-force participation rate among those prime working-age Americans had plummeted to 36%. Today those not working are largely protected from inflation; those who are working see inflation erode the value of their wages. Their life savings also suffer as inflation eats into the purchasing power of their savings accounts. With a one-year certificate of deposit earning roughly 0.2%, a $50,000 nest egg has lost almost $2,000 of purchasing power in the past seven months.</p>
<p>Washington has plenty of compassion for those riding in the wagon, yet little for those pulling it. When an inflation-protected middle-class income can be had for not working, when do the wagon-pullers shrug?</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-inflation-punishes-the-unprotected/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ-How the Fed Is Hedging Its Inflation Bet</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/how-the-fed-is-hedging-its-inflation-bet/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/how-the-fed-is-hedging-its-inflation-bet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2021 16:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Though few have noticed, the central bank is already slowing the growth of the money supply. By Phil Gramm and Thomas R. Saving Aug. 1, 2021 5:03 pm ET Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell last month told the House Banking Committee “it would be a mistake” to tighten monetary policy “at a time when virtually all forecasters” believe that inflation&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/how-the-fed-is-hedging-its-inflation-bet/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header class="article_header module ">
<div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="19" data-module-name="article.app/lib/module/wsj/articleHeadline" data-module-zone="articleHeadline">
<div class="wsj-article-headline-wrap">
<h2 class="sub-head">Though few have noticed, the central bank is already slowing the growth of the money supply.</h2>
</div>
</div>
</header>
<div class="column at8-col8 at12-col7 at16-col9 at16-offset1">
<div class="module">
<div class="zonedModule" data-module-id="17" data-module-name="article.app/lib/module/articleBody" data-module-zone="article_body">
<div id="wsj-article-wrap" class="article-wrap" data-sbid="SB10641982545379193803904587613700582174164" data-immersiveads="" data-modernads="">
<div id="articlebody-i18n" data-i18n-hide-caption="HIDE CAPTION" data-i18n-show-caption="SHOW CAPTION" data-i18n-advertisement="Advertisement"></div>
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap">
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Thomas R. Saving</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">Aug. 1, 2021 5:03 pm ET</time></p>
</div>
<div class="clearfix byline-wrap">
<p>Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell last month <a class="icon none" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/powell-expects-inflation-to-moderate-but-will-likely-remain-elevated-this-year-11626265800?mod=article_inline" target="_blank">told</a> the House Banking Committee “it would be a mistake” to tighten monetary policy “at a time when virtually all forecasters” believe that inflation “will come down” on its own. His message couldn’t have been clearer: Mr. Powell isn’t in a hurry to start paring the Fed’s monthly purchases of $120 billion in Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities, and the Fed plans to continue monetary easing into 2022.</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>In monetary policy, as in all else, actions speak louder than words. The Fed has <a class="icon none" href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20210408/" target="_blank">expanded its reverse-repo borrowing</a> to an unprecedented $1.26 trillion at the end of June from $272 billion in April, pulling almost a trillion dollars of liquidity out of the financial system. Reverse-repo borrowing has reduced bank reserves, even as the Fed has continued to buy Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, money supply growth is starting to moderate. The <a class="icon none" href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WM2NS#0" target="_blank">growth of the M2 money stock</a> fell from around 25% in 2020 to around 10% on an annualized basis in the first six months of 2021. It was less than 4% in the last quarter. Remarkably in an economy awash in money, Fed action to reduce liquidity by $1 trillion in three months has thus far gone largely unnoticed, but this stealth action represents a dramatic change in monetary policy. The magnitude of the explosion in reverse-repo borrowing is roughly the equivalent of the impact of selling rather than buying $120 billion of securities to the public a month for more than eight months.</p>
<p>If all this seems confusing, remember: This isn’t your father’s Fed. The central bank has bought (or offset by buying similar-maturity mortgage-backed securities) 76.4% of all the federal debt issued during the pandemic, almost nine times the share of federal debt purchased by the Fed during World War II. The Fed now holds 33.6% of all publicly held federal debt, roughly the same percentage of the debt held by all other American investors combined. The Fed also holds 35% of all federally insured mortgage-backed securities.</p>
<p>The commercial banking system has been profoundly transformed as the Fed balance sheet has exploded. By paying interest on reserves, the Fed has made reserves an interest-bearing asset for the banking system and a liability of the Fed, allowing the Fed to borrow from banks to acquire securities without expanding the money supply. The private banking system now holds more <a class="icon none" href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reserve-balances.htm" target="_blank">interest-bearing reserves</a> than it has outstanding commercial and industrial loans. Remarkably, the Fed is now borrowing more money from the private banking system than all private commercial borrowers combined.</p>
<div class="wsj-body-ad-placement wsj-ad-label">
<div class="wsj-body-ad">
<p>Not since the U.S. left the gold standard in 1933 has a policy change had so profound an impact on the commercial banking system as Congress’s 2008 decision to allow the Fed to pay interest on reserves. Paying interest on reserves was initially used during the subprime crisis to allow the Fed to inject liquidity into the banking system without risking a rise in inflation. During subsequent monetary easings, the payment of interest on reserves allowed the Fed to borrow money from the banking system to buy Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities without inflating the money supply.</p>
<p>When the Fed increased its securities holdings between 2008 and 2014 from $900 billion to $4.5 trillion, many economists predicted inflation, only to be proved wrong. They were wrong because the Fed offset its securities acquisitions by borrowing $2.6 trillion from the banking system over the same period. As a result, the M2 money supply grew at a tame 7% a year.</p>
<p>Progressives saw the enormous purchase of government debt by the Fed, with no resulting inflationary pressures, as confirmation of what is now called modern monetary theory, or MMT. Advocates claim that deficits and monetary expansion don’t matter in a sovereign country with fiat money. Yet those who predicted inflation and advocates of MMT alike missed something that is seldom understood to this day: While these Fed asset purchases would have inflated bank lending and the money supply before the payment of interest on reserves, the resulting reserves were sterilized by banks’ lending to the Fed through holding interest-bearing reserves rather than lending to private borrowers.</p>
<p>Since March 2020, the Fed has responded to the pandemic shutdown by buying $4 trillion of securities, producing a 94% increase in its already inflated balance sheet. With the interest rate on reserves competitive with short-maturity Treasurys, banks have held most of the resulting increase in interest-bearing reserves, effectively sterilizing the bulk of the impact of the Fed’s security purchases. But the injection of new money into the banking system from the Fed’s security purchases exceeded the expansion of reserves, so the money supply grew three times as fast in 2020 as it did in 2008 during the financial crisis.</p>
<p>Mr. Powell assures us that the inflation spike is temporary and interest rates won’t rise until 2023. Yet the Fed has raised both the interest rate it pays on reverse-repo borrowing and on reserves. If market interest rates start to rise, the Fed must raise the rate it pays on reserves and reverse-repo borrowing, engage in huge open-market security sales, or raise reserve requirements to stop the money supply from exploding as banks use the overhang of excess reserves to increase lending.</p>
<p>The good news is that the Fed is already using its capacity to borrow in the reverse-repo market to reduce money supply growth. But the excess reserves of the private-banking system are still almost $4 trillion. The bad news is that if the inflation problem doesn’t go away and market interest rates start to rise, the reserve overhang has the potential to cause a money-supply eruption. The use of any of the Fed’s powers to stop the growth in the money supply and inflation will only send interest rates higher.</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Saving is a former director of the Private Enterprise Research Center at Texas A&amp;M University. Mike Solon contributed to this article.</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/how-the-fed-is-hedging-its-inflation-bet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ-Biden’s Plans Are Already Hurting the Recovery</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-bidens-plans-are-already-hurting-the-recovery/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-bidens-plans-are-already-hurting-the-recovery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2021 17:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As anti-production policies take hold, supply and worker shortages appear and inflation looms. By Phil Gramm and Rick Scott May 19, 2021 12:49 pm ET The April Consumer Price Index rose by 0.8%, or 9.6% on an annualized basis. On an annual basis the inflation rate for the past three months has been 7.2% and 6.2% for the&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-bidens-plans-are-already-hurting-the-recovery/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 class="sub-head">As anti-production policies take hold, supply and worker shortages appear and inflation looms.</h2>
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Rick Scott</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">May 19, 2021 12:49 pm ET</time></p>
<p>The April Consumer Price Index rose by 0.8%, or 9.6% on an annualized basis. On an annual basis the inflation rate for the past three months has been 7.2% and 6.2% for the first four months of 2021. The core inflation rate, excluding food and energy, on an annual basis rose in April by 11%, a rate not exceeded since June of 1982. While the price increases are significant, broad and accelerating, are they the temporary effects of demand recovering from the pandemic shutdown more quickly than production, or is there evidence that this is the return of the inflation that plagued us for a generation and we paid such a high price to escape 40 years ago?</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>As traditionally understood, inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. While it may seem old-fashioned to ask in this brave new world of modern monetary theory, where Joe Biden declared last year that “ Milton Friedman isn’t running the show anymore,” is there reason to be concerned that the broad money supply, M2, grew by 24.6% over the last year, a postwar high? That’s more than twice the rate it grew in 1978 before inflation reached 13.4% in 1979 and almost three times the rate it grew amid the “guns and butter” spending surge during the Vietnam War.</p>
<p>What about the extraordinary stimulus spending of the past year? Larry Summers, the highly respected former Treasury secretary and economic adviser to Presidents Obama and Clinton, warned that the Biden stimulus would create purchasing power “at least three times the size of the output shortfall” and would be “the least responsible macroeconomic policies we’ve had in the last 40 years.”</p>
<p>We need only look at the Bureau of Economic Analysis comparison of the first quarter of 2021 to a year earlier to confirm Mr. Summers’s concerns. Wages and salaries are already significantly larger in the first quarter of 2021 than they were before the pandemic. Transfer payments have almost doubled and personal savings have surged to an extraordinary $4.1 trillion from $1.6 trillion a year ago. The end of the pandemic isn’t only unleashing the pent-up demand of the pre-shutdown economy. It is opening the floodgate to a torrent of spending fueled by fiscal and monetary stimulus not seen since the Civil War.</p>
<p>The U.S. economy clearly has the power to iron out the natural problems of restarting production, but the very nature of the subsidies in the $6 trillion Biden administration stimulus, relief and infrastructure bills constrain production. In its modern incarnation, socialism denies that government incentives and constraints have anything to do with people’s decisions to work, save and invest. Experience teaches otherwise.</p>
<p>The clearest example is the federal supplement to unemployment payments. The federal payments have made not working a viable or even preferred option to working. And it isn’t only excessive jobless compensation. The Congressional Budget Office found that the Affordable Care Act would cut the number of hours worked by as much as 2%, so how can expanding ObamaCare in the recent stimulus not affect employment? The same applies to expansions of Cobra, the monthly child credit and other income supports.</p>
<p>Historically in America, the best healthcare, housing, transportation, nutrition and child-care program was a job. If you give people things they typically get from a job, don’t be surprised when they don’t take a job. The Biden administration claims that it hasn’t seen evidence that its unemployment bonus is keeping people from work.</p>
<p>With the Labor Department reporting record job openings and the National Federation of Independent Business detailing a record number of small businesses offering jobs but finding no takers, that claim isn’t credible. Since the War on Poverty began, government transfer payments have risen to provide more than 90% of the income of the bottom 20% of income-earning households, and the labor force participation rate among work-age households has collapsed to 36% from 68%.</p>
<p>The Biden administration also asks Americans to believe that it can raise income, corporate and death taxes, smother the private sector with regulations, kill the fossil-fuel industry and fill the regulatory agencies with activists fundamentally hostile to the nation’s economic system and it will have no effect on economic performance. But back in the real world, much of what the president is doing will impede the recovery, reduce economic capacity and fuel inflation.</p>
<p>If Congress sees inflation as a real threat, it should first stop spending. Any unobligated balances in the Biden stimulus or previous stimulus bills can no longer be justified under current economic circumstances and should be rescinded. Rescinding the spending authority in the Biden stimulus at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 would save $710 billion, according to CBO. Rescinding the authority sooner and including all previous stimulus bills might save $1 trillion.</p>
<div class="wsj-body-ad-placement">
<div id="PLACEMENT_wsj-body-AD_UNRULY" class="wsj-body-ad">
<div id="wsj-body-AD_UNRULY" class="wsj-responsive-ad-wrap" data-google-query-id="CKDC2a-h1vACFUaSwAodrPsF6A">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/2/interactive.wsj.com/opinion_4__container__">Congress should repeal the enhanced unemployment benefits and reinstate the Clinton-era work requirements for welfare. Work requirements should be applied to all unearned benefits to anyone except the elderly, the disabled and students. Congress should adopt a real, enforceable budget that funds infrastructure and the other functions of government without further expanding the deficit and debt. The debt ceiling, which expires on Aug. 1, should be used to set into place a long-term binding program to stop the federal debt from growing beyond 100% of gross domestic product.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>If the inflation of the 1970s and ’80s has returned, it is the “Gods of the Copybook Headings” that have returned once again to teach us that water will wet us, fire will burn, and government can’t give us something for nothing.</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Scott is a U.S. Senator from Florida and chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Mike Solon contributed to this article.</em></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-bidens-plans-are-already-hurting-the-recovery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ-The Biden Tax Mirage</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-tax-mirage/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-tax-mirage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2021 17:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Marginal rates have been a lot higher, but the actual share the top 1% pay stays remarkably constant. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon May 12, 2021 12:39 pm ET With deficits at levels not seen since World War II, the March $1.9 trillion stimulus only beginning to spend out, and President Biden calling for significantly higher marginal&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-tax-mirage/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 class="sub-head">Marginal rates have been a lot higher, but the actual share the top 1% pay stays remarkably constant.</h2>
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Mike Solon</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">May 12, 2021 12:39 pm ET</time></p>
<p>With deficits at levels not seen since World War II, the March $1.9 trillion stimulus only beginning to spend out, and President Biden calling for significantly higher marginal tax rates to help fund another $4 trillion of spending, maybe it’s time for a reality check on how high marginal tax rates, and the actual tax rates paid by Americans, can be raised without crushing economic growth. Proponents of massive tax increases will argue that economic growth and prosperity are compatible with high tax rates by pointing to the 35 years of postwar prosperity in America, when the top federal tax rate was 70% or higher.</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>But before accepting this as proof by example, it’s worth examining how many taxpayers actually paid those top rates and what percentage of their income high earners actually paid in taxes. Economists Gerald Auten of the Treasury Department and David Splinter of the Joint Committee on Taxation have compiled an extraordinary new database using Internal Revenue Service data on taxes actually collected since 1962. The top marginal income-tax rates and the taxes actually paid, including payroll taxes, as a percentage of income for the top 1%, top 10% and bottom 50% of income earners are shown in the nearby chart. The figures for 2016-20 are comparable estimates by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.</p>
<p>The top tax rate of 91% in 1962 applied to families with joint incomes, in today’s dollars, of $3.38 million. After deductions and credits, only 447 tax filers out of 71 million paid any taxes at the top rate. The top 1% of income earners paid only 16.1% of their income in federal income and payroll taxes, while the top 10% paid 14.4% and the bottom 50% paid 7%. This followed the pattern set by the top Depression-era and wartime tax rates. Only three filers out of six million paid any taxes at the top Depression rate and only 13 out of 50 million paid any taxes at the top wartime rate. The top 1% of earners paid 12.6% and 23.5% of their income in federal income and payroll taxes in 1938 and 1945, respectively.</p>
<p>President Kennedy recognized that while confiscatory tax rates collected little revenue, they stifled growth as resources were squandered in the “avoidance of taxes” rather than the “production of goods.” When the top tax rate was reduced to 70%, individual income-tax collections continued to grow and the actual percentage of income paid in taxes by high-income earners barely changed. Only 3,626 out of 75 million filers paid any taxes at the new 70% rate. When the Reagan tax cut reduced the top rate to 50%, gross domestic product grew. Taxes collected from high-income earners as a percentage of their incomes were largely unchanged, as the chart shows. Only 341,000 of 109 million filers paid any taxes at the new 50% top rate.</p>
<p>The 1986 tax reform reduced the top rate to the postwar low of 28%. The reform also closed loopholes, offsetting the rate reductions and other changes in the tax code. Revenues grew as the economy expanded and asset sales surged at the lower marginal tax rate. Twenty-six million out of 115 million filers paid taxes at the 28% rate. The top rate was raised to 39.6% in 1993 and has fluctuated between 39.6% and 35% since. Only 453,000 out of 123 million filers paid any taxes at the 39.6% rate in 1993.</p>
<p>Remarkably, while the top marginal rate fell from 91% in 1962 to 28% in 1988, the percentage of income actually paid in income and payroll taxes by the top 1% and 10% of filers rose to 21.5% and 19.6% from 16.1% and 14.4%, respectively. As the top tax rate fell by two-thirds, the percentage of income paid in federal income and payroll taxes by the top 1% and 10% of earners rose by a third.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WSJ-Graph.png"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1213" src="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WSJ-Graph.png" alt="WSJ Graph" width="940" height="500" /></a></p>
<p>The percentage of income actually paid by the top 1% of earners, which the Tax Policy Center estimates to be 25.7% in 2020, is close to the average rate paid during the last quarter-century. Whether the federal government could actually impose a top rate of 50% on a significant number of taxpayers, or actually collect much more than 30% of the income of the top 1% of earners in income and payroll taxes, without crippling economic growth is a question our postwar experience certainly doesn’t answer.</p>
<div class="wsj-body-ad-placement">
<div id="PLACEMENT_wsj-body-AD_UNRULY" class="wsj-body-ad">
<div id="wsj-body-AD_UNRULY" class="wsj-responsive-ad-wrap" data-google-query-id="CLPO06vPxPACFU6KAQod4KcENw">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/2/interactive.wsj.com/opinion_4__container__">It is also worth noting that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has found that high-income Americans already bear a higher relative share of the income-tax burden than the rich do in other developed nations. The top 10% of American households earn about 33.5% of all earned income but pay 45.1% of all income taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes. That progressivity ratio of 1.35 is far higher than the German ratio of 1.07, French ratio of 1.1 and Swedish ratio of 1. As a percentage of their incomes, the top 10% of earners in Germany, France and Sweden paid 21%, 19% and 26% less than the top 10% in America. And the bottom 90% of earners paid 17%, 34% and 21% more as a percentage of their incomes respectively than the bottom 90% in America paid. While the OECD study predates the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Congressional Budget Office found the act made the U.S. tax code even more progressive.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Before Congress bets the future of America on the federal government’s ability to soak the rich without crippling the economy, lawmakers need to recognize that the marginal rates being proposed have never been collected from any significant number of taxpayers except under the direst circumstances such as a war for survival. Voters might also note that in the rest of the developed world, where government takes a larger share of GDP in taxes, high earners pay about the same share of GDP in income taxes that high-income Americans pay today, but everybody else pays a lot more.</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and is a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of U.S. Policy Metrics.</em></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/wsj-the-biden-tax-mirage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WSJ-Biden Aims at Profit, Hits Workers</title>
		<link>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/biden-aims-at-profit-hits-workers/</link>
		<comments>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/biden-aims-at-profit-hits-workers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2021 02:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mariel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiscal Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/?p=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2017 corporate tax cuts triggered the blue-collar wage boom. Higher rates would reverse it. By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon April 6, 2021 6:18 pm ET The Biden administration has proposed an array of corporate tax increases with a goal of raising some $1.33 trillion over the next 10 years. That’s three times the $409 billion that&#160;<a href="https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/biden-aims-at-profit-hits-workers/" class="read-more">Continue Reading</a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 class="sub-head">The 2017 corporate tax cuts triggered the blue-collar wage boom. Higher rates would reverse it.</h2>
<div class="byline article__byline">By <span class="author-name">Phil Gramm</span> and <span class="author-name">Mike Solon</span></div>
<p><time class="timestamp article__timestamp flexbox__flex--1">April 6, 2021 6:18 pm ET</time></p>
<p>The Biden administration has proposed an array of corporate tax increases with a goal of raising some $1.33 trillion over the next 10 years. That’s three times the $409 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimated was the cost of the 2017 corporate tax cut. To get a clear picture of who will pay these new taxes, Americans need to understand who benefited from the 2017 corporate tax cut.</p>
<div class="paywall">
<p>Between the pandemic-induced recession and the years of slow growth following the 2008 subprime crisis, a brief respite of stronger growth and rising wages lifted America’s fortunes and spirits. Economic growth is generally viewed as some abstract concept, but when gross domestic product, which was projected in 2016 to grow by only 2.1% on average over the next three years, instead rose 3% in 2018, that small increase in growth made a huge difference to a lot of Americans.</p>
<p>The CBO responded to the increase in economic growth by adding $6.2 trillion to its 10-year GDP estimate—an extra $1,900 of annual income on average for every man, woman and child in America. The big difference this little bit of extra growth created was fully revealed in the census figures, when income growth in 2019 was the most broad-based and best ever recorded in a single year, and the poverty rate fell the most in a half a century.</p>
<p>Even the toughest critics of the tax cuts would grudgingly concede that the 2017 reduction in the corporate tax rate increased equity values. Despite the pandemic, the average value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&amp;P 500 and Nasdaq Composite Index has doubled since the 2016 election when markets began to anticipate a corporate tax cut.</p>
<p>Who benefited from these gains? Numerous studies and polls show that more than half of American households own stocks, most through pension plans, 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts, mutual funds and annuities. Beyond the irrefutable benefits that flowed into retirement plans and annuities, critics never concede that corporate tax relief helped average families, much less low-income workers.</p>
<p>How does that view square with 2019 census data showing that real median household income hit its highest level ever for African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American workers and retirees? Or that the 2019 poverty rate was the lowest in more than 50 years for children, at 14.4%, and the lowest ever for individuals (10.5%), for families (8.5%), and for households headed by unmarried women (22.2%).</p>
<p>More impressive is that, even after 10 years of economic expansion, the 2019 gains shattered all records as real household income leapt $4,379 in 2019 alone, 13 times the average annual gain since data were first collected, almost half again more than the next highest annual income gain, and a quarter more in 2019 alone than in the eight years between 2009 and 2016. Black household incomes in 2019 surged by a record $3,328. Hispanic incomes leapt $3,731—a third higher than their next best year ever recorded—and Asian-American incomes surged $9,400, about two-thirds more than the previous high.</p>
<p>Record income gains, especially among lower-income Americans, caused the poverty rate to plummet 11% in 2019, the most in 53 years. The poverty rate fell the most for Asians since records began in 1987 and for children the most in over half a century. The poverty rate for blacks and Hispanics hit historic lows. This cornucopia, shown so vividly in the 2019 census data, was the product of a reduction in the American corporate tax rate from the highest rate in the world to roughly the average rate among developed countries, and a concentrated effort to reduce regulatory burdens.</p>
<p>The White House Council of Economic Advisers in 2015 described the potential effect of reducing the corporate tax rate as follows: “When effective marginal rates are higher, potential projects need to generate more income if the business is to pay the tax and still provide investors with the required return. . . . A lower effective marginal rate will tend to encourage additional projects and a larger capital stock.” That was the Obama CEA.</p>
<p>How much of the benefits of the corporate tax-rate reduction went to workers? A CBO study estimated that 70% of the corporate income-tax burden falls on workers. A 2011 study by Matt Jensen and Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute made a strong case that workers bear more than 50% of the corporate tax burden. But the record income gains in 2019 provide the strongest evidence yet that the corporate tax is a hidden tax on workers.</p>
<p>Giving American business a level playing field on corporate tax rates triggered a blue-collar boom in which the lowest-wage earners enjoyed the fastest wage growth, 10.6% in 2019 alone. Historically disadvantaged groups like veterans, high-school dropouts and the disabled experienced their lowest unemployment rates ever. Three-fourths of workers hired in the fourth quarter of 2019 were new entrants into the labor market, many forgoing government benefits for a job. When income levels in 2019 were the highest on record, when incomes rose the most ever in a single year, when the poverty rates fell the most in a half a century, and when America’s lowest-income workers gained the most, we know who really benefited from the 2017 corporate tax cut. Does this sound like “a race to the bottom” to you?</p>
<p>For those who burn sacrifices at the altar of big government and believe that progress for ordinary people can come only through expanded government, the Miracle of 2019 was a UFO, some inexplicable event best ignored. No one cheers progress when peddling misery.</p>
<p>So as the chants about greedy corporations, overpaid CEOs and a corrupt market system harmonize in support of an increase in corporate tax rates, it’s important to remember who really benefited from making U.S. corporate tax rates more globally competitive. The 2017 corporate tax-rate reduction enhanced after-tax profits, fueled a rise in economic growth and caused wages to spike even at the end of the longest and weakest recovery of the postwar era. The reduction in corporate tax rates worked for the working people of America.</p>
<p><em>Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.</em></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.uspolicystrategies.com/biden-aims-at-profit-hits-workers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
