Conservative provocateur Bruce Bartlett breaks with conservative orthodoxy — up to a point.
The New American Economy: The Failure of
Reaganomics and a New Way Forward
By Bruce Bartlett
(Palgrave MacMillan, 272 pages, $28)
The title of Bruce Bartlett’s book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, is misleading. The first six chapters of the seven-chapter book aren’t about the “new” economy, but rather serve as an economic history of the United States from the Great Depression to the current economic crisis. And it really isn’t about Reaganomics failing, either. Instead, Bartlett, the disillusioned supply-side economist and former Treasury official during the first Bush administration, acknowledges that Reaganomics was a smashing success, but insists that it outlived its usefulness. While he makes some valid warnings about the looming entitlement crisis, unfortunately Bartlett reaches a warped conclusion that conservatives need to accept the reality of the welfare state, and focus on the best ways to raise taxes to finance it.
Bartlett’s advocacy of higher taxes is not the only way in which he breaks from conservative orthodoxy. Unlike conservatives who argue that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reliance on Keynesian economic theory prolonged the Great Depression, Bartlett insists that FDR never really listened to Keynes during the 1930s. As most economists acknowledge, Bartlett writes, the Federal Reserve Board bungled the early days of the economic crisis by allowing the money supply to contract significantly. But once the crisis became severe, the Fed was unable to pump more money into the economy, because even lower interest rates did not motivate the private sector to spend more. Lowering taxes wouldn’t have been effective either, Bartlett argues in agreement with Keynes, because people would simply save most of the extra income. Instead, he writes, the only way to stimulate the economy and solve the monetary crisis was for the government to start spending money and running up deficits. But FDR resisted implementing this solution as intended, Bartlett recounts, and it wasn’t until World War II that Keynes-ianism was attempted on a large enough scale to work.
Despite being associated with modern liberalism, John Maynard Keynes was actually a conservative economist, according to Bartlett, because he wanted to make sure that economic crises were not used to discredit capitalism and advance socialism. Looking at the long body of Keynes’s work convinced Bartlett that Keynes was actually quite concerned about the threat of inflation and only believed in government deficit spending as a necessary evil in the case of a severe deflationary environment. The problem wasn’t with Keynes, Bartlett concludes, but that for decades that followed, policymakers repeated measures that were only intended for extraordinary circumstances, applying the lessons of the Great Depression to every economic problem that popped up. Eventually, the result was the massive inflation of the 1970s, which paved the way for the conservative counter-revolution in economics because Keynes-ians had no answers.
Economists Milton Friedman and Robert Mundell led the charge, with Friedman focusing on the importance of monetary stability and Mundell on how to achieve economic growth. Mundell proposed a two-pronged strategy to deal with the stagflation problem of the 1970s. The first part of his approach called for tightening the money supply to combat inflation, and the second en-tailed slashing tax rates to spur growth.
To counter critics who insisted that tax cuts would cause
deficits, supply-siders argued that by spurring growth and thus
increasing the tax base, tax cuts would recoup a portion of lost
as economist Arthur Laffer, father of the famous “Laffer Curve,” described it in an interview with Jude Wanniski that appeared in a 1975 article in the Public Interest:
[W]hen taxes are zero, revenues are zero. When taxes are 100 percent, there is no production, and revenues are zero. In between these extremes there is one rate that maximizes government revenues.
The basic argument was also empirically corroborated by evidence from the tax cuts initiated by John F. Kennedy. Then-Rep. Jack Kemp studied the Kennedy cuts when he teamed up with Sen. William Roth in 1977 to work on a broad-based tax relief proposal (which would later become the basis for the Reagan tax cuts). Also in 1977, Walter Heller, who was chairman of Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisers, testified before the Joint Economic Committee on the revenue effects of the Kennedy tax cuts, and said, “within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut….Did it pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did.”
The supply-side approach of tight monetary policy coupled with large tax cuts formed the foundation of the economic polices that the Reagan administration adopted in the early 1980s, which managed to stamp out inflation at a much lower economic cost than anybody anticipated. Inflation fell from 12.4 percent in 1980 to 4 percent in 1982, while the economy recovered in 1983 and grew at a 4.5 percent clip that year.
But Bartlett argues that just as Keynes’s followers misapplied his economic theories in the decades following World War II, conservatives have incorrectly concluded from the success of the early 1980s that the solution to any economic problem is more tax cuts. This all culminated in the second Bush administration, which “represented a bastardized version of supply-side economics that had more in common with the caricature of it depicted by its opponents than anything approximating its core principles.”
Not only did the Bush tax cuts come during a different set of circumstances, but they also violated several fundamentals of supply-side theory, Bartlett contends. While the original supply-siders believed it was important to cut tax rates, the bulk of the Bush tax cuts involved rebates and tax credits that are much more like government subsidies. And though supply-side theory emphasized that tax cuts had to be permanent to have an economically beneficial impact on individual’s incentives, Bush, out of political necessity, agreed to make those cuts temporary. Originally, supply-siders only argued that a portion of the lost revenue was recovered from cutting taxes, but the Bush administration gave the impression that all tax cuts pay for themselves in all cases.
A key lesson Bartlett draws from the Bush years is that the supply-side argument that depriving the federal government of tax revenue would force spending cuts (a theory known as “starving the beast”) was wrong. Even though the U.S. has implemented several rounds of tax cuts since 1981, spending has increased dramatically, and it exploded under Bush, who even created the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan.
In the wake of the Bush years, Bartlett notes that the U.S. is facing a long-term deficit of $90 trillion from Medicare and Social Security alone. Since Republicans have proven themselves unable to do anything to rein in the cost of these programs and it’s unrealistic to think that they will behave any differently in the future, he argues that it’s time for conservatives to give up their stubborn resistance to tax increases. Instead, he urges supply-siders to “design a new tax system better able to raise higher revenues at the least possible cost in terms of economic growth and political freedom.” If conservatives don’t begin this process now, he writes, then liberals will simply raise taxes anyway, only in ways that will be much more destructive to the economy.
MANY OF BARLETT’S points are valid. The fiscal recklessness of the Bush administration is undeniable, and conservatives will have to come up with better solutions to address the looming entitlement crisis. It’s also true that many conservatives have misconstrued supply-side theory. The “Laffer Curve,” for instance, posits that there’s some optimal tax rate, and if taxes are above that point, they actually stifle economic activity and lead to lower revenue. But when Reagan took office, the top tax rate stood at 70 percent — given that it’s now down to 35 percent, it’s harder to make the argument that additional tax cuts will boost revenue. At some point, cutting taxes decreases revenue, even under supply-side theory.
But Bartlett’s thinking is also schizophrenic, as he vacillates between admiring supply-side theory and relishing his role as a conservative provocateur. He argues for a Keynesian approach to severe economic crises such as the Great Depression and the current economic predicament (he viewed President Obama’s economic stimulus package as necessary). But he is also sympathetic to the supply-side critique that lag times inhibit lawmakers from responding to signals in the economy immediately and delay for years the point at which government spending is actually injected into the economy. He says the sooner the government acts, the better. But in the early stages, how can policy makers determine if a recession is severe enough to warrant a Keynesian response? How do they know that they aren’t mis-applying Keynes the way policy makers did in the decades after World War II, and thus setting us up for the same inflationary problems of the 1970s?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online