The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

James Pethokoukis examines whether Tim Pawlenty’s 5 percent growth target is achievable:

Overall, U.S. GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent over the past 50 years, with roughly half coming from a growing labor force (1.6 percent) and half coming from higher productivity (1.7 percent). But with America aging, annual labor force growth is expected to slow dramatically to just 0.5 percent. The McKinsey Global Institute thinks a higher retirement age and smarter immigration policy could boost that rate to 1 percent or so. But even then, productivity growth would have to increase to 2.3 percent long term just to maintain that historic growth rate.

The good news is that McKinsey thinks that’s possible, too. One move it recommends is enhancing the U.S regulatory environment. Another is reducing marginal tax rates. Both actions are in line with the Pawlenty agenda. Pawlenty’s proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes would create a de facto consumption tax, which many economist think good for growth. He would also lower the top individual tax rate to 25 percent and the top corporate rate to 15 percent.

This would still require the economy to grow faster than during either the 1980s or '90s booms.

View all comments (6) |

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.8.11 @ 1:36PM

He is a RINO Republican running for President, I simply do not believe a word he says.

Oldefarte| 6.8.11 @ 2:22PM

Jim, even though I'm currently more in favor of Pawlenty's candidacy than for any other NOW DECLARED one, I disagree with his economic/financial expressed theories slightly. I do not favor currently any tax cuts until such time as the the economy is demonstatively on solid ground and actively moving forward. Instead I favor the direly needed huge/substantial governmental expense reductions only, as I think that same could possibly initiate the economic push forward and get it going in the right direction. The tax increases favored by all Democrats is a non-starter and asinely counter-porductive, but tax cuts at this time would also be so [since government will immediately need every nickel and dime within current tax rate/payments to fund a substantially reduced government structure. Once the economy becomes heated up from a substantial governmental spending reduction, and tax receipts increase tremendously from same, then possibly tax cuts should be considered and implemented. IMO, substantial governmental spending reductions would thereby shift banking capital from government/public lending to potential private/business loans [needed for expansions of their businesses]. Also by huge governmental spending reductions, both businesses and individual consumers confidences would be raised from same reduction, and they would be encouraged to make loans, to purchase goods and services and to grow our economy. I like Pawlenty's ideas on turning around our economy, but I disagree with his use of immediate tax cuts as a tool to do so originally!!!!!!!

c. j. acworth| 6.8.11 @ 6:31PM

How about some major tax reform for starters. If we had a flat tax (or flatter, at any rate) for business and individuals, how much would be saved in compliance costs? Wouldn't that be as good as a tax cut, even if the rates don't change? I wonder how much money ( in tax-lawyer payouts ) it costs a major corporation to pay Uncle his pound of flesh.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.8.11 @ 7:57PM

Hit! Nail! Head! Bravo.

Rick V.| 6.8.11 @ 8:25PM

I'm no economist, but I salute Pawlenty for a broad growth-based economic proposal that will set him apart from the pack. You will never convince me that tax cuts are harmful; tax cuts mean that individuals and business retain more of their own money to spend in ways they believe will benefit them. Let the marketplace determine success, because government certainly can't. Making one's own decisions with one's own income is a critical component of liberty. When government limits income through punitive taxation, government is limiting an individual's own decision-making ability and, as such, restricting individual liberty. Point goes to Pawlenty.

Lillith| 6.8.11 @ 10:53PM

Pawlenty has no principles. He started out governing MN as a moderate Republican. He changed his tune when he thought he could ride the Tea Party rage to the White House. If he thought being a moderate would help him win, he would switch back. Very cunning but very deceitful.

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/08/pawlentys-5-percent-growth

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT