Tax Cuts, Lies and Fred Barnes

« "Is Modern Macro Useful for Development Economics?" | Main | "The Enthusiasm Gap" »

Fred Barnes either doesn't realize that just under 40% of the stimulus package was devoted to tax cuts, or he is intentionally misleading people:

Is it possible that he doesn't realize that a sizable chunk of the stimulus package was devoted to tax cuts (many were included to appease Republicans who then voted against the package anyway)? Though he doesn't mention them at all in the article linked above, at one time Barnes certainly knew there were tax cuts in the stimulus package:

What Republicans believe isn't important, they believe all sorts of crazy things, what matters is the evidence. And the evidence has not been supportive of Republican beliefs (despite the evidence, their faith remains largely unshaken).

Any guess who Barnes thinks should get tax cuts? He doesn't say directly, but he gives us enough of a hint to guess where he stands:

The Obama stimulus package had $237 billion in tax cuts, and more than $100 billion of those were targeted at lower and middle class households, but Fred Barnes doesn't even acknowledge that (and it's okay if a large component was saved). There were also $51 billion in tax cuts for businesses that he fails to note.

If they aren't the right type of tax cuts, the type that give even more breaks to the wealthy -- even though there's no good evidence to suggest that this does much to generate new economic activity and job creation -- then they aren't worth even mentioning. Barnes does find plenty of space to whine about "Obama ... letting the Bush tax cuts lapse in 2011 for those making more than $200,000 annually," but somehow programs like the HIRE Act passed in June 2010 to provide payroll tax breaks to businesses that hire workers who have been unemployed for 60 days or more doesn't merit a word.

Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, August 5, 2010 at 01:07 AM in Economics, Politics, Taxes | Stumble, Digg, del.icio.us, Reddit, Share, Like | Permalink  Comments (18)

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tax Cuts and the Stimulus Package

Fred Barnes either doesn't realize that just under 40% of the stimulus package was devoted to tax cuts, or he is intentionally misleading people:

Time for Tax Cuts, by Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard: The economic recovery, to the extent there's been one, has stalled. Unemployment remains stubbornly above 9 percent and may go higher. The housing crisis endures. What is President Obama's remedy? More jobless benefits, more money for governors to pay Medicaid bills, more funds for teachers and state and local government jobs. In other words, more of the same. What ever happened to "bold, persistent experimentation"?? ... [W]hy not experiment with tax cuts? It would be a new approach for Obama... But for reasons of ideology and inflexibility, he's stuck on spending as the cure for economic doldrums. ...

Is it possible that he doesn't realize that a sizable chunk of the stimulus package was devoted to tax cuts (many were included to appease Republicans who then voted against the package anyway)? Though he doesn't mention them at all in the article linked above, at one time Barnes certainly knew there were tax cuts in the stimulus package:

The measure had tax cuts, but not ones Republicans believe will spur the economy.

What Republicans believe isn't important, they believe all sorts of crazy things, what matters is the evidence. And the evidence has not been supportive of Republican beliefs (despite the evidence, their faith remains largely unshaken).

Any guess who Barnes thinks should get tax cuts? He doesn't say directly, but he gives us enough of a hint to guess where he stands:

those making more than $200,000 annually ... are exactly the folks most likely to react to tax cuts by investing in the economy and producing jobs.

The Obama stimulus package had $237 billion in tax cuts, and more than $100 billion of those were targeted at lower and middle class households, but Fred Barnes doesn't even acknowledge that (and it's okay if a large component was saved). There were also $51 billion in tax cuts for businesses that he fails to note.

If they aren't the right type of tax cuts, the type that give even more breaks to the wealthy -- even though there's no good evidence to suggest that this does much to generate new economic activity and job creation -- then they aren't worth even mentioning. Barnes does find plenty of space to whine about "Obama ... letting the Bush tax cuts lapse in 2011 for those making more than $200,000 annually," but somehow programs like the HIRE Act passed in June 2010 to provide payroll tax breaks to businesses that hire workers who have been unemployed for 60 days or more doesn't merit a word.

var TPConnect = {}; TPConnect.tpc_url = 'http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/08/tax-cuts-and-the-stimulus-package.html'; TPConnect.tpc_title = document.getElementById('tpc_post_title').innerHTML; TPConnect.tpc_message = document.getElementById('tpc_post_message').innerHTML; View the entire comment thread. Web This Site Recent Posts Is the Unemployment Problem Cyclical or Structural? (0) "The Enthusiasm Gap" (83) Tax Cuts and the Stimulus Package (18) "Is Modern Macro Useful for Development Economics?" (4) links for 2010-08-04 (10) Green Technology in America (36) "Make it in America" (114) Galbraith: Expand Social Security and Medicare (135) "As Long as They Don't Have Children" (11) Are Inflation Expectations Stable? (13) links for 2010-08-03 (12) "Bernanke Says Rising Wages Will Lift Spending" (31) Geithner's "Happy Talk" (30) "Stop Worrying About Structural Unemployment" (119) Fed Watch: Handicapping the Next FOMC Meeting  (3) links for 2010-08-02 (34) Paul Krugman: Defining Prosperity Down (211) The Unpaved Road to Serfdom (36) "The Economics of Tax Incidence" (31) links for 2010-08-01 (10) "Vulgar Keynesianism Robed in the Ideological Vestments of the Prosperous Classes" (34) Shiller: Use Government Policy to Directly Create Jobs (39) Fed Watch: More on Disinflation (40) links for 2010-07-31 (9) "Some Observations Regarding Interest on Reserves" (13) Greenspan and Empathy (28) "The Business of Spying on Internet Users" (47) links for 2010-07-30 (35) GDP Growth Slows to 2.4% (52) Paul Krugman: Curbing Your Enthusiasm (80) What Would Republicans Do for the Economy? (20) Forty Years after the Grape Boycott (9) links for 2010-07-29 (12) "John Stewart Mill vs. the European Central Bank" (19) "The Weight Watchers" (99) Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective (14) New Comments MosesZD on "The Enthusiasm Gap" Devin on "The Enthusiasm Gap" Jay Z on "The Enthusiasm Gap" Realist on Tax Cuts and the Stimulus Package watt d fark on "The Enthusiasm Gap" Anon on Green Technology in America wyrm on "The Enthusiasm Gap" Lawrence on Green Technology in America save_the_rustbelt on "The Enthusiasm Gap" save_the_rustbelt on "The Enthusiasm Gap" save_the_rustbelt on "The Enthusiasm Gap" save_the_rustbelt on "The Enthusiasm Gap"

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fred Barnes either doesn't realize that just under 40% of the stimulus package was devoted to tax cuts, or he is intentionally misleading people:

Is it possible that he doesn't realize that a sizable chunk of the stimulus package was devoted to tax cuts (many were included to appease Republicans who then voted against the package anyway)? Though he doesn't mention them at all in the article linked above, at one time Barnes certainly knew there were tax cuts in the stimulus package:

What Republicans believe isn't important, they believe all sorts of crazy things, what matters is the evidence. And the evidence has not been supportive of Republican beliefs (despite the evidence, their faith remains largely unshaken).

Any guess who Barnes thinks should get tax cuts? He doesn't say directly, but he gives us enough of a hint to guess where he stands:

The Obama stimulus package had $237 billion in tax cuts, and more than $100 billion of those were targeted at lower and middle class households, but Fred Barnes doesn't even acknowledge that (and it's okay if a large component was saved). There were also $51 billion in tax cuts for businesses that he fails to note.

If they aren't the right type of tax cuts, the type that give even more breaks to the wealthy -- even though there's no good evidence to suggest that this does much to generate new economic activity and job creation -- then they aren't worth even mentioning. Barnes does find plenty of space to whine about "Obama ... letting the Bush tax cuts lapse in 2011 for those making more than $200,000 annually," but somehow programs like the HIRE Act passed in June 2010 to provide payroll tax breaks to businesses that hire workers who have been unemployed for 60 days or more doesn't merit a word.

Blog Established    March 6, 2005

The views expressed on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Economics or the University of Oregon.

Mark Thoma Department of Economics University of Oregon View from Econ Dept

Read Full Article »