Is A Tax Cut The Right Remedy?
George W. Bush sees a downturn ahead. And he has one idea in particular about what to do
Richard Lacayo Reported by Sally B. Donnelly/Washington
Even before he was declared President-elect, George W. Bush had
become bear in chief. For weeks he's been warning that the U.S.
economy is in for hard times. He may steer clear himself of the
term recession. "Possible slowdown" is one way he puts it. But
dirty work is what Vice Presidents are for. So Dick Cheney has
been sent out to say the forbidden word. As early as Dec. 3, he
was on Meet the Press warning that the nation "may well be on
the front edge of a recession."
Why would Bush be willing to spook the economy he's about to
inherit? For starters, he needs to spread the idea that if things
get tight for a while, the problem started before he took office.
The last recession occurred during his father's presidency. He
doesn't want the next one called Bush 2. But he also hopes to use
the prospect of trouble ahead as a rationale for his proposal to
cut taxes by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. As he said
last month, "A tax-relief plan for everybody serves as an
insurance policy against a potential economic downturn."
It was to underline his worries about a downturn that Bush
scheduled his economic forum in Austin, Texas, this week, a round
table with selected economists to get their take on things.
Though they aren't likely to say so at the forum, one worry many
economists have is that Bush's warnings will become a
self-fulfilling prophecy, trash talking a wobbly economy right
off the rails.
Then again, he and Cheney are just enlarging on what everybody is
already thinking--that even if we can avoid a real recession,
meaning two consecutive quarters in which the economy shrinks, a
slowdown in the rapid growth of the '90s is plainly in store. The
dwindling NASDAQ says it all. If those sputtering dotcoms are the
economic engines of the future, then the future's just not what
it used to be.
Bush's bearishness may also reflect the influence of his chief
economic adviser Larry Lindsey. The former Federal Reserve
governor has been sour for so long on the economy's prospects
that he cashed out all his stocks in 1997, when the Dow Jones
average was still at 8,500. And for Lindsey, a dedicated supply
sider, the remedy for recession just happens to be a tax cut.
Most economists insist, however, that tax cuts have very little
effect on recessions, largely because their benefits kick in too
late to affect the problem. To pre-empt his critics, Bush could
redesign his proposal to provide accelerated benefits. One
possibility being discussed among his advisers would be to change
the formula by which payroll taxes are withheld, as his father
did in 1992. That would put extra cash in taxpayer pockets
quickly.
Another reason the Bush tax cut may not have much impact is that
its biggest parts, like across-the-board rate reductions, are the
ones least likely to sail through a sharply divided Congress. And
the pieces that are easiest to pass, like an end to the marriage
penalty for joint filers, are too small to do much to stimulate
consumer spending. Democrats have accepted the inevitability of
some kind of tax reduction's passing Congress this year. House
minority leader Dick Gephardt has already said so. But none of
them is prepared to support cuts of the size that Bush is looking
for. Meanwhile, they are casting around among smaller-scale
ideas.
Democrats are also planning to stick to the argument that a big
tax cut means you can forget about using the burgeoning federal
budget surplus to pay down the national debt. In an adroit bit of
political gamesmanship, Bill Clinton played up the goal of debt
elimination last week when he unveiled new White House budget
calculations that show the total surplus over the next 10 years
rising to nearly $5 trillion, an $800 billion increase over the
last estimate issued just six months ago. "We should be shooting
for a debt-free America by the end of the decade," he said. But
Bush and his team say the skyrocketing surplus is evidence that a
tax cut is not only necessary but affordable.
In the view of many economists, interest-rate modifications are
better than tax cuts as a way of combating slowdowns, in which
case the main weapon of recession fighting would rest with
Greenspan. All the same, Bush is hoping that he can get the Fed
chairman to signal in some way that he too would agree to a big
slice, perhaps during his upcoming testimony before Congress.
Greenspan thinks the surplus should be used to pay down the
national debt, but he would accept seeing some of it go back as a
tax cut before he would allow Congress to use it for more
spending programs.
Bush's adviser Lindsey is a good friend of the Fed chairman's. So
are Cheney and Paul O'Neill, Bush's choice as Treasury Secretary.
Both worked with Greenspan in Gerald Ford's White House. All of
them will be going to work on Greenspan to persuade him that
Congress would simply spend the surplus before it can be used for
bill paying. And George W., whose father had notoriously frosty
relations with Greenspan, has gone out of his way to court the
chairman. A few weeks ago, after their get-acquainted meeting in
Washington, he even squeezed the uncomfortable-looking Greenspan
on camera. But when you start talking like the bears, as Bush has
been doing, maybe bear hugs are just what come naturally.
--Reported by Sally B. Donnelly/Washington
|