2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMichael Tomasky on How Mitt Romney Finally Killed Reaganomics
by Michael Tomasky Nov 13, 2012 4:45 AM EST
Post-election chatter has focused on demographics, Latinos, and the culture war. But the most significant consequence of the election may be the death of trickle-down economics.
Heres something that happened in this election that has been largely overlooked but I think is a very big deal indeed. Trickle-down economics died last Tuesday. The post-election chatter has been dominated by demographics, Latinos, women, and the culture war. But economics played a strong and even pivotal role in this election too, and Reaganomics came out a huge loser, while the Democrats have started to wrap their arms around a simple, winning alternative: the idea that government must invest in the middle class and not the rich. Its middle-out economics instead of trickle-down, and it won last week and will keep on winning.
You know the history. Arthur Laffer sketched out his famous curvewhether on a napkin or not is apparently still debatedback in 1974, when the top marginal rate was 90 percent. There is a certain point, Laffer explained, at which rates decrease revenue. Since many of the people to whom he was doing this explaining found themselves to be in or near the top bracket, quite naturally they liked his theory a lot.
Up sprang the nonprofits devoted to getting the little people to buy in to the idea that taxes on the wealthy should be lowered, and soon enough supply-side economics was born. Along came Ronald Reagan to assure everyone that the rising tide would lift all boats. Its never happened quite the way conservatives said it would. Even during the general prosperity of the second Reagan term, income inequality began to expand dramatically, wage stagnation became a permanent feature of American life, and the immiseration of the poor worsened.
So supply sides first shot at governance was at best half a success. Then came the second go-round under George W. Bush, and this of course was an unmitigated disaster. You know the details on that. But as catastrophic as the Bush era was, the fear has always existed that people would vote to go back to that. After all, its pretty hard to turn down a 20-percent tax cut, right?
-snip-
more:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/13/michael-tomasky-on-how-mitt-romney-finally-killed-reaganomics.html
wishlist
(2,795 posts)I still cannot understand how so many Americans could elect a president who was the outsourcer in chief at Bain and stashed so much loot in overseas tax havens. He was not investing the profits to create American jobs with all of his offshore and outsourcing investments. Obama would never have come close to become President if he had been the one with so much tax evasion and so little economic patriotism
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)it. If it is legal, then you should not begrudge how someone makes a buck. He was a little taken aback when I described the Delphi looting of the Treasury by one of Romney's investments though.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)board. Not all the changes in the economy can be laid at the feet of the tax reductions. Globalization was beginning and continues today. Combine that with a liberal immigration policy that also serves to drive down employee negotiating power.
My view is that from an ideal growth and revenue standpoint, the top marginal tax rate should be somewhere around 40% (like it was under Clinton). The very wealthy may elect to stay U.S. citizens at a 90% marginal rate, but those who earn income and trying to build wealth are going to find alternatives. My daughter is currently working on a paper about push factors for emmigration, and the tax structure is one of them. Brain drain is currently going on in the U.K., and we are trying to model our country more on their model. Does Hollywood have to stay the model for high salaries? Could a low cost country also produce movies and offer citizenship to Hollywood actors? Moving Wall Street to the Carribean would be easy. Many elective surgeries can be done offshore in lower tax countries (this tourism already exists in India).
Where Romney screwed up and lost my vote (if I was ever going to vote for him) was to take historically low tax rates and say he was going to reduce them another 20%. This was insane and even in violation of the Laffer Curver. We are definitely sitting on the other side of the hump right now. I think Obama's proposal to push us closer to the hump (where ever that might be) is prudent and will go a long way towards helping the deficit. I think this, combined with a removal of the Social Security cap at a 2% lower withholding rate, should be two things from a revenue perspective that should be done. Closing the loopholes should be the next move, and it should be done aggressively.
On spending we need to reduce defense spending to reflect what is spent by our allies. We need to improve how healthcare spending is done (single payer will go a long way towards this). Finally we need a trade policy that keeps a strong key on jobs in this country.