Chad Crowe
In response to the recession, the Obama
administration chose to emphasize costly, short-term fixes—ineffective
stimulus programs, myriad housing programs that went nowhere, and a rush
to invest in "green" companies.
As a consequence, uncertainty over policy—particularly over tax and
regulatory policy—slowed the recovery and limited job creation. One
recent study by Scott Baker and Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University
and Steven Davis of the University of Chicago found that this
uncertainty reduced GDP by 1.4% in 2011 alone, and that returning to
pre-crisis levels of uncertainty would add about 2.3 million jobs in
just 18 months.
The Obama administration's attempted short-term fixes, even with
unprecedented monetary easing by the Federal Reserve, produced average
GDP growth of just 2.2% over the past three years, and the consensus
outlook appears no better for the year ahead.
Moreover, the Obama administration's large and sustained increases in
debt raise the specter of another financial crisis and large future tax
increases, further chilling business investment and job creation. A
recent study by Ernst & Young finds that the administration's
proposal to increase marginal tax rates on the wage, dividend and
capital-gain income of upper-income Americans would reduce GDP by 1.3%
(or $200 billion per year), kill 710,000 jobs, depress investment by
2.4%, and reduce wages and living standards by 1.8%. And according to
the Congressional Budget Office, the large deficits codified in the
president's budget would reduce GDP during 2018-2022 by between 0.5% and
2.2% compared to what would occur under current law.
President Obama has ignored or dismissed proposals that would address
our anti-competitive tax code and unsustainable trajectory of federal
debt—including his own bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform—and submitted no plan for entitlement reform.
In February, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner famously told congressional
Republicans that this administration was putting forth no plan, but "we
know we don't like yours."
Other needed reforms would emphasize opening global markets for U.S.
goods and services—but the president has made no contribution to the
global trade agenda, while being dragged to the support of individual
trade agreements only recently.
The president's choices cannot be ascribed to a political tug of war
with Republicans in Congress. He and Democratic congressional majorities
had two years to tackle any priority they chose. They chose not growth
and jobs but regulatory expansion. The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act raised taxes, unleashed significant new spending, and raised
hiring costs for workers. The Dodd-Frank Act missed the mark on housing
and "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions but raised financing costs
for households and small and mid-size businesses.
These economic errors and policy choices have consequences—record
high long-term unemployment and growing ranks of discouraged workers.
Sadly, at the present rate of job creation and projected labor-force
growth, the nation will never return to full employment.
It doesn't have to be this way. The
Romney economic plan would fundamentally change the direction of policy
to increase GDP and job creation now and going forward. The governor's
plan puts growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:
•
Stop runaway federal spending and debt.
The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to
20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce
policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus
increasing business and consumer confidence.
•
Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The
Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across
the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and
capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax
rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the
tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.
•
Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability.
The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and
Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in
Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending.
It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable
experimentation that might better serve recipients.
•
Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation.
The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy
production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new
job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and
replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will
emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented,
patient-centered health-care reform.
In contrast to the sclerosis and joblessness of the past three years,
the Romney plan offers an economic U-turn in ideas and choices. When
bolstered by sound trade, education, energy and monetary policy, the
Romney reform program is expected by the governor's economic advisers to
increase GDP growth by between 0.5% and 1% per year over the next
decade. It should also speed up the current recovery, enabling the
private sector to create 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month, or about 12
million new jobs in a Romney first term, and millions more after that
due to the plan's long-run growth effects.
But these gains aren't just about
numbers, as important as those numbers are. The Romney approach will
restore confidence in America's economic future and make America once
again a place to invest and grow.
Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W.
Bush. He is an economic adviser to Gov. Romney.
No comments:
Post a Comment