Re: "raising taxes is the least painful" [was Economic reform policy: So

John Gelles wrote:
> 
> The problem presented by unemployment ...
> The best solution to this problem is for government to spend as
> much as possible to get the products it needs.

Dear John,

Here is the argument by Stiglitz about NOT using
deficit spending:

["fair use," "teachable moment," "archival," Section 107(a), 1976
Copyright Act and 1998 Digital Millennium Act]

Biting the budget bullet

Why raising taxes is the least painful way out of the state's fiscal
crisis [Massachusetts]

By Peter R. Orszag and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 4/27/2003

IKE MASSACHUSETTS, STATE governments across the nation are facing
budget deficits of historic proportions. Next year, they will face
combined projected shortfalls of between $70 billion and $85
billion-or about 15 percent of all the money they spend out of their
general funds. In response, they are cutting back on vital services,
curtailing school hours, and restricting access to Medicaid, as well
as raising tuition at public universities and increasing taxes.
Kentucky is releasing non-violent prisoners early to reduce costs.
Missouri has even resorted to unscrewing every third lightbulb in
state buildings to save on electricity. 

The states are in a difficult position. Unlike the federal government,
they typically aren't allowed to run large ongoing deficits. Once they
exhaust the various loopholes in their balanced-budget rules and spend
down their rainy-day funds, the only two real choices are cutting
spending or raising taxes. Neither is very attractive in a sluggish
economy.

A look at the larger economic picture shows why. When the economy is
weak, as it is today, firms suffer from excess capacity: They could
produce more goods and services if consumers were only willing to buy
them. (For example, only about 75 percent of the nation's industrial
capacity was in use in March, well below the average figure for the
past three decades.) In such situations, the key to short-term growth
is to boost demand for goods and services.

But tax increases and spending cuts do exactly the opposite: They
reduce demand for goods and services. State governments are thus
forced to embrace Herbert Hoover economics: attempting to balance
budgets in a lethargic economy despite the short-term economic harm
imposed. With no good choices, policy makers must employ the cruel
calculus of the lesser evil.

Massachusetts faces a $3 billion budget shortfall for fiscal 2004, on
a total budget of some $22.5 billion this year. Governor Romney's
proposed budget, released in February, represents a poor way of
meeting the fiscal challenge. Instead of reversing recent cuts in the
state income tax and increasing taxes on high-income families-the
least harmful option-the governor calls for broad spending cuts. The
House Ways and Means budget, released on Wednesday, calls for even
deeper cuts.

To understand the folly of such an approach, it is important to dispel
five myths about the Massachusetts economy.

Myth Number 1 

Tax increases impose more harm on the economy than do other
budget-balancing measures. 

Despite proclamations by some politicians to the contrary, tax
increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism
for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. In a weak economy,
it is particularly important to minimize reductions in overall
spending. And reductions in government spending on goods and services,
or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, would
result in relatively large declines in total expenditures in the
state. But tax increases on higher-income families tend to reduce
saving, not spending, since such families save a large portion of
their income.

Furthermore, consider a little recent history: The increases in
federal taxes on upper-income Americans in 1993, which were used to
close the yawning budget gap at that time, preceded the strongest boom
the US economy has had in more than a generation. There is no evidence
that these tax increases harmed the economy-and considerable evidence
that the deficit reduction that they helped finance was beneficial.

Myth Number 2 

The current deficit reflects runaway spending.

The current fiscal imbalance was not caused by an explosion of
spending. In fact, Massachusetts ranks 45th in the United States in
the share of its personal income devoted to state and local spending.
Between 1991 and 2002, inflation-adjusted spending rose by just 2.3
percent per year, compared to income growth of 2.6 percent per year.
As a result, state spending fell from 9.4 percent of income in 1991 to
9.1 percent in 2002. 

Myth Number 3 

Spending increased in wasteful areas. 

The spending increases that did occur in the 1990s were concentrated
in three priority areas that are seldom considered wasteful: K-12
education, health care, and corrections. These three areas accounted
for 99 percent of the spending increase between 1991 and 2002. 

Myth Number 4

The state government is bloated. 

The Massachusetts government is not swollen by excessive inefficiency
or waste. State and local governments in Massachusetts employ 516
workers per 10,000 people; only eight states have fewer public
employees per capita. Wages and benefits for public employees in
Massachusetts amount to 5.7 percent of personal income in the state;
only three states spend a lower share of income. 

Myth Number 5 

Taxes are relatively high. 

Prior to the 1980s, Massachusetts deserved its reputation as a
high-tax state. But following the aggressive tax cuts of the 1980s and
`90s, taxes are now relatively low. According to a report from the
House Task Force on Local, State, and Federal Revenues, the state has
adopted 45 substantial tax cuts since 1990, adding up to an annual
revenue decrease of more than $3 billion, even after taking account of
more recent revenue increases. State and local revenue amounted to
13.9 percent of income in 2000, compared to a figure of 15.5 percent
for state and local governments across the nation as a whole. Only a
handful of states have lower revenue shares than Massachusetts.

Yet Governor Romney's budget does not propose any tax increases for
higher-income families. Instead, it relies heavily on spending
reductions-of roughly $1 billion-to reach balance. These include cuts
in grants for early literacy programs, full-day kindergarten, and
class-size reduction efforts, along with substantial reductions in
higher-education funding and in unrestricted local aid. Most of the
cuts translate directly into lower incomes or fewer jobs for teachers,
health professionals, first responders, and others. As their incomes
are reduced, so is their spending-which only hurts the economy as a
whole. 

A much better approach would close more of the budget gap by levying
an income-tax surcharge on higher-income families-say, those making
more than $100,000 a year-while leaving the current rate of 5.3
percent in place for others. But since such surcharges are forbidden
under the state constitution, policy makers could instead reverse some
of the recent tax decreases. The House Task Force on Local, State, and
Federal Revenues estimates that the relatively modest step of
returning to an income tax rate of 5.6 percent, its level in 2001,
would raise $475 million. Going back to the 1999 rate of 5.95 percent
would raise $1 billion a year. Either approach would allow the
governor to forgo a substantial share of the spending reductions
contained in his budget. 

To be sure, higher-income families would bear a large share of any
such tax increases. But such families benefited disproportionately
from the tax cuts during the 1990s, even as their incomes were
increasing at a particularly rapid pace. According to the Institute on
Taxation and Economic Policy, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the
state received half of the total tax cut provided between 1989 and
2002. The top 20 percent received almost all of the aggregate tax cut.
It seems reasonable to ask such higher-income families to play a
significant role in addressing the current budget shortfall in the
state, especially since the earlier tax cuts are one of the causes of
the immediate budget problem. 

Given how heavily the Bush administration's proposed tax cuts are
slanted toward these families, they would still end up with
substantially more money in their pockets, even with a modest increase
in state taxes. What's more, state taxes are deductible under federal
income-tax law, which means that some of the state tax increase would
be offset by federal tax breaks. 

Policy makers could also consider more fundamental budget
changes-including abolishing the limits on the size of the state's
rainy-day fund, reforming the state corporate-income tax in order to
fully tax income that escapes taxation in other states, and raising
tuition at public universities while increasing financial aid to
lower-income students (as Governor Romney has proposed). Longer-term
Medicaid reform would also help ease pressures on state budgets.

But these structural solutions still won't solve the immediate
problem. If the federal government won't provide substantial fiscal
relief-and there's little reason to think it will-Governor Romney
should revise his budget plan to minimize the short-term economic
damage. And while it may be difficult for politicians to face, an
increase in the personal-income tax rate is the least damaging option
available. 

Peter R. Orszag is the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow at the
Brookings Institution and a co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax
Policy Center. Joseph E. Stiglitz is a professor of economics at
Columbia University and a 2001 Nobel laureate in economics; he
previously served as chief economist at the World Bank and as chairman
of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

For comments and suggestions, email ideas@globe.com

This story ran on page E1 of the Boston Globe on 4/27/2003. c
Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
-- 


           W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
   Research Affiliate, Comparative Media Studies, MIT
      Center for Information, Technology & Society
         466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA  02176
   781-662-4044  BMSLIB@MIT.EDU http://Cybertrails.org