A Rather Odd Analysis from David Leonhardt

David Leonhardt says he’s trying to understand the impact of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts on growth. I think he’s asking the wrong questions. (And I’m struck by the extent to which he’s ignoring the pretty significant issue of causal density.)


Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.

Here the more salient question is about the effective marginal tax rates faced by people who are marginally attached to the labor force. I recommend that Leonhardt check out the book Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men. The effective marginal tax rates faced by ex-offenders and non-custodial fathers, for example, are very high, due to the garnishing of wages (a good thing, for the most part) and the large and prominent role played by means-tested benefits, which could be streamlined.

It might make more sense to look at work hours of those taxpayers who saw their marginal tax rates reduced. Part of the “problem” with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is that much of the value of the cuts went to measures that didn’t improve work incentives, but rather to make the tax code more progressive and more family-friendly (goals that are sometimes in tension) — and I don’t think anyone argued that, say, the partially refundable child tax credit was growth-enhancing. (I happen to favor a big child tax credit, but I don’t claim that they are as effective as cutting marginal tax rates when it comes to improving work incentives.)     

Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.

This isn’t really evidence of much of anything, I’m afraid, for reasons that should be obvious. 

The theory for why tax cuts should create growth and jobs is a strong one. When people are allowed to keep more of each dollar they earn, they are likely to work longer and harder. The uncertainty is the magnitude of this effect. With everything else that’s happening in a $15 trillion economy, how large of an effect on growth do tax cuts have?

Every available piece of evidence seems to suggest that the Bush tax cuts did little to lift growth. I have yet to hear a good argument to the contrary, but I’d be fascinated to see another blogger or an economist take a crack at it.

What exactly do we mean by little? And do we have a sound evaluation of alternative policies, e.g., what would have been the growth trajectory had President Bush’s proposals to cut tax expenditures and reduce the long-term cost of Medicaid also been put into effect? I agree that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were not an economic panacea. The high-income rate reductions were the most effective part of the cuts in terms of enhancing growth, and they were a relatively small part of the package — roughly one-fourth of the value.

So yes, I agree: the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts weren’t as effective as they might have been because they didn’t cut marginal rates on workers with high ETIs deeply enough. Rather, they placed a heavier emphasis on what we might call social justice considerations, which was a defensible move in some respects. I’m not sure that’s the conclusion David Leonhardt wants us to draw. 

And incidentally, I’m not sure who exactly David Leonhardt is engaging. He’s certainly not taking on claims that Alan Viard or Greg Mankiw have advanced. I assume he’s taking on claims that have been advanced by various supply-siders and reflexive defenders of all things done by Republicans, and I’m happy to dismiss those claims as overstated. 

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More