President George W. Bush is preparing a drastic permanent reduction in federal income and estate taxes. He cites as precedents tax cuts by Kennedy-Johnson 1962-64 and Reagan 1981. In those cases, however, the economy was operating well below full employment and needed a "demand-side" stimulus (even though Reagan advertised his tax reduction as "supply-side"). In 2001, however, the economy is very close to full employment, and if it needs a stimulus at all, it is a quick modest temporary one instead of the large permanent one proposed. And why can't monetary policy do the job of stabilization, as it did successfully in the 1990s? A policy mix that assigns short run demand stabilization to the central bank is for several reasons preferable to a tight-money-easy-fiscal mix. In the case of Reagan and Bush the younger, federal tax cuts are advocated on philosophical and ideological grounds, diminution of the size and scope of government. But formulation of the issue as government versus people is a misunderstanding of democracy and of the reciprocities between public and private sectors.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Find related papers by JEL classification: E6 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)