Economist Greg Mankiw offers up his preferred stimulus package:
I would institute an immediate and permanent reduction in the payroll tax, financed by a gradual, permanent, and substantial increase in the gasoline tax. I would make the two tax changes equal in present value, so while the package results in a short-run budget deficit, there is no long-term budget impact. Call it the create-jobs, save-the-environment, reduce-traffic-congestion, budget-neutral tax shift.
I recognize that some state governments are now struggling in light of the macroeconomic crisis. For the next two years, I would let each state governor have the authority to divert a portion of the payroll tax cut in his or her state and take the funds instead as state aid. This provision would essentially be giving governors the temporary authority to impose a payroll tax on his or her citizens, collected via the federal tax system. Those governors who think they have valuable infrastructure projects ready to go would take the money. When designing a fiscal stimulus, there is no compelling reason for one size fits all. Let each governor make a choice and answer to his or her state voters. It is called federalism.
Any further federal spending projects should be evaluated on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. That analysis would take time, but it would ensure that the projects are not a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Me: I hear a lot of about these payroll tax-carbon tax swaps. But liberals want to use any funds from a carbon tax -- or a cap-and-trade system -- for further government spending on "green energy" or other projects. In fact, that was even part of Obama's campaign agenda. He was going to finance his energy projects with $100 billion a year in revenue from selling cap-and-trader permits to business.

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)
SallyVCrockett of DC 12:00PM February 09, 2009
David Collins of IL 12:05PM February 07, 2009
Mitch G of WA 11:32AM February 07, 2009