Greg Mankiw's Stimulus Package

February 6, 2009 RSS Feed Print

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)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

First of all, a carbon tax does not have to be "bad for the poor." In fact, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, "a non-profit, community-based, environmental justice organization dedicated to building community power to fight environmental racism and improve environmental health, protection and policy in communities of color," recently endorsed a revenue-neutral carbon tax to ease health and poverty-related issues. Having said that, the bottom line is that we need to raise the cost of carbon-based fuels, avoid the evasion and market manipulation that plague cap and trade schemes, and incentivize the creation new, climate-friendly technologies--a revenue carbon tax does all of that. www.climatetaskforce.org

SallyVCrockett of DC 12:00PM February 09, 2009

Carbon Tax receipts should be divvied up and returned equally to adult US citizens. This would reduce the regressiveness of the Carbon Tax. It would inspire almost everybody, other than the very rich and the very foolish, to figure out how to reduce their Carbon Footprints. It is true that cutting Payroll Taxes would by and large do likewise. But payroll cuts do far less to help the unemployed (other than reducing employment costs) and would do nothing whatsoever for the retired.

Nevertheless, cutting greenhouse gas emissions is of paramount importance and will benefit everybody except the already dead. If it is done with injustice to the poor, so be it, if that is the price for winning Republican support.

David Collins of IL 12:05PM February 07, 2009

Muser of NM: "Advocates of cutting the 'payroll taxes' are actually advocates of first under-cutting and then dismantling both Social Security and Medicare. These are dedicated taxes to those dedicated purposes. These taxes have names, and it ain't 'payroll'."

Muser, then how do you explain that the most prominent advocate of revenue-neutral carbon taxes is "Mr. Lockbox" himself Al Gore? To my knowledge, we already have Social Security revenues funding the government's general account. The reason that Social Security and Medicare are safe is that, if any politician in Washington did try to dismantle those programs, you would hear no end to the uproar.

I can assure you the passion on the part of Mankiw et al for these offsetting taxes is absolutely sincere. Look up what Mankiw writes about the "Pigovian club."

And Muser, I really question whether you aren't damning the same people you're claiming to help. A cut in payroll taxes is money in people's pockets. The people who benefit the most from lower payroll taxes are the people who are going to benefit the most from our social safety net when they retire.

Mitch G of WA 11:32AM February 07, 2009

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement