Dr Alan Blinder, Princeton University Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, is at it again.
First, some side issues which he raises:
Since the economy as a whole created 5.41 million net new jobs over the past three years, you might expect that about 4.51 million of them were in the private sector and about 900,000 were in the public sector. In fact, the private sector created 6.56 million net new jobs over the past three years while about 1.14 million net government jobs were eliminated via layoffs and spending cutbacks.
Never before in postwar history has government employment declined during a recovery. Compared with historic norms, we’re down over two million government jobs.
Never mind that the private sector’s performance is about 2/3 of what President Barack Obama promised with his 2009 stimulus and less than that compared to other recoveries, held back by his interfering policies.
Separately, the reduction in government employment is a good start. Government remains far too big, and it’s not a jobs welfare program: further cuts in Federal employment are warranted.
Then,
Real GDP growth has averaged a paltry 2% per annum over the past three years. But growth of GDP excluding government purchases—the things governments buy, including hiring workers—has averaged 3%.
But this just confirms how much government interference is inhibiting recovery.
Next, he offers a partial solution:
So Congress could make a good start on faster job creation simply by ending what it’s doing—destroying government jobs.
There’s that employment security welfare claptrap made explicit. Government actually has a few very specific tasks, named by the Constitution, and no other thing to do at all. It doesn’t need to employ lots of workers, outside of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, in order to do those few tasks.
Now, he comes to his tax policy as social engineering tool:
Virtually since the Great Recession began, many economists have suggested offering businesses a tax credit for creating new jobs. While details matter, the basic idea is straightforward: Offer tax breaks to firms that boost their payrolls.
For example, companies might be offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their wage bills over the previous year. No increase, no reward.
You might imagine that Republicans would embrace an idea like that. After all, it’s a business tax cut….
Here’s that foolishness of using taxes to drive our economy to a government goal. No. The ways to help our businesses and spur hiring include reducing—or even eliminating—taxes on businesses, canceling the additive costs and outright taxes Obamacare imposes on businesses for hiring, and stopping paying the unemployed for not working.
And no, the “tax credit” isn’t at tax cut at all. It’s an increase in spending.
Blinder also had this idea:
Suppose Congress enacted a partial tax holiday that allowed companies to repatriate profits held abroad at some bargain-basement tax rate like 10%. The catch: the maximum amount each company could bring home at that low tax rate would equal the increase in its wage payments as measured by Social Security records.
Again, no. Eliding the social engineering claptrap of the suggestion, temporary tax moves have no effect. We’d be better off moving to a territorial tax scheme at the new reduced overall business tax rate. Or eliminating the business tax altogether.
Blinder concludes with this:
My general point is that the fiscal cupboard is not bare. There are things we could be doing to boost employment right now. That we are not doing anything constitutes malign neglect of the nation’s worst economic problem.
Indeed. Let’s reduce/eliminate business taxes, get Obamacare off the backs of businesses, and restore unemployment payments to the status quo Harding right now.
