Will Corporate Tax Cuts Really Reduce the U.S. Budget Deficit?

Mick Mulvaney
Mick Mulvaney (Wikipedia)

President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress are trying to pass federal tax reform legislation that could increase the U.S. government’s burgeoning debt by trillions of dollars. The federal government already owes more than $20 trillion, which is about $1 trillion more than the current annual U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). And the $666 billion budget deficit for the federal fiscal year that concluded in October was the sixth highest on record.

Most economists say the best way to reduce the budget deficit without hurting the economy is by gradually implementing a combination of carefully crafted spending cuts and tax increases. But Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), former Congressman Mick Mulvaney, says there’s no political will in Congress to make spending cuts, so the only way to reduce the deficit is to increase tax revenue by stimulating annual economic growth to at least 3% through tax cuts.

A reduction in corporate taxes is at the core of the Republican tax reform strategy. They claim that the U.S. economy is at an international competitive disadvantage because the 35% federal corporate tax rate that’s been in effect since 1933 is among the highest in the world. They say that lowering it would increase economic growth because corporations would repatriate some earnings from foreign countries and conduct more business in the U.S.

But there is little evidence that the proposed tax cuts will generate enough compensatory growth to pay for themselves. For example, if 25% of U.S. income goes to towards taxes, every $1 of tax cuts would have to generate more than $5 of increased economic activity. And history shows that previous Republican tax cuts failed to produce promised increases in tax revenue. During the Reagan administration in the 1980s the Republicans gave tax cuts to the wealthy that were supposed to generate growth and income that would “trickle down” to the middle and lower classes. Instead, their supply-side strategy significantly increased the national debt, shrank the middle class, increased unemployment, and accelerated income inequality. In other words, the wealthy people just kept most of the money. More recently, Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey pushed state corporate tax cuts that have resulted in a $24 million shortfall in the state’s FY2018 budget which will likely grow to $80 million for FY2019, according to the state’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Furthermore, while the statutory U.S. corporate tax rate is high, corporations can take expense deductions that make their effective tax rates lower. According to a 2017 Congressional Budget Office report, the U.S. effective corporate tax rate was only 18.6% in 2012. Also, corporations consider many factors when they make business decisions. A tax rate would be the deciding factor only if all other things were equal. And few corporations are willing to pass up the profitable privilege of doing business in the U.S., the world’s largest economy.

Some corporations, of course, would use the money they’d save from a reduction in corporate tax rates to invest in new production. But many would simply inflate their stock values by buying back stock, increasing dividend payments to their stockholders, or  they would pay of their executive officers to even more outrageous amounts. These things would contribute little to economic growth, as most stock dividends don’t go to middle or lower income class consumers, and wealthier CEOs would just accelerate growing income inequality.

The primary lesson from the failure of supply-side economics is that not all tax cuts are the same, and that real economic stimulus comes from reducing taxes for the U.S. economy’s primary consumers – the lower and middle income classes. Subsequently, supporters of the Republican tax reform effort, including President Trump, are selling it as a tax cut for the middle class. But the middle class tax cuts included among the various features in their reform proposals are very modest, and in the Senate’s version of the bill they would expire at the end of 2025.

The reason they are set expire is because Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution in October to protect their tax reform bill from a Democratic filibuster. As long as the bill doesn’t add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, Republicans will only need 51 votes to pass it in the Senate. In other words, they know that their proposed tax cuts will significantly increase the national debt, and they’d rather eliminate tax cuts to the middle class than corporate tax cuts to avoid exceeding their self-imposed arbitrary limit on the inevitable debt increase.

Another indicator that they don’t really believe their proposed tax cuts will pay for themselves is that Republican Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has insisted that the final version of the bill contain a “trigger” that forces reconsideration of the tax cuts if it appears they are creating a big increase in the federal budget deficit.

The truth is that the Republican fixation on implementing tax cuts is a long-held political objective, not a proven economic tool. This if further revealed by House’s version of the bill which includes a provision to eliminate the estate tax, which would cost more than $172 billion in lost tax revenue over the next 10 years in order to benefit a relative handful of ultra rich families.

The proven Keynesian strategies of creating economic stimulus by lowering interest rates and increasing government spending aren’t available because they’re already exhausted. Interest rates have been at historically low levels for years in response to the Great Recession, and the federal debt has already reached historical highs.  So, instead of doing the hard work of compromising with Democrats to make sound budget deals, Republicans are trying to sell this tax reform bill as a magical panacea. They know that if it doesn’t work, their wealthy dark money campaign donors will still be happy with their lower taxes. Also, it will make it easier for them to cut funding for popular programs they don’t like, such as Social Security and Medicare.

In the meantime, the U.S. economy is doing quite well, and an argument can be made that there’s no immediate need for any tax cuts. The minimum economic growth rate that the Trump administration claims is necessary to shrink the budget deficit has already been achieved. The economy grew by 3.1% in the second quarter, and by 3% in the third quarter of this year. At the same time, unemployment was down to 4.1% in October, the lowest its been in more than 10 years. There are still some stubborn pockets of unemployment, but they are mostly the result of technological advances that have rendered some jobs obsolete, and the laid off workers don’t have the necessary skills to succeed in the new economy. And, by the way, recent corporate profits are at all-time historical highs.

The bottom line is that the Republican tax reform proposals look an awful lot like the failed supply-side “voodoo economics” of the Reagan administration. If Republicans really want to improve the economy, they should find a way to focus tax cuts on the middle and lower income classes, while investing in education, healthcare, public transportation, and affordable daycare. This strategy could increase the federal budge deficit too, if it isn’t accompanied by fair spending cuts combined with the elimination of tax loopholes and unnecessary subsidies. But it would have a much better chance of success. It would help Americans work themselves up from the bottom, instead of giving them false hope that some crumbs might trickle down from above.

Updates

On November 30, 2017, the Senate’s parliamentarian declared that the inclusion of the “trigger” provision demanded by Republican Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) would violate the special budget resolution rules the Republicans want to use to pass the tax bill without any Democratic support.

Late in the evening of December 1, 2017, Senate Republicans finally succeeded in passing their version of a tax reform bill. A conference committee must reconcile it with the version that was previously passed by the House before a final version can be sent to President Trump for his signature.

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the $1.5 trillion tax cut bill, named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. It became effective January 1, 2018.

In July, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that the federal government recorded a $74.9 billion deficit in June, a month when the government often runs a surplus, as corporate taxes dropped sharply compared to a year ago. The government had a budget surplus in June in 52 of the past 64 years.

On September 13, 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department  announced the U.S. budget deficit had widened to $898 billion in the 11 months of the current federal fiscal year, which concludes at the end of September, and revenue from corporate taxes had fallen by $71 billion from a year ago.

On November 12, 2018, The New York Times newspaper reported that the biggest effect of Trump’s tax cut was to increase the federal budget deficit.

The Ineptitude of the Republicans is Costing Us Money

President Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
President Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wikipedia)

Despite the fact that Republicans control the presidency and Congress, they have failed to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling, and it’s costing U.S. taxpayers a lot of money.

Congress authorized the accumulation of federal debt on a case-by-case basis until the 1917, when the U.S. entered World War I. That year it decided to establish an overall federal debt ceiling to provide more financial flexibility in order to finance the war effort. Since then, Congress has continued the strategy of authorizing debt ceilings.

In recent years, however, the authorization of debt ceiling increases has become a politically contentious process, despite the fact they are needed to pay for expenditures that have already been made. So Congress has resorted to temporarily suspending the debt ceiling. During these suspensions, the U.S. Treasury is authorized to borrow enough to pay all of the government’s existing commitments, irregardless of the most recently authorized debt ceiling. But when the suspension expires, the debt ceiling reverts to what it was before the suspension. The most recent suspension was passed in November 2015 and expired in March 2017, which reinstated the 2015 debt ceiling.

Subsequently, the Treasury has been unable to borrow enough money to meet its obligations since then, because the federal government has a budget deficit. They have been limping along using some accounting tricks. But it’s estimated that these emergency measures will be exhausted by the beginning of October.

This means that, unless the debt ceiling is increased before then, the federal government will be in default on its bond interest payments, which will hurt the nation’s credit rating. It will also be unable to pay other bills and there will be at least a partial government shutdown. Furthermore, the federal government’s 2018 fiscal year begins on October 1, and Congress still needs to approve annual appropriations bills. If these budget issues aren’t soon dealt with, there will be some very big problems.

But even if they get these things done in time, the Republicans have already cost us a lot of money. That’s because the “extraordinary measures” the Treasury has been forced to use to fund the government since March are more expensive than issuing government bonds, the method the Treasury normally uses to raise the money it needs to pay the bills that exceed the revenue collected from taxes. (Paying interest on bonds is relatively inexpensive these days because the Federal Reserve has been holding down interest rates in order to stimulate the economy.)

On July 26 Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said during a Senate hearing that the Treasury’s extraordinary measures in 2017 had already cost taxpayers $2.5 billion. Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did not dispute the amount and agreed the situation was creating extra costs. It’s undoubtedly cost us much more than that by now.

The reluctance of Congress to raise the debt ceiling is driven by the growing concern about the increasing federal debt, which began a dramatic increase during the Reagan administration. Economists say that the reduction of federal budget deficits must be accomplished with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases in order to avoid harming the economy. But these types of political agreements are difficult, and far-right congressional Republicans have made them more so in recent years by using the authorization of debt ceiling increases as a weapon to engage in political brinkmanship, such as the government shutdown they instigated in 2013. They seem oblivious to the fact that their behavior is making the thing they’re worried about worse.

history of federal debt
Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038. (Wikipedia)

Solving these important federal budget issues is also complicated by the fact that President Donald Trump has exhibited an alarmingly limited understanding of how the U.S. government works. He’s publicly criticized the Congressional Republicans he needs to work with, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan. And he’s threatened to shut down the federal government if Congress doesn’t authorize funds to build the wall he wants to erect along the Mexican border. In addition, there’s the need to pass legislation as soon as possible to aid the victims of Hurricane Harvey. Furthermore, Trump’s decision to end the Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in six months has added major immigration reform to Congress’s agenda.

In the meantime, Congress seems to be making little headway on Trump’s tax reform and infrastructure spending proposals – two of his major campaign promises. And, of course, there are the constant distractions created by his controversial behavior, along with the ongoing investigations into his presidential campaign’s collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. The whole situation is pretty much a scary clown show.

Donald Trump’s 2017 Phoenix Rally

dumb trump
(Jeff Burgess)

The biggest difference between President Donald Trump’s August 22 rally at the Phoenix Convention Center and the campaign rally he held there in the summer of 2015 was the number of anti-Trump protestors outside of the building.

I am proud to say that I participated in both protests, but was disappointed by the small size of the one at Trump’s 2015 rally. Looking back, I attribute it to a mistaken presumption that Trump had no realistic chance to win the 2016 presidential election. Also, the outdoor temperature that day was 106°F. The outdoor temperature at the recent rally was the same, but this time it didn’t stop thousands of people from showing up to voice their displeasure.

But even though we were there to protest, our overall spirit was joyful because of the camaraderie we felt from being with so many other Americans who also believed that Donald Trump’s presidency has been an unprecedented disaster for our country. There was almost a fun, carnival atmosphere, with lots of clever signs, inspiring music, and potent chants, like “Walk of Shame” directed at the people filing into the convention center to hear Trump speak. I especially enjoyed the guy who wandered through the crowd with a small amplifier slung over his shoulder broadcasting a recording of Trump saying, “Grab them by the pussy,” in an infinite loop. The giant inflatable figures of Trump and Joe Arpaio, wearing a KKK outfit and prison garb respectively, were pretty good too – and had obviously taken a lot of work to make.

trump phoenix protest 2017
Trump protest signs, Phoenix Convention Center, August 22, 2017 (Jeff Burgess)

The diversity among the anti-Trump protestors was a stark contrast to his supporters on the other side of the police line across the street. They were almost entirely white people – more than 99%. But the Trump protestors seemed to encompass almost every demographic in the U.S. The were, of course, many Latinos because of Trump’s support for Arpaio. I found the Native American protestors especially effective because they reminded everyone they have been subjected to oppression longer than any other group in America.

The news media made a lot out of the fact that a handful of troublemakers provoked the Phoenix police into unleashing tear gas and flash bang grenades on all of the remaining protestors near the end of the event. Phoenix Police Chief Jeri Williams defended her officers actions, but many of the people who were still protesting peacefully said the police overreacted and gave them no warnings.

I didn’t see what happened. I was in a nearby restaurant having an ice-cold beer by then because I couldn’t take the heat any longer – having been outside for more than an hour and a half. (It is difficult to describe how quickly the Sonoran Desert’s summer heat can debilitate you.) But I can say that 100% of the protestors I encountered were peaceful, and that’s the most important thing to remember about the protest.

Among the tiny minority in the crowd that weren’t joyful were four young white people, one with a very long hillbilly beard, that trailed each other through the crowd dressed in faux combat clothes, wearing armored vests and carrying AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles across their chests. I wondered why they were carrying what I presumed to be loaded weapons, and I overheard other people wondering the same thing. The four of them had completely neutral expressions on their faces and didn’t look directly at anybody as they passed through. Who did they think they might have to shoot?

There was also a very small group of people dressed from head to foot in black, wearing helmets, dark sunglasses, and bandanas to hide their faces. They were standing still, at attention, in an ominously tight formation, and the rest of us looked upon them with suspicion and gave them space. I presumed they were an Antifa group. But if they were, I think it was odd that their black and red flag looked like the flag used by Ukrainian fascists.

Almost all of the Trump supporters across the street were in a line to enter the convention center. Some of them yelled back at us and gave us the finger as they slowly passed by on their way into the building, but most of them just watched us, seemingly surprised at the size and enthusiasm of our protest.

donald trump supporters
Trump supporters, Phoenix Convention Center, August 22, 2017 (Jeff Burgess)

But there was also a very small group of pro-Trump demonstrators gathered on the corner. They had some hateful signs and one fellow had a very loud electrically amplified megaphone. He used it to almost unceasingly shout insults at anti-Trump protestors. Some of the things he said were so awfully racist that people, including myself, gasped and asked the person next to them if he’d really just said what it sounded like he’d said. I noticed that one of the black policemen keeping the different protestors separated dropped his head and shook it in response to one of the guy’s most racist rants. I wondered what, exactly, that policeman was thinking.

I think that the police behaved well and performed their duties objectively – at least during the time I was at the protest. I had several polite and friendly discussions with officers on the edges of the crowd, where they seemed to like to stay. I’m sure, however, that there will be some investigations into their conduct at the end of the event. I hope there will be an independent one that answers all of the questions about what happened.

In the meantime, my only criticism of the police is that I think they should have tried to do more than simply keep the two sides apart. I know they had a difficult job, but why, for example, did they seem to be ignoring the people dressed like wannabe militia walking through the crowd with AR-15s? Why didn’t they seem concerned about the Antifa squad that appeared poised for mayhem? And why didn’t one of them go over and talk to the guy who was literally trying to incite a race riot by screaming horrible things through his megaphone?

I realize there were First Amendment and Second Amendment issues involved, but I can’t help but wonder if the protest would have stayed peaceful if the police had been a bit more proactive. I’m not saying they should have made any preemptive arrests or told anybody to shut up. But it seems to me they could have at least tried to initiate some communication with all of the protestors to try and reduce the tension.

Updates

In November 2017 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona sued the Phoenix Police Department in order to collect public records regarding its use of force on protesters during President Trump’s August rally.

On November 30, 2017, the Phoenix police released several videos of the police taking action against protestors at the end of rally.

On January 29, 2018, the Phoenix Police Department released a report wherein they admitted they failed to provide adequate warning to peaceful protesters before they abruptly released “pepper balls,” which released a gaseous irritant, deployed pepper spray, tear gas, and fired foam batons into the crowd.

Page 2 of 13
1 2 3 4 13