About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Laffable: Fox News gives platform for former Reagan adviser to push dubious claims*

February 01, 2010 2:51 pm ET — 37 Comments

Previewing President Obama's announcement of his fiscal year 2011 budget plan, Fox News provided a platform to Art Laffer, a member of President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board,* to offer dubious claims about tax cuts. Laffer claimed that in fiscal 2011, "all of the Bush tax cuts expire," ignoring that President Obama's budget plan allows those cuts to expire only for those making more than $250,000 per year, and asserted that the recession in the early 1980s occurred because President Reagan delayed the implementation of his tax cuts and ended due to those cuts, a claim disputed by many economists who instead cite changes to interest rates.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the February 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

LAFFER: What's happening, Bill, is that at the end of 2010, the beginning of 2011, all of the Bush tax cuts expire, plus there are lots of other tax increases coming. They're raising the highest personal marginal income tax rate from 35 to 39.6. They're raising the capital gains tax, the dividend tax, the inheritance tax, and payroll taxes. Now, if you know that they're going to raise taxes next year, what do you do this year? You accelerate all the income you possibly can into this year, and then when 2011 comes, you're going to literally fall off the cliff. It's the exact opposite of the mistake Reagan made in 1981 by delaying tax cuts, and that caused a recession in '81, '82, and the biggest boom ever in '83, '84.

Obama's budget calls for maintaining Bush tax cuts for those making  $250,000 or less

Budget includes $3 trillion to continue cuts for most through 2020. In his message accompanying the fiscal 2011 budget proposal, Obama stated, "the Budget eliminates the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year and devotes those resources instead to reducing the deficit." The budget includes $135 billion in fiscal 2011 and $3.097 trillion form 2011-2020 to "Continue the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."

"Other tax increases" Laffer cites are actually part of the Bush tax cuts. While Laffer stated that "all of the Bush tax cuts expire, plus there are lots of other tax increases coming" in fiscal 2011, most of the "other tax increases" he cited -- increases to the top personal marginal income tax rate and the capital gains, dividend, and inheritance tax -- are due to the sunsetting of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.

Bush tax cuts are set to expire because of legislation passed in 2001 and 2003 under GOP Congress. The Republican-controlled Congress passed the Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2001 on May 26, 2001, with a provision sunsetting the tax cuts on December 31, 2010, causing the tax rates to return to their previous levels on that date. President Bush signed the bill on June 7, 2001. The Republican-controlled Congress also included sunset provisions when it passed the Jobs And Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2003 on May 23, 2003. Bush signed the 2003 tax cut on May 28, 2003.

Economists dispute Laffer's link between Reagan tax cuts and recession

CBO: 1982 recession "brought on by monetary restriction," interest rate drop "permitted the recovery to begin." An August 1983 Congressional Budget Office report, titled "The Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update," concluded:

The Economy At Mid-1983

Recovery started in December 1982 from the deepest postwar recession, the second of two since 1980. Both recessions were brought on by monetary restriction aimed at bringing inflation under control. Lower interest rates after mid-1982 permitted the recovery to begin. Real GNP grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter and at an 8.7 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 1983.

The report also concluded: "A dramatic decline in inflation, a fall in interest rates from levels that were extraordinarily high to levels that are merely high, and the stock market boom have contributed to the improvement in economic conditions."

Reagan official Mussa links interest rate changes to recession recovery. Michael Mussa, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, in an essay for American Economic Policy in the 1980s (University of Chicago Press, 1995), wrote that a "consequence" of the Federal Reserve's "very tight monetary policy" in the early 1980s led to a "deep and prolonged recession":

The second and ultimately successful effort to combat inflation during the 1980s really began, appropriately enough, on 4 November 1980 -- two years after the dollar stabilization crisis of 1978 and on the day that Ronald Wilson Reagan was elected president of the United States. For twenty-one months, until August 1982, the Federal Reserve would consistently pursue a very tight monetary policy. As a consequence of this effort, the inflation rate would be driven down from 12.4 percent during 1980 to 3.9 percent during 1982. The U.S. economy would also be pushed into a deep a prolonged recession during which real GDP would fall absolutely by 3.3 percent and the unemployment rate would rise to a postwar peak of 10.8 percent.

Mussa also wrote that when the Federal Reserve cut the discount rate a half percentage point on July 20, 1982, it "signal[ed] the beginning of what would become a four-and-a-half-year period of quite rapid monetary expansion. During this period, interest rates, both short and long term, would be driven significantly lower, and the U.S. economy would substantially recover from the devastation of both inflation and recession."

Krugman: Fed "turned the economy around" by reducing interest rates. In a January 14, 2008, Rolling Stone article headlined "Letter to Obama," Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote:

Compare the situation right now with the one back in the 1980s, when [Paul] Volcker [then chairman of the Federal Reserve] turned the economy around. All the Fed had to do back then was print a bunch of dollars (OK, it actually credited the money to the accounts of private banks, but it amounts to the same thing) and then use those dollars to buy up U.S. government debt. This drove interest rates down: When Volcker decided that the economy needed a pick-me-up, he was quickly able to drive the interest rate on Treasury bills from 13 percent down to eight percent. Lower interest rates on government debt, in turn, quickly drove down rates on mortgages and business borrowing. People started spending again, and within a few months the economy had gone from slump to boom. Economists call this process -- from the Fed's decision to print more money to the resulting pickup in spending, jobs and incomes -- the "monetary transmission mechanism." And in the 1980s that mechanism worked just fine.

Interest rate movement tracks economists' statements. The recession to which Laffer referred began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982. The federal funds rate peaked at 20 percent in late May 1981 and dropped to 9.5 percent by mid-October 1982, while the discount rate peaked at 14 percent in early May 1981 and dropped to 9.5 percent in mid-October 1982.

*Correction: Originally, this item incorrectly identified Art Laffer as President Reagan's budget director. We regret the error.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jarossiter (February 01, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
      9 1
      Reagan was sworn into office in 1981 - and 22 months LATER the unemployment rate was 10.4%

      How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?
      1/1981 - unemployment rate 7.5% .... Reagan sworn in.
      1/1981 - 7.4%
      3/1981 - 7.4%
      4/1981 - 7.2%
      5/1981 - 7.5%
      6/1981 - 7.5%
      7/1981 - 7.2%
      8/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% & said unemployment would DROP to 6.9%
      9/1981 - 7.6%
      10/1981 - 7.9%
      11/1981 - 8.3%
      12/1981 - 8.5%

      1/1982 - 8.6%
      2/1982 - 8.9%
      3/1982 - 9.0%
      4/1982 - 9.3%
      5/1982 - 9.4%
      6/1982 - 9.6%
      7/1982 - 9.8%
      8/1982 - 9.8%
      9/1982 - 10.1%
      10/1982 - 10.4%
      11/1982 - 10.8%
      12/1982 - 10.8%

      1/1983 - 10.4%
      2/1983 - 10.4%
      3/1983 - 10.3%
      4/1983 - 10.3%
      5/1983 - 10.1%
      6/1983 - 10.1%
      7/1983 - 9.4%
      6/1983 - 9.5%
      7/1983 - 9.4%
      8/1983 - 9.5%
      9/1983 - 9.2%
      10/1983 - 8.8%
      11/1983 - 8.5%
      12/1983 - 8.3%

      1/1984 - 8.0%
      2/1984 - 7.8%

      Took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8%.

      ***Stock Market C R A S H E D in 1987.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steelers01 (February 01, 2010 4:56 pm ET)
           
        It won't matter after the November elections.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (February 01, 2010 5:06 pm ET)
        3  
        Laffer, the king of bubbles?

        Bubbles burst.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by seahawks123 (February 01, 2010 5:17 pm ET)
        4 11
        Obama's policies are directly against the free market. In order for the government to spend money it has to take it from the public sector or borrow it. Regan cut taxes to spur economic activity. We will never see unemployment below 8% under the Messiah Obama.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by vhw28672478 (February 01, 2010 5:34 pm ET)
          3 2
          tax cut for rich do not work at all
          Report Abuse
          • Author by seahawks123 (February 01, 2010 5:37 pm ET)
            5 9
            So how many poor people do you know that own a business or employ anyone?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by vhw28672478 (February 01, 2010 5:41 pm ET)
              3 1
              many poor people got rich after the tax cuts
              Report Abuse
              • Author by shag11 (February 01, 2010 8:49 pm ET)
                2  
                That's just a blatant lie. The people who "got rich" were already rich, and just got richer. That would be those in the top one percent.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Tbone Slickens (February 02, 2010 8:31 am ET)
                  1 1
                  In 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes. By 1988 the top 1% paid 27.5%. By far the highest jump.

                  Middle class tax payers ($18k-73k for '88 data) were paying 57% in '81 and by '88 that had dropped to 47%.

                  Now what does that tell us? Reduction in high marginal tax rates will lead to less people using tax shelters for one, and expose more of their income to the tax man. Second it helps reduce the number of evaders.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jarossiter (February 02, 2010 9:02 am ET)
                    2  
                    Between 1981 and 1988, how much richer did the top 1% become?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Tbone Slickens (February 02, 2010 1:18 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      I don't know. I can tell you that between '81-'88, the middle class and poor became "richer" or at least rose above the poverty line.

                      A rising tide lifts all boats.
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (February 02, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
                    1  
                    The richest people in the USA got a LOT richer during that time period. The rest of America didn't see much of an increase, if any, in their income levels.

                    Since the rich got a LOT more money, they ended up paying a larger percentage of the overall tax burden. But not because they got socked harder - it's because they got a TON more money, and paid more taxes on that increase in income.

                    It doesn't show what you claim at all!
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by jarossiter (February 01, 2010 6:32 pm ET)
              4 2
              Since most poor people live pay check to pay check, it is clear that any tax cuts they recieve will be spent every week. That is a lot of money that creates jobs.

              The rich will not spend their tax cuts on a 1 to 1 basis like that. They will spend some, invest some and save the rest. It is not clear, nor does it makes sense that they would create more jobs.

              Tax incentives to create jobs, that might, but I don't understand why anyone thinks a company will put off making more money (the increased production) because they will have to pay more taxes.

              Ayn was full of it.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (February 01, 2010 6:35 pm ET)
              5 1
              Clinton raised taxes on the rich -- 20 million jobs.
              Bush cut taxes on the rich -- 5 million jobs.

              To answer your question, I don't know any poor people who own a business. But reality doesn't seem to give a crap, so neither do I.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Adakin_Valorem (February 01, 2010 7:31 pm ET)
                   
                On the day that Nancy took control of the U.S. House, unemployment rate was 4.8%. Today, four years later, its 10.2%. If you always do what you've always done, how can you expect a different result?

                How about this time we do something different and scrap the income tax code altogether?

                Instead of taxing income, wealth and assets, why not simply tax consumption and provide everyone across the board with a rebate on the consumption taxes paid on the basic necessities of life?... say up to the poverty level. That way, low income people that spend 100% of their earnings would get back all of the sales taxes they pay in a monthly rebate. They would be totally untaxed. This would also make the sales tax a progressive tax.

                Make tuition, investment and 'B to B' purchases tax exempt, that would stimulate savings and education and would eliminate the 'embedded' taxes that hide in the cost of every purchase we make.

                If the tax rate was revenue neutral, it would put everyone on an even footing and take the politics out of the tax code as everyone would be equally subject to the same tax. A $30,000/yr wage earner would take home ALL of their paycheck instead of loosing 15% to income taxes and 7.65% to FICA... that would give them an immediate 22%+ raise. If that person buys a used car for $5k or pays $1k for tuition at a community college (so as to get a better job) suddenly they are only paying sales tax on the remaining $24k... which is around the poverty level for a family and would effectively not pay any taxes after the rebate.

                There is a bill in congress that does exactly what is described... check out HR-25 the FairTax.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by steeve (February 02, 2010 7:14 pm ET)
                     
                  If it works, I'm all for it.

                  But of course the fair tax doesn't work. It can't come close to replacing today's revenues unless it shatters the middle class in the process.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by benjr (February 01, 2010 6:05 pm ET)
          3 1
          You offer no proof for your allegations. Let me see if I can do it too; the Republicans in the Senate and the House eat children! Hmmm.... that was easy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 01, 2010 6:41 pm ET)
          4 2
          So what you are saying is that tax cuts spur economic activity after reviewing the information jarossiter posted?

          I thought you guys believe that Jesus Christ is the only Messiah. I had no idea that you guys had replaced him with President Obama.

          I've learned something from you today ((HAVEN'T).

          Facts are stubborn things. Reagan was never the the fiscal conservative and genius at governing that conservatives portray him having been.



          If his tax cuts and fiscal policies were such a benefit to Americans, I want my share retroactively. Surely I, who had graduated from college and was teaching at the time, should have seen a significant bump in my salary under Reagan's economic policies according to you. I want my money, with interest.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by shag11 (February 01, 2010 8:53 pm ET)
          3 1
          There is no such thing as a "free market" and there never was. We can see what happens with financial institutions when there is little regulation. They run wild, lose their shirts, and then look to the government to bail them out.
          I heard a guy on NPR today, who has a book and he was the U.S. Comptroller(auditor) for a 15 year term. He was in under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. He said the Reagan tax cuts were a disaster and did not pay for themselve. He said what the first Bush and Clinton did were what shoud always happen: Target tax cuts, and targeted raising of taxes. Whose gonna argue with him, he was keeping the countries books.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Adakin_Valorem (February 01, 2010 8:05 pm ET)
           
        >>>Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1%<<<

        Actually in 1981, the max tax rate was 70% and minimum rate was 15%. The August/81 tax cut lowered that max rate to 50% and the lowest rate was cut to 10%, with a Democratic Congress passing it.

        Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA'86) cut taxes across the board for every wage earner, to three rates, 7% for low income workers. The TRA'86 also eliminated thousands of tax deductions that were frequently used by mostly wealthy taxpayers who could afford expensive tax statigies, lawyers and consultants to shelter their high earnings. Almost all of these loopholes disappeared with TRA'86, which included many commercial real estate developments that would created to generate $3 worth of tax deductions for every $1 that was put into these tax shelters. The "S&L" crisis of the early '90s was the result of many of these tax-based real estate ventures going belly up once there was no longer any tax incentive for the rich to fund these negative cash flow boondoggles.

        The new tax law forced the banks to focus on lending on projects that provided intrinsic benefits without use of phony tax based schemes.

        In the meantime, low income folks had their tax rates cut in half by the Reagan tax cuts, allowing them the opportunity to afford investments in education or other skill or job enhancements.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (February 02, 2010 8:33 am ET)
          1
        Good data. Now can you put it in context especially the political context of the day?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by RobertSeattle (February 01, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
      6 2
      I'd like to point out that the same GOPers who voted for the 2001 Bush Tax cuts were also effectively voting for this "increase" as they voted for expiring tax cuts. Anyone who votes for expiring tax cuts voted for this increase when the tax cut expires. Can't have it both ways, GOP.


      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 01, 2010 3:27 pm ET)
      4 2
      Funny thing too... I just read an article (and I'm sorry but I can't find it now) featuring NIXON'S BUDGET DIRECTOR blaming the Right's "wreckless pursuit of supply-side economics" (which pretty much means REAGAN, BUSH'41 and BUSH'43) for our current Economic and Deficit woes.

      ------------------------------------------------------------
      And if you're interested in who's REALLY run up the Debt over the years, check out my last few blog entries. Three of my last five have been about the Deficit and Debt. Pretty interesting, if I do say so myself. LOL
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Winski (February 01, 2010 3:35 pm ET)
      5 1
      Let's also remember it was on former Reagan budget director Art Laffer's watch that the US DEFICIT grew larger than any deficit in the history of the US - even now!! SO, if ANY OF YOU CLOWNS from the neo-nut fringe believe Laffer has ANY room to throw stones, you are on some REAL BAD drugs...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Adakin_Valorem (February 01, 2010 7:53 pm ET)
           
        Yes it's true that Reagan's deficit ballooned, but tax revenues doubled...just as they did with the Bush Tax Cuts. The problem with Bush was he never found his veto pen when the GOP was running the show and never put a stop to their runaway spending. That's the main reason why the Republicans are disinjenuous about their "cut taxes" to lower the deficit. They didn't do it when they had all the marbles.

        The only time the GOP did what they promised to do was when Newt ran the show. They capped spending, limiting increases to a percentage of the growth of GDP. By the time Clinton's term 2nd term expired, the GOP spending caps provided a surplus of revenue... which subsequently went to the new admin's head with all sorts of new spending plans.

        Yes, to a degree, tax cuts will generate greater tax revenue (that degree can be measured using the "Laffer Curve"), but there is a point when tax cuts simply don't raise enough revenue to cover the obligations that congress creates for itself.

        Look at how other countries have solved similar problems using alternatives to increased spending. NPR recently did a story on the economic success of Chile. It's worker owned Social Security System has provided that country an insulating effect from the global economic meltdown and they have recently reached "Developed Nation" status (the only one in Central and South America). They have the highest saving rate among developed nations and have reduced poverty by over 40% in the past 20 years.

        Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, our leaders need to look around and see how others have addressed problems that are similar to our own.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Adakin_Valorem (February 01, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
         
      Unlike the current administration, Bush wanted a bipartisan approach to the tax cuts.

      Go back and read the record during those tax debates. Even though the GOP controlled both houses of congress, the only terms by which the Dems would agree to any tax cut was that they 1) be phased in over a period of years (first phase in 2001 and final phase in 2006) and
      2) that all tax cuts expire on 12/31/2010.

      There was lots of wrangling over those issues, but as the GOP wanted not to be seen as bullying (and since they did not have a 60 vote majority in the senate), the Dems prevailed.

      Adakin Valorem
      (support the candidates that support the FairTax!)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (February 01, 2010 3:56 pm ET)
      6 2
      Yup, now that a Dem is in the WH, conservatives start rolling out Art Laffer again.

      Did anyone else see Tim Pawlenty write an op-ed for Politico today?

      All he does is call for tax cuts and that will magically reduce the deficit.

      Gee, I wonder where he got those ideas from?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (February 01, 2010 4:59 pm ET)
      2 7
      Taking money away from people who earn and produce and giving it to people who don't is good. Letting people keep and invest in their business or family is bad. Just ask any socialist lib. People that envy or hate people with wealth remind me of people with penis envy...wish they had one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by vhw28672478 (February 01, 2010 5:45 pm ET)
        1 2
        tax cuts do not work at all
        Report Abuse
      • Author by benjr (February 01, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
        5  
        You keep repeating debunked talking points. . . You do realize the only people who will pay higher taxes are people making over 250k right?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (February 01, 2010 6:36 pm ET)
        4 2
        Taking money away from people who earn and produce and giving it to people who don't is good

        True. We saw that when Bush gave tax cuts to the top 1%, subsidized by the lower 99% of earners.

        Agree?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 01, 2010 6:51 pm ET)
        4 1
        You need to stop using the word socialism and any forms of it since it is clear to those of us who know the meaning of the word that you have no clear understanding of its meaning. You're repeating right-wing talking points. It's also obvious that you know little about U.S. History and how the lessons of the past can be used to solve present and future problems.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 01, 2010 6:58 pm ET)
        5 1
        I have never had a penis. I don't hate or envy wealthy people. They have the some of same problems as poor and middle class people. I don't think anyone on this blog wants to break them financially. That's not the point. I do think that they should pay their fair share of taxes though. Only the top 1-2% of Americans benefited from the GWB tax cuts, and based on your defense of the cuts, it seems that you were/are one of them, otherwise you're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Adakin_Valorem (February 01, 2010 7:16 pm ET)
         
      I seem to recall Treasury reports in 2005 and 2006 stating that actual gross tax revenue (after the Bush "tax cuts" were fully phased in) was the highest in the history of the U.S.

      I also note that after Reagan's bipartisan congress cut the max tax rate from 70% to 28% tax revenues doubled. The only problem was Reagan and Congress spent $1.58 for every new dollar of revenue that was generated by the increased economic activity that resulted from the lower tax rates.

      Can anyone provide info on when gross tax revenues to the treasury were higher than during 2005-2006 fiscal year? Inquiring minds want to know.


      (FairTax = Jobs)



      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.