• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
 J
ULY 
20041Copyright © 2004 Economy.com, Inc.Economy.com, Inc., 121 North Walnut Street, Suite 500, West Chester, PA 19380-3166
 T 
he economy has struggled during the nearly four years of the Bush Administration. Household realincomes and net worth have fallen, thereare fewer jobs, and households remainunder substantial financial stress. To ascribe this performance entirely tothe president’s economic policies would be incorrect, however. The economy hassuffered a string of misfortunes from the bursting of the Y2K stock market bubbleand corporate accounting scandals to 9/11and the war on terrorism. Indeed, theeconomy’s travails would have beensubstantially greater if not for the aggres-sive easing in monetary policy, and thefiscal stimulus provided by the president’stax cuts and surging government spend-ing. The president cannot be faulted for his willingness to use all of the economicresources at his disposal to lift theheretofore flagging economy. The president can be faulted,however, for how he has used thoseresources. The economic bang for the buck of the president’s policies has beenmodest at best, and the result is a recordfederal budget deficit that is still growing.Even more worrisome is the prospect of continuing large budget deficits long intothe future, which will weigh on the growthin jobs and living standards. The administration’s response to thisconcern has wavered between largely dismissing the economic implications of large budget deficits to arguing that itspolicies will result in such a strongly expanding economy that the nation’s budgetary problem will solve themselves.Neither is likely. More likely, the nation will eventually struggle with the Hobson’schoice of future tax increases and/or painful cuts to government programs. The purpose of this article is to assessthe economic efficacy of fiscal policy during the Bush presidency. The contribu-tion of fiscal policy decisions to theeconomy’s performance so far during hisfirst term is quantified. How the econom would have performed under an alternativeset of fiscal policies, designed specifically to stimulate the economy, is also consid-ered. The economy’s future performanceis also assessed under the assumption thatcurrent policy, in which the president’s tax cuts eventually expire, is unchanged, andunder the assumption that the president’scurrent policy proposals, in which his tax cuts are made permanent, are quickly adopted if he is re-elected. The article begins with an assessment of theeconomy’s performance so far during thepresident’s term.
 Taking Stock.
The economy hasstruggled during the Bush presidency.Real GDP has expanded, but only slowly,growing at a 2.5% per annum rate. Thisis one of the weakest performancesduring any presidential term since World War II. Indeed, this is the slowest top-line growth aside from that experiencedduring the second Eisenhower term inthe late 1950s and Bush senior’s term inthe early 1990s (see Table 1). The growth in real GDP has not been sufficient to forestall substantial joblosses. There are some 1.1 million fewer payroll jobs today than when PresidentBush took office. No other Presidentsince World War II has suffered out-right job declines during their term. Those befallen by unemployment continue tohave a difficult time finding new jobs. The average duration of unemploymentremains at close to five months, whichsave for a brief period in the depths of the severe early 1980s recession whenunemployment soared to over 10%, isthe longest unemployed workers havehad to look for work before finding anew job since the Great Depression. Anextraordinarily high still more than one-fifth of unemployed workers have been without a job for 27 weeks or more when workers’ standard unemploymentinsurance benefits expire. The unemployment rate has re-mained low during the president’s term,averaging only 5.5%. This is near theaverage unemployment rate experiencedthroughout the past World War II period. This belies the health of the job market inrecent years, however, due to an unprec-edented decline in labor force participa-tion. Since peaking in early 2001, theparticipation rate has declined by well over a percentage point. While a number of factors have driven participation lower, akey factor is potential workers’ reticence toeven look for a job given their belief thatthere are few viable job opportunities. If the participation rate had simply heldsteady since its peak, then the unemploy-ment rate would have averaged over 6.5%during President Bush’s term. The struggling job market has been amillstone on household finances. Averagereal household income has remainedlargely unchanged and real medianhousehold income has fallen during President Bush’s term. Weighing onincomes has been weak labor compensa-tion growth. Total labor compensation asa share of national income is currently aslow as it has been since the mid-1960sand wages and salaries as a share of income has never been lower.Households are also less wealthy, asrising housing values have not been able
About Economy.com
Economy.com is a leading independent provider of economic data and analysis, trusted by Fortune Global500 corporations, money managers, central banks, andgovernments around the world since 1990.
Assessing President Bush’s Fiscal Policies
Dr. Mark M. Zandi, Chief Economist, Economy.com
Award winning real-time monitoring of the global economy.www.dismal.com
The Dismal Scientist
http://www.economy.com+1 866.275.3266 +1 610.235.5299
 ® 
 
 J
ULY 
20042Copyright © 2004 Economy.com, Inc.Economy.com, Inc., 121 North Walnut Street, Suite 500, West Chester, PA 19380-3166
   T  a   b   l  e   1  :   T   h  e   E  c  o  n  o  m  y   ’  s   P  e  r   f  o  r  m  a  n  c  e   D  u  r   i  n  g   P  r  e  s   i   d  e  n   t   i  a   l   T  e  r  m  s   S   i  n  c  e   W  o  r   l   d   W  a  r   I   I   C  o  n  s  u  m  e  r   P  r   i  c  e   A  v  e  r  a  g  e   R  e  a   l   M  e   d   i  a  n   H  o  u  s  e   h  o   l   d   R  e  a   l   H  o  u  s  e   h  o   l   d   R  e  a   l   G   D   P   G  r  o  w   t   h   I  n   f   l  a   t   i  o  n   E  m  p   l  o  y  m  e  n   t   G  r  o  w   t   h   U  n  e  m  p   l  o  y  m  e  n   t   R  a   t  e   I  n  c  o  m  e   G  r  o  w   t   h   N  e   t   W  o  r   t   h   G  r  o  w   t   h   B  u  s   h   P  r  e  s   i   d  e  n  c  y   2 .   5   2 .   1  -   0 .   2   5 .   5  -   0 .   3  -   0 .   6
   '   0   1   Q   1 -   '   0   4   Q   1   C   l   i  n  t  o  n   I   I   3 .   9   2 .   4   2 .   3   4 .   4   1 .   7   5 .   7   '   9   7   Q   1 -   '   0   0   Q   4   C   l   i  n  t  o  n   I   3 .   3   2 .   8   2 .   5   6 .   0   1 .   2   3 .   5   '   9   3   Q   1 -   '   9   6   Q   4   B  u  s   h   I   2 .   1   4 .   2   0 .   6   6 .   3 -   0 .   7   0 .   7   '   8   9   Q   1 -   '   9   2   Q   4   R  e  a  g  a  n   I   I   3 .   8   3 .   4   2 .   7   6 .   5   1 .   7   4 .   3   '   8   5   Q   1 -   '   8   8   Q   4   R  e  a  g  a  n   I   3 .   2   5 .   3   1 .   4   8 .   6   0 .   4   1 .   2   '   8   1   Q   1 -   '   8   4   Q   4   C  a  r  t  e  r   3 .   2   1   0 .   1   3 .   1   6 .   5   0 .   9   1 .   9   '   7   7   Q   1 -   '   8   0   Q   4   N   i  x  o  n   I   I -   F  o  r   d   2 .   2   8 .   2   1 .   7   6 .   7 -   1 .   2 -   2 .   4   '   7   3   Q   1 -   '   7   6   Q   4   N   i  x  o  n   I   3 .   3   4 .   6   2 .   1   4 .   8   1 .   8   0 .   9   '   6   9   Q   1 -   '   7   2   Q   4   J  o   h  n  s  o  n   I   I   5 .   0   3 .   2   3 .   9   3 .   9   3 .   9   3 .   4   '   6   5   Q   1 -   '   6   8   Q   4   K  e  n  n  e   d  y -   J  o   h  n  s  o  n   I   5 .   2   1 .   2   2 .   3   5 .   8   3 .   3   3 .   1   '   6   1   Q   1 -   '   6   4   Q   4   E   i  s  e  n   h  o  w  e  r   I   I   2 .   0   2 .   0   0 .   5   5 .   5  n  a  n  a   '   5   7   Q   1 -   '   6   0   Q   4   E   i  s  e  n   h  o  w  e  r   I   2 .   8   0 .   8   1 .   5   4 .   3  n  a  n  a   5   3   Q   1 -   '   5   6   Q   4   P  r  e  v   i  o  u  s   F   i   f  t  y   Y  e  a  r  s   3 .   5   4 .   0   2 .   2   5 .   7   1 .   3   2 .   2   A  v  e  r  a  g  e  o   f   C  y  c   l  e  s   f  r  o  m    R  e  c  e  s  s   i  o  n   T  r  o  u  g   h   3 .   0   3 .   6   1 .   3   6 .   5   1 .   0   1 .   1
   S  o  u  r  c  e  s  :   B   L   S ,   B   E   A ,   F  e   d  e  r  a   l   R  e  s  e  r  v  e   B  o  a  r   d ,   E  c  o  n  o  m  y .  c  o  m
 
 J
ULY 
20043Copyright © 2004 Economy.com, Inc.Economy.com, Inc., 121 North Walnut Street, Suite 500, West Chester, PA 19380-3166to offset the impact of still lower stock  values and rapidly rising household debtloads. Real household net worth islower today than at the start of thepresident’s term. It has risen in every other presidential term. A weak job market and incomescombined with a weaker balance sheethave resulted in a substantial increase inhousehold credit problems. Personal bankruptcy filings, mortgage foreclosurerates, auto repossession rates, anddelinquency rates on manufacturedhousing loans and credit cards are all at or  just off record highs. The economy has performed well with respect to inflation so far during theBush presidency, with consumer priceinflation averaging just over 2% per annum. This is the lowest rate of inflation since theKennedy presidency and compares verfavorably with the over 10% inflation thatraged during the Carter term.Homeownership has also steadily increasedduring the Bush presidency, a trend that began during Clinton’s first term, with thesharp decline in mortgage interest rates.It is important to note that PresidentBush’s term extends through the end of this year and with the currently improving economy the previously cited economicstatistics will likely also improve. Current job growth if sustained in coming months,for example, may be sufficient to returnemployment back to where it was at thestart of the Bush presidency. Incomes arealso rising and credit problems are pasttheir worst. Despite the improving economic statistics, it is likely that theeconomy’s performance during PresidentBush’s term will end up being as poor asduring any other presidential term since World War II.It is also important to consider thatmeasuring the economy’s performanceduring presidential terms depends in parton the stage of the business cycle whenthe term begins. President Bush had themisfortune to begin his term just prior tothe March 2001 start date of the lastrecession. A recession that his Presidency had nothing to do with. PresidentClinton, in contrast, began his first termnearly two years after the end of the early 1990s recession. Conclusions regarding the economy’s recent performance do notchange, however, when comparing it to itsperformance during the same stage of past business cycles. The average of per annumreal GDP growth in past cycles since World War II, for example, has been 3%. There is an argument to be made thatthe economy has suffered through a seriesof massive shocks during the Bush Administration, severely exacerbating theeconomy’s problems and making compari-sons to previous historic periods difficult. These shocks include the collapse in stock prices that began in earnest in late 2000,9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan in late2001, the corporate accounting scandalsthat hit a fever pitch in the summer of 2002, the invasion of Iraq in early 2003,and a series of terror alerts and combatlosses that continue until today. Theeconomy has been subject to enormousshocks in the past, however, including free-falling stock prices, debilitating creditcrunches, global financial crises, andconventional and cold wars.
Policy stimulus.
  While theeconomy has struggled with substantialshocks during the Bush presidency, it hasat the same time been the beneficiary of unprecedented combined monetary andfiscal stimulus. Nearly all of the economicgrowth experienced since the presidenttook office is due to the aggressive easing in monetary policy and greater federalgovernment largesse. The magnitude of the monetary stimulus is evident from the sharp declinein the federal funds rate target from 6.5%in mid-2000 to a low of 1% that prevailedthrough this June. The real federal fundsrate, as measured by the difference betweenthe nominal rate and long-run inflationexpectations as implied by Treasury infla-tion—protected securities, is negative and will likely remain so at least through theend of this year. Given that the real fundsrate first turned negative soon after 9/11,this will ultimately be the longest stretchof a negative real funds rate on record. The vehicle and housing markets have been the principal beneficiaries of theextraordinarily low rates. Automakershave been able to offer wildly popular zeropercent financing deals given that their own borrowing costs are so low. Genera-tional-low mortgage rates have sparkedrecord-shattering home sales and single-family homebuilding, and even moreimportantly ignited a mortgage borrowing  binge. Homeowners have raised anastonishing more than $300 billion inadditional cash secured by the equity intheir homes since the monetary easing  began. The cash has been used to repay other higher cost debt, to finance homeimprovement and other investments, andto supplement incomes and support broader consumer spending. The magnitude of the fiscal stimulusis evident in the yawning budget deficit, which is on track to post a record $450 billion during fiscal year 2004, which endsthis September. As recently as fiscal year 2000, the year before President Bush took office, the federal government was running a record surplus of just under $250 billion. This is a swing of some $700 billion in just four fiscal years. Three rounds of tax cuts, including the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the 2002 Job Creationand Workers Assistance Act, and the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, have reduced individual taxpayer’scollective tax bills by some $300 billionthis year compared to what they otherwise would have been (see Table 2). Thisincludes $100 billion of cuts in 2004, ontop of the over $100 billion provided last year, and nearly $50 billion in each of theprevious two years. Businesses have alsoreceived substantial tax benefits. Large businesses that make investments beforethe end of this year, for example, will benefit from accelerated depreciationschedules and small businesses fromlarger investment write-offs.
1
Federal government outlays have alsosurged, with spending excluding interestpayment on the federal debt expanding atclose to a double-digit per annum paceduring the Bush presidency. Spending growth has been as strong only in the depthsof the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and whilecurrent defense and homeland security spending is rising rapidly, the governmentis also writing much larger checks for almost everything it writes checks for. The economic impact of the com- bined monetary and fiscal stimulus has been substantial. Indeed, if monetary andfiscal policy had remained unchanged
1
Large businesses that make an investment before the endof 2004 can immediately expense one-half of thatinvestment. Depreciation schedules revert to their lessattractive rules at the start of 2005. Small businesses alsoreceive a tax benefit; they are able to expense $100,000 of investment, up from $25,000.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...