Most federal revenues come from individuals. Personal income taxes provide the largest portion of total tax revenues, though some of this is small-business income. Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes are the second-largest source.
The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More
Authors
Emily GoffResearch Assistant
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor
When asked to pick my most frustrating issue, I could list things from my policy field such as class warfare or income redistribution.
But based on all the speeches and media interviews I do, which periodically venture into other areas, I suspect protectionism vs. free trade is the biggest challenge.
So I want to ask the protectionists (though anybody is free to provide feedback) how they would answer these simple questions.
1. Do you think politicians and bureaucrats should be able to tell you what you’re allowed to buy?
As Walter Williams has explained, this is a simple matter of freedom and liberty. If you want to give the political elite the authority to tell you whether you can buy foreign-produced goods, you have opened the door to endless mischief.
2. If trade barriers between nations are good, then shouldn’t we have trade barriers between states? Or cities?
This is a very straightforward challenge. If protectionism is good, then it shouldn’t be limited to national borders.
3. Why is it bad that foreigners use the dollars they obtain to invest in the American economy instead of buying products?
Little green pieces of paper have little value to foreign companies. They only accept those dollars in exchange for products because they intend to use them, either to buy American products or to invest in the U.S. economy. Indeed, a “capital surplus” is the flip side of a “trade deficit.” This generally is a positive sign for the American economy (though I freely admit this argument is weakened if foreigners use dollars to “invest” in federal government debt).
4. Do you think protectionism would be necessary if America did pro-growth reforms such as a lower corporate tax rate, less wasteful spending, and reduced red tape?
There are thousands of hard-working Americans that have lost jobs because of foreign competition. At some level, this is natural in a dynamic economy, much as candle makers lost jobs when the light bulb was invented. But oftentimes American producers can’t meet the challenge of foreign competition because of bad policy from Washington. When I think of ordinary Americans that have lost jobs, I direct my anger at the politicians in DC, not a foreign company or foreign workers.
5. Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms?
If we travel down the path of protectionism, politicians will use that as an excuse not to implement pro-growth reforms. This condemns America to a toxic combination of two bad policies – big government and trade distortions. This will destroy far more jobs and opportunity that foreign competition.
6. Do you recognize that, by creating the ability to offer special favors to selected industries, protectionism creates enormous opportunities for corruption?
7. If you don’t like taxes, why would you like taxes on imports?
A tariff is nothing but a tax that politicians impose on selected products. This presumably makes protectionism inconsistent with the principles of low taxes and limited government.
8. Can you point to nations that have prospered with protectionism, particularly when compared to similar nations with free trade?
Some people will be tempted to say that the United States was a successful economy in the 1800s when tariffs financed a significant share of the federal government. That’s largely true, but the nation’s rising prosperity surely was due to the fact that we had no income tax, a tiny federal government, and very little regulation. And I can’t resist pointing out that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff didn’t exactly lead to good results.
We also had internal free trade, as explained in this excellent short video on the benefits of free trade, narrated by Don Boudreaux of George Mason University and produced by theInstitute for Humane Studies.
According to Prof. Don Boudreaux, free trade is nothing more than a system of trade that treats foreign goods and services no differently than domestic goods and services. Protectionism, on the other hand, is a system of trade that discriminates against foreign goods and services in an attempt to favor domestic goods and services. In theory, free trade outperforms protectionism by bringing lower cost goods and services to consumers. In practice, the benefits of free trade can be seen in countries like America and Hong Kong. Both countries have a relatively high degree of free trade, and, as a consequence, have experienced an explosion of wealth.
________
Free Trade v. Protectionism
My closing argument is that people who generally favor economic freedom should ask themselves whether it’s legitimate or logical to make an exception in the case of foreign trade.
A video by CF&P Foundation that builds on the discussion of theory in Part I and evidence in Part II, this concluding video in the series on the Laffer Curve explains how the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue-estimating process is based on the absurd theory that changes in tax policy – even dramatic reforms such as a flat tax – do not effect economic growth. In other words, the current system assumes the Laffer Curve does not exist. Because of congressional budget rules, this leads to a bias for tax increases and against tax cuts. The video explains that “static scoring” should be replaced with “dynamic scoring” so that lawmakers will have more accurate information when making decisions about tax policy. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: http://www.freedomandprosperity.org
_____________________________
Bush tax cuts work? This is a series of posts aimed at answering that question.
Abstract:Despite evidence to the contrary, President Obama and his supporters insist that a tax increase will not impede economic recovery. They claim that the Clinton tax hikes spurred the boom of the 1990s and that the subsequent Bush tax cuts hurt the economy. Members of Congress must reject this faulty notion—and reject the President’s call for burdening Americans with higher taxes and an even slower economy.
President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress and elsewhere continue to press for tax increases, whether as part of a deal to raise the government’s debt ceiling, or for any other reason. Even though common sense would dictate not raising taxes in the face of a badly weakened economy and almost non-existent job growth, the President and his supporters argue that tax hikes will not imperil the still-nascent recovery because the economy grew during the 1990s after President Bill Clinton raised taxes. The inference being that today’s economy could also absorb the blow of tax hikes and grow despite them. They also argue the converse: that the tax cuts passed during President George W. Bush’s tenure slowed growth and cost jobs.
This cursory and errant analysis of recent history has serious implications for policymaking today. If Congress raises taxes based on the faulty notion that tax hikes have no ill effects on economic growth, it will impede the still-struggling recovery and keep millions of Americans on the unemployment rolls far too long.
Lessons for Today
It is vitally important for the millions of Americans looking for work today that Congress and President Obama learn and accept what really happened when President Clinton raised taxes and President Bush lowered them. The evidence is clear that the Clinton tax hikes stifled what should have been remarkable economic growth and the Bush tax cuts cleared the way for the economy to grow despite growing obstacles in its way.
President Obama insists that tax hikes must be part of a “balanced” approach to reducing the deficit. He defends his tax hike desires by pointing to the Clinton tax hikes as evidence that the economy can withstand higher taxes.
But if the Clinton tax hikes were powerful enough to slow an economy that had everything going in its favor, what would tax hikes today do to an economy that has everything working against it? The unemployment rate remains stuck over 9 percent and there appears to be little hope for it to fall in the near future.[10] The President should not be looking for policies the economy can withstand, but for policies that will encourage it to grow.
At best, tax increases would slow the already stalled recovery, and at worst, would reverse it altogether. A slowed recovery or double-dip recession would further reduce the chances that the more than 14 million Americans currently looking for work would find a job in the near future.[11]
The best way to grow revenues is to promote faster economic growth, which will increase the number of taxpayers and taxable income more rapidly. Tax hikes—whether through higher tax rates or slashing credits, deductions, and exemptions without offsetting reductions elsewhere—will not do the job. Under President Obama’s current policies, spending will continue to grow at a faster rate than can be paid for by tax hikes—even assuming the huge tax increases the President insists upon. To add insult to injury, as history has shown, tax hikes would slow economic growth and make it even harder for unemployed Americans to find a job.
—Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
This video was produced by Caleb Brown ( http://www.twitter.com/cobrown ) and Austin Bragg ( http://www.twitter.com/habragg ).
The U.S. tax code gets more complex every year. It violates civil liberties and, left unchanged, will leave the United States at a powerful competitive disadvantage in years to come. Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Senior Fellow Daniel J. Mitchell and Director of Information Policy Studies Jim Harper dissect the troubling aspects of our tax system.
He talks about “rebuilding America,” but his ideas will do nothing of the sort.
Last night, Van Jones launched what he’s calling the “American Dream Movement.” Jones, as you may remember, was President Obama’s Green Czar before he resigned amidst controversy. He was hired last year by Princeton University as a visiting lecturer in the Center for African American Studies.
In his almost two-hour, live-streamed event launch—which was heavily promoted by the liberal group MoveOn.org—Jones laid out the liberal vision for America. He called the simple truth that our country has a major debt and deficit problem “a dangerous lie” and led the crowd in chants of “America is not broke!”
In one particularly shocking part of his speech, Jones seemed to compare conservatives to terrorists, saying, “Paul Ryan’s budget would knock out more critical American infrastructure than our sworn enemies ever dreamed of knocking out.” This is specially dangerous territory for one such as Jones, who has found himself in trouble before for signing a petition suggesting that America was at fault on 9/11 or complicit in al-Qaeda’s attacks on our nation—the so-called truther movement.
Jones ended by questioning the patriotism of the Tea Party movement. With a nod to Vice President Joe Biden, he discussed the patriotism of paying higher taxes and took to calling his fellow progressives the “deeper patriots,” as if patriotism is determined by how much of other people’s money you can spend.
But perhaps the major conceit in Jones’s address was the notion that the economy is a zero-sum game where the success of one person hinders your ability to succeed. If you’re not doing well, it’s because someone else is getting ahead at your expense. “We’re not broke,” Jones said early on in his presentation, “We’ve been robbed.”
As Rachel Weiner over at The Washington Postnotes, this isn’t the first attempt at a sort of anti–Tea Party, and not even the first attempt by Jones:
A coalition of liberal and civil-rights groups united under the “One Nation” banner last year and held a rally on the National Mall in October. After the election, the group—in which Van Jones was involved—fizzled.
We will see in the coming weeks whether this newest movement fares any better. But ultimately, it’s doomed to fail. There’s a reason the Tea Party movement wasn’t launched with a slick website or a webcast. The Tea Party was the result of a growing feeling in this country that things aren’t on the right track, that we weren’t being told the truth by our leaders.
The Tea Party is the small business owner struggling under the weight of more and more regulations, the senior citizen wondering how the government can possibly afford to keep its promises, the parents concerned that their child will be worse off than they. In short, the Tea Party is a selfless movement driven by the desire to save our country before it’s too late.
This new effort by Van Jones is something else entirely. It’s supported by those who, like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, know they have a vested interest in keeping government big and are trying to convince the rest of us that we do, too. This “American Dream Movement” is about fostering jealously and class warfare to justify expansive social programs and bigger government in order to, as President Obama explained, “fundamentally [transform] the United States of America.”
There are two important lessons from Jones’s presentation for conservatives.
First, conservatives need to keep educating the public, because we have real solutions to the nation’s most pressing issues. The left knows they have to do something because, as Charles Krauthammer explained earlier this year, “they’ve lost the American people” and are struggling with serious Tea Party envy. After all, liberals control the Senate. They control the White House. But they know they’re losing the public.
Secondly, while we explain the importance of reducing government and righting our fiscal house, we can’t forget to explain the other half of our message—how taking these steps not only keeps us from going off the cliff but can help stimulate growth and create jobs. In one of the videos played during the event, a woman says, “The American dream is worth fighting for.” Heritage agrees, which is why we launched an actual plan to preserve that dream and ensure that it exists for future generations. We call it “Saving the American Dream,” and you can learn about it here.
This video reviews real-world evidence showing that changes in marginal tax rates can have a significant impact on taxable income, thus leading to substantial amounts of revenue feedback. In a few cases, tax-rate reductions even “pay for themselves,” though the key lesson is the more modest point that pro-growth changes in tax policy will have a positive impact on economic performance and that good tax cuts therefore do not “cost” the government much in terms of foregone tax revenue.
This video is second installment of a three-part series. Part I reviews theoretical relationship between tax rates, taxable income, and tax revenue. Part III discusses how the revenue-estimating process in Washington can be improved. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site: www.freedomandprosperity.org.
_________________
Bush tax cuts work? This is a series of posts aimed at answering that question.
Abstract:Despite evidence to the contrary, President Obama and his supporters insist that a tax increase will not impede economic recovery. They claim that the Clinton tax hikes spurred the boom of the 1990s and that the subsequent Bush tax cuts hurt the economy. Members of Congress must reject this faulty notion—and reject the President’s call for burdening Americans with higher taxes and an even slower economy.
President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress and elsewhere continue to press for tax increases, whether as part of a deal to raise the government’s debt ceiling, or for any other reason. Even though common sense would dictate not raising taxes in the face of a badly weakened economy and almost non-existent job growth, the President and his supporters argue that tax hikes will not imperil the still-nascent recovery because the economy grew during the 1990s after President Bill Clinton raised taxes. The inference being that today’s economy could also absorb the blow of tax hikes and grow despite them. They also argue the converse: that the tax cuts passed during President George W. Bush’s tenure slowed growth and cost jobs.
This cursory and errant analysis of recent history has serious implications for policymaking today. If Congress raises taxes based on the faulty notion that tax hikes have no ill effects on economic growth, it will impede the still-struggling recovery and keep millions of Americans on the unemployment rolls far too long.
Bush Tax Cuts Promoted Strong Growth
Liberals also like to argue that the Bush tax relief hurt the economy and cost jobs. Again, the evidence runs to the contrary.
Unlike President Clinton, who entered office with a strong economic wind at his back, President Bush came into office on the precipice of a recession caused by the bursting of the “dot-com” bubble. President Bush entered office in January 2001; the recession began in March.
In addition to the recession, the peaceful conditions President Clinton enjoyed reversed course. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought on the beginning of the war on terrorism. There was no growth-enhancing advancement comparable to the tech boom to further boost the economy; energy prices were creeping up. Instead of swimming with the current, the economy was now fighting squarely against it to achieve even modest growth.
Faced with this new reality, President Bush pushed for tax cuts to revive the economy and set it on a stronger foundation for economic growth.
In June 2001, President Bush signed into law the first wave of tax cuts. The relief included reductions of marginal income tax rates and tax relief for families, for example, doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. To reduce the budgetary impact, Congress phased in the tax cuts over several years.
Since the tax cuts were slow to go into effect, they were slow to help the economy. In fact, the economy continued to lose jobs after the tax cuts even though the recession officially ended in November 2001.
Realizing the error of its ways, in May 2003 Congress accelerated the tax cuts to make them effective immediately. In addition to reducing marginal income tax rates, Congress also lowered the tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
It was at this point that economic growth took off. From May 2003 until December 2007 (when the recession caused by the global financial meltdown occurred) the economy created 8.1 million jobs, or 145,000 a month. By comparison, after the beginning of the 2001 recession and before the 2003 tax cuts, the economy was losing 103,000 jobs a month.[7]
Those opposed to the tax relief argue that it blew a hole in the budget and dramatically increased deficits. Again, a look at the numbers disproves that argument. While receipts were below the historical level of 18 percent of GDP in 2003 as a result of the sluggish economy, they rebounded to above their historical norm by 2006 and grew further above their historical level in 2007.[8] They clearly would have continued growing thereafter had it not been for the housing bust and global recession.
Tax revenue rebounded quickly because the tax cuts encouraged economic growth by increasing the incentives to work, save, invest, and take on new risk. These are the basic elements of economic growth. When those activities increase, tax revenues increase because more Americans work and earn more money. From 2003 to 2007, the number of tax filers rose by 9.6 percent, and taxable income, by 44 percent. By contrast, in the last four years of the previous expansion, from 1997 to 2001, these numbers grew by 6.4 percent and 23.6 percent, respectively.[9] With income and taxpayers growing at such a fast clip it is not hard to see why tax revenue did not suffer from the tax cuts.
To be clear: The Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves. Revenues, on balance, are lower as a result of the Bush tax relief. However, the Bush tax cuts did accelerate the recovery markedly, and they did, and still do, create the possibility of a permanently stronger economy which, in turn, means the net revenue cost of the Bush tax cuts is far less than the traditional static score implies.
In 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency, the economy entered a severe recession brought on by the global financial meltdown. The 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages had made the economy more resilient against economic shocks, but no tax policy can protect an economy against the storm that struck that year. The tax cuts certainly did not contribute in any way to recession, nor can anyone credibly claim that these policies had something to do with the financial implosion that was global in origin and impact.
Even with a recession at the beginning of his presidency and another severe recession at the end, the economy still created more than 1 million net jobs during President Bush’s tenure. The tax cuts he pushed Congress to pass are a major reason for that job growth.
—Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal government. It’s an uphill battle for the youngest member of the U.S. Senate, but one he’s prepared to fight.
In the days following Obama’s speech to Congress, Lee sharply criticized the president’s ideas for raising taxes and hiking spending to spur economic growth. As he explained to us, “We need to not be doing more of the same things that made the problem worse. We need to refocus on getting the federal government out of the way rather than making the federal government part of the problem.”
The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory
The Laffer Curve charts a relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. While the theory behind the Laffer Curve is widely accepted, the concept has become very controversial because politicians on both sides of the debate exaggerate. This video shows the middle ground between those who claim “all tax cuts pay for themselves” and those who claim tax policy has no impact on economic performance. This video, focusing on the theory of the Laffer Curve, is Part I of a three-part series. Part II reviews evidence of Laffer-Curve responses. Part III discusses how the revenue-estimating process in Washington can be improved. For more information please visit the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s web site:www.freedomandprosperity.org
Bush tax cuts work? This is a series of posts aimed at answering that question.
Abstract:Despite evidence to the contrary, President Obama and his supporters insist that a tax increase will not impede economic recovery. They claim that the Clinton tax hikes spurred the boom of the 1990s and that the subsequent Bush tax cuts hurt the economy. Members of Congress must reject this faulty notion—and reject the President’s call for burdening Americans with higher taxes and an even slower economy.
President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress and elsewhere continue to press for tax increases, whether as part of a deal to raise the government’s debt ceiling, or for any other reason. Even though common sense would dictate not raising taxes in the face of a badly weakened economy and almost non-existent job growth, the President and his supporters argue that tax hikes will not imperil the still-nascent recovery because the economy grew during the 1990s after President Bill Clinton raised taxes. The inference being that today’s economy could also absorb the blow of tax hikes and grow despite them. They also argue the converse: that the tax cuts passed during President George W. Bush’s tenure slowed growth and cost jobs.
This cursory and errant analysis of recent history has serious implications for policymaking today. If Congress raises taxes based on the faulty notion that tax hikes have no ill effects on economic growth, it will impede the still-struggling recovery and keep millions of Americans on the unemployment rolls far too long.
Clinton Tax Hikes Slowed Growth
A favorite liberal argument is to attribute the economy’s strong performance during the 1990s to President Clinton’s economic policies, chief among which was a huge tax increase. Clinton signed his tax hike into law in September 1993, the same year he took office. It included an increase of the top marginal tax rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; repeal of the cap on the 2.9 percent Medicare tax, applying it to every dollar of income instead of being capped to levels of income like the Social Security tax; a 4.3-cent increase in the gas tax; an increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits; and a hike of the corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent, among other tax increases.[1]
The economic defense of the Clinton tax hikes does not hold up against the historical facts. The economy did exhibit strong economic growth during the 1990s, but rapid growth did not occur soon after the tax hike—it came much later in the decade, when Congress cut taxes. After the 1993 tax hike, the economy actually slowed to a point below what one would expect, considering the once-in-a-generation favorable economic climate that existed at the time.
As for the overall economic recovery—that started well before President Clinton took office. In January 1993, the economy was in the 22nd month of expansion following the recession from July 1990 to March 1991.
In addition to coming into office in the midst of an economic expansion, Clinton also benefited from a very unusual confluence of events that created a remarkably favorable environment for rapid economic growth:
The end of the Cold War brought a sigh of relief to the world and a powerful dose of growth-enhancing certainty to the global economy.
The price of energy was astoundingly low, with oil prices dropping below $11 per barrel and averaging under $20 per barrel, versus $100 per barrel today.[2]
The Federal Reserve had tamed inflation to an extent previously thought impossible, with inflation averaging 2 percent during the Clinton Administration.[3]
The biggest wind at the economy’s back was, of course, a tremendous set of new productivity-enhancing information technologies and the explosion of the Internet as a powerful tool for commerce and communication, further increasing productivity.
With these factors clearing the way, the economy should have displayed spectacular and accelerating growth in the years immediately after Clinton entered the White House, but growth of that magnitude did not materialize until later in the decade.
From 1993 until 1997, the economy grew at a pedestrian 3.3 percent per year.[4] While solid, this growth was certainly not exceptional. During that same time, real wages declined, despite the perception that the 1990s were an era of unmitigated abundance.[5]
It was not until after a 1997 tax cut, passed by the Republican-led Congress—a tax cut President Clinton resisted but ultimately signed—that the spectacular growth kicked in. While small in revenue impact, the 1997 cuts included a reduction of the capital gains rate from 28 percent to 20 percent. This opened the capital floodgates necessary for entrepreneurs to develop, harness, and bring to market the wonders of the new information technologies.
Business investment skyrocketed after the tax cut,[6] and the economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.4 percent (33 percent faster than after the Clinton tax hike) from 1997 through the end of the Clinton presidency. Real wages reversed their downward trend and grew 1.7 percent per year during the same time.
Altogether, how much worse did the economy perform because of the Clinton tax hike? The data from the period do not provide a clear answer. What is clear is that the economy performed well below reasonable expectations given the favorable conditions existing in the years after the tax hike—and took off after the often-forgotten tax cut.
—Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More
Authors
Emily GoffResearch Assistant
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor
http://www.heritage.org/index Is the American Dream dead? How free is America’s economy? Check out the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom for all the answers.
______________________
Economic freedom is not heading the right direction in the USA. My son Wilson has been asking me if there are any other countries that are less socialistic then us and I have been painting a pretty bleak picture out there for him. This article and chart below show there are some countries heading the right direction. Unfortunately, the USA is not one of them.
by James D. Gwartney, Robert Lawson and Joshua Hall
James Gwartney is a professor at Florida State University. Robert Lawson is a professor at Southern Methodist University. Joshua Hall is a professor at Beloit College. They are co-authors of the Economic Freedom of the World report, which can be found at http://www.freetheworld.com, and is co-published by the Cato Institute.
Economic freedom in the United States is on the wane. Historically a standard bearer for freer markets, the United States has seen its economic freedom rating fall in the last decade according to the latest Economic Freedom of the World index, published by a world-wide network of institutes. In 2000, the U.S. was ranked 3rd in the world behind only Hong Kong and Singapore, but in the most recent report, the U.S. is ranked 10th behind countries like Canada, Chile, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
The index measures the degree to which people in a nation are free to pursue their own economic objectives without government taxes and regulations, as well as the extent to which government protects property rights and provides a sound monetary environment. The decline of the U.S. is the result of massively higher government spending and borrowing, increased regulation, and especially less secure property rights. Ballooning budget deficits are crowding out private credit causing the rating in this component to fall to 0.0 from 9.3 (out of 10) since 2000. Asset forfeiture laws, eminent domain abuse, the wars on drugs and terrorism, TSA, and warrantless wiretaps have apparently taken their toll on the security of property rights.
The so-called Washington Consensus of the 1990s — free trade, stable money, and privatization — appears dead. The housing bubbles, financial crises, bankruptcies, bailouts, stimulus, debt crises, and erratic markets of the past few years seem to have led to a new consensus. Policymakers now tell us that markets have failed, and government stimulus, subsidies and new regulations are needed to set things right.
James Gwartney is a professor at Florida State University. Robert Lawson is a professor at Southern Methodist University. Joshua Hall is a professor at Beloit College. They are co-authors of the Economic Freedom of the World report, which can be found at http://www.freetheworld.com, and is co-published by the Cato Institute.
When evaluating such claims, it is important to remember the fundamental truth of economic life: Markets work. When people are free to buy, sell, produce, trade, and move they do a pretty good job of bettering themselves and others in the process. This is not just common sense or idle theory — there is tons of evidence.
Nations that score higher on the index tend to be richer, grow faster, have less poverty, live longer, be more educated, and on and on. On virtually every measure of the good life, we find that more economic freedom yields better results. Other research finds economic freedom corresponds with less warfare, greater human rights, more gender equity, less unemployment, improved democracy, more trust, and less corruption. The results of the Economic Freedom of the World project and the scholarly analysis it has facilitated are simply overwhelming. Economic freedom works.
Over the past decade, the rating of the United States has fallen almost a full point on the economic freedom scale. Prior research indicates that a decline of this magnitude will reduce a country’s long-term growth rate by at least a full percentage point. In the case of the United States, this will mean future average annual growth of real GDP of 2 percent rather than our 3 percent historical average.
While economic freedom has fallen in the United States, there is good news in the former communist world. A number of formerly centrally planned economies have made remarkable progress toward freer markets during the past decade. Eight of them, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, and Georgia, now rank in the top 40. By way of comparison, only three Latin American countries, Chile, Panama, and Peru, place in the top 40. All of these countries now rank higher than Sweden and France, for example.
With economic freedom, profits and losses direct resources toward socially beneficial activities. When too many resources are allocated by politics, a system of crony capitalism emerges where politicians can reward the politically powerful. Unlike true entrepreneurs, crony capitalists do not create wealth; instead they plunder wealth from taxpayers and other citizens.
America has prospered historically because we have chosen economic freedom rather than political allocation and crony capitalism. To the extent we move away from economic freedom, our future prosperity will be diminished.
Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965
Tax Receipts Return to Historical Average
Runaway Spending, Not Inadequate Tax Revenue, Is Responsible for Future Deficits
The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
The Daily Hatch 