Posts Tagged ‘government spending’

Oregon officials get caught fudging the costs of energy tax credits

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

bucketofmoneyThe Oregonian reports that Oregon state officials deliberately underestimated the cost the governor’s tax credit scheme to attract  “green” companies and to encourage “green” projects.  The Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC) are huge give-aways: Enterprises that don’t pay taxes (like nonprofits and government entities) can sell the credits to tax-paying companies to reduce their tax bills. The only way to get the legislature to extend the credits was to fudge the estimated costs of the program.

However, the state officials made a big batch of fudge: The tax credit program program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told it would cost.

None of this is news.  Throughout the year, this blog has been reporting on BETC’s budget busting and number fudging.

Obama’s economist Christina Romer: Changing economics to please the boss

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

j04344031An earlier post noted that Obama’s chief economist, Christina Romer, co-authored an analysis of the President-elect’s stimulus proposal.

The analysis was little more that applying some “rules of thumb” to come up with a conclusion that increasing government spending created more jobs (even in the long run) than cutting taxes.  Romer & Bernstein’s rules of thumb ended up guessing that over four years tax cuts equal to 1 percent of GDP would reduce output by one-tenth of one percent.

Just two months ago, Romer co-authored a statistical study (PDF) that came up with a different answer: Tax cuts equal to 1 percent of GDP would increase output by 3 percent over three years. The author’s note, “The effect is highly statistically significant.”

Let’s summarize:

  • November 2008 — “Statistically significant” — 1% tax cut associated with 3% GDP increase.
  • January 2009 — “Rules of thumb” — 1% tax cut associated with 0.01% GDP decrease.

To be fair, one economist suggests a reason for Romer’s different conclusions is that one must distinguish between tax cuts that are meant to turn a recession into a recovery and tax cuts that are not in response to a recession.

Citation:

Romer, Christina D. and David Romer, “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks,” working paper, University of California, Berkeley, November 2008. (PDF)

Obama’s economists: Government spending is better that cutting taxes, maybe

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

pages_from_45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te-3President-elect Barack Obama made public Saturday an analysis (PDF) by his economic advisers, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. The analysis estimates that a $775 billion plan of tax cuts and new spending would create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

In the executive summary Romer & Bernstein state plainly their conclusion that government spending creates more jobs than tax cuts.

Tax cuts, especially temporary ones, and fiscal relief to the states are likely to create fewer jobs than direct increases in government purchases.

But, in Appendix 1, Romer & Bernstein admit that they have no idea what impact tax cuts would have on jobs.

For tax-based investment incentives, we used the rule of thumb that the output effects correspond to one-fourth of the effects of an increase in government spending with the same immediate revenue effects. This implies a fairly small effect from a given short-term revenue cost of the incentives. But, because much of the lost revenue is recovered in the long run, it implies a fairly substantial short-run impact for a given long-run revenue loss. We confess to considerable uncertainty about our choice of multipliers for this element of the package .

Romer & Bernstein base most of their conclusions on some rules of thumb (the term is used five times in the report). Bernstein is a social worker rather than an economist, so he can be excused for not being up to speed on economic impact models. Romer, on the other hand has published several papers on tax policy and macroeconomics. One would think she would have applied some rigorous economic modeling to analyze a three-quarter of a trillion dollar package.