Economists Think Republicans’ Tax Numbers Are a Joke

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee in July.Ron Sachs/Zuma

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

While Kevin’s on vacation, we’ve invited other Mother Jones writers to contribute posts.

As Republicans have taken to the airwaves to push their new tax plan, they’ve claimed their cuts will trigger stunning economic growth—and thereby bring in more tax revenue than they expect to lose from the cuts. It’s a classic line from supply-side economics backing Republicans, eager to justify tax cuts by promising growth and tax gains that, history has shown, will never come.

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stepped up to the plate, promising a revenue boom that could go to deficit reduction: “We think there will be $2 trillion of growth so we think this tax plan will cut down the deficit by a trillion dollars,” he said. “That’s a large number.” 

Unfortunately for Mnuchin, hardly anyone credible believes him. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the Republican tax framework released on Wednesday could add $2.2 trillion in deficit spending by handing out tax cuts “like Halloween candy.”

“Deficit-financed tax cuts are a recipe for a short-term economic sugar high followed by sluggish long-term growth,” Maya MacGuineas, the group’s president, warned in a statement.

Bruce Bartlett, who, as a former domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan, says he helped enshrine the very notion that cuts benefit the economy as part of “the Republican tax myth,” wrote on Thursday that “there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth.” 

As Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith makes clear, almost all economists side with Bartlett and MacGuineas. In May, the IGM Forum at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business surveyed dozens of top economists on whether a similar Trump tax plan would pay for itself through economic growth. After factoring in the economists’ confidence, over four-fifths strongly disagreed that it would. 

They were also asked a question essential to Mnuchin’s prediction that Trump’s tax cuts will, in the end, lead to deficit reduction. The economists were surveyed if, in general, previous tax plans relying on substantial future economic growth turned out, as you might expect they would, to bring in less money.

None disagreed that they had.

Perhaps Republicans’ favorite example from history is Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax cut. On Wednesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan cited those cuts, claiming that they had given Americans a tax system they to be proud of. But the most comprehensive analysis of the Reagan cuts suggests they didn’t lead to economic growth. The next year, the Dow Jones dropped by 22 percent in one day, the largest crash in US history. 

Mnuchin has held fast in defending the administration’s use of optimistic growth projections when calculating tax reform’s impact. When CNBC asked him whether the administration’s plan would be revenue neutral, Munchin offered a telling response, hinting at the the friendly math they would rely on: “It depends on how you score it…under our models, we are absolutely committed to revenue neutrality.” 

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate