Tag Archives: Growth

News

State Department report finds that Keystone XL pipeline is safe for the environment

Leave a comment

The Heritage Foundation reports.

Excerpt: (links removed)

In Washington, a presidential Administration releases news it doesn’t like at 5 p.m. on Fridays. So it pays to pay attention when everyone is leaving work for the weekend.

Late last Friday, the State Department released a positive environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. President Obama has been delaying this pipeline—which would carry oil from Canada to refineries in Texas—for more than three years.

The delay has meant that America is still waiting on an additional 700,000 to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from a close ally, not to mention 179,000 American jobs.

Why has this taken so long, when all environmental reports thus far have been positive? Heritage’s Nicolas Loris, the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, explains:

Given the need for jobs and more oil on the global market to offset high prices, the permit application had been moving along positively with bipartisan support without much attention until environmental activists made blocking the Keystone XL pipeline their issue to rally around for 2011. Although President Obama and the Department of State (DOS) said they’d make a decision at the end of 2011, they ultimately catered to a narrow set of special interests, punting the decision until after the 2012 elections.

The State Department, which is overseeing the pipeline because it crosses a U.S. border, has “already conducted a thorough, three-year environmental review with multiple comment periods,” Loris reported last year.

The review has been comprehensive:

DOS studied and addressed risk to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and endangered species. They concluded that the construction of the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk. Keystone XL also met 57 specific pipeline safety standard requirements created by DOS and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

This confirms the previous assessment done by the Nebraska government, which concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline was safe for Nebraska’s environment as well.

Related Posts

News

Harvard economist explains why spending cuts are better than tax increases

Leave a comment

From Investors Business Daily, an editorial by Dr. Alberto Alesina of Harvard University, that explains which approach to reducing debt and deficits works best. Is it cutting spending and reducing regulation? Or is it continuing to borrow and spend, and raising taxes?

Let’s see what Dr. Alesina says:

The evidence speaks loud and clear: When governments reduce deficits by raising taxes, they are indeed likely to witness deep, prolonged recessions. But when governments attack deficits by cutting spending, the results are very different.

In 2011, the International Monetary Fund identified episodes from 1980 to 2005 in which 17 developed countries had aggressively reduced deficits. The IMF classified each episode as either “expenditure-based” or “tax-based,” depending on whether the government had mainly cut spending or hiked taxes.

When Carlo Favero, Francesco Giavazzi and I studied the results, it turned out that the two kinds of deficit reduction had starkly different effects: cutting spending resulted in very small, short-lived — if any — recessions, and raising taxes resulted in prolonged recessions.

[…]The obvious economic challenge to our contention is: What keeps an economy from slumping when government spending, a major component of aggregate demand, goes down? That is, if the economy doesn’t enter recession, some other component of aggregate demand must necessarily be rising to make up for the reduced government spending — and what is it? The answer: private investment.

Our research found that private-sector capital accumulation rose after the spending-cut deficit reductions, with firms investing more in productive activities — for example, buying machinery and opening new plants. After the tax-hike deficit reductions, capital accumulation dropped.

The reason may involve business confidence, which, we found, plummeted during the tax-based adjustments and rose (or at least didn’t fall) during the expenditure-based ones. When governments cut spending, they may signal that tax rates won’t have to rise in the future, thus spurring investors (and possibly consumers) to be more active.

Our findings on business confidence are consistent with the broader argument that American firms, though profitable, aren’t investing or hiring as much as they might right now because they’re uncertain about future fiscal policy, taxation and regulation.

But there’s a second reason that private investment rises when governments cut spending: the cuts are often just part of a larger reform package that includes other pro-growth measures.

In another study, Silvia Ardagna and I showed that the deficit reductions that successfully lower debt-to-GDP ratios without sparking recessions are those that combine spending reductions with such measures as deregulation, the liberalization of labor markets (including, in some cases, explicit agreement with unions for more moderate wages) and tax reforms that increase labor participation.

Let’s be clear: This body of evidence doesn’t mean that cutting government spending always leads to economic booms. Rather, it shows that spending cuts are much less costly for the economy than tax hikes and that a carefully designed deficit-reduction plan, based on spending cuts and pro-growth policies, may completely eliminate the output loss that you’d expect from such cuts. Tax-based deficit reduction, by contrast, is always recessionary.

UPDATE: George Mason University economists agree: debt is wrecking the economy and the right way to stop it is with spending cuts, not tax increases. In order to grow the economy we need a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax cuts.

Excerpt:

The United States’ high levels of debt are already contributing to slower economic growth and decreased competitiveness. These impacts will worsen if the nation’s debt-to-GDP levels continue to rise, as is currently projected.

[…]High levels of government debt undermine U.S. competitiveness in several ways, including crowding out private investment, raising costs to private businesses, and contributing to both real and perceived macroeconomic instability.

[…]Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff examine historical data from 40 countries over 200 years and find that when a nation’s gross national debt exceeds 90% of GDP, real growth was cut by one percent in mild cases and by half in the most extreme cases. This result was found in both developing and advanced economies.

Similarly, a Bank for International Settlements study finds that when government debt in OECD countries exceeds about 85% of GDP, economic growth slows.

[…]While fundamental tax reform is required to correct a host of structural inefficiencies, policymakers can quickly reduce the U.S. statutory rate of 35% to the OECD average rate of 26% or less.

That’s what research tells us. But that’s not what we are doing, because we voted for Barack Obama.

News

The long-term impacts of the Romney and Obama economic plans

Leave a comment

From the Tax Foundation. (H/T Tom)

Excerpt:

Over the past several weeks, Tax Foundation economists have published a series of studies that analyze the long-term economic and distributional effects of the tax plans outlined by President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. These comprehensive assessments were done using the Tax Foundation’s Tax Simulation and Macroeconomic Model, which measures how changes in tax policies affect the economic levers that determine economic growth, workers’ incomes and the distribution of the tax burden, says the Tax Foundation.

The candidates’ tax plans would have a starkly different impact on the economy.

  • The Romney plan, which would reduce tax rates on individuals and corporations, would increase gross domestic product (GDP) 7.4 percent over the long run.
  • The Obama plan, which would raise tax rates on individuals, would reduce GDP 2.9 percent over the long run.

These very different futures are the direct consequence of the candidates’ very different approaches to taxing the inputs of production, i.e., capital and labor.

  • Obama would raise taxes on investors, which would reduce the capital stock by 7.5 percent.
  • Romney would reduce taxes on investors, which would increase the capital stock by 18.6 percent.
  • Obama would raise taxes on labor, which would reduce the wage rate by 2.3 percent and hours worked by 0.7 percent.
  • Romney would reduce taxes on labor, which would increase the wage rate by 4.7 percent and hours worked by 2.9 percent.

[…]Tax Foundation’s analysis indicates that for every dollar of tax revenue raised under the Obama plan, the economy loses $10. Under Romney’s plan, for every dollar of tax revenue lost, the economy gains $8.

And more from the Tax Foundation. (H/T Tom)

As a follow-up to the Tax Foundation’s recent assessment of the macroeconomic effects of Governor Mitt Romney’s tax plan, Tax Foundation Senior Fellow Stephen Entin now turns his attention to measuring the macroeconomic effects of President Barack Obama’s tax proposals.

[…]The model results:

  • President Obama’s tax plan would gradually reduce the level of gross domestic product (GDP) by nearly 3 percent, relative to the baseline projection, over five to 10 years.
  • Labor income would be lower by a similar amount, driven down by fewer hours worked and lower wages per hour.
  • The reduction in hours worked, about 0.75 percent, would be the equivalent of about a million jobs lost in today’s economy, with those still employed earning roughly 2.28 percent lower wages.
  • Alternatively, one could view the result as losing four million jobs at unchanged pay levels.
  • The plan would also trim the capital stock by about 7.5 percent (or over $2 trillion in lost investment in plant, equipment and buildings, things that drive productivity, wages and hiring).

The study also measured the economic and distributional effects of President Obama’s corporate tax plan and the tax changes contained in the Affordable Care Act beginning in 2013. The results found that these proposals would lower economic growth while substantially lowering workers’ wages and incomes. Ultimately, President Obama’s tax plans would be very harmful for the nation’s long-term economic outlook.

Do you like prosperity? Would you like to have a job? Would you like to be able to buy things for your friends and family? Would like to be able to give to charities? Then vote for Mitt Romney!