Political Animal
Blog
Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty unveiled economic plan yesterday, about which nothing good can be said. It’s genuinely laughable and the sort of agenda that should, if substance mattered in politics, force Pawlenty from polite company for a long while.
But before it’s forgotten, there’s one last element I wanted to focus on.
As Pawlenty sees it, the domestic goal should be economic growth at 5%. As for the former Minnesota governor argued yesterday, “It’s been done before: Between 1983 and 1987, the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9 percent annually. Between 1996 and 1999, under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the economy grew at around 4.7 percent annually.”
Now, there’s quite a bit wrong with this. For example, Pawlenty is saying we’ve achieved 5% GDP growth before, and then points to two examples of the U.S. falling short of 5% GDP growth. It doesn’t speak well of Pawlenty’s reading comprehension skills. For that matter, I don’t doubt President Obama would love 5% growth, but reaching such a goal so soon after the most brutal recession in generations is impossible without a massive stimulus package.
But the most notable angle to keep in mind has to do with taxes. As Pawlenty sees it, $7.8 trillion in tax cuts ought to work wonders. But look again at what he considers the best recent examples of growth: the mid-80s and mid-to-late-90s.
Matt Yglesias posted this chart that helps highlight what Pawlenty is talking about:
What Pawlenty doesn’t seem to realize his ideal periods of growth followed tax increases. Indeed, this is terribly inconvenient for Republicans, but (a) the weakest period of growth in recent decades came after the Bush tax cuts, and (b) Reagan and Clinton oversaw higher tax rates than Obama’s.
So why is it, exactly, that Pawlenty believes more massive tax breaks would magically produce extraordinary growth? Perhaps because he has no idea what he’s talking about?
Ed Kilgore added, “It says a lot about today’s GOP that the purveyor of this economic nonsense is usually regarded as a safe, semi-moderate, and above all tediously conventional pol.”
It does, indeed.
Facebook
Twitter
bleh on June 08, 2011 11:45 AM:
Actually, what he's suggesting IS "safe, semi-moderate, and above all tediously conventional" for a Republican pol, and it's neither "genuinely laughable" nor a sign that he "has no idea what he’s talking about."
He says he WANTS 5% growth, and fair enough; so, as you observe, does Obama.
But he's ADVOCATING a MAJOR TAX REDUCTION FOR THE WEALTHY. And THAT is very good politics in the Republican Party, and if enacted would be very good news for the Republicans that matter -- ie, the wealthy.
Okay, the connection between the two is nonsensical, but only the Teatards believe it. The wealthy know perfectly well that it's nonsensical, but that's fine by them, because they DON'T want 5% growth, except perhaps in financial instruments. They are doing very well right now, thank you, and a big tax cut would just be icing on the cake.
This is very mainstream politics -- a policy popular in the party, that is in the interest of the people who control the party, dressed up in some pretty talk that nobody but the stupid believe. That is hardly something to " force Pawlenty from polite company for a long while."
c u n d gulag on June 08, 2011 11:47 AM:
I'm glad that even some Conservative economists and politicians are saying the "Tim's Pawlenty Stupid" Plan is, well, plenty stupid.
Tim, you forgot the old adage:
'Sometime it's better to keep one's mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.'
berttheclock on June 08, 2011 11:54 AM:
Yes, lots to comment about the inept front runners, T-Paw and Mittens, but, be sure to load up a ton of such by Perry. At this point in the election of '92, Mario Cuomo was the front runner, while Bill Clinton was in 11th place and GWHB had high approval ratings from Gulf I. Watch out for Perry pulling a Silky Sullivan and roaring from the back of the pack, in late fall. I just hope neither Johnny Longden nor Eddie D will be riding Perry.
square1 on June 08, 2011 11:57 AM:
It is precisely because GOP policies are so divorced from reality that President Obama's tendency to unilaterally compromise has been such a disaster. Why did Democrats pass a stimulus package that was too small? In part, it was because they were concerned that a package of over $1T would be perceived as "too large".
But what does "too large" even mean when your political opponents fail to agree on basic macroeconomic principles? These are clowns who want to shrink government spending in a recession. For them, $800 is too much. Forget about $800B. Or $1T. Or $2T. Those are just big numbers and, as long as the GOP is going to throw a temper tantrum no matter what, you might as well push for a package that is going to work.
Given the political reality that we live in, it is idiotic for Democrats to even attempt to find common ground with the GOP. The "political will" for appropriate stimulus/budget policies is NEVER going to come from the GOP. That leadership needs to come from the WH.
Joe Friday on June 08, 2011 12:08 PM:
What Pawlenty doesn't seem to realize his ideal periods of growth followed tax increases.
Indeed.
The national economy had a GDP of over 10% after FDR raised taxes on the wealthy and used the money to help stimulate the economy.
beejeez on June 08, 2011 12:24 PM:
Yes, if only politicians had the political courage to cut taxes, our economy would flourish!
John Puma on June 08, 2011 3:19 PM:
Let the eminently preventable, and deadly, collapse of a Minnesota interstate highway bridge, on Mr P's watch, be a predictive metaphor for his proposed presidency.
Doug on June 08, 2011 8:15 PM:
"It says a lot about today's GOP that the purveyor of this economic nonsense..." Ed Kilgore quoted by Steve Benen.
"It says a lot about today's so-called journalists...."
There, fixed it.