Starve the beast

Last updated
Ronald Reagan gives a televised address from the Oval Office, outlining his plan for tax reductions in July 1981 President Ronald Reagan addresses the nation from the Oval Office on tax reduction legislation.jpg
Ronald Reagan gives a televised address from the Oval Office, outlining his plan for tax reductions in July 1981

"Starve the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending [1] [2] [3] by cutting taxes, to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending. The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States federal government and the programs it funds, using mainly American taxpayer dollars, particularly social programs [4] such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. [3]

Contents

Total tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for the U.S. in comparison to the OECD and the EU 15. U.S.-Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-(75-05).JPG
Total tax revenues as a percentage of GDP for the U.S. in comparison to the OECD and the EU 15.

On July 14, 1978, economist and future Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan testified to the Senate Finance Committee: "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending." [5]

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker." [6]

The earliest known use of the actual term "starve the beast" was in a 1979 newspaper article quoting Santa Rosa, California city councilman Jerry Wilhelm speaking at a tax forum sponsored by the Libertarian Party. [7]

Since 2000

The tax cuts and deficit spending of former US President George W. Bush's administration were attempts to "starve the beast." Bush said in 2001: "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind—a fiscal straightjacket [sic] for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been." [8]

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's tax-cut plan, incorporating a flat tax, also deferred paying for the larger deficits it would create. [9] It "would most likely be funded by lower government spending on Social Security and Medicare benefits", according to the Wall Street Journal . [10]

Political activist Grover Norquist authored an oath, the so-called "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," that 279 Senators and Congressman have signed. The oath states the signatories will never vote to raise taxes on anyone under any circumstances. It is viewed by some of the unsigned as a stumbling block to mutual fiscal negotiations to benefit the country. [11]

Economic analysis

James M. Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, helped develop the fiscal illusion hypothesis: "It's obvious, borrowing allows spending to be made that will yield immediate political payoffs without the incurring of any immediate political cost." [12] In their book Democracy in Deficit (1977), Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner suggest that the complicated nature of the U.S. tax system causes fiscal illusion and results in greater public expenditure than would be the case in an idealized system in which everyone is aware in detail of what their share of the costs of government is. [13]

Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases." [14]

William Niskanen, chairman emeritus of the libertarian Cato Institute, criticized "starve the beast." According to Niskanen, if deficits finance 20% of government spending, then citizens perceive government services as discounted; services that are popular at 20% off the listed price would be less popular at full price. He hypothesized that higher revenues could constrain spending, and found strong statistical support for that conjecture based on data from 1981 to 2005. [15] [16] Another Cato researcher, Michael New, tested Niskanen's model in different time periods and using a more restrictive definition of spending (non-defense discretionary spending) and arrived at a similar conclusion. [17]

Professor Leonard E. Burman of Syracuse University testified to a U.S. Senate committee in July 2010 that: "My guess is that if President Bush had announced a new war surtax to pay for Iraq or an increase in the Medicare payroll tax rate to pay for the prescription drug benefit, both initiatives would have been less popular. Given that the prescription drug benefit only passed Congress by one vote after an extraordinary amount of arm-twisting, it seems unlikely that it would have passed at all if accompanied by a tax increase. Starve the beast doesn't work." [18]

Economist Paul Krugman summarized as: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan—and there isn't any plan, except to regain power." [19]

Historian Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has called Starve the Beast "the most pernicious fiscal doctrine in history", and blames it for the increase in US government debt since the 1980s. [20]

Political advocacy

Former U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a veteran of the Senate Finance Committee, stated "you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans." [21]

Lobbyist Grover Norquist is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." [22] [23]

"Feed the beast"

A related idea known as "Feed the beast", refers to increasing taxes for the purported purpose of balancing the budget only to make the government spend those inflows. Writer Stephen Moore and economist Richard Vedder have written in the Wall Street Journal that every new dollar of new taxes leads to more than one dollar of new spending according to their research. In an op-ed, they both stated that "[t]he grand bargain so many in Washington yearn for—tax increases coupled with spending cuts—is a fool's errand" since "higher tax collections never resulted in less spending." Their conclusions have been disputed by economist and writer Bruce Bartlett in The Fiscal Times , who stated that tax increases in the early 1990s helped contribute to more austere budgets in the late 1990s. [24] [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reaganomics</span> Economic policies of Ronald Reagan

Reaganomics, or Reaganism, refers to the neoliberal economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are commonly associated with and characterized as supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, or "voodoo economics" by opponents, while Reagan and his advocates preferred to call it free-market economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supply-side economics</span> Macroeconomic theory

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade. According to supply-side economics, consumers will benefit from greater supplies of goods and services at lower prices, and employment will increase.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deficit spending</span> Spending in excess of revenue

Within the budgetary process, deficit spending is the amount by which spending exceeds revenue over a particular period of time, also called simply deficit, or budget deficit; the opposite of budget surplus. The term may be applied to the budget of a government, private company, or individual. Government deficit spending was first identified as a necessary economic tool by John Maynard Keynes in the wake of the Great Depression. It is a central point of controversy in economics, as discussed below.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grover Norquist</span> American tax reduction activist

Grover Glenn Norquist is an American political activist and tax reduction advocate who is founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes all tax increases. A Republican, he is the primary promoter of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a pledge signed by lawmakers who agree to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate. Prior to the November 2012 election, the pledge was signed by 95% of all Republican members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government budget balance</span> Difference between revenues and spending

A government budget is a financial statement presenting the government's proposed revenues and spending for a financial year. The government budget balance, also alternatively referred to as general government balance, public budget balance, or public fiscal balance, is the overall difference between government revenues and spending. A positive balance is called a government budget surplus, and a negative balance is a government budget deficit. A budget is prepared for each level of government and takes into account public social security obligations.

A balanced budget amendment is a constitutional rule requiring that a state cannot spend more than its income. It requires a balance between the projected receipts and expenditures of the government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982</span> United States federal law

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, also known as TEFRA, is a United States federal law that rescinded some of the effects of the Kemp-Roth Act passed the year before. Between summer 1981 and summer 1982, tax revenue fell by about 6% in real terms, caused by the dual effects of the economy dipping back into recession and Kemp-Roth's reduction in tax rates, and the deficit was likewise rising rapidly because of the fall in revenue, and the rise in government expenditures. The rapid rise in the budget deficit created concern among many in Congress. TEFRA was created in order to reduce the budget gap by generating revenue through closure of tax loopholes, introduction of tougher enforcement of tax rules, rescinding some of Kemp-Roth's reductions in marginal personal income tax rates that had not yet gone into effect, and raising some rates, especially corporate rates. TEFRA was introduced November 13, 1981 and was sponsored by Representative Pete Stark of California. After much deliberation, the final version was signed by President Ronald Reagan on September 3, 1982.

PAYGO is the practice in the United States of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States federal budget</span> Budget of the U.S. federal government

The United States federal budget comprises the spending and revenues of the U.S. federal government. The budget is the financial representation of the priorities of the government, reflecting historical debates and competing economic philosophies. The government primarily spends on healthcare, retirement, and defense programs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides extensive analysis of the budget and its economic effects. It has reported that large budget deficits over the next 30 years are projected to drive federal debt held by the public to unprecedented levels—from 98 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 to 195 percent by 2050.

Fiscal conservatism is a political and economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility with an ideological basis in capitalism, individualism, limited government, and laissez-faire economics. Fiscal conservatives advocate tax cuts, reduced government spending, free markets, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and minimal government debt. Fiscal conservatism follows the same philosophical outlook of classical liberalism. This concept is derived from economic liberalism and can also be referred to as fiscal liberalism outside the United States.

In public choice theory, fiscal illusion is a failure to accurately perceive the amount of government expenditure. The theory of fiscal illusion was first developed by the Italian economist Amilcare Puviani in his 1903 book Teoria della illusione finanziaria. Fiscal illusion occurs when government revenues are not completely transparent or are not fully perceived by taxpayers; then the cost of government is seen to be less than it actually is. Since some or all taxpayers benefit from government expenditures from these unobserved or hidden revenues, the public's appetite for government expenditures increases, thus providing politicians incentive to expand the size of government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the United States public debt</span> Aspect of history

The history of the United States public debt started with federal government debt incurred during the American Revolutionary War by the first U.S treasurer, Michael Hillegas, after the country's formation in 1776. The United States has continuously had a fluctuating public debt since then, except for about a year during 1835–1836. To allow comparisons over the years, public debt is often expressed as a ratio to gross domestic product (GDP). Historically, the United States public debt as a share of GDP has increased during wars and recessions, and subsequently declined.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was a bipartisan Presidential Commission on deficit reduction, created in 2010 by President Barack Obama to identify "policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run". The 18-member Commission consisting of 12 members of Congress and six private citizens, first met on April 27, 2010. A report was released on December 1, 2010, recommending a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

The 2012 United States federal budget was the budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2012, which lasted from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. The original spending request was issued by President Barack Obama in February 2011. That April, the Republican-held House of Representatives announced a competing plan, The Path to Prosperity, emboldened by a major victory in the 2010 Congressional elections associated with the Tea Party movement. The budget plans were both intended to focus on deficit reduction, but differed in their changes to taxation, entitlement programs, defense spending, and research funding.

The United States federal budget consists of mandatory expenditures, discretionary spending for defense, Cabinet departments and agencies, and interest payments on debt. This is currently over half of U.S. government spending, the remainder coming from state and local governments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The Path to Prosperity</span> U.S. budget proposal of the Republican Party

The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise was the Republican Party's budget proposal for the Federal government of the United States in the fiscal year 2012. It was succeeded in March 2012 by "The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal", the Republican budget proposal for 2013. Representative Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, played a prominent public role in drafting and promoting both The Path to Prosperity proposals, and they are therefore often referred to as the Ryan budget, Ryan plan or Ryan proposal.

Political debates about the United States federal budget discusses some of the more significant U.S. budgetary debates of the 21st century. These include the causes of debt increases, the impact of tax cuts, specific events such as the United States fiscal cliff, the effectiveness of stimulus, and the impact of the Great Recession, among others. The article explains how to analyze the U.S. budget as well as the competing economic schools of thought that support the budgetary positions of the major parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deficit reduction in the United States</span> Economic policy debates and proposals designed to reduce the U.S. Federal budget deficit

Deficit reduction in the United States refers to taxation, spending, and economic policy debates and proposals designed to reduce the Federal budget deficit. Government agencies including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Treasury Department have reported that the federal government is facing a series of important long-run financing challenges, mainly driven by an aging population, rising healthcare costs per person, and rising interest payments on the national debt.

The United States fiscal cliff refers to the combined effect of several previously-enacted laws that came into effect simultaneously in January 2013, increasing taxes and decreasing spending.

Budget sequestration is a provision of United States law that causes an across-the-board reduction in certain kinds of spending included in the federal budget. Sequestration involves setting a hard cap on the amount of government spending within broadly defined categories; if Congress enacts annual appropriations legislation that exceeds these caps, an across-the-board spending cut is automatically imposed on these categories, affecting all departments and programs by an equal percentage. The amount exceeding the budget limit is held back by the Treasury and not transferred to the agencies specified in the appropriation bills. The word sequestration was derived from a legal term referring to the seizing of property by an agent of the court, to prevent destruction or harm, while any dispute over said property is resolved in court.

References

  1. ↑ "Europe's Welfare States". The Economist. Pralmeida.tripod.com. April 1, 2004. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
  2. ↑ Bartlett, Bruce (July 2, 2007). "Origins and Development of a Budget Metaphor". The Independent Review. Independent.org. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  3. 1 2 Lindberg, Mark (Spring 2007). "Foundations Have a Stake". Minnesota Council on Foundations. Mcf.org. Archived from the original on January 7, 2011. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
  4. ↑ "Europe's Welfare States". The Economist. Pralmeida.tripod.com. April 1, 2004. Retrieved November 25, 2010.
  5. ↑ Bartlett, Bruce (May 7, 2010). "Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast'". Forbes.
  6. ↑ "Mallaby, Sebastian. Don't Feed the Beast: Bush Should End This Tax-cut Myth". The Washington Post. Washingtonpost.com. May 8, 2006. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  7. ↑ Hemphill, Jenda (11 Apr 1979). "Fed Up With Taxes?". Argus-Courier. Petaluma, CA. p. 6. Retrieved 30 Jul 2021.
  8. ↑ "President Announces Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff". Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov. August 24, 2001. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  9. ↑ "Congress Gets 5,593-Page Text of Relief Bill Hours Ahead of Vote". Bloomberg News . Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  10. ↑ Schatz, Amy (November 26, 2007). "Thompson Unveils Plan For Voluntary Flat Tax". Wall Street Journal– via www.wsj.com.
  11. ↑ "The Pledge: Grover Norquist's hold on the GOP". CBS News.
  12. ↑ Buchanan, James M. (1984). Dehe Deficit and American Democracy. Memphis: P. K. Steidman Foundation. ISBN   0-86597-227-3.
  13. ↑ Buchanan, James M.; Wagner, Richard E. (1977). Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes . New York: Academic Press. ISBN   0-86597-227-3.
  14. ↑ Christina D. Romer, David H. Romer (October 2007). "Do Tax Cuts Starve the Beast: The Effect of Tax Changes on Government Spending National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 13548" (PDF). Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  15. ↑ William Niskanen. "26(3):553–558, Fall 2006 Limiting Government: The Failure of "Starve the Beast"" (PDF). Cato Journal. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 11, 2011. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  16. ↑ Ezra Klein (September 18, 2010). "The true test of the tea parties' mettle". Washington Post. Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  17. ↑ New, Michael J. "Starve the Beast: A Further Examination", Cato Journal, 29(3): 487–495, Fall 2009.
  18. ↑ "Senate Testimony of Professor Leonard E. Berman" (PDF). July 14, 2010. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  19. ↑ Krugman, Paul (February 21, 2010). "Opinion - The Bankruptcy Boys". The New York Times. Retrieved January 11, 2019.
  20. ↑ Bartlett, Bruce. Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast' – The most pernicious fiscal doctrine in history., Forbes, May 7, 2010
  21. ↑ Thomas L. Friedman, Michael Mandelbaum: That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back. Macmillan, 2012. p. 170.
  22. ↑ Ed Kilgore. "Starving the Beast". Blueprint Magazine. Archived from the original on November 20, 2004. Retrieved December 9, 2010.
  23. ↑ "Article | The American Prospect". Prospect.org. March 15, 2005. Retrieved December 9, 2010.[ permanent dead link ]
  24. ↑ Starve the Beast: Just Bull, not Good Economics, The Fiscal Times , November 26, 2010
  25. ↑ Stephen Moore; Richard Vedder (November 21, 2010). "Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 24, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.