The "magic" of the 2001 and 2003 (mostly 2003) supply-side tax cuts looks like it has just about run its course. Presidential candidates taking their cues from Old Media, which is gushing over ideas like "baby bonds," the usual "soak the rich" schemes, and (of all things) a war tax surcharge, are going to miss a great opportunity to steer the agenda towards what taxpayers really want -- a tax cut.
It's clear that my prediction of $315 billion in federal receipts during September is not going to be met, as the chart below shows (line item data is from the Daily Treasury Statements of 9/29/06 and 9/28/07; the Sept. 2006 total can be found in the latest Monthly Treasury Statement; the final two items in Sept. 2007 column are estimates):

I believe that final receipts for September 2007 will be just barely higher than they were in September 2006. That's significant, because September is one of the four big months for estimated tax payments (January, April, and June are the others). September 2007 was held back a bit because it had 19 business days instead of 20, which explains why withheld items didn't go up much, but the flatness in the combined total of corporate income taxes and individual non-withheld payments was the bigger factor.
It has been a great run (Sept. 2007's estimate is incorporated into the graphics below), but I believe it's just about played out:


The Treasury took in almost $800 billion more in the 12 months that ended in September of 2007 than it did in the 12 months ended in September of 2003. The 9.6% annualized growth rate during that 4-year period is phenomenal, and cannot possibly be explained as due to economic growth alone. What is more accurate to say is that the supply-side cuts led to the growth that occurred after a difficult period that began with the fourth quarter of 2000 and ended in the middle of 2003.
But you can see from the results for the 12 months just ended that the revenue gushers of the previous two years have receded. Well, you can't expect a supply-side tax-cut boost to the economy to continue without ..... enacting another supply-side tax-cut boost.
Ryan Ellis at the American Shareholders Association, who refers to evidence that Americans "want Congress to deal head-on with the economy, which includes new tax cuts," has many very good suggestions:
- The most pressing need is to make the expiring tax cuts permanent. Failing to do so would result in capital gains, dividends, and small business tax increases that would definitely wreck the economy. (plus it will slow down the economy well ahead of when they actually expire -- Ed.)
- The corporate income tax is the highest in the industrialized world, behind only Japan. At 39%, the U.S. rate is far higher than the European average of 25% (and falling).
- Capital, the formation of which is key to economic growth, is taxed multiple times in the current tax system. This can be fixed by full business expensing, killing the death tax, zeroing out the capital gains and dividends tax, and expanding tax-free savings accounts.
- The U.S. is the only country in the developed world that double-taxes the international income of its taxpayers. This forces U.S. companies and wealthy individuals into offshore tax havens. The U.S. should shift to a territorial tax system like the rest of the world has.
- Dozens of countries, from Hong Kong to Estonia, have adopted a flat rate income tax. Almost nothing would do more for economic growth than having a flat income tax rate in the teens.
I would take death tax repeal, elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and a 10% across-the-board cut for everyone. In an ideal world, I'd take the Fair Tax, effective January 1, 2010.
Presidential candidates should be talking up these ideas, but they aren't. What are they waiting for, a favorable media climate? Ronald Reagan didn't wait for that, and if candidates inclined to consider tax-cut ideas wait for that, they might as well tape their mouths shut now and get it over with.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com and the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Wide Open blog.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Tax cuts
October 3, 2007 - 06:30 ET by sarcasmoAre a wonderful idea. And one candidate wants to get rid of the IRS entirely and reform monetary policy. But people won't believe in just tax cuts, because they've seen too much borrow & spend policy and know it's going to impact their grandkids. Voters have had enough of this millionaire-welfare crap, and I don't blame 'em because I've felt that way for a couple of decades.
America desperately needs specific proposals for spending cuts (like getting rid of the Departments of Education & Energy, among other useless bureaucracies). In these stories about tax revenue growth, we need to see graphs of government spending and maybe even M3's ghost to see the full policy context. Sadly, as this article notes, "President George W. Bush was the first Republican since Eisenhower to run for president without calling for cutting or abolishing a single government program. Since his election, Bush has presided over the largest expansion of government spending since Lyndon Johnson initiated the Great Society." With a media this biased & pliant, that sorry record of government-expansion might well continue...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
We need both
October 3, 2007 - 06:37 ET by Tom BlumerI'll deal with spending when the final deficit numbers come out. That won't change the fact that a supply-side cut would again juice revenues, and more importantly juice the economy.
Ok, but do you agree with me...
October 3, 2007 - 06:48 ET by sarcasmoThat the news media needs to hold ostensibly "conservative" candidates' feet to the fire regarding the elimination of (at least...Sigh...) one specific Federal spending program? Because so far, IMO, they simply-haven't, and that's a severe antilibertarian media-bias problem from my POV. Any candidate who calls himself "conservative," and they all-do, even the RINOs, should be able to talk about getting rid of SOMETHING in this bloated, wasteful government.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Of course I do
October 3, 2007 - 07:27 ET by Tom BlumerThe final Treasury numbers come out on Oct. 10. Be patient.
And Hil liar ee
October 3, 2007 - 06:40 ET by old croAnd Hil liar ee is out there promising your tax money ($5000.00) to all parents of newborns for thier vote. There must be a law against this outrageous pandering and the seeking of office by promising money to any individual.
"If it weren't for pick-pocketers I'd have no sex life at all."
-Rodney Dangerfield
I agree, it kills me that
October 3, 2007 - 06:48 ET by USA4freedomI agree, it kills me that they want to buy our votes with
OUR OWN MONEY!!!!!!!
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Actually I'm surprised that
October 3, 2007 - 08:31 ET by dscottActually I'm surprised that this baby bond gimmick hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. Here is the reason why. The problem with the bond is the initial investment must come from somewhere like another tax and then that money will be promptly spent as general tax revenue instead of set aside in an account. The point of a bond from the borrower’s perspective (US Government) is to raise money for their use and from the bond holder’s perspective (baby) they have a secure investment paying a fixed amount at maturity. So where does the money come from for this bond and what is the federal government going to do with the money in the meantime? http://invest-faq.com/cbc/bonds-rel-price-int.html Currently a $5,000 year bond for 18 years (using the PV formula) at 5% will require an initial investment of approximately $2,077. So if we are expecting say 4 million babies a year (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_01.pdf 4,112,052 registered births in 2004), that would net the government coffers $8.3 billion a year to buy those bonds.
The payouts begin 18 years from now when $20 billion a year will be required to meet that obligation, of course if the number of live births proportionately increase with the 20% increase in population (350 million in 2025 http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbagg ) this will partially act as a PONZI scheme by self funding. This is the very same scam Dems pulled with Social Security trust fund, they spent the money and gave an IOU in the form of low interest bonds. This is a stealth tax increase where Hillary will momentarily fund her socialist medical system and then nothing will be left but us taxpayers holding the bag. Of course the program never ends so some other stooges in the future have to figure out how to fund it. What’s more, somewhere along the way, they will face the facts that $5k toward a college education is laughable as it wouldn’t even cover 20% of the first year’s tuition in today’s costs let alone 18 years from now. This is just another vote buying redistribution of wealth scheme to make Dems popular and the sad truth is some Americans will actually buy into the something for nothing proposal.
When you feel you have to walk on eggshells to avoid problems with the MSM you are being codependent, the cure is to stomp on the eggshells
This article is good. It
October 3, 2007 - 06:46 ET by USA4freedomThis article is good. It should be placed in an add!
Its simple for the average Jo to understand.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I agree, (IMHO) The
October 3, 2007 - 06:50 ET by USA4freedomI agree,
(IMHO) The candidate that get behind some kind of (real) tax
reform, like flat or fair tax, tells America that the fence will be built by a
set date, explains WHY things are done better in the private market over
government expansions of entitlements. Push for school vouchers.
Show how the founding fathers never wanted a giant nanny
state, like it is in Europe.
The man that does this, will win this race.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Agreeing
October 3, 2007 - 07:29 ET by Tom BlumerThought you were agreeing with yourself there for a moment. :-->
This may be the time that an indie candidate has a chance on those issues -- if enough people think he or she has a chance.
Taxes
October 3, 2007 - 12:38 ET by bsmarjI hear the Reagan wannabes, but none are really going to do what has to be done to get this country really rockin'. They may do what they have to do to get elected, only a few will attempt to be what they say they are. I agree, the candidates are going to have to be the ones to really push it, but only Ron Paul is doing it.
Tom, Please try not to use cut and juice in the same sentence I am really tired of hearing about OJ!
LOL
October 3, 2007 - 13:20 ET by Tom BlumerLOL