Jewish World Review Feb. 20, 2001 / 27 Shevat, 5761
Whose surplus is it, anyway?
EVEN when Alan Greenspan is mildly happy -- as happy as a central banker gets -- his demeanor resembles that of Woodrow Wilson when learning about the sinking of the Lusitania. Even rational semi-exuberance did not manifest itself in Greenspan last week when he told Congress that although "downside risks" still predominate, January's retail sales were unexpectedly strong, that many economic indicators so alarming in December now are much less so, and that the slowdown may not become a downturn.
Greenspan's testimony left room to hope that the graph of the economy's performance may be V-shaped, as steep up as it was down, and may weaken the weakest argument for President Bush's proposed tax cuts -- that the cuts are urgently needed to stimulate the sputtering economy. But Greenspan's testimony also blunts one argument against the cuts.
Critics of Bush's cuts are seizing upon the obvious with a sense of original discovery, and then they are compounding their error by drawing an inapposite conclusion from the obvious. They are saying that the government's projections of coming surpluses may be wrong. Well, yes. The projections probably are wrong. And on recent evidence, that is good news.
Ed Kerschner, chief investment strategist at PaineWebber, who forecast the market correction that began last spring, recently told Fortune magazine that government economic numbers frequently are announced, in effect, this way: "Here is the data you've been waiting for, and here is the revision of the last data."
Government has no choice but to make educated economic guesses, and for several years it has been revising upward its surplus projections. In the 14 months since Bush first proposed his cut, now calculated at $1.6 trillion over 10 years, the surplus forecast has risen $1.5 trillion. Growth has been unusually fast -- and constant.
Between the end of the Second World War and the early 1980s, recessions occurred on average once every 4.7 years. Since then, with the exception of three consecutive quarters of contraction in 1990-91 -- the mildest recession since the war -- we have had 18 years of uninterrupted growth. So, 40 percent of those now old enough to be trading stocks have never known a serious bear market.
When America's economy was primarily agricultural, Kerschner argues, it had annual cycles, the leading indicator being annual rainfall. In the primarily manufacturing economy of the industrial age -- until, that is, recently -- there were cycles of inventory accumulation and depletion. Today most economic volatility concerns inventory. When things get made, they are either sold or added to inventory. But nowadays inventory levels are generally low by historical standards. This, Kerschner says, is partly because low inflation decreases the incentive to build inventories as hedges against price increases. And partly because of information efficiencies that make possible "just-in-time manufacturing." And partly because we are increasingly a services economy and services are not inventoried.
Nevertheless, Bush, a fierce competitor, seems determined to defeat Greenspan in the Woeful Countenance Competition. He described the January retail sales as "one good statistic among a sea of some pretty dismal statistics." Given the reluctance of the political class to let go of other people's money once it is within the Beltway, it is understandable that Bush has hitched his argument for the tax cut to the slowing of the economy.
But are we so far sunk in statism that we actually need to find a narrow, immediately utilitarian reason -- in this case, "stimulus" -- for the government to release its grasp on (a fraction of) the money it has raised far in excess of its current needs? Economics should not be sovereign where political philosophy should rule: No macroeconomic theory about management of the business cycle is necessary to justify ending substantial and chronic overtaxation, which is what the projected surpluses are.
It is repellent to hear the political class complacently discussing tax cuts as if they are just one of three options for using the surplus, in no way morally superior to spending or debt reduction. The nation's economic product is not the government's property. The gusher of money that comprises the surplus did not well up, like oil from Spindletop in 1901, because government punched a lucky hole in the ground. The money got into the government's hands because the government extracted it from productive Americans, using tax rates that are too high because they extract too much.
Judged by their projected results -- large, chronic surpluses -- the rates do not establish a reasonable relationship between pressing public needs, as distinct from political appetites, and the private sector's wealth-creating
Comment on JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.
02/16/01: A truly inclusive holiday
02/12/01: Within the realm of Bush's tax cut
02/08/01: A season spoiled
02/05/01: Keeping faith behind initiatives
02/01/01: Tall order for a few federal dollars
01/29/01: You ain't seen nothin' yet
01/26/01: 'Art' Unburdened by Excellence
01/22/01: The monkey that could mean the end
01/19/01: The real enemy in the drug war
01/15/01: Congress just isn't big enough
01/12/01: Clinton's mark
01/08/01: All that is jazz
01/04/01: Bush's picks reveal Right attitude
01/02/01: Prosperity in perspective
12/28/00: Soft landing in a spoiled nation
12/26/00: When laws replace common sense
12/21/00: Beware the 'Bipartisanship'
12/18/00: ... A Brief Moment
12/13/00: Judicial activism on trial
12/11/00: Truth optional
12/06/00: A Chastened Court
12/01/00: Counting on some slippery language
11/28/00: Florida's rogue court
11/27/00: This willful court
11/22/00: Ferocity gap
11/17/00: Slow-motion larceny
11/13/00: Gore, Hungry for Power
11/09/00: No, the System Worked
11/06/00: The case for Bush
11/03/00: The Framers' Electoral wisdom
10/30/00: Political astronomy
10/27/00: Candidates condescending
10/23/00: No Partners For Peace
10/20/00: Talking peace with thugs
10/11/00: A feast of retreats
10/10/00: .. And what's gotten into the Danes?
10/05/00: The Agony of Debate
10/02/00: Senate Canvas
09/28/00: Milosevic: Not Another Saddam
09/25/00: Blaming the Voters
09/22/00: Saying No to the Euro
09/18/00: Farewell, Mr. Moynihan
09/14/00: When 'Choice' Rules
09/12/00: Colombia Illusions
09/08/00: Will He Spend It All?
09/04/00: Back in the U.S.S.R.
08/31/00: Stonewalling School Reform
08/28/00: Uphill for a California Republican
08/24/00: Sauerkraut Ice Cream
08/21/00: The Partial-Birth Censors
08/18/00: A Party to Prosperity
08/14/00: The National Scold on the Stump
08/10/00: The Thinking Person's Choice
08/07/00: The GOP of Powell And Rice
08/03/00: Panic in the Gore Camp
07/27/00: . . . Both Radical and Reassuring
07/06/00: Harry Potter: A Wizard's Return
07/03/00: Recalling the Revolution
06/29/00: An Act of Judicial Infamy
06/26/00: Life, Liberty and ... the Pursuit of Foxes
06/21/00: Fumble on Prayer
06/19/00: The unified field theory of culture
06/15/00: Schools Beset by Lawyers And Shrinks
06/12/00: Missile Defense Charade
06/07/00: The Grandparent Dissent
06/05/00: Liberal Condescension
06/01/00: Great Awakenings
05/30/00: Suddenly Social Security
05/25/00: Forget Values, Let's Talk Virtues
05/22/00: AlGore the Hysteric
05/15/00: Majestic Avenue
05/11/00: Just How Irrational Is the Exuberance?
05/08/00: Home-Run Glut
05/04/00: A Lesson Plan for Gore
05/01/00: The Hijacking of the Primaries
04/28/00: The Raid in Little Havana
04/24/00: Tinkering Again
04/17/00: A Judgment Against Hate
04/13/00: Tech- Stock Joy Ride
04/10/00: What the bobos are buying
04/06/00: A must-read horror book
04/03/00: 'Improving' the Bill of Rights
03/30/00: Sleaze, The Sequel
03/27/00: How new 'rights' will destroy freedom
03/23/00: Death and the Liveliest Writing
03/20/00: Powell is Dubyah's best bet
03/16/00: Free to Be Politically Intense
03/13/00: Runnin', Gunnin' and Gambling
03/09/00: And Now Back to Republican Business
03/06/00: As the Clock Runs Out on Bradley
03/02/00: Island of Equal Protection
02/28/00: . . . The Right Response
02/24/00: Federal Swelling
02/22/00: Greenspan Tweaks
02/17/00: Crucial Carolina (and Montana and . . .)
02/10/00: McCain's Distortions
02/10/00: The Disciplining of Austria
02/07/00: Free to Speak, Free to Give
02/02/00: Conservatives in a Changing Market
01/31/00: America's true unity day
01/27/00: For the Voter Who Can't Be Bothered
01/25/00: The FBI and the golden age of child pornography
01/20/00: Scruples and Science
01/18/00: Bradley: Better for What Ails Us
01/13/00: O'Brian Rules the Waves
01/10/00: Patron of the boom
01/06/00: In Cactus Jack's Footsteps
01/03/00: The long year
12/31/99: A Stark Perspective On a Radical Century
12/20/99: Soldiers' Snapshots of the Hell They Created
12/16/99: Star-Crossed Banner
12/13/99: Hubert Humphrey Wannabe
12/09/99: Stupidity in Seattle
12/06/99: Bradley's most important vote
12/03/99: Boys will be boys --- or you can always drug 'em
12/01/99: Confidence in the Gore Camp
11/29/99: Busing's End
11/22/99: When We Enjoyed Politics
11/18/99: Ever the Global Gloomster
11/15/99: The Politics of Sanctimony
11/10/99: Risks of Restraining
11/08/99: Willie Brown Besieged
11/04/99: One-House Town
11/01/99: Crack and Cant
10/28/99: Tax Break for the Yachting Class
10/25/99: Ready for The Big Leagues?
10/21/99: Where honor and responsibility still exist
10/18/99: Is Free Speech Only for the Media?
10/14/99: A Beguiling Amateur
10/11/99: Money in Politics: Where's the Problem?
10/08/99: Soft Thinking On Soft Money
© 2000, Washington Post Writer's Group