Topic: Tax and Budget Policy

Is Giuliani a Supply-Sider?

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Steve Forbes endorses Rudy Giuliani and makes a reasonably compelling argument that he believes in smaller government:

Rudy Giuliani…cut taxes and the size of government…. Mr. Giuliani delivered, overcoming the initial resistance of the overwhelmingly Democratic City Council. He ultimately prevailed 23 times, including cuts in sales, personal income, commercial rent and hotel occupancy taxes.

…Mr. Giuliani always made fiscal discipline a priority: instructing city commissioners to cut agency budgets even when the deficits had turned to surpluses. Mr. Giuliani set out to cut the size of city government, insisting that New York should live within its means. New Yorkers saw their quality of life improve with more effective delivery of services while the bureaucratic ranks were being thinned by nearly 20,000 — a near 20% decrease in city headcount, excluding police officers and teachers.

But there are reasons to question Giuliani’s pedigree. In a post on the New York Sun’s political blog, Ryan Sager quotes Giuliani trashing the flat tax:

“It [the flat tax] would really be a disaster and it’s totally inconsistent with the movement of the Republican Congress toward giving more responsibility to state and local government,” Mr. Giuliani said on CNN’s “Capital Gang,” on March 9, 1996.

To be sure, even good policymakers sometimes say silly things because of competing political interests. Nonetheless, it is difficult to reconcile Giuliani’s recent supply-side rhetoric with his harsh 1996 statement. If he had merely expressed concern, that would be understandable, but claiming that a flat tax would be a “disaster” suggests a genuine hostility to the flagship policy goal of supply-side economics.

Pure Protectionism

Several years ago, I appeared on the radio show of the late and much-missed David Brudnoy to discuss deregulation of taxicabs. I advocated a free market and an end to licensing and medallions. We got a call from a spokesman for the taxicab industry, who was outraged. Public safety! he exclaimed. “Without licensing, you could have some crazy person driving a cab and have an accident and you could have a mudda an’ a dotta killed! Do you want to be responsible for that?!”

I remembered that call when I saw the letter in the Washington Post from Michael C. Alin, executive director of the American Society of Interior Designers. Responding to George Will’s column on the absurdity of licensing for interior decorators, Alin writes:

In one of the worst hotel fires in U.S. history, 85 lives were lost and more than 700 people were injured at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas in November 1980, partly because some of the materials in the interior finish and furnishing fueled a rapid spreading of the fire. If furniture is placed in such a manner that it impedes egress during an emergency, people will die. Should a nonqualified, non-educated person select the materials for the interior of a hospital, school or high-rise building? 

Will had blithely and insensitively mocked the idea of criminal penalties for impersonating an interior designer:

In Las Vegas, where almost nothing is illegal, it is illegal — unless you are licensed, or employed by someone licensed — to move, in the role of an interior designer, any piece of furniture, such as an armoire, that is more than 69 inches tall. A Nevada bureaucrat says that “placement of furniture” is an aspect of “space planning” and therefore is regulated — restricted to a “registered interior designer.”

Placing furniture without a license? Heaven forfend.

I hope that Will is suitably chastened now that he understands the real risks of letting just anyone pick out wallpaper and position furniture.

(Ways and) Means to an End

The House Ways and Means Committee released their trade policy vision on Tuesday, and it should give cause for concern to free-traders who thought a compromise could be reached between the Democratic majority and the administration on how to advance the trade agenda. There are few details on how exactly trade agreements could be made acceptable to Democrats in the immediate future, and plenty of demands that could give potential trade partners cause for alarm.

The administration must give 90 days’ advance notice to Congress when seeking its approval for trade agreements, under the terms of the trade promotion authority delegated by Congress to the President. Because that authority expires on July 1, there are only two working days left to iron out differences on completed trade agreements (those with Peru, Colombia, and Panama, and possibly the still-under-frantic-negotiation agreement with South Korea). The Democrats’ one-pager was lamentably short on details about how to make these agreements acceptable to them.

In the longer-term, if the new majority’s trade strategy is indicative of its overall approach to trade policy (and we have every reason to believe that it is) then negotiated trade liberalization looks to be over for the next two years at least. Unless, of course, the secret 15-page proposal (mentioned in this NY Times piece) presented to the administration contains more of substance, and less of the deal-breaking demands, than what was released to the public.

The details we do have from the one-pager, however, do not paint a pretty picture. The Democrats’ plan proposes new emphasis on labour and environmental standards (including some standards to which, some critics point out, the United States is not a party), non-tariff barriers, calls for immediate action (italics in original) on currency manipulation in China and Japan, and more help for workers displaced by trade. Organized labor has welcomed it, of course, although–bizarrely–so have some Republican members of the committee, including the ranking Republican, Jim McCrery (R-LA). Steven Pearlstein in an article in yesterdays Washington Post, called some of the demands “political poison pills.”

Previous Cato research on some of these topics can be viewed here, and my colleague Dan Ikenson gave an interview on BBC on Tuesday night on the Dems’ proposal: view here.

Is the Czech Republic Joining the Flat Tax Club?

Although the government lacks a majority in Parliament, the Czech Republic’s Prime Minister has announced a 15 percent flat tax. According to Tax-news.com, the proposal will be unveiled next month:

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek has reportedly stated that his government’s plan to introduce a flat income tax is a near certainty. In comments made to the daily Hospodarske Noviny newspaper, Topolanek said that at the moment, a 15% flat tax rate is “certain”. … The reform package will be published by the government in April. … Initially, the coalition had planned to introduce a flat tax at a rate of 17% to 19%. Corporate tax in the Czech Republic was reduced to 24% last year, and personal income tax rates are levied at progressive rates to a maximum of 32%.

Given the government’s precarious hold on power, it is unclear whether the proposal will be enacted. A Czech news service notes that the economic community likes the flat tax, but there is some concern that it will not get enough votes:

Analysts are cautiously optimistic that the government’s upcoming flat tax and other tax reforms, set to be announced April 3, may strengthen public finances. However, while all the analysts spoken to by CBW agree a tax reform is much needed, and that the proposals published thus far would have a positive impact on the economy, they caution that the draft legislation is still a long way from the law books and is likely to change before it gets there. … David Marek, macroeconomic analyst, with brokerage Patria Finance said that the lower corporate tax rates are the most important part of the reform because they will give the Czech Republic one of the lower corporate tax rates in Europe and encourage foreign direct investment.

But if it did get enacted, it would create additional pressure on Western Europe’s welfare states. One can only imagine that French and German politicians are praying that the flat tax is not adopted.

Europe Takes Another Step Toward Tax Harmonization

Even though several nations are opposed, the European Commission plans to harmonize the definition of taxable income for corporations. It is true that the current system is a hassle for multinational companies, requiring 27 different tax returns for firms operating in all EU nations. But there are good ways and bad ways to address this problem. Allowing firms the option of choosing the “common” tax base would ensure that the bureaucrats in Brussels had less of an incentive to use the new system as a way of extorting more money from businesses. Another option would allow firms to use their home country’s definition of taxable income – an approach that would promote rather than retard tax competiiton since governments would have an incentive to attract companies by using a pro-growth definition of taxable income. Needless to say, the European Commission is not using either of these approaches. The EU Observer reports:

The European Commission is set to press ahead with introducing a single EU company tax base by 2010 in only a limited number of member states, circumventing national veto power in the sensitive tax area. … EU member states are deeply divided over possible harmonization, with 12 capitals in favour, five to seven against and the rest remaining undecided. Britain, Ireland and the Baltic states fear that the next step for Brussels would be interference in the levels of their corporate taxes, an area where EU states compete with each other as well.