Best of the Week
Most Popular
1.Trump Delirium Triggers Stock Market Brexit Upwards Crash Towards Dow 20,000! - Nadeem_Walayat
2.The Future Price Of Gold Will Drop Below $1000 In 2017 -InvestingHaven
3.May Never Get Another Opportunity to Buy Gold at this Level Again - Chris_Vermeulen
4.Delirium - The Real Reason Why Donald Trump Won the US Presidential Election - Nadeem_Walayat
5.Why Nate Silver / Fivethirtyeight is one of the Most Reliable Election Forecasting Indicator? - Nadeem_Walayat
6.Gold Price Forecast: Nasty Naughty November Gold Price Trend - I_M_Vronsky
7.Gold Mining Stocks Screaming Buy! Q3’16 Fundamentals - Zeal_LLC
8.Delirium of Trump Mania Win's Mr BrExit US Presidential Election 2016 - Nadeem_Walayat
9.The War On Cash Goes Nuclear In India, Australia and Across The World - Jeff_Berwick
10.Hidden Signs for Gold and Silver - P_Radomski_CFA
Last 7 days
Gold and Silver Bullion Buying Opportunity for 2017? - 4th Dec 16
First UK BrExit then Trump, Next BrExit Tsunami Wave to Hit Italy HARD Sunday! - 3rd Dec 16
The 10YR Yield and SPX Stocks Bull Markets - 3rd Dec 16
Gold And Silver – Do Not Expect Much Difference With Trump Compared To Obama - 3rd Dec 16
Gold, Currencies and Markets Critical 61.8% Retracements - 2nd Dec 16
Gold Junior Stocks Q3’16 Fundamentals - 2nd Dec 16
Adventures in Castro’s Cuba - 2nd Dec 16
We Are Putting Off the Inevitable - 2nd Dec 16
Macroeconomic Cycles & Demographics - A Fuse, An Explosive and The Igniting Catalyst - 2nd Dec 16
How Moving Averages Can Identify a Trade - 1st Dec 16
Silver Prices and Interest Rates - 1st Dec 16
America, is it Finally time for us to say Goodbye? - 1st Dec 16
Blockchain Technology – What Is It and How Will It Change Your Life? - 1st Dec 16
Burn the Flags, Can Trump Salvage The Sinking US Economic Ship? - 1st Dec 16
Will US Housing Real Estate Market Tank in 2017? - 1st Dec 16
Referendum Puts Italy's Government to the Test - 30th Nov 16
Why We Haven’t Seen Gold Price Rally after Trump Victory - 30th Nov 16
Breakdown and Slide in Crude Oil Price - 30th Nov 16
A 'Wicked Rally' in Gold Price Predicted - 30th Nov 16
Silver Market Sentiment Looks Golden - 30th Nov 16
Indian Demonetization Denotes Severe Stress in the Global Gold Market - 30th Nov 16
Owning Gold and Silver in Troubling Times - 29th Nov 16
Trump's Presidency - Stock Market Crash or Start of New Mega-Trends - 29th Nov 16
Prime Minister Modi's War Against Corruption, Black Money and Fake Currency Notes in India - 29th Nov 16
Can President Trump Really Drain the Swamp? - 29th Nov 16
President Trump’s Economic Plan Isn’t Going to Work - 29th Nov 16
The US Bond Bear Market Has Begun! - 29th Nov 16
Simple Yet Powerful Technical Trading Tools - 28th Nov 16
Public Infrastructure – Welcome to the World of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse - 28th Nov 16
Fifty Years Later, Moore's Computing Law Holds - 28th Nov 16
An Elusive Stock Market Top - 28th Nov 16
This Past Week in Gold - 27th Nov 16
Italian Bank Collapse European Sovereign Bond Carnage, Criss-Crossed Fuses & Lit Bonfire - 27th Nov 16
How to Beat UK Savings Crisis with Child Junior Cash ISA, Pension's and Life-time ISA - 27th Nov 16
Castro Was Not Who You Thought He Was - 27th Nov 16
Understanding the Trump Presidency , Beyond Merkel - 26th Nov 16
US Stocks Bull Market New All Time Highs - 26th Nov 16
Silver Mining Stocks Q3 2016 Fundamentals - 26th Nov 16
MSM's Stock Market Druck'n Suck-In Continues - 26th Nov 16
Gold Price Down 13.5% In 13 Days - Opportunity For Geometric Price Cost Averaging - 26th Nov 16
Tips for Trading Options with Elliott Waves - 26th Nov 16
Germany Pulls the Plug on Market Oracle site for 24 hours, German Election BrExit GerExit Warning Shot? - 26th Nov 16
New NS&I 2.2% Savings Bond Ahead of 2017 Stealth Inflation Theft of Purchasing Power - 24th Nov 16
Establishment Controlled Mainstream Media Launches War on Alternative 'Fake' News - 24th Nov 16
Black Friday Cheap Christmas Lights, How Long do they Last ? B&M Stores Review Video - 24th Nov 16
War On Cash Goes Global – India and Citibank In Australia - 24th Nov 16
Stocks, the Politically-Driven S.O.D. to Lose Again - 24th Nov 16
One of the best buying opportunities in history? - 24th Nov 16

Free Instant Analysis

Free Instant Technical Analysis


Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

$10000 Gold

Politicians Get Away with Systematic Theft by Fostering Fiscal Euphemisms

Politics / Taxes Sep 13, 2010 - 08:56 AM GMT

By: Robert_Murphy

Politics

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleOne of the ways politicians get away with systematic theft is by fostering euphemisms to describe their activities. Murray Rothbard pointed out some of the typical tricks. More recently, even the supposedly "right-of-center" economists Greg Mankiw and Martin Feldstein do their part to muddy the terminological waters, making it harder for the public to understand just how much they're getting ripped off.


Rothbard's Critique of Fiscal Euphemisms
In his splendid collection Making Economic Sense, Rothbard has an essay on "Creative Economic Semantics." He writes,

If the federal government's economists have been good for nothing else in recent years, they have made great strides in what might be called "creative economic semantics." First they redefined the seemingly simple term "budget cut." In the old days, a "budget cut" was a reduction of next year's budget below this year's. In that old-fashioned sense, Dwight Eisenhower's first two years in office actually cut the budget substantially … below the previous year. Now we have "budget cuts" which are not cuts, but rather substantial increases over the previous year's expenditures.

"Cut" became subtly but crucially redefined as reducing something else. What the something else might be didn't seem to matter, so long as the focus was taken off actual dollar expenditures. Sometimes it was a cut "in the rate of increase," other times it was a cut in "real" spending, at still others it was a percentage of GNP, and at yet other times it was a cut in the sense of being below past projections for that year.

The result of a series of such "cuts" has been to raise spending sharply and dramatically not only in old-fashioned terms, but even in all other categories. Government spending has gone up considerably any way you slice it. As a result, even the idea of a creatively semantic budget cut has not gone the way of the nickel fare and the Constitution of the United States.

Rothbard goes on to say that the "creative semantics" applied not just to government spending but also to taxes:

Of course, government economists have been doing their part as well to try to sugar-coat the pill of tax increases. They never refer to these changes as "increases." They have not been increases at all; they were "revenue enhancement" and "closing loopholes." The best comment on the concept of "loopholes" was that of Ludwig von Mises. Mises remarked that the very concept of "loopholes" implies that the government rightly owns all of the money you earn, and that it becomes necessary to correct the slipup of the government's not having gotten its hands on that money long since.

Mankiw and Feldstein Keep the Tradition Alive

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has a reputation as a Republican conservative, in part because he was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) under George W. Bush. Martin Feldstein, another Harvard economist, and chair of the CEA under Ronald Reagan, is a frequent writer of op-eds for such outlets as the Wall Street Journal, and calls himself a "conservative economist." In the narrow spectrum of "respectable" political debate, Mankiw and Feldstein are considered right-wingers. They are not as "out there" as Arthur Laffer, but even so they are supposed to represent the case for the market, in opposition to more interventionist economists such as Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong.

Yet despite this popular classification, a Rothbardian would be suspicious. Two economists who served as advisors to presidents and who now teach at Harvard? What are the chances these guys are really champions of the free market?

Such suspicion would be well-founded. In a recent blog post titled, "Government Spending by Another Name," Mankiw writes, "Wise words from Marty Feldstein," and then links to a Wall Street Journal op-ed where Feldstein argues,

When it comes to spending cuts, Congress is looking in the wrong place. Most federal nondefense spending, other than Social Security and Medicare, is now done through special tax rules rather than by direct cash outlays. The rules are used to subsidize a wide range of spending including education, child care, health insurance, and a myriad of other congressional favorites.

These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures. That's why tax and budget experts refer to them as "tax expenditures." This year tax expenditures will raise the federal deficit by about $1 trillion, according to estimates by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. If Congress is serious about cutting government spending, it has to go after many of them.

I had originally planned on putting the most shocking portions of Feldstein's quotation in bold, but I realized that the whole thing is shocking. (If you don't think so, I encourage you to slow down and read the whole quotation again.)

Feldstein is claiming that, in the categories of how the federal government spends money, the big ones are the military, Social Security, and Medicare. But after those whoppers, the bulk of "government spending" — according to Feldstein and endorsed by Mankiw — are things like tax deductions on mortgage interest, or tax credits based on how many children a person has.

In other words, Feldstein is completely obliterating the distinction between (a) the government handing Paul $1,000 that it has previously taken from Peter, and (b) the government refraining from taking $1,000 from Paul that he earned. Either way, from Feldstein's viewpoint, that is a government expenditure.

Of course, these two processes are "equivalent" (Feldstein's term) if we think that property rights are irrelevant when it comes to the distribution of income. If we assume by default that the government starts out with all income in the entire economy, then, whether it cuts a check to someone or merely allows that person to retain his market income, it is all a gift of the government to the person in question.

On the other hand, if we think that people are actually entitled to the income they earn in the market, then there is a huge difference between the government redistributing some of it and the government not taking it in the first place. It is the difference between theft and nontheft.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand the sense in which Feldstein's analysis goes through. If you're narrowly focused on balancing the federal budget, then "closing a tax loophole" and sucking in $10 billion in extra revenue is just as fruitful as cutting $10 billion in direct outlays.

But there are two problems with this. First, there's the simple fact that words are supposed to mean something. It is an abuse of language to say that a tax hike is "equivalent" to a spending cut. With equal justification, Timothy Geithner could defend the hated TARP bank bailout as an $800 billion "tax cut." Or, proponents of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could refer to them as trillion-dollar-plus tax cuts. After all, Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, and other major corporations ended up with more money than they otherwise would have had, so these programs were basically tax cuts, right?

Beyond the sheer silliness of it all, there is the simple fact that the "tax expenditures" are not equivalent to actual expenditures, even for the narrow purpose of deficit reduction. Feldstein quotes the JCT estimate that this year, the deficit is $1 trillion higher because of these "expenditures."

He seems to imply that, if only the government got rid of the deductions, credits, and other loopholes, the deficit would be that much smaller. But this is nonsense. People wouldn't behave the same if the tax code were significantly altered. The tax base, upon which this imaginary $1 trillion in tax revenue is founded, would shrink considerably once the loopholes were removed.

Raise Taxes Now, Lest We Raise Taxes in the Future
The funniest part of the whole episode is Feldstein's dire warning of what happens if Congress doesn't eliminate those pesky tax expenditures:

If tax expenditures are not cut, taxes on households and businesses will have to rise to prevent an explosion of the national debt, which is now projected to increase to 90% of GDP by 2020 from today's 63%. When benefits for Social Security and Medicare are set aside, the rest of the outlay side of the budget is too small — 7.5% of GDP — to provide much scope for reducing annual budget deficits that are now projected to average 5% of GDP for the rest of this decade. In contrast, total tax expenditures are now 6.4% of GDP.

At first glance, this is just the type of analysis we expect from a "right-winger": slash government spending in order to get the debt under control and protect households and businesses from tax hikes! Amen, Brother Martin!

But once we run Feldstein's prose through the Orwellian Translator, we realize what he's actually saying: The government needs to raise taxes on households and businesses right now, so that it won't have to do it later.

Conclusion
Government economists are up to the same rhetorical tricks that Murray Rothbard exposed long ago. It takes a lot of PhDs to convince the public that their systematic looting at the hands of politicians is actually for their own good.

Robert Murphy, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a faculty member of the Mises University, runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, the Human Action Study Guide, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. Send him mail. See Robert P. Murphy's article archives. Comment on the blog.

© 2010 Copyright Robert Murphy - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2016 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

Catching a Falling Financial Knife