Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

During his first term, George W. Bush sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and are set to expire in 2011.

Initial Passage

Facing opposition in Congress for an initially proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut , Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the nation in 2001 to increase public support for it. Bush and some of his economic advisers argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers. With reports of the threat of recession from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Economists, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill and 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize laureates, who contacted Bush in 2003, opposed the tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook considerably. In the end, five Senate Democrats crossed party lines to join Republicans in approving a $1.35 trillion tax cut program — one of the largest in U.S. history. The effects of the tax cuts have been as promised as revenues actually increased, the recession of 2000 ended, and the economy flourished.

Unemployment

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose from 4.2% in January 2001, peaking at 6.3% in June 2003, to 5.0% in December 2007. The avereage seasonably adjusted unemployment rate for this time span was 5.1%.

Income and poverty

Median household income has kept up with inflation since Bush took control of fiscal policy during the 2001 near-recession, growing slightly higher in constant 2006 dollars in 2006 to $48,201 from $48,091 in 2001, while poverty rose slightly from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.3% in 2006.

Economic growth

Economic growth for the 2001 to 2005 business cycle compared to the average for business cycles between 1949 to 2000.

Bush inherited a faltering economy from Clinton, the economy having grown only at a 1.1% annualized rate over the previous three quarters from March 31 of the first year of Bush presidency (see Early 2000s recession). Bush had his tax cut plan approved by Congress in June, proposed early as a response to the economic decline and, despite the aftermath of the 2001 9/11 attacks, managed to keep the country out of recession (defined as two consecutive quarters of decline in the size of the economy) during the time he and his economic policies were assuming more control over the economy. Whatever the contribution of Bush's approach to fiscal policy, and despite the business cycle's tendency to produce periodic recessions, under his administration the length of time between recessions, since accurate accounts have been kept (the last recession being in October 1990-March 1991) has extended to a record 17 years (the previous record having been the 11 years between the recessions in 1958 and 1969).

While the economy has grown under the Bush administration, growth was below average in comparison to the average for business cycles between 1949 and 2000. Overall real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%, 1.6% below the average of 3.4%, while GDI (Gross Domestic Income) growth was 36% below average. The number of jobs created grew by only 6.5%, 28.5% below the average growth rate of 9.1%. The growth in average salaries was less than half as usual; 1.2% versus 2.7%, respectively. While growth in consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income, it too has “failed to keep pace with the... average of previous cycles.” Only investment residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster than average.

Despite growth levels considerably below previous levels, a March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.

From the end of Fiscal Year 2001 (ending Oct. 1, 2001) to the fourth quarter of 2007, the economy has produced $5.6 trillion (in constant 2000 dollars) over and above Fiscal Year 2001 GDP levels of $9.89 trillion per year. In the same period the federal government accumulated $2.9 trillion in gross debt (in constant 2000 dollars) or a debt load of 52.0¢ per dollar of the increased production (for comparison purposes in expressing the size of the debt; that is, new debt didn't exceed new production, but growing populations are committed to certain consumption levels, so the increased production isn't necessarily usable in its entirety to pay for the debt).

President Bush tried to calm turmoil in financial markets on March 17, 2008, by saying that his administration is "on top of the situation" in dealing with the slumping Economy of the United States.. Bush and Congress had responded to signs of a slowing economy with the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 on February 13.

Recession

Further information: Economic crisis of 2008

While the economy has slowed over two quarters (Oct. 2007-Mar. 2008), it will be impossible (apart from consistently and markedly negative [or, in the opposite case, positive] economic data of many different kinds) to determine with certainty if the nation is in a recession before October 2008 when the advance third quarter GDP calculations from the Bureau of Economic Analysis are published, as final counts of 2007 fourth quarter national production showed 0.6% annualized growth in the size of the economy, and on May 29, 2008, preliminary counts of 2008 first quarter GDP showed an even greater 0.9% annualized growth (down from 4.9% annualized growth in the third quarter of 2007). On April 6, 2008, however former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was reported in El País newspaper in an interview as saying that while he wouldn't describe the state the country was in as recessionary (a descriptive term which he stated as meaning marked by sharp falls in orders, strong rises in unemployment and intensive weakening of the economy), he did say that "the chances that we'll have [a recession] are more than 50 percent."

Income inequality

File:Share top 1%.jpg

Share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%, between 1917 and 2005.

Many economists are critical of the Bush administration's policies and argue that the economy is only benefiting the wealthy, increasing inequality between the top 1% and the rest of society. Economists Aviva Aron-Dine and Richard Sherman point to recent data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), showing that "the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars." At the same time, the share of overall tax liabilities of the top 1% increased from 22.9% to 25.3% , as the result of a tax system which became more progressive since 2000. According to economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, who reviewed income tax returns for all income groups since 1917, found that in 2005, the top 1% received its largest share of gross income since 1928. Economist John Weeks asserts that increased income inequality in the U.S., one of only four high-income OECD countries to experience a significant increase in inequality, is largely the result of a less progressive taxation structure, the weakening strength of labor unions, which has resulted in "a growing imbalance in the economic and political power of capital and labor." However, claims of a "less progressive taxation structure" are refuted by the fact that "high-income households pay a modestly larger share of total federal income taxes," which is the generally-accepted measure of progressivity.

While the vast majority of economists believe that inequality has increased sharply since the late 1970s and during the tenure of George W. Bush, conservative and libertarian economists have attempted to refute claims of increasing inequality by pointing to flaws in the data gather of Thomas and Piketty. Economist Stephen Rose asserts that Piketty and Saez use an older method to adjusting for inflation, exclude government transfers, and they do not address demographic changes. Rose does, however, conclude that while inequality did increase, the increase has been exaggerated. Libertarian economist Alan Reynolds, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, makes similar assertions as Rose Gary Burtless, senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institution, however, stated that Reynolds did not provide sufficient evidence to dismiss the findings of Saez, which are further supported by the CBO. According to him, "many of [Reynold's] criticisms are misguided or unfair given the goals of the Pikkety-Saez project... The CBO handles almost all the problems Reynolds mentions, and its calculations show a sizeable rise in both pre-tax and after-tax inequality since the late 1980s." Overall the vast majority of economists disagree with Reynolds, believing that income inequality has grown and government redistribution is required to lessen the current extent of inequality, which they view as excessive.

Tax cuts

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%. In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from fillbusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.

Some policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [1], and the Tax Policy Center have attributed some of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration's tax policy. In February of 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education". However, prominent social scientists, such as economist Paul Krugman and political scientist Larry Bartels, have pointed out that education fails to explain the rising gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%, which has been the site of most increases in inequality. They point out that if education were to blame, a larger group would be pulling ahead of the rest of the population, and that wages of highly educated earners have fallen far behind those of the very rich. Furthermore, they point out that the U.S. is unique among developed countries in seeing such a sharp rise in inequality, while the composition of its economy and labor force is not - if education were to blame, one would expect the same trend across all post-industrial nations. Bartels has asserted that the skill base explanation is partially used as it is more "comforting" to blame impersonal forces, rather than policies.

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council. In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income." The Bush administration has claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower taxation rates. In contrast to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and Republican presidential primary candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, there is a broad consensus among even conservative economists (including current and former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw) that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects. When asked whether the Bush tax cuts had generated more revenue, Laffer stated that he did not know. However, he did say that the tax cuts were "what was right," because after the September 11 attacks and threats of recession, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense."

In terms of increasing inequality, the effect of Bush's tax cuts on the upper, middle and lower class is contentious. Most economists argue that the cuts have benefited the nation's richest households at the expense of the middle and lower class, while libertarians and conservatives have claimed that tax cuts have benefitted all taxpayers. Economists Peter Orzsag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes." Between 2003 and 2004, following the 2003 tax cuts, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1% rose from 12.2% in 2003 to 14.0% in 2004. (This followed the period from 2000 to 2002, where after-tax incomes declined the most for the top 1%.) At the same time, the share of overall tax liabilities of the top 1% increased from 22.9% to 25.3% , as the result of a tax system which became more progressive since 2000.

A study by the Tax Foundation attempted to quantify the change in progressivity from 2000 to 2005, using the standard measure of "progressivity" as dividing in income group's tax share by that group's income share. (They also pointed out that some studies erroneously measure "progressivity" by comparing pre-tax income to after-tax income; using that measure, nearly any tax cut will make the tax code appear less progressive.) Using this measure, they found that in 2005, all income groups making under $200,000 a year paid a lower percentage of the tax burden than they did in 2000, with groups making under $25,000 actually paying a negative effective tax rate (meaning that they received more money than they paid in taxes). And for all income groups over $200,000, the ratio of tax share to income share increased, meaning that the tax code became more progressive over that period.

Federal Budget Deficit and National Debt

File:Bush deficit.jpg

Breakdown of debt incurred between 2001 and 2006.

Recent additions to U.S. public debt

Fiscal year (begins 10/01 of prev. year)	Value	% of GDP
2001	$144.6 billion	1.4%
2002	$409.3 billion	3.9%
2003	$589.0 billion	5.5%
2004	$605.0 billion	5.3%
2005	$523.2 billion	4.3%
2006	$536.5 billion	4.1%
2007	$527.9 billion	3.9%

The cumulative debt of the United States in the past five completed fiscal years was approximately $2.78 trillion, or about 29.5% of the total national debt of approximately $9.5 trillion.

The total surplus in FY 2001 was $128 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion to the national debt since then (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2007). It should be noted that yearly debt accumulation often exceeds the yearly deficit, because, for example, paying the interest on the debt is not planned in the budget to be paid off or because Social Security receipts run a surplus (see Fiscal policy of the United States). The total budget deficit for FY 2007 was $162 billion.

Most debt was accumulated as a result of tax cuts and increased national security spending. According to economists Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler, "the largest costs — $1.2 trillion over six years — resulted from the tax cuts enacted since the start of 2001. Increased spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security — primarily for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — also was quite costly, amounting to almost $800 billion to date. Together, tax cuts and the spending increases for these security programs account for 84 percent of the increases in debt racked up by Congress and the President over this period." Lawrence Kudlow, however, noted "The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that’s a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It’s miniscule." He also reported that "during the five years of the Iraq war,. . .household net worth has increased by $20 trillion".

Trade policy

The Bush administration has generally pursued free trade policies. Bush used the authority he gained from the Trade Act of 2002 to push through bilateral trade agreements with several countries. Bush has also sought to expand mulilateral trade agreements through the World Trade Organization, but negotiations have been hung up in the Doha Development Round for most of Bush's presidency. Developing countries blame the US and the EU for stagnated negotiations since both maintain protectionist policies in agriculture. While generally favoring free trade, Bush has also occasionally has supported protectionist measures, notably the 2002 United States steel tariff early in his term.

George W. Bush successfully gained ratification of the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Supporters of DR-CAFTA claim it has been a success [2], but detractors still oppose the agreement for a variety of reasons including its impact on the environment. [3]