No Stimulus Gimmicks, Please

Visiting Fellow Bill Thomas
Visiting Fellow Bill Thomas
Research Fellow Alex Brill
Research Fellow Alex Brill

Washington is abuzz these days with calls for economic stimulus. The presidential candidates are eager to "rescue" voters, and the administration doesn't want its final chapter to end on a sour note.

The current tax code--designed to discourage capital accumulation and projected to collect rising levels of revenue in increasingly complex and distortionary ways--does need serious reform. But what we're getting instead from politicians and economists are legislatively challenging, economically questionable and politically motivated policies to address a potential problem best handled by the Federal Reserve.

There are five principal reasons why a politically motivated economic stimulus bill should not be enacted in the middle of the presidential primary season.

Good public policy cannot be the result of a focus on micromanaging consumer demand to meet the objectives of the congressional and White House political calendar.

First, from a legislative process perspective there is no way that a tax cut can be enacted in the first quarter of 2008. Thus, fiscal policy action would come too late if one accepts the gloomiest economic forecast.

Tax cuts generally take at least six months to pass into law and can often take much longer. The Kennedy tax cut in 1964 took more than a year to enact. The Reagan tax cut in 1981 took eight months time from when it was first proposed to when it was enacted. The 2001 tax was first developed on the campaign trail in 2000 and the $600 rebate checks that were intended as a stimulus component to that bill were only mailed in August and September 2001.

Second, perhaps the easiest "stimulus" package Washington could to enact would be to drop money from planes into the hands of voters/consumers. However, the economic evidence from the 2001 experience suggests this is an ineffective tool. Professors Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod from the University of Michigan found that most rebates were saved, not spent. While this result may be a disappointment to those of us who thought this approach would be effective, Congress must be willing to learn from past legislative experience. Popular versus effective is sometimes the difference between politics and economics.

The 2003 tax cut, which has been shown to have delivered a significant positive economic punch, lowered the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%, accelerated the reduction in tax rates on labor, and offered businesses 50% bonus depreciation to stimulate investment. While it took just six months to be enacted, it required tremendous political valor on the part of many, and political strength on the part of others.

Even so, it passed by just one vote in the Senate in the final days of the second quarter of that year. Both the 2001 and 2003 tax cut bills were enacted in an environment when majorities in Congress did not subscribe to straightjacket pay-as-you-go budgeting and forecasters projected out-year budget surpluses.

Third, the 2003 tax cut was enacted in an environment when monetary policy was possibly near the end of its rope. The federal funds rate was 1.25%, and the Federal Reserve had only untried and unusual policy remedies left.

Not so today. The fed funds rate currently sits at 4.25%. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has recently emphasized that "more pronounced responses" and "stronger action" may be appropriate for the Fed given the uncertainty arising from a range of possible future economic outcomes. Yesterday Mr. Bernanke cautioned Congress about the risk of stimulus that comes too late and could be "actively destabilizing."

The Fed has also been shown to be flexible in its actions. The recently launched Term Action Facility provides another tool to aid the real economy through monetary policy. Taken together, Chairman Bernanke appears better positioned, better equipped, and more willing to quickly inject significant monetary stimulus than his predecessor.

Fourth, although the political calendar suggests that now is the time to launch the stimulus debate, the economic data are far from compelling. While some on Wall Street have recently issued forecasts for recession, the data to date only indicate elevated risks.

To be sure, in December, job growth slowed and retail sales (excluding ever rising Internet sales) were weak. However, our labor markets are flexible and our economy is dynamic. As a result, there will always be workers in particular industries or in certain geographic pockets who are experiencing difficult times or "personal recessions."

Congress should explore public policy that will encourage those workers to find new jobs, acquire new skills or relocate to more prosperous locations. That too should be the focus of debate this year. Good public policy cannot be the result of a focus on micromanaging consumer demand to meet the objectives of the congressional and White House political calendar.

Finally, it is important to consider the potential economic consequences of failure to achieve a legislative objective. The amplified rhetoric of economic doom from leaders and hopeful leaders in Washington may become a self-fulfilling prophecy as consumers curtail their spending in response to the predictions of recession by their favorite candidates. If history is a guide, economically sound help from Washington will arrive late at best and likely not at all.

Bill Thomas is a visiting fellow at AEI. Alex Brill is a research fellow at AEI.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author


  • Bill Thomas, a former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1978 to 2007. During his six-year chairmanship, he guided the enactment of $2 trillion in tax relief, including the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001, which reduced all ordinary income tax rates; the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003, which reduced the tax rate on dividends and capital gains; and the Job Creation Act of 2004, which provided significant reforms for corporate tax policy.
  • Phone: 2028625830


  • Alex Brill is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies the impact of tax policy on the US economy as well as the fiscal, economic, and political consequences of tax, budget, health care, retirement security, and trade policies. He also works on health care reform, pharmaceutical spending and drug innovation, and unemployment insurance reform. Brill is the author of a pro-growth proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and “The Real Tax Burden: More than Dollars and Cents” (2011), coauthored with Alan D. Viard. He has testified numerous times before Congress on tax policy, labor markets and unemployment insurance, Social Security reform, fiscal stimulus, the manufacturing sector, and biologic drug competition.

    Before joining AEI, Brill served as the policy director and chief economist of the House Ways and Means Committee. Previously, he served on the staff of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He has also served on the staff of the President's Fiscal Commission (Simpson-Bowles) and the Republican Platform Committee (2008).

    Brill has an M.A. in mathematical finance from Boston University and a B.A. in economics from Tufts University.

  • Phone: 202-862-5931
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Brittany Pineros
    Phone: 202-862-5926

What's new on AEI

image Getting it right: US national security policy and al Qaeda since 2011
image Net neutrality rundown: What the NPRM means for you
image The Schuette decision
image Snatching failure from victory in Afghanistan
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Event Registration is Closed
Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

Event Registration is Closed
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.