- The Washington Times - Friday, May 25, 2001

In an effort to jumpstart our flagging economy, the Federal Reserve has just lowered interest rates yet again. Good idea.
But now some in Congress think they can go the Fed one better and stimulate the economy by delivering the $100 billion theyve set aside for immediate tax relief in the form of rebate checks to every taxpayer. Bad idea.
Sure, it has curb appeal. Rebate advocates argue that these checks, which would range from $300 to $400, are the way to go because they would put money directly into the hands of consumers, who would then put that money into the hands of merchants. The merchants, in turn, would hire more people and buy more inventories. Everyones happy.
But in the long run and, frankly, even in the short run a "rebate now, maybe a rate cut later" tax agenda adds up to poor economic policy. We in the Heritage Foundations Center for Data Analysis know, because weve run the numbers.
Using the same economic model used by many Fortune 500 companies, we compared a rebate program that would pay $52 billion this year and $51 billion next year with a similar-sized tax rate reduction over the same period. And while the rate cut doesnt offer the pleasure of finding a check in your mailbox, it fared better in every other area.
Start with jobs. The rate cut would produce 180,000 jobs in the first year and 352,000 over two. Compare that with the rebate, which would generate only 70,000 jobs the first year and 158,000 over two. Thats less than half as many.
Advantage: rate cut. Job growth is one thing, you say, but what about consumer spending? Surely, well all take our $300 or so to the local Circuit City or Wal-Mart and spend until the economy is back to its robust self, right? But again, rate cuts fare better. Our analysis found that the cuts would spark $38 billion in additional spending, compared to $33 billion for rebates. As for the stock market, its no secret that investors prefer the long-term soundness of rate cuts to the short-term bump of rebates. And the numbers bear out their judgment: According to our analysis, rate cuts would generate $7.6 billion in new investment $2.4 billion more than rebates would bring.
Total up all the numbers, and rate cuts look even better. By the end of 2011, gross domestic product would be $95.9 billion higher a huge improvement over the $5.2 billion boost in GDP wed see with rebates.
Unemployment would be even lower than Congress is now estimating, with 1.6 million more Americans working, thanks to the increased productivity rate cuts would unleash.
And how would family income be affected? That would go up, too. A family of four would have $4,644 more by the end of 2011 than theyd have under rebates. In response to this increase in the family budget, we found consumer spending would rise by $257 billion, or $3,422 for each family of four. These families would save more as well: Within a decade, they would have $1,087 more in the bank than they would with rebates.
Why the difference? Because, as shown by the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, tax-rate cuts encourage people to produce more. Economic growth comes not from "putting more money in peoples pockets," but from refusing to penalize those who would start new businesses or expand their current ones. Economic output goes up under rate cuts because theres more income available to spend, save and invest.
That a rebate, no matter what its size, wouldnt do much to stimulate the economy shouldnt surprise anyone, because its really the same as a government spending program. Tax relief occurs when government doesnt take money from people in the first place. A spending program occurs when the government collects money and then gives it to someone. Congress can call the rebates a "tax cut," but that wouldnt change the fact that the money is cycled through Washington and therefore amounts to government spending.
Despite this, rebates may still strike some lawmakers as an attractive option, at least politically. After all, wouldnt it be nice to tell voters theyll be getting a nice surprise in their mailboxes? But this is one tax proposal that needs to be marked: "Return to sender."

William Beach is director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation. Mark Wilson is a research fellow in Heritages Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide