That’s the title of an informal panel at the UW La Follette School of Public Affairs on Tuesday. Here are the slides that underpin my presentation.
For now, let the following figure summarize the choices.
Source: “Trump vs Clinton: Polarization & uncertainty,” Research Briefing (Oxford Economics, 19 Sept. 2016) [not online].
The other panelists are Pam Herd, Greg Nemet, Rourke O’Brien, and Tim Smeeding.
Instead of zooming to 130% debt-to-GDP ratio, the new Trump plan only takes it up to 105%.
Continue reading
The Wisconsin Budget Project concludes “Costly Tax Credit has Done Little to Boost [manufacturing] Employment”.
The experiment continues…
Writing in The Nation, Robert Pollin asserts:
All of [Bernie Sanders’s] major proposals are grounded in solid economic reasoning and evidence.
Economic activity stalls, and the Republicans conclude that higher taxes are necessary for higher tax revenue.
[with update 6/2 on the April forecast]
and is forecasted to continue to lag.
If you dynamic score, dynamically score both expenditure and revenue measures.
Republicans are keen to sacrifice CBO’s role as impartial arbiter of fiscal measures on the altar of “dynamic scoring” of tax measures.[0] But there is no economic reason for restricting this approach to only tax measures.
Updated 11/24 2:45PM Pacific to include a list of candidates the GOP is mulling to replace Elmendorf, including Bill Beach (!!!)
(For the youth of today, here is the reference.)