Ways to Reduce Unemployment

Arthur Laffer think’s its prima facie absurd to think that extending unemployment benefits could reduce unemployment:

No one opposes unemployment benefits as a transition aid for people to get back on their feet and find a new job. Unemployment benefits are a safeguard for individuals down on their luck. But to argue that unemployment benefits actually reduce unemployment is disingenuous at best, and could induce our government to enact policies that have the effect of destroying our nation’s production base from whence all benefits ultimately flow.

Although some partisans may overextend their spin in the heat of political battle, I think for the most part the arguments for improving the economy and extending unemployment benefits lie along different tracks of reasoning. Most people see payments to the unemployed as a compassionate expense to be balanced against efforts to revive the economy.
I will say, though, that I like Mr. Laffer’s suggestion for an alternative stimulus:

Since late 2007 the federal government has spent somewhere around $3.6 trillion to stimulate the economy. That is a lot of money.
My suggestion would have been to take all $3.6 trillion and declare a federal tax holiday for 18 months. No income tax, no corporate profits tax, no capital gains tax, no estate tax, no payroll tax (FICA) either employee or employer, no Medicare or Medicaid taxes, no federal excise taxes, no tariffs, no federal taxes at all, which would have reduced federal revenues by $2.4 trillion annually. Can you imagine where employment would be today? How does a 2.5% unemployment rate sound?

Unfortunately, where government spending is concerned, neither political party emphasizes the greatest economic efficiency. The temptation is too great to convert the money into political currency.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Warrington Faust
Warrington Faust
11 years ago

From the politician’s point of view is that “spending” can be passed on to future generations of voters who won’t realize where the costs came from. “Cuts” will impair their present day-to day operations.

Tommy Cranston
Tommy Cranston
11 years ago

From the politician’s point of view is that “spending” can be passed on to future generations of voters who won’t realize where the costs came from. “Cuts” will impair their present day-to day operations.
Posted by Warrington Faust at July 11, 2010 10:01 AM
While this is historically so, the massive borrowing now required, both on the state and federal ($1.5 trillion a year)level is so large that “the rubber is now hitting the road” as interest and principal payments from past years are becoming due NOW.
We are the “future generation” as Japan and now Europe have found out.
In RI and its municipalities (Providence has a $70 million real budget deficit and real unfunded pension/health care liabilities north of a billion dollars) the progressive juggler is quite rapidly losing his ability to keep the balls in the air.

Howie
Howie
11 years ago

But if we cut off even a tiny bit the massive money pit that is our welfare/unemployment system – all the bleeding heart liberals will be devastated!!!!!

Tommy Cranston
Tommy Cranston
11 years ago

Oh it’s coming Howie, like it or not.
“progressives” in the US and even more so in RI, remind of their Eastern European comrades in the 80’s-blissfully unaware that the “paradise on Earth” they have created is about to crumble to dust.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.