Moderately Positive Outlook?

CNN has a story, “Mañana economics: Economists keep saying the sun will come out tomorrow … and tomorrow … and tomorrow.” Here’s the outlook:

GDP actually grew just 2.4 percent in 2002. When surveyed at the start of 2002, forecasters predicted 3.5 percent growth in 2003. Lately, they’ve cut their forecast for the year to 2.2 percent. Now, they’re expecting 3.6 percent GDP growth in 2004.

The improved projections are attributed to the tax cuts (which are in fact somewhat stimulative, though that stimulus may come at the expense of long run investment, as government borrowing to finance deficits pushes interest rates up and crowds out private investment), low interest rates (which have done a lot to keep consumer spending up–mortgages and cars–but haven’t similarly stimulated business investment), the falling dollar (good for exporters; bad for domestic firms that buy a lot of inputs from abroad), rising consumer confidence, and a rising stock market.

2.2% growth is basically ok, closer to recession than to boom, but basically neither. It would take growth rates somewhat above 3% to reverse the unemployment increases that we’ve seen over the last two years.

But not all the news is rosy: using the administration’s own numbers (from the CEA), the tax plan is projected to destroy jobs from 2005-2007. Why? Well it’s billed as creating 700,000 new jobs in total, while creating 1.4 million in 2003-2004 alone. So to total up to 700,000, that many jobs have to vanish after 2004! That’s rather convenient, given the election cycle.

And some of the news is outrageous:

A last-minute revision by House and Senate leaders in the tax bill that President Bush signed today will prevent millions of minimum-wage families from receiving the increased child credit that is in the measure, say Congressional officials and outside groups.

The $400 checks that these families will not get were a big part selling this plan, a way to avoid the “sellout to the wealthy” label. The group that does not benefit includes those making $10,500 to $26,625, meaning that many of these families, likely the majority, do in fact earn enough to pay income taxes, and therefore would benefit from the child credit even if it is not fully refundable (it isn’t).

I’m sure we’ll hear that this was an inadvertent slip (right now, the House is blaming the Senate’s $350b “limit”), but inadvertent slips tell a lot about the priorities of those making the slips.


UPDATE: The numbers about job growth and loss before and after 2003-2004 in the CNN story are based on a mistake Max Sawicky made, where that mistake basically amounts to believing the president’s Council of Economic Advisors February 2003 report. You see, crazy Max thought that by a “creating a job”, the CEA meant “one person working for one year who would not be working under the baseline scenario for that year”, when it turns out that the CEA meant something different. Max explains the details here. I suppose the WSJ editorial page can just blame it on Clinton for confusing us all about what “is” means. I should emphasize that even under the CEA’s interpretations, it remains very front-loaded, meaning the majority of job gains–such as they are–accrue bye the end of 2004.

X-posted at It’s the Economy.