I guess I do have to wonder whether people interpret this question, which is about LONG-RUN effects on DEFICIT, not revenue, as simply: are middle-class tax cuts "good", which means they must reduce this "bad thing", the deficit?
In other words, I see that this study by @S_Stantcheva includes considerable open-ended exploration of beliefs. I would be interested in asking someone who said "Yes, middle-class tax cuts reduce long-run deficit" about what their reasoning was on that.
Maybe they just think: "Well, I think middle-class tax cuts are good, especially for people like me, so they'll boost the economy, and that must be good for reducing the deficit, right?"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I appreciate what I interpret to be a compliment, but I think this judgment of actual policies is too extreme in its negative view. Altho I am sometimes tempted by cynicism, I don't think it impossible for our political system to run effective place-based programs.
At fed level, as I've mentioned in a number of publications, TVA seems to have boosted jobs in TVA region by 250K, at cost per job of roughly $80K. See Kline and Moretti. academic.oup.com/qje/article-ab…
And I think that Appalachian Regional Commission in some cases, particularly thru highways, had major effects. direct.mit.edu/rest/article-a…
This piece by @petercoy provides a useful highlighting of the recent intellectual & policy trend towards embracing place-based policies, albeit on small scale.
The article makes many useful points, including: governments have trouble doing targeting, past efforts have had mixed results, success ultimately should be judged by effects on PEOPLE in distressed places, & success depends on exploiting various multipliers, such as via clusters
My report on how state governments can target jobs for distressed places is being released today. This report pulls together a lot of my research of past 35 years on place-based policies -- but applies this to suggesting what state govts can do, w/ numbers for each state.
Fundamental to understanding and addressing place distress is the distinction between distress in local labor markets vs. neighborhoods. In both cases, residents lack jobs. But for LLMs, simply adding jobs will help increase employment rates, particularly in distressed places.
Here's a link to my testimony -- both written and powerpoints -- before the Michigan State Board of Education. This testimony relies on pulling together research from many folks on this issue.
The key point: research supports that HIGH-QUALITY pre-K has long-run effects on "authentic" adult outcomes,such as educational attainment and earnings. Research that seems to suggest otherwise is frequently on pre-K that is low-quality,or focuses on medium run test score effects
The RECOMPETE Act is in part inspired by proposals for "place-based" policy I have made over the years, such as this piece I wrote last fall for @BrookingsMetro brookings.edu/research/helpi…
This bill incorporates some key principles if we are to take effective action to boost employment rates and earnings in distressed communities. Specifically, the bill is targeted, flexible, and long-term.
As article details, WVa faces challenges due to declining economic base, which is exacerbated because this declining base means the area lacks sufficient tax resources & philanthropic resources to allow needed investments for redevelopment.
So part of the problem are inherent problem of losing your economic base. Part are some issues of disadvantages of small scale in rural areas. But other part is simply lack of resources. And that LAST problem can be solved -- not necessarily by state on own, but w/ outside help.