[ad_1]
Final Thursday, Cecilia Rouse, chair of President Biden’s Council of Financial Advisers, gave a Zoom speak to the Stanford Institute for Financial Coverage Analysis (SIEPR). I “attended” for the primary 20 minutes, however then signed off to “attend” one other Zoom speak out of Stanford offered by Scott Atlas.
However I circled again, as Jen Psaki would say, to observe the remainder of the speak, which you could find right here. I questioned notably whether or not and the way Rouse would cope with the graph on declines in black and Hispanic poverty that I highlighted and mentioned right here, which, by the way, the Wall Avenue Journal used as a “Notable and Quotable” of their April 28, 2022 print difficulty (April 27 on line.)
Right here’s the related half, on the 24:50 level:
Rouse reveals the graph that I commented on. Discover the little grey bar on the finish. There are two issues attention-grabbing right here. First, she introduces the problem by speaking about inequality. However then she talks concerning the decline in poverty. That’s what she ought to speak about. I don’t care, and I guess most poor individuals don’t care, if inequality is growing if the worst off have gotten considerably higher off, because the graph reveals. Discover the velocity up within the drop in poverty for black and Hispanic individuals from 2017 to 2020. Rouse appears to care about black and Hispanic individuals. However what does she deal with? The little grey half on the finish: the drop in poverty from 2019 to 2020, which occurred, as she said accurately, due to the massive youngster care tax credit score within the CARES Act of March 2020. Is she so uncurious to not marvel why poverty amongst black and Hispanic households plummeted from 2017 to 2019, with out the elevated youngster care tax credit score? If somebody cares about lowering poverty, isn’t it vital to look into why these reductions occurred earlier than the elevated youngster tax credit score.
This, to me, was probably the most disappointing a part of her speak. The gatekeeper for questions was the host, economist Mark Duggan. I don’t know if anybody submitted a query on this. If that’s the case, Duggan didn’t ask them.
A lot later, at about 46:08, when she discusses the 2017 tax invoice, she focuses on some tax breaks it created for the very rich, with out mentioning what they’re. She has to concentrate on the tax break for the rich that the invoice decreased considerably, particularly the restriction of the deductions for state and native taxes for many who itemize.
Rouse says it’s “not apparent in any respect” that the tax lower had good results. We haven’t seen huge good results of the tax invoice. Actually? One among her predecessors, Trump’s CEA chair Kevin Hassett had some fairly cautious evaluation of the the results on development of the tax lower. His evaluation helps us perceive how the tax lower may certainly be behind the big drop in poverty. It’s far more cautious than something that Rouse and her colleagues did on the identical difficulty of their 2022 Report. Is that this simply unhealthy propaganda or does she know one thing we don’t?
In Half II, I’ll spotlight another elements of her speak, together with some elements I preferred, notably on immigration and on the FDA.
[ad_2]
Source link
