December 1, 2002
EMINENCE GRISE:
Scholarly Mentor to Bush's Team (DAVID LEONHARDT, December 1, 2002, NY Times)Almost two decades after the soft-spoken but hard-driving [Martin S. ] Feldstein ended a fractious stint in the Reagan administration, he has built an empire of influence that is probably unmatched in his field. Aside from his administration ties, he holds sway over many fellow economists as president of the nation's premier economic research organization, and thousands of Harvard students who have taken his, and only his, economics class during their Harvard years have gone on to become policy makers and corporate executives.Mr. Feldstein's stature and his vigorous defense of Mr. Bush's economic policies have won him frequent mention as a possible candidate to succeed Alan Greenspan eventually as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Known for his wide-ranging research on taxes and government spending that examines the ways public policy affects people's behavior, Mr. Feldstein has helped shift the economic consensus to the right over the last three decades. As an adviser to Mr. Bush's 2000 campaign and a frequent contributor to op-ed pages, Mr. Feldstein provided much of the intellectual rationale for the tax cut last year. He continues to push for changes in the Social Security system that would include private investment accounts. [...]
Since 1977, Mr. Feldstein has wielded academic power as the president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an elite, nonpartisan group of about 500 economists best known as the body that decides when recessions begin and end. More important, it publishes research papers long before any academic journal does, determining which work is likely to receive wide attention.
From his corner office at the bureau, above a Cambridge furniture store, Mr. Feldstein helps shape the public debate and determine the research priorities of other economists as he chooses the subjects of the bureau's books and conferences. Aside from traveling with his wife, Kathleen, who is also an economist, and spending time at their homes in the Boston suburbs, Cape Cod and Vermont, Mr. Feldstein is almost always at the bureau.
When he is at Harvard, he shows a fondness for the classroom unusual for his rank. He still teaches that introductory economics class, the college's largest lecture. While the curriculum is by no means out of the mainstream, it does bear his conservative stamp.
"I think that is quite a remarkable number," he said during a lecture one recent Monday, using a laser pointer to direct attention to "43.65 percent" displayed on an enormous screen inside the steeply tiered Sanders Theater, just off Harvard Yard. The percentage signified the portion of every additional dollar earned by somebody making $35,000 a year that goes to paying taxes.
"I find it quite strange that somebody at this relatively low income is paying about half of his income in taxes," he said in his clear, dry speaking style. "What high marginal tax rates do is distort behavior."
It's hard to believe that such a % doesn't have a significant influence on the electorate's shift to the Right. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2002 6:45 AM
Taxes are very high on the poor, too, especially because certain taxes that raise very little revenue, e.g. tariffs on food and clothing, are very costly to them.
Posted by: pj at December 1, 2002 11:39 AMBeing in favor of low taxes is like being in
favor of low rainfall. It takes a moron.
In the case of rain, any sensible person would
ask, well, how much rain have we had lately,
how much are we likely to have in the future,
what will we do with the water?
But if you can't figure that out, you're on the
tenure track at Harvard.
But isn't there is a point where raising taxes actually results in less revenue for the government?
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 2, 2002 1:47 AMSure there is. But it depends on what you want.
Orrin wants as little government as possible.
Fine. Close the highway departments and see
what kind of roads you get. Ooops, we tried
that already.
Which generates more revenue, good
transportation or bad? Good.
If the national government had not spent
millions and millions on ARPAnet, there would
be no Internet. Would we begrudge the
money spent on ARPAnet? Leftists would, I
suppose, since it's function was to make
the U.S. military more capable.
Rightists would, I suppose, because it was not
one of the few core functions of government;
we didn't need more capability to secure our
borders.
Centrists, I suppose, were the ones who
thought the play was worth the cast of the
dice.