U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–877 2011

IMPEDIMENTS TO JOB CREATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 30, 2011

Serial No. 112–09 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

WALLY HERGER, California 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

RICK BERG, North Dakota 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JON TRAUB, Staff Director 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Staff Director 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of March 30, 2011, announcing the hearing .......................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Dr. Edward Lazear, Professor, Stanford University ............................................. 6 

Dr. Andrew Biggs, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute ................. 16 

Dr. Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for American Progress ........... 25 

Dr. Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center .................... 49 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bobby L. Austin ....................................................................................................... 113 

National Roofing Contractors Association ............................................................. 123 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

IMPEDIMENTS TO JOB CREATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave Camp 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Camp Announces Hearing on Impediments to 

Job Creation 

March 23, 2011 

Congressman Dave Camp (R–MI), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 

Means, today announced that the Committee will hold a hearing on government 

policies and actions that are impediments to job creation. The hearing will take 

place on Wednesday, March 30, 2011, in Room 1100 of the Longworth House 

Office Building, beginning at 10:00 A.M. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

There is widespread acknowledgment that the current pace of job creation in the 

United States is not sufficient to significantly reduce the nation’s persistently high 

unemployment rate. If the current rate of growth continued, the unemployment rate 

would not return to ‘‘normal’’ until 2016 or later. With nearly 14 million Americans 

unemployed, and millions more unable to find full-time work or so discouraged that 

they’ve given up even looking for a job, Congress must ensure that government policies and actions are not preventing job creation. Many employers and economists 

believe that the recent increases in the scale and scope of government intervention 

in the economy are contributing factors to the lack of private sector job creation. 

Additionally, a bipartisan chorus of experts have stated that large deficits and debt 

significantly hamper the U.S. economy and limit economic growth. The hearing will 

explore the extent to which the expansion of the role of government is impeding economic growth and the extent to which current and projected budget deficits and 

debt are suppressing activity in the private sector and therefore suppressing job 

growth. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Camp stated, ‘‘Contrary to what some 

in Washington believe, we cannot spend our way to prosperity. Washington 

needs to create an environment that allows the private sector to do what 

it does best—invest and create jobs. This hearing will help us identify areas 

where Congress needs to act to ensure that the government is not impeding job creation.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will focus on identifying impediments to job creation and the impact 

of budget deficits and growing debt levels in particular. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on April 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

13th, 2011. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the 

U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225– 

1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

/. 

Chairman CAMP. The Ways and Means Committee will come to 

order for a full committee hearing on Impediments to Job Creation. 

If members would take their seats and members of the audience 

would take their seats, we will begin shortly. 

I think every member of this committee, Republican and Democrat alike, would agree on one basic fact, and that is the U.S. economy is not growing fast enough. If the pace of private sector job 

creation does not increase significantly, the national unemployment 

rate will remain unacceptably high for at least another 5 years. 

Currently, there are 14 million Americans who are unemployed. 

Millions more have given up looking for a job. These families have 

already waited too long for Congress to figure out we cannot spend 

our way to prosperity and job growth. Our experience over the last 

2 years is clear; more government intervention fueled by more debt 

and higher taxes is not the answer. I am not sure that all of my 

colleagues in Congress have figured this out yet, and I hope they 

will listen carefully to what we will hear this morning. 

During the President’s Deficit Commission on which I, Mr. Ryan 

and Mr. Becerra from this committee all served, we heard nonpartisan testimony that once a Nation’s total debt equaled 90 percent of its Gross Domestic Product, that that became a drag on ecoVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:58 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070877 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70877.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70877

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

nomic growth. In fact, it would slow growth by about 1 percent a 

year. 

The fact that large amounts of government debt slow down job 

creation should not be lost on lawmakers, especially since according 

to CBO, by the end of this year, our total debt will be over 100 percent of our GDP. The U.S. debt is so large that these experts 

warned it is costing us about a million jobs. 

I have had a chance to preview the witnesses’ testimony, and 

they agree the recent run-up in the size and cost of government is 

holding our economy back. The Federal Government has grown so 

large it is casting a dark shadow over our recovery and literally 

has the families and employers I talk to in Michigan scared. Given 

that our debt well exceeds $40,000 for every man, woman and child 

in the country, you can understand why. 

The American people know we are on an unsustainable path. 

What they don’t know is when the system will come crashing down 

on them; when Washington will come looking to them for even 

more tax revenues or when foreign governments that are financing 

our debt, especially China, will call on us to repay the loans we 

have taken out. 

While fear can be a motivating factor, it has never propelled a 

Nation to prosperity. In our current situation, just the opposite appears to be true. Fear over rising debt levels and higher taxes has 

scared families and employers stiff. Small and large businesses 

alike are so uncertain about the future, they are even sitting on 

profits rather than invest them in this landscape of uncertainty. 

Not surprisingly, the result has been anemic job creation. 

The American public understands intuitively what economic research confirms. The smart policy is to control government spending. Based on the testimony I have seen, we will hear a lot of expert agreement this morning that this is the most effective path to 

addressing both our Nation’s fiscal crisis and our Nation’s job crisis. We need to get the government out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best, invest and create jobs. 

The problems created by growing deficits and debt are not new, 

nor are they the creation of one party alone. But they have gotten 

much more severe and what many viewed as a future problem is 

firmly here today. The truth is, there is plenty of blame to go 

around. But it would be a shame if we fall into the habit of pointing fingers rather than working to find bipartisan solutions that 

allow government to carry out its important functions without imposing crippling tax burdens on its families and job creators. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses in a few minutes, 

but I will now yield to Ranking Member Sandy Levin for the purposes of his opening statement. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a hearing on impediments to job creation. A major impediment to job creation is 

the failure of the majority in the House to take any specific steps 

for job creation. In this committee, they have not marked up a single jobs bill. And when we on the Democratic side introduce a jobs 

bill, like the continuation of the very successful Build America 

Bonds, there is nothing in response but stony silence. Clearly, we 

must take steps to address the deficit. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

When the President took office, he had facing him a $1.5 trillion 

deficit. But the deficit must not undermine economic recovery, or 

be used as a maneuver to tear apart the fabric of programs that 

are important for American families. This is exactly what happens 

when a party is gripped by extremism. This extremism is reflected 

in H.R. 1, which undermines important education programs like 

Pell Grants and Head Start, that represent vital investment in our 

future growth in jobs, law enforcement funding like the COPS program, that puts police on our streets, and environmental programs 

such as the Clean Water Revolving Fund, which creates jobs and 

ensures we have safe drinking water. 

Attacks on these programs is consistent with, and in my judgment, indeed encouraged by Republican witness testimony presented today with the blanket statement, ‘‘The disease is government spending.’’ It is also supported by the approach of another 

witness, Mr. Biggs, who years ago said the following in support of 

privatization of Social Security. ‘‘In that way, Social Security reform, featuring personal retirement accounts, doesn’t send just one 

liberal sacred cow to the slaughterhouse, it sends the whole herd. 

The greatest long-term effect of reforming Social Security to personal retirement accounts will not be on individual retirement savings, it will be on the way they view their relationship to the government to the economy and to each other.’’ 

If one wants to talk about a slaughterhouse and impediments to 

job creation, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has predicted 

that the House Republican plan would lose, ‘‘A couple of hundred 

thousand jobs,’’ and there are estimates that go way beyond the 

200,000 or several hundred thousand. 

Being very uncomfortable, Republicans have suddenly decided 

that they had better try to frame their efforts by pinning to them 

the word jobs. But playing games with words won’t work. It is not 

a substitute for real action. If we want to talk about jobs and 

American families, real action would include bringing trade adjustment assistance up for a vote on the floor of the House. 

Now having lapsed, the 2009 program allowed almost 200,000 

workers without a job to undertake retraining as they try to find 

a job. This legislation was passed by this committee, but it has 

shamefully been set aside by House Republicans guided by the 

rigid ideology that is so rampant within the Republican conference. 

We need to take real action to help put Americans back to work. 

We welcome this debate and we look forward to the testimony 

today. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Levin. I would say that this 

committee did pass the repeal of 1099s, which received a large bipartisan vote on the House floor and support of more than 70 

Democrats, which actually helps small businesses in their efforts to 

create jobs. 

Today’s panel includes four witnesses. Dr. Edward Lazear from 

Stanford University. Dr. Andrew Biggs from the American Enterprise Institute, Dr. Heather Boushey from the Center for American 

Progress, and Dr. Veronique de Rugy from the Mercatus Center at 

George Mason University. I would like to thank all of our witnesses 

today for their participation in today’s hearing. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

STATEMENTS OF EDWARD LAZEAR, PROFESSOR, STANFORD 

UNIVERSITY; ANDREW BIGGS, RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; HEATHER BOUSHEY, SENIOR 

ECONOMIST, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS; AND 

VERONIQUE DE RUGY, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, 

MERCATUS CENTER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 

Chairman CAMP. Each of you will be given an opportunity to 

use 5 minutes to present your testimony. Your full written statements will be entered into the record in their entirety. After all the 

panel completes their statements, we will then go to member questioning. So I will begin by recognizing Dr. Lazear for 5 minutes, 

thank you and welcome. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Chairman Camp. 

Chairman CAMP. If you could pull the microphone close, and you 

do have to push a button to make sure it is on. There should be 

a green light. Not now, no. Try again. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Now? 

Chairman CAMP. Try the other one. 

Mr. LAZEAR. It is red. 

Chairman CAMP. We will check for a second and see what is 

happening. 

Mr. LAZEAR. It is not a good start. 

Chairman CAMP. We will have you slide over. 

I apologize for the technical glitch. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD LAZEAR 

Mr. LAZEAR. All right. 

Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to 

you today. In my 5 minutes, I would like to cover three issues. 

First, as is becoming well accepted, the current spending pattern 

is unsustainable. Second, the problem was created by policy and 

can be remedied by changing policy. Third, if the spending picture 

is not altered, economic growth will suffer, and with it employment, 

wages and the standard of living of the typical American. 

It is becoming common knowledge that the U.S. budget deficit is 

a threat to our long run economic survival. As our debt gets large 

relative to GDP, we will eventually have to service this debt out 

of tax revenues and offsets in other spending. More important will 

be the effect on the private economy as high levels of government 

borrowing raise interest rates and stifle business investment. A 

well-known study suggests that growth could fall by half at debt 

levels that we are rapidly approaching. 

Although the discussion is usually put in terms of the deficit, focusing on the deficit can lead to the wrong policy choices. The deficit is the difference between expenditures and revenues, but it is 

not only the difference that matters. The economic literature has 

documented that higher taxation also impedes growth. If spending 

is high, taxes must also be high to control the deficit. 

Policy is primarily responsible for the large deficits that are projected to be sustained into the near and distant future, although 

it is true that tax receipts fall during recessions. As economic activity rebounds, so to does revenue. The spending side is different. It 

is controlled by government policy and the President’s projections 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

move our post recession spending ratios up considerably from our 

historic norm of 20.8 percent. The long run numbers are frightening as chart 1 shows. The President’s projections show an expanding gap between expenses and receipts. This implies that the 

deficit and debt will rise in the future, perhaps to crisis levels. 

I believe that we should take immediate actions to retrace our 

footsteps. We are currently well above the historic spending levels, 

but we can return to sustainable spending without slowing the recovery. This would require that we cut spending significantly in the 

next couple of years. 

In addition, I believe that we should institute a rule that constrains the growth in spending to the inflation rate, minus 1 percent point, which would return us to historic levels in a few years. 

With the unemployment rate still close to 9 percent, job creation 

is obviously a primary focus. In the short run, increased employment comes with economic growth as chart 2 shows. If you can 

switch the chart please, thank you. You see those lines move parallel there. 

The economy rarely creates jobs in the absence of economic 

growth, but over the longer run, the main effect of economic growth 

is on wage, which has a direct impact on the typical American 

standard of living. The link requires two steps. First, GDP growth 

is usually linked to productivity growth as chart 3 shows. Flip to 

chart 3, yeah. Second, both theory and experience imply that wage 

growth comes with productivity growth. Chart 4 shows that periods 

of high productivity growth are also periods of high compensation 

growth. 

In the labor market it is important to bear in mind one final 

point. Even during deep recessions a tremendous amount of hiring 

occurs. At the worst part of the recession, there was still around 

31⁄2 million hires per month, which means that over 30 percent of 

our workforce turned over in a year. Most hiring is for the purpose 

of replacement, not expansion. To ensure that hiring increases to 

levels that prevailed at the peak it is important that our labor market remain flexible. 

Let me conclude. We can best deal with our labor market problems by ensuring that we have a pro growth economic environment. 

Perhaps the largest threat to long-term growth is the recent high 

level of government spending, which will result in high deficits or 

will require that we raise taxes substantially. Either course impedes economic growth. The high level of spending can be reversed. 

If we adopt the appropriate policy, we can look forward to economic 

growth, low unemployment and rising wages. Thank you, and I 

welcome your questions. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lazear follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.001
9 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.002
10 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.003
11 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.004
12 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.005
13 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.006
14 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.007
15 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Dr. Biggs, you have 5 minutes. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.008
16 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW BIGGS 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you very much. Chairman Camp, Ranking 

Member Levin and Members of the Committee. Thank you for offering the opportunity to testify with regard to Federal deficits and 

debt and how they might be resolved in a positive way with regard 

to job creation in the economy. 

Addressing deficits and debt is a truly daunting task. The CBO 

projects that over the next 25 years alone, the Federal Government 

faces a fiscal gap of 4.8 percent of GDP. Bridging that fiscal gap 

would require an immediate and permanent 23 percent increase in 

all Federal tax revenues, or an equivalent reduction in Federal outlays. Delaying action only makes the gap larger. 

To resolve this gap, the Federal Government must undergo a significant fiscal consolidation, which is defined as a policy aimed at 

reducing government deficits and debt accumulation. Without a fiscal consolidation a debt or currency crisis is inevitable. Over the 

past several decades, many developed countries have undertaken 

fiscal consolidations, some have succeeded and others have failed. 

Both in causing lasting reductions in debt and in generating positive impacts in economic growth. 

What has separated the successes from the failures? To help answer this question in a recent article with my AEI colleagues, 

Kevin Hassett and Matthew Jensen, we reviewed the extensive existing literature on fiscal consolidations as well as conducting our 

own data analysis. We analyzed over 20 countries covering a span 

of nearly 4 decades. We first isolated instances in which countries 

attempted to reduce their budget deficits, either through increased 

revenues or reduced government outlays. We then revisited these 

countries several years later to see which fiscal consolidations have 

succeeded in reducing debt and which had failed. And more importantly, we analyze what separated the successes from the failures. 

Our findings are striking. Countries that address their budget 

shortfalls to reduce spending were far more likely to succeed in reducing their debt than countries whose budget balancing strategies 

depended upon higher taxes. The typical unsuccessful fiscal consolidation consisted of 53 percent tax increases and 47 percent spending cuts. By contrast, the typical successful fiscal consolidation consisted of 85 percent spending cuts. These results are consistent 

with a large body of peer-reviewed academic research. 

Also consistent with other studies, we found the successful consolidations focused spending cuts in two areas: Social transfers, 

largely meaning entitlements in the American context and government wage bill, which means the size and pay of the public sector 

workforce. 

A second area of research, however, is more contentious. Some 

economists have found the fiscal consolidations can spur economic 

growth even in the short term by generating confidence in the private sector at the larger and more disruptive changes have been 

averted down the road. These expectational effects can offset the 

traditional Keynesian effects in which any fiscal consolidation, 

whether tax- or spending-based, would drain demand from the 

economy and hurt short-term growth. 

Harvard University economist Silvia Ardagna and Alberto 

Alesina found that only around 1 quarter of fiscal consolidations coVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:58 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070877 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70877.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70877

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
17 

incided with an increase in economic growth, but those that did 

were overwhelmingly composed of spending cuts, making up 

around 85 percent of the total. Fiscal consolidations that did not 

spur growth were composed on average of 63 percent tax increases 

and only 37 percent spending reductions. 

The IMF recently published a paper arguing that fiscal consolidations don’t, in general, lead to higher economic growth. But IMF 

did conclude that spending-based fiscal consolidations will produce 

superior economic outcomes in terms of growth unemployment than 

would a tax-based consolidation. And that a fiscal consolidation 

that focused on reduced transfer spending likely would increase 

economic growth. For instance, the IMF study found an expenditure based fiscal consolidation would lead to GDP 1.4 percent higher 3 years later than would a tax based consolidation, equal to 

around $200 billion in today’s dollars. 

Likewise, unemployment would be around one-half percentage 

point lower under an expenditure consolidation than tax-based consolidation. In today’s economy, that would be equivalent to around 

600,000 additional jobs. Moreover, the IMF approach does not negate the prior conclusion that spending-based fiscal consolidation 

are more likely to be successful in reducing deficits and debt than 

tax-based consolidations. 

To be clear the economic leadership isn’t saying that the best 

way to stimulate the economy is to cut government spending. If 

short-term stimulus were the only goal, tax cuts likely would be 

preferable. But the literature does agree that if you must undergo 

a fiscal consolidation, and to be clear, we must in the very near future, then a fiscal consolidation based on spending reductions is 

more likely to succeed in reducing debt, and is more friendly to economic growth than a tax-based fiscal consolidation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Biggs follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
18 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.009
19 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.010
20 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.011
21 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.012
22 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.013
23 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.014
24 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. Dr. Boushey, you also 

have 5 minutes. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.015
25 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER BOUSHEY 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Wonderful. Thank you, Chairman Camp, and 

Ranking Member Levin for inviting me here today to testify. My 

name a Heather Boushey, I am a senior economist with the Center 

for American Progress Action Fund. 

I want to get right to my point. The policies that will create jobs 

are those that will increase aggregate demand by making investments that not only boost employment in the short term, but lay 

the foundations for long-term economic growth. Every policy should 

be examined to through the lens of whether or not it supports job 

creation and rebuilding our Nation’s middle class. 

Let’s be clear, we are here today because of the failed economic 

policies of the 2000s. The collapse of the housing market and the 

financial crisis upended the labor market causing unemployment to 

spike from just below 5 percent in early 2008 to 10 percent just a 

year and a half later in late 2009. With the Federal funds rated 

zero since December of 2008 and evidence of a liquidity trap, fiscal 

policy has been your primary lever to address high unemployment. 

While one cause of our current Federal deficit is the higher expenditures and lower tax revenues due to the Great Recession, the 

main causes of today’s deficit were evident before the recession 

took hold. The prior administration left our country with a run-up 

of debt from a two unfunded wars along side massive tax cuts. The 

long-term challenges are compounded by the need to get health 

care costs under control. 

The supply side mantra of tax cuts for the wealthy has left our 

Nation indebted in ways that profoundly harmed our economy. The 

early 2000s saw unprecedented tax cuts for the wealthy, yet in the 

economic recovery that followed, growth in investment, employment and output were all slower than any other economic recovery 

in more than half a century. For the first time since the end of 

World War II, our Nation’s middle class families saw their incomes 

fall in inflation-adjusted terms over an economic recovery. The 

hollowing out of our middle class is clear evidence of a failed economic model. It also encouraged economic instability as households 

borrowed to make up for falling incomes. 

We need to put our economy on a path to balance that starts policy that creates jobs now, make the investments we need to lay the 

foundation for long-term economic growth and build our middle 

class. In doing so, we will be able to repay our debts and see strong 

growth in the years to come. And I will note the Rogoff and 

Reinhardt study that has been discussed this morning connecting 

the high debt to lower growth is entirely driven by the demobilization following World War II, and therefore is not applicable necessarily in today’s circumstances. 

There remain five seekers today for every job opening available. 

This unemployment is not a structural problem. The National Federation of Independent Businesses continues to report that the primary concern of small businesses in this country is sales. The 

shortfall and aggregate demand amounts to almost 6 percent of 

U.S. Gross Domestic Product even though the economy has been 

growing for six quarters now. This is the output gap that we need 

to fill in order to make our economy whole so that everyone who 

once worked can find a job. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
26 

High unemployment not only creates significant hardships for individual families, it continues to threaten the recovery. The unemployed can’t spend what they don’t earn, which why unemployment 

directly adds to our Nation’s aggregate demand problem. 

Funds spent on benefits and services designed to help the unemployed find new work have mitigated, not exacerbated the problem. 

The best economic evidence is that unemployment benefits and 

transitional jobs programs have helped the current recovery. By 

boosting economic growth, the actions we have taken over the past 

couple of years has actually made the long-term deficits smaller 

than it would have been without action. 

To address unemployment, Congress should focus on three specific policy goals: Boost aggregate demand and invest in our economy, including investing in infrastructure, which is the best way 

to ramp up employment now while building the foundation for a 

high productivity future; second, stop adding to the problem of unemployment. Once someone loses their job in this economy, they 

are facing a historically low odds of finding a new job; third, help 

the unemployed beat the odds and find work. In particular, programs like TANF emergency funds that put people to work in public-private partnerships should be reinstituted. 

The cost of inaction continue to far outweigh the cost of action. 

While we need to keep our eye on a growing Federal debt addressing the scourge of long-term unemployment now will do more to cut 

future deficits than not. Getting our economy growing again is the 

most important thing we need to do to address our budget woes, 

and that includes both a long hard look at our tax revenue and increasing that. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boushey follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
27 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.016
28 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.017
29 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.018
30 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.019
31 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.020
32 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.021
33 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.022
34 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.023
35 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.024
36 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.025
37 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.026
38 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.027
39 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.028
40 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.029
41 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.030
42 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.031
43 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.032
44 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.033
45 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.034
46 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.035
47 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.036
48 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Dr. de Rugy you have 5 minutes. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.037
49 

STATEMENT OF VERONIQUE DE RUGY 

Ms. DE RUGY. Good morning, Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for inviting me to discuss how debt and deficits relate to economic growth and job creation. My name a Veronique deRugy and 

I am a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George 

Mason University, where I specialize on tax and budget issues. 

Deficits and debt matter. They are the symptom of a disease 

called government spending. Overspending in the past, along with 

the near explosion of Social Security, Medicare and Medicare 

spending means it will be drowning in red ink for the foreseeable 

future. Unfortunately, the persistent failures of lawmakers to cut 

spending have created a situation where the symptoms produce 

symptoms of their own. 

I have three points to make today about large sustained deficits 

and debts. First, they cripple economic growth and destroy jobs; 

second, they are expensive and they are self-perpetrating; third, 

American families are the ones paying the price for these symptoms. 

To the first point, large and sustained deficits and debt in evidently cripple economic growth and destroy jobs. The money the 

Federal Government borrows comes from American savings, so 

does the money that American invest in the private sector’s growth. 

There comes a point where there just aren’t enough savings to satisfy both masters. So if the government borrows more money, domestic investment will go down as State economists call crowding 

out. And this State’s company will build fewer factories, cut back 

on research and development and generate fewer innovations. As 

a result, our Nation’s future earning prospect will then, and our future living standard will suffer. And pouring more money to foreign 

investors isn’t the solution either, as this money needs to be repaid 

too. 

Second, deficits and debt are expensive and self-perpetrating. 

The more we borrow, the bigger our interest payments are. In spite 

of historically low interest rates, by the time my 8-year old daughter finishes high school, the Federal Government well spend a projecting $866 billion each year just to pay interest on our debt. That 

is more than what the U.S. spends now on two wars, plus the Department of Defense, Education, Energy and Homeland Security 

combined. 

As our deficit grows, the interest on our debt grows too. All too 

soon we will have to borrow money to pay for the interest on our 

debt. And if persistent deficits lead to higher interest rates, 

through the combination of concerns about inflation and potential 

default, these new rates can magnify the power of compounded interest. In other words, deficits find us at low rate today can lead 

to more deficits financed at higher rates in the future. 

Third, deficits and debt matter to American families and they are 

the ones who will suffer from economic uncertainty, high unemployment rate, higher interest rates, lower growth and lower standards of living brought by a fiscal crisis caused by too many deficits 

and too much debt. Yet the ones who will really suffer are our children. As the United States is set to embark in an unprecedented 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

and massive transfer of wealth from younger taxpayers to older 

ones. 

Make no mistake, our children will be the ones who pay for the 

decisions we are making today. That fiscal crisis could be slow, yet 

rampant discussion of our economy. It could be abrupt with creditors losing faith and pulling their money from the United States 

overnight. Either way, things are way worse than they look on 

paper. 

According to the CBO, U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP will 

reach 200 percent by 2037. Those are projections. Not the real 

world. In the real world the economy could collapse before we could 

even get to the CBOs forecast level. Even the CBO acknowledges 

that possibility. And as long-term projections documents the CBO 

forecasts, the effect crowding out may have on GDP per capita and 

contrast it with commonly-used projections. 

Depending on the assumption made this data shows that per 

capita growth collapsing about 10 to 20 years from now due to 

crowding out. The contrast between this data and the data usually 

referenced by scholars like me and a governmental official is striking. 

What then should the government decide today? Well, Congress 

should address our fiscal imbalance today and tomorrow and 

should start to do it now. In particular, Congress should reform the 

main driver of spending explosion, Social Security, Medicare and 

Medicaid. That being said, I think everything should be on the 

table, including defense spending. 

It should also resist the temptation to address these deficits by 

raising taxes. No amount of taxes could address the immense fiscal 

imbalance that our country which face in the future. Furthermore, 

raising taxes would add to our problems by hindering economic 

growth, thereby reducing tax revenue and adding to the deficit. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I 

am looking forward to your answers. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, thank you all for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. de Rugy follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.038
52 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.039
53 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.040
54 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.041
55 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.042
56 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.043
57 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.044
58 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.045
59 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.046
60 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.047
61 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.048
62 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.049
63 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.050
64 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.051
65 

f 

Chairman CAMP. Dr. Lazear, last week you were among a group 

of bipartisan former Council of Economic Advisor Chairs that 

signed an op-ed calling on the administration and Congress to address the Nation’s fiscal crisis. And I would ask unanimous consent 

that the op-ed that I refer to be included in the record without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.052
66 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.053
67 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.054
68 

Chairman CAMP. Why does such a distinguished and bipartisan 

group of economists think it is crucial that we act now to address 

our Nation’s fiscal crisis? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Is this working yet? 

Chairman CAMP. I don’t think it is working yet. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Thank you. Can you hear me now? 

Chairman CAMP. Yeah, I can. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I think the problem is obvious to all of us. Those 

of us who have been CEA chairs have had to put together forecasts 

every year. We had a committee called TROIKA inside the administration. We look at these numbers on a frequent basis, and it is 

quite apparent when you start looking at these data that the problem is overwhelming and it is a problem that is immediate. We are 

adding 10 percent, 10 percentage points to the debt to GDP ratio 

every year and that number is really a frightening number. So I 

think that is what has stimulated all of us to try to work together 

and to think about these issues together. 

Now obviously we don’t all have the same solutions for the problem. We differ on some of the things that we like, and some of the 

things that we don’t like, but we all recognize that if the problem 

goes unaddressed that it will be a problem that threatens the country and threatens our economic livelihood. And in particular what 

we are concerned about is that a couple of things will happen, first 

of all it will become very costly for the U.S. to borrow. 

It will be difficult to service our debt, but more important will 

be the effect on the private sector. When borrowing costs go up, it 

makes it difficult to invest. It also means that other investors from 

around the world will loose confidence in the United States, and 

those are the things we are most concerned about. 

Chairman CAMP. I notice that you all agree that we do need to 

find measures and ways to deal with our deficit and our debt. And 

I think it is unprecedented, I have never, in my time in Congress, 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.055
69 

seen a letter of this kind from both Republican and Democrat 

Counsel of Economic Advisor Chairs. These are all former chairs of 

that group that advises the President. 

There is a significant debate obviously occurring in the Congress 

right now about the best way to promote economic growth and job 

creation. And I would ask you, your testimony seems to say that 

we need to begin to reduce government spending. And can you 

walk me through how reducing government spending is connected 

to job creation? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Sure. Again, if I use the President’s numbers, 

which I think are probably the easiest way to start, use the numbers that OMB puts out. The big problem that we have as we go 

into the future is that we just can’t get to the situation that we 

want to be at by raising taxes; we are just never going to get there, 

it is simple arithmetic. If you look at the gap that the President 

is projecting out a couple of decades, we are talking about deficits 

somewhere in the order 8, 10, eventually 12 percent of GDP per 

year. To raise taxes enough to close that gap would mean that we 

would be raising taxes by about 50 percent. I just don’t see that 

happening in this country. I surely hope it does not happen in this 

country. It would be a tremendous drag on the economy. 

So the problem that we face then is one of controlling spending. 

Now if we don’t control spending, I really see it more as a negative. 

It is not so much that if we control spending, there will be this 

magical increase in economic growth; it is rather the reverse. If we 

don’t control spending, what we will be doing is putting ourselves 

in a situation where we will have such strong impediments to economic growth that the economy will struggle. And we had examples 

of this, Japan has lost decade, now lost 2 decades, hopefully not 3 

decades, is case in point. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Dr. Biggs, do you care to comment 

on that? 

Mr. BIGGS. Well, I think I would reiterate what Professor 

Lazear said, that we are facing with a number of bad choices, particularly in entitlements. If we addressed these issues 10 or 15 

years from now we would have a much smoother glide path towards bringing the budget back into balance. We have much more 

leeway today in terms of the fiscal policy and the avenues we have 

available to us to address joblessness and fiscal stimulus in the 

short term. 

As it stands, though, we have to do two things at once: We have 

to both address deficits both in the short term and long term, and 

we have to think about how to stimulate the economy and keep the 

economy healthy going forward. And of course, those two things are 

linked. The stronger your economy, the more easily it can bear the 

debt that it has more easily it can bear government programs. 

So I think we have to say what steps together will both help us 

effectively address deficits and debt and will do it in a way that 

is, at the very least, neutral with regard to the economy, but we 

hope may be helpful with regard to the economy. The research that 

we have reviewed, and there is a fairly large body of it, indicates 

the best approach to that would be through reductions in government outlays rather than increases in revenues. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
70 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. Dr. de Rugy, would you 

like to comment on the connection between reducing government 

spending and the promotion of jobs, job creation. 

Ms. DE RUGY. I would agree with Ed Lazear and Andrew Biggs 

about the connection that exists. And I would like to add to show 

that in the last 10 years, during President Bush’s presidency, Federal spending has grown in real term by 60 percent. We have had 

massive increase in spending in the last 3 years, whether you think 

it was justified or not. We have tried the routes of stimulating the 

economy through massive spending and it hasn’t worked. 

In fact, I would argue that it has hurt us more than anything 

else. And what we know is that we are at a time where basically— 

actually, economists have not really studied the situation in which 

we are. A situation where actually not only do we have unprecedented level of debt, but they are not about to end in the foreseeable future because of the explosion of spending on Social Security, 

Medicare and Medicaid. We have not studied this. I mean, like all 

the examples that economists have studied after the Second World 

War, where I agree the situations were different, there wasn’t this 

massive extension already forecasted and projected. 

So we are at a situation where pretty much we know the consequences of spending more, we also know the consequences of taxing more. What we don’t know is when we are going to reach this 

tipping point where things could absolutely really be bad for our 

economy. That will mean a slowdown of economic growth in a situation that we are already today, but in any case, means a destruction of jobs. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Levin is recognized. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you and welcome. You know, there is no 

question of if there needs to be deficit reduction. The issue is how 

we do it. No one is saying do it by raising taxes alone. No one says 

that. I just want the record to be set straight. The private sector 

job losses from January 2001, to January 2009, total 650,000 private sector jobs lost. From February 2010 to February 2011, 

1,526,000 private sector jobs increase. Those are the facts. A loss 

of 653,000 from 2001 to 2009; 1.5 million increased in the private 

sector from February 2010 to February 2011. And everybody who 

constructs an economic theory needs to look at those facts. 

So now, let me just ask each of you what you think of the estimates of job losses from H.R. 1. I mention Chairman Bernanke, 

200,000; Mark Zandi, 700,000; Goldman Sachs, a reduction in economic growth of 11⁄2 to 2 percent in the second and third quarters 

of this year. Mr. Lazear, do you challenge those? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Let me just say two things, Congressman. The 

first thing I would say is that I certainly agree that we should be 

looking at the facts on job loss, but normally, what one does when 

one looks at the facts is you look from peak of a business cycle to 

peak of a business cycle or trough of a business cycle to the trough 

of the business cycle. You don’t look from the peak of one business 

cycle to the trough of another. If you do that, you get a very distorted picture. And I would argue that is probably accounting for 

a good bit of the numbers that we saw. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
71 

Mr. LEVIN. So even if you use that argument, the facts are 

striking in terms of the job loss for 8 years, and the job increase 

in 1 year. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, my argument would be that if you want to 

understand job growth, what you need to do is you need to correct 

for the business cycle. And if you correct for the business cycle you 

can get a very different picture. 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, send us something on how different it would 

be. 

Mr. LAZEAR. You would essentially see job decline during the 

recession that started in 2001, continue job growth from 2003 to 

2008 and then job decline from 2008 thereafter. So that is essentially the picture. 

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. We will be glad to look at those figures, but 

they don’t change the basic fact. 

Mr. LAZEAR. But let me get to your more important question, 

which was do I believe in the numbers in terms of the effects. 

Mr. LEVIN. Is Bernanke right or wrong? 

Mr. LAZEAR. All right. I would say that I don’t believe those 

numbers and I will tell you why I don’t believe those numbers. I 

was also the chair of the committee that did exactly those numbers 

at the White House, and we did that for 3 years, and here is how 

those numbers are created. The way you create those numbers is 

you base them on a model, you do not base them on evidence. You 

base them on a model that says we know that if we spend so much 

in GDP, that will have a particular effect on GDP. And historically, 

there has been a relation between GDP and job growth. 

Mr. LEVIN. Let me say, my time is up. That is maybe what you 

did. 

Mr. LAZEAR. That is what Zandi does, that is what Goldman 

does, that is what CBO does. 

Mr. LEVIN. That is what Bernanke did? 

Mr. LAZEAR. That is what Bernanke does. 

Mr. LEVIN. So you don’t give any credibility to his critique? 

Mr. LAZEAR. No. You asked me if I believe the numbers, I told 

you why I don’t believe the numbers. The numbers are model-based 

rather than evidence-based. 

Mr. LEVIN. So you just dismiss all of the statements about the 

impact of H.R. 1 in terms of economy growth? 

Mr. LAZEAR. What I dismiss is those as evidence of the effect 

of a bill on jobs. What I don’t dismiss is that they still—— 

Mr. LEVIN. Let me—Ms. Boushey, quickly, would you respond 

to that? 

Chairman CAMP. Quickly, because his time has expired so you 

have a few seconds. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Well, I mean, economists use models and so 

there is a bit of a challenge there. Especially looking at the Goldman Sachs estimate, these people did that estimate for their investors to help them determine how to invest and how they thought 

they were going to make money in the years to come. I take that 

very seriously, because if they think that this will be bad for 

growth, then that is how they are advising their clients. I mean, 

economists use models. We all agree there is some wiggle room in 

there, but certainly, we need to take these very seriously. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
72 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Herger is recognized. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you for holding this hearing. Certainly it is incredibly important what we are talking about now. We are in a very serious recession that has taken place not only in my district, but throughout 

this Nation. There is a concern of stability and whether or not we 

have the policies that are going to bring us out of it. Certainly the 

spending, this massive spending is at the heart of much of the concern that I hear when I am in my northern California district. 

Mr. Lazear, according to the CBO, in 6 of the President’s proposed budgets over the next 10 years, the deficits will be in excess 

of $1 trillion. During that period of time our debt would more than 

double. I would like to ask you what are the likely economic consequences of this massive accumulation of debt envisioned by the 

President? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, again, I think I would use the word that I 

used before, I think it is frightening. And the reason I think it is 

frightening is that if we add that kind of debt to our fiscal situation, we need to service that debt. If we service that debt, we can 

only do it in one of two ways. Either we have to raise taxes, or we 

have to borrow even more. Raising taxes, we know, is not good for 

the economy. There are many, many studies that document that. 

Across countries, over time periods, I referenced some in my formal 

testimony. But in addition to that, if we try to borrow, what we will 

end up doing is driving up interest rates. We are already starting 

to see that at the long-term of the Treasury structure right now. 

When we start driving up interest rates, what that does is it imposes costs on businesses that are trying to borrow and trying to 

invest. And the one thing we do know is that investment is a huge 

driver of economic growth, and job growth depends on economic 

growth. So I guess I am very concerned about the effects of longterm deficits and the kinds of high deficits that you referred to, sir, 

on both economic growth through interest rates and through confidence in the United States as a place to invest. 

Mr. HERGER. I have to mention another concern that I have. As 

we look around the globe, we look at what has taken place in 

Greece, what has taken place in Ireland, some other countries, we 

can see that an economic crisis, a fiscal crisis can develop very suddenly. And my concern is with what we have seen take place, how 

quickly it can happen with, again, this incredible debt that we are 

seeing taking place here in the United States. In your opinion, are 

we currently on the fiscal path that could trigger a crisis similar 

to what we have seen in some of these countries, only on a much 

more substantial scale considering the size and importance of our 

economy? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Can I take that one? 

Mr. HERGER. Dr. Biggs. 

Mr. BIGGS. In my written testimony, I quoted the well-known 

economists Ernest Hemingway who said that people go bankrupt 

two ways, gradually and then suddenly. And we are in the gradually phase now, we are accumulating more and more debt. For the 

moment we can bear that burden. We have been advantaged by the 

fact of financial instability in other parts of the world that has sort 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
73 

of a flight to safety approach and it helps the U.S. in the short 

term. 

Over the long term, though, both the history and theory of financial crisis isn’t going to happen very quickly, they are like a bank 

run you don’t know exactly what causes it, but once panic sets in 

and confidence is lost, these things can happen very, very fast. 

So the point is you don’t want to get yourself into the region 

where that can happen. You can’t say precisely when or what will 

trigger it, once you are in the region, that can be a very difficult 

place to be. 

Mr. HERGER. Would you say we are in the region again looking 

at the region that Greece was in? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I would look at—— 

Mr. BIGGS. I think we are entering the region now. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I would look at what has happened in Ireland. 

Chairman CAMP. Would you please suspend? The gentleman 

will direct a question to you, thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. Dr. de Rugy. 

Ms. DE RUGY. One of the things we know is that investors rate 

a country on a curve, so basically, and this is why there is so much 

uncertainty and we can’t tell you and pinpoint exactly when the 

crisis will happen. But one of the things that we know is that there 

will be a moment where it is really possible, and this is one of the 

things that keeps me up at night, where our investors are going to 

look at the U.S. and they are going to think that we are not as safe 

as we used to be, and they are first going to start to ask for a premium for potential risk of inflation, and they are also going to ask 

potentially for premium and that could happen. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. Mr. Levin is recognized. I am sorry. Mr. Rangel is recognized. 

Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The staff reports that the Bush tax cuts cost us about a loss in revenue of $1.6 trillion, 

and the extension for the 2 years, $500 billion. Do any of you contradict that this increased our debt that we owed to have a negative impact? Or is that accepted? Silence means you agree. 

Mr. BIGGS. If I could quickly note. One of the points I made in 

my written testimony is that the fiscal gap, the CBO projects over 

the next 25 years and beyond is entirely a result of higher spending. The historically income taxes or total taxation has been about 

18 or so percent of GDP, the CBO projects that going over the next 

25 years taxes will equal 20.7 percent of GDP. 

Mr. RANGEL. Let me try the question then. We had a deficit 

then and after the tax cut, you would agree that we didn’t have the 

money to pay for it, we have to borrow the money to pay for it, the 

same way we have to borrow money for the $500 billion extensions 

of the President Obama continuation and extension of it. I don’t 

think anyone wants to challenge, if you don’t have the money and 

you reduce the revenue that the tax system says you can get, that 

you borrow that money—— 

Mr. LAZEAR. I guess I would—— 

Mr. RANGEL [continuing]. By short term. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I would respond to you two ways, Congressman. 

The first thing I would say is that the Bush tax cuts were in effect 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
74 

primarily throughout the Bush administration, that was a relatively benign period in terms of both—— 

Mr. RANGEL. If we borrowed the money in order to do it, the 

answer is yes. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Excuse me, Congressman. 

Mr. RANGEL. What I am trying to say is, do you believe that 

we can raise any revenue now and it would help us to close the deficit? 

Mr. LAZEAR. That was my second point. 

Mr. RANGEL. Well, that is my first point. 

Mr. LAZEAR. All right. Sorry, sir. Which is that there is a shortrun effect and a long-run effect. And I think what I think we are 

concerned about primarily is the long-run effect on economic 

growth. Whether we can get a year or 2 of additional revenue by 

increasing taxes right now, that is possible. I wouldn’t deny that, 

there is some ambiguity there. 

Mr. RANGEL. If I was to share with you where we would get 

that money would be in closing tax loopholes that technically some 

people would say—— 

Mr. LAZEAR. Yeah. 

Mr. RANGEL. They are getting a tax increase, but most economists agree that our corporate tax rate is too high at 35 percent, 

but that the actual tax rate that corporations is closer to 20 in 

terms of what it should be in the first place. If you cut out all the 

preferential treatment and brought more equity to the table, that 

it would be perceived that America’s the place to invest and that 

high corporate taxes would not be negative, do you agree with that? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I certainly agree with you. 

Mr. RANGEL. So you don’t mind reducing revenues by reforming 

the system? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I think I better not start my statement with ‘‘I certainly agree with you’’ because you are going to cut me off right 

there. But go ahead, sir. 

Mr. RANGEL. But you do believe that having tax reform could 

make it easier to reduce the corporate rate? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I absolutely agree there is tremendous room for reform if our tax structure and corporate reform would be part of it. 

Mr. RANGEL. And reduce the rates? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, that is not my preferred solution. I was on 

the President’s tax panel for a year before being chair of the council. 

Mr. RANGEL. You think rates should stay at 35 percent? 

Mr. LAZEAR. We had a different plan. 

Mr. RANGEL. I know, I am only talking about the rates. I know 

you know more about this than me, that is why I want to find out. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, I thought that was why you were asking me. 

Mr. RANGEL. The corporate rate is now 35 percent, right? 

Mr. LAZEAR. The corporate rate is 35 percent. 

Mr. RANGEL. And you support reform, right? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I do. 

Mr. RANGEL. And I am only asking would you support a dramatic reduction in the corporate rate at the same time? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
75 

Mr. LAZEAR. I would prefer to see reductions in the corporate 

rate to the current rate, but there are alternative ways to do that 

that I would prefer than reducing the corporate rate. 

Mr. RANGEL. Okay. Well, when you talk about reducing or cutting back and spending, and everyone says it that way, that doesn’t 

necessarily mean that you are saving money, does it? 

Mr. LAZEAR. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you are saving 

money. What our concern is, again, that we need to have a tax-andspend structure that is healthy for the economy in the long run. I 

don’t see us getting to that by the solution that you are proposing, 

sir. 

Chairman CAMP. All right the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Johnson is recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, one aspect of the current fiscal debate which I don’t 

think has received enough attention is foreign holdings of U.S. 

debt. As you may know, foreign-held debt has doubled during the 

last 5 years from just over $2 trillion to nearly $4.4 trillion. During 

this time, China has become the number one foreign holder of U.S. 

debt. In fact, China holdings have more than tripled to $1.16 trillion. In response to these developments, I introduced last year the 

Foreign-Held Debt Transparency and Threat Assessment Act, legislation aimed at raising awareness of the threat to our economy and 

national security of our exploding debt. 

So with that said, what would be the economic consequences, especially with respect to job creation if China decided to significantly cut back its holdings of U.S. debt, one? And what would this 

mean for Main Street, small businesses, especially with respect to 

access to affordable credit? And I would appreciate Lazear, Biggs 

and de Rugy to answer first, and then Ms. Boushey as time permits. 

Mr. BIGGS. Sure. I will start quickly. Obviously, a large portion 

of the debt that has been issued and is currently being issued by 

the United States is held by overseas investors, including China. 

I am not an expert on foreign policy, but obviously, it does constrain our foreign policy choices. There was a New York Times 

story I remember a year or so ago when President Obama was visiting China, and the point of the story was that ordinarily our 

American President can go over to China and speak very forthrightly about human rights issues or national security issues, but 

in this case, we are now talking to our largest creditor. So that constrains us on non-economic policies. 

In terms of if China or other foreign holders were to essentially 

give up their holdings of American debt, I think the likely outcome 

then will be a devaluation of the dollar, which would have disruptive effects on the economy here in terms of jobs, job dislocations. 

Mr. LAZEAR. We did a study, sir, in 2007, again, at the Council 

of Economic Advisors and we looked at this. It was a big concern 

then, it is a much bigger concern now. At that time, we estimated 

that if China were to get rid of their treasury holdings, it would 

cost about 100 basis points in terms of an increase in interest rate, 

which is not enormous, but it is certainly significant and would 

have a significant impact on the economy. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
76 

I think the more important point, though, is not the immediate 

impact on the economy, the more important point is the one that 

Dr. Biggs just talked about, which is the long-run impact. 

The United States enjoys a special position in the world of having the reserve currency, and that is a very important position for 

us. We have that status not by right, but because we have earned 

it, and we can certainly do things that will earn someone else the 

right to have that status in the future. So I think the big concern 

is that we need to show that we have our house in order so that 

others in the world will be willing to continue to hold our currency 

as the reserve currency. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. DE RUGY. I agree with my colleagues. I would add, though, that I think Lauren Kaines is the one who said if you borrow $1 

from your bank, your bank owns you, and if you borrow $1,000 

from your bank, you own the bank. And I want to believe—even 

though I agree with you guys—that China, I mean, by choice, 

should have our best interests at heart. The problem is what happens if China gets into a recession of its own and actually starts 

slowing down the amount of capital that it sends our way? Just 

that could actually throw us into disarray and raise interest rates. 

This is the concern I have. 

And one of the problems we have, I mean, even though it is in 

theory, not that much of a concern, is this amount of money that 

foreigners have, I mean, they are less loyal to American interests 

than domestic investment. And this is the reason why Japan, for 

instance, has been able to actually have these level of debts is that 

95 percent of their debt held by the public is held domestically. You 

have lesser of a flight instinct in theory. 

And so, yes, it does expose us to significant risk, even though I 

just don’t think it would be just in order to hurt us, it would be 

to protect their own investment. And if China gets in a serious recession, they will have no other choice than to stop sending that 

much money our way. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Go ahead, Ms. Boushey, if you wish. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I agree with many of the comments up here. I 

want to focus on one thing that Dr. Biggs said, which is that that 

would lead to a devaluation. One, it is highly unlikely that China 

would do that because it would make their goods more expensive. 

We import a lot from them. But number two, if that were to happen, that would make our exports cheaper. So in many senses, 

some of the outcomes of that would be good for American manufacturing and for goods that we export. So there is a pro and a con 

there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Stark is recognized. 

Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to address this to Ms. Boushey. The Republicans 

have been busy over the last couple of months. They have passed 

legislation that would end foreclosure assistance programs with no 

alternative solution, they have repealed the Affordable Care Act 

with no alternative, they have moved to defund National Public 

Radio, to end public financing of campaigns so corporate money 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
77 

will have more influence on elections. They voted to extend the PATRIOT Act and make gradual cuts in domestic programs such as 

education, public safety, environmental protection. Today we are going to vote to spend $300 million on a pet project 

of the Speaker to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private schools. 

And next week we will vote to restrict safe access to abortion. 

Now Ms. Boushey, will any of these bills create jobs? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Well, it is a long list, and my instinct is that 

many of them may not. But let me just focus on a couple that you 

mention on that list. One thing that a number of the panelists up 

here have spoken about is the long-term health care costs are a 

critical piece of this long-term—— 

Mr. STARK. I asked you a question; will any of those bills create 

jobs? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I don’t think any of those appear, of the list that 

you mentioned, focused on job creation. 

Mr. STARK. I don’t think they will either. So do any other panelists have estimates on how many jobs will be created if these bills 

became law? Go ahead. 

Ms. DE RUGY. I mean, I don’t think—you are probably right 

that this is not the point of this job. But I think there is the case 

to be made that the Federal Government should probably not be 

involved in absolutely everything that concerns our lives, and 

maybe there will be some very positive impact on having the Federal Government scale back its intervention on Americans lives. 

Mr. STARK. And how will that create jobs? 

Ms. DE RUGY. The less intervention and the less you tie Americans’ hands, the more you help them actually do what they are 

good at, which is investing, entrepreneurial, create wealth, and 

help the economy grow. 

Mr. STARK. Any other panelists have any idea how those bills 

will create jobs? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Sir, I would comment on one of them, and that 

would be the health care legislation. 

Mr. STARK. I didn’t mention that. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I am sorry, I thought you did. 

Mr. STARK. No, I didn’t. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Okay. Then I withdraw my comment. 

Mr. STARK. Okay. You want to talk about health care legislation? I would be happy to do that. It is entitlement reform, it reduces Medicare spending, it extends solvency of Medicare for about 

12 years. 

Mr. LAZEAR. The health care legislation, while scored by CBO 

as deficit reducing—and I will accept that as a given, also—— 

Mr. STARK. What do you know about health care? You are not 

a very good economist, but I wonder what you know about health 

care? We have a group of second-rate economists here. And I don’t 

know where they dragged—scraping the bottom of the barrel. 

Chairman CAMP. I would say to the gentleman, I think if we 

could confine our remarks to the topic at hand and not personally 

disparage the witnesses—— 

Mr. STARK. It seems like the topic at hand is where you found 

these clowns. 

Chairman CAMP. Well, one of them is a Democrat witness. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
78 

Mr. STARK. I understand that. 

Chairman CAMP. So they are not all Republican witnesses. It is 

the gentleman’s time to proceed. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I am sorry. Would you repeat the question, sir? 

Mr. STARK. Well, I just wondered about your expertise in health 

care. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Oh. Well, you probably recall that I was the President’s chief economic advisor for 3 years. We spent a lot of time 

talking about health care. The 2007 State of the Union address was 

all about health care, and I was instrumental in devising that. 

So I have certainly thought a good deal about health care over 

my career. But I don’t think my credentials are really all that relevant at this point, the Senate has already confirmed my credentials. 

I think what I would like to talk to you about is the health care 

legislation. If you want to hear about it, I am certainly happy to 

talk about it, because as it concerns job creation, which I thought 

was your question, recall that the expenditures in the health care 

bill that we are talking about are about $1 trillion—— 

Mr. STARK. Let’s hear from Ms. Boushey about this. What do 

you think; health care have anything to do with this? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Well, health care does have something to do 

with the long-term deficit, and so we do need to take steps and did 

take stops in the Affordable Care Act to get health care costs under 

control over the long term. And I would encourage you to continue 

to focus on that because if we care about the deficit—which is what 

this panel is about—then we should care about thinking about that 

in the long term? 

Mr. STARK. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Brady is recognized. 

Mr. BRADY. First to the panel, let me apologize to you for Mr. 

Stark. We may disagree on conclusions, but your credentials, lifetime of credentials in economics is so very impressive, and we appreciate you taking your time today to share that with this committee, and therefore with Congress. 

I think we are hearing a lot of Draconian projections about job 

losses due to minor spending reductions. But those same economists got it so wrong in the stimulus. Here we are 2 years later 

spending over $800 billion, we have 2.2 million fewer jobs today in 

America than when the stimulus began. We were told at this point 

the unemployment rate would be 6.9 percent—off by a mile. Mark 

Zandi, who was cited earlier today, he predicted we would create 

4 million new jobs by the end of 2010, we actually had 3 million 

fewer. He was off by 7 million jobs. It is time to stop listening to 

the economists who got it wrong and start listening to the economists who got it right. 

I want to pull up two charts, if I may, that follow on the testimony we heard today from our panelists. This chart follows the last 

40 years in America. The blue line charts Federal Government 

spending from here in Washington. The red line charts job growth 

in the private sector, jobs along Main Street. As you can tell from 

the chart, there is no correlation between higher government 

spending and job growth in the private sector. In fact, for each of 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
79 

the four decades, there is a negative correlation between higher 

Federal spending and job growth in the private sector. 

The next chart tracks as—again, inspired by the testimony we 

have heard today—this tracks business investment, private business investment in America the last 40 years versus job growth in 

the private sector. What it shows is a very strong correlation in 

each of the last four decades; when businesses large and small buy 

new equipment, new software, invest in new buildings, jobs along 

Main Street grow. 

And so for Dr. Lazear and Dr. Biggs specifically, one, I would 

like your comments on the role of private investment in creating 

private sector jobs. And secondly, because, Dr. Biggs, the Joint Economic Committee report, ‘‘Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy’’ cited your study that our international competitors who got 

themselves in debt trouble, and reduced their debts credibly 

through spending cuts, not by tax increases, were able to grow 

their economy in the short term as well as the long term. So I 

would like both Dr. Lazear and Dr. Biggs’ comments on these 

points. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Yes, sir. Congressman, let me start. I certainly 

agree that investment is a key component to both economic growth 

and job growth. In the short run, the chart that I showed is quite 

consistent with the one that you are showing now, which is that 

we do know that you just don’t get job growth in the short run 

without seeing growth in economic activity. So the question is, how 

do we get growth in economic activity? I have never been a strong 

believer in the notion that the government can create a lot of economic activity. Occasionally, we can move it around—I think the 

government has done that in the past couple of years—but I don’t 

see a lot of effect on aggregate economic activity from the kind of 

government programs that we have seen. 

In the longer run, the more important effect of investment is actually not on the number of jobs, it is on wages. And the reason 

it works on wages is that wages are very closely linked to productivity growth. And in order to get productivity growth, you have to 

have investment. And I would include in that, by the way, investment in human capital as well as investment in physical capital. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. Well said. 

Mr. BIGGS. Well, since Professor Lazear discussed investment, 

I will try to focus on the second part of your question since time 

is short. 

The study you referenced, and obviously the literature that I reviewed in my testimony has found that countries that attempt to 

get on top of their budget problems through reduced spending tend 

to be both more successful at cutting their deficit and debt, but also 

have better economic outcomes than those who try to address their 

budgets through increased taxes. 

For anybody who is doubting this, that is just my opinion. My 

testimony includes a large number of references to these findings 

in peer review journals that come to the same conclusion. 

I discuss there is a controversy among economists about to what 

degree fiscal consolidations will spur economic growth to help the 

economy. One number I cited from an IMF study found that a 

spending-based fiscal consolidation would produce unemployment 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
80 

half a percentage point lower than a tax-based fiscal consolidation 

3 years after it took place. That was from a study that people cite 

as being a more pessimistic one in terms of these outcomes. 

So I can’t promise you that cutting spending is going to rapidly 

increase growth, but given that you have to get on top of your 

budget, the research seems clear that going at it on the spending 

side seems to be more successful and better for the economy than 

going at it from the tax side. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Nunes is recognized. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Boushey, in your testimony you mention two wars that were 

unpaid for. Were you referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, or . . . 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I was. 

Mr. NUNES. How about Libya; is that unpaid for? Paid for? How 

does that fall? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I was referring to the run-up in spending over 

the 2000s alongside tax cuts. So I was trying to make the point 

that the deficit was something that we inherited at the end of the 

last administration. 

Mr. NUNES. Right. I just want to clarify that the two wars you 

were referring to are Iraq and Afghanistan. 

How does Libya compare, what is happening in Libya today, 

compared to those two wars being paid for or not paid for? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. We are making choices about how we are spending scarce resources. I am not an expert on foreign policy, but as 

an economist who cares about job creation—and we are having this 

national conversation about deficits, it certainly is important for 

you to consider how those two pieces fit together. I would prioritize 

job creation here in the United States. 

Mr. NUNES. So the tax cuts that you are referring to that went 

alongside with the two wars, I assume those are the George W. 

Bush tax cuts of ‘01 and ‘03? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NUNES. And also supported by President Obama for a 2- 

year extension last year? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. As a part of a compromise that also extended 

unemployment insurance, yes. 

Mr. NUNES. So President Obama has basically carried forth not 

only going into wars that aren’t paid for—right? In Libya, you 

agree with that? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Wars in times of deficits, so yes. 

Mr. NUNES. And also supporting the extension of the tax cuts. 

So you disagree with the Obama administration’s positions on wars 

that are not paid for and extending Bush tax cuts. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Again, because I am an economist who doesn’t 

focus on foreign policy, I don’t want to comment on the war in 

Libya. However, on the tax cuts, that was a compromise where, in 

my professional opinion, those extensions to the unemployed were 

necessary, that was the price of getting it passed through Congress. 

So yes, I think we had to do it. But those tax cuts for the wealthy 

did not lead to the kinds of employment, investment, and wage 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
81 

gains that we would like to see, so I don’t think that those—those 

are not what is going to be helping our economy right now. 

Mr. NUNES. So you sit around and you think about these things, 

you spend a lot of time researching this. So you don’t support the 

current tax rates. I would just be interested to know, before this 

committee—since it is the tax writing committee—what rate should 

the tax levels be at? Let’s take income tax and corporate income 

tax; what would you like to see those rates at? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Well, one of the things that we talked about 

here on this panel this morning is the appropriate level of taxation. 

One of the ways that you can look at it—there are two points I 

would like to make. One is that the periods after which we have 

cut taxes for the wealthy over the past few decades—in the early 

1980’s and the early 2000’s—and then in the early 1990’s, we 

raised taxes, if you look at the recoveries to economic performance 

in the years after those different tax—— 

Mr. NUNES. I understand the point that you are making, but 

what I am really interested in, since this is the committee that will 

take testimony and then we will begin to craft legislation, the 

chairman is looking at fundamental tax reform, so I think it is pertinent to this because tax reform is job creation. So do you have 

a range of what you think the tax rates should be on both the corporate side and the income tax side? Can you give us any number 

at all of what we should be looking at? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I can’t give you one number because it is complicated, but I do think that certainly higher would be my first answer. And second, one idea would be thinking about, the United 

States is one of the most lowest income tax countries in the OECD. 

If we just bumped up to the revenue generation strategies of Canada—our neighbor to the north who hasn’t seen the same economic 

turmoil that we have—we would still be in the bottom third of all 

OECD countries, but we would be able to solve our deficit problems. 

Mr. NUNES. So you would like to see us at 25 percent of GDP? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I can get back to you on a specific number. I am 

hesitant to say something without sort of doing some calculations 

that are hard to do at this moment. 

Mr. NUNES. I would assume that is probably what Canada is, 

roughly? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I 

am happy to get back to you. 

Mr. NUNES. But you will get back to me what percentage of 

GDP the tax rate should be at? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NUNES. And I know we are at a limited time here, but Mr. 

Lazear, what rate do you think the tax rate should be at that 

would get us to a point where we could get into job creation where 

businesses would be willing to invest? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, again, I don’t think of the tax rate as generating jobs in the short run, and I don’t think of expenditures as 

generating jobs in the short run. I think that the steps that we 

took in late 2008, early 2009 to get ourselves through the financial 

crisis are the steps that were appropriate in creating the job 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
82 

growth. We are going to see it, unfortunately, slower than I think 

we all had hoped, but that is where it is going to go. 

What I would say is that historically, our tax rate has been at 

18 percent. We have been able to do quite well in terms of supporting the economy, growing the economy, supporting the government and doing the necessary things that government has to do 

with an 18 percent tax revenue over the past 30 years. That also 

means we have run about a 2 percent deficit. So at a 2 percent deficit, we are bringing down the ratio of debt to GDP. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to associate my 

comments with Mr. Brady’s, that I don’t think any of you are 

clowns or second-rate economists. I apologize for that. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. McDermott is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask 

unanimous consent to enter into the record, March 29, 2011, a letter to Harry Reid, Boehner, McConnell and Pelosi from 34 chief executive officers of alternative energy companies. 

Chairman CAMP. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
83 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.056
84 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.057
85 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.058
86 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I put that in because I want to commend you 

on having brought to us today the architect of the Bush failure and 

a representative of the Koch Institute’s ideas about the economy. 

It is important. 

I want to ask both of you a question. This letter says, ‘‘We urge 

you to continue funding the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee 

program for Section 1705 and 1703’’—and I am sure, Mr. Lazear, 

you know what those are about. And it says, ‘‘We are investing in 

projects with pending loan guarantees based on the good faith action that the DOE programs would function as stipulated in the 

law as the Congress intended. We are deeply concerned that eliminating funding for these critical programs would not only destroy 

thousands of pending jobs and hinder the growth of critically needed U.S. domestic energy production, but also defeat America’s effort 

to compete with China, Germany, and others in the clean technology marketplace.’’ They go on to talk about the fact that they 

have already invested $26 billion, and that has led to another $42 

billion in investment. 

Now listening to you, one would think that any investment by 

the government in anything in the private sector was bad. Do you 

think these 34 executives are wrong in asking for loan guarantees 

from the United States Government? Do you think President 

Obama’s plan to give them loan guarantees to create a clean energy industry is wrong? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I guess I would make two comments. One is, first 

of all, I am not an anarchist, I don’t think that government investment is always a bad thing. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So you think the CR that is being considered 

by the Tea Party Members of the House of Representatives is bad 

for the economy because it kills jobs? 

Mr. LAZEAR. No, I didn’t say that. And I am not familiar with 

that legislation, so I won’t comment on it. But what I did say 

was—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Don’t you work at the Hoover Institute? I 

mean, you are looking at the economy. You are not paying attention to what these guys are doing? 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.059
87 

Mr. LAZEAR. I am trying to pay attention to what you guys are 

doing, and I hope that I am doing that in a fair and accurate way. 

The question that you asked in terms of do I think that the 

CEOs are justified in making their case? I certainly think they are 

justified in making their case for the industry—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. No, no, no. You sat at the Bush table and 

created this thing. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Which thing is it that you are referring to? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. These loan guarantees. I mean, you put this 

economy together, so you are saying they have a right to make 

their case. Of course they do. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I wish I had such power, sir. But what I believe 

we can do is I believe we can move resources around. I am less convinced that we can have an effect on aggregate economic activity. 

So my concern is not that we cannot create incentives for one industry to take off perhaps at the expense of another industry. I 

think the issue that we are concerned with today—and I am sure 

it is the issue that you are concerned with as well, sir—is creating 

jobs at the aggregate level, not simply moving them around. And 

I am not convinced that the kinds of stimulus activity that we have 

done has done much more than move jobs around. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I asked you about a specific program, a 

green energy program to compete with China. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I thought I answered your question. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Do you think aiding that industry in this 

country is a good idea? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Again, I am not a person who believes that it is 

good to pick industries and to invest in particular industries. I 

don’t think that any government does a very good job of that. Occasionally, we do make decisions like that. For example, we do make 

decisions to fund education, we do make decisions to fund research. 

We have to make those decisions at the level of government. Sometimes we make mistakes, but I think—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Do you think, then, that the programs we 

have aiding the oil industry and the write-offs we give them, are 

they useful? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Again, I am not in favor of picking industries and 

aiding particular industries? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So you would end the oil subsidies as well? 

Mr. LAZEAR. As I said, I believe in policies that are as industryneutral as possible. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I would like to hear from the Koch brothers. 

Ms. DE RUGY. Well, are you asking me whether anyone has put 

these words in my mouth? I am here just to talk about my research. And at Mercatus, we have a strict policy of separation and 

independence research. So I am talking about myself. 

Chairman CAMP. The time has expired, so if you could just very 

quickly comment. All right. 

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? I just think that 

the committee has asked these panelists to come here, and I would 

just hope that both sides of the aisle would refrain from lobbing 

personal insults to the panelists. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
88 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, it is not an insult to say that 

the institute for which this woman works is funded by the Koch 

brothers. That is not an insult, that is a statement of fact. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Why don’t we continue on in regular 

order. 

Mr. Tiberi is recognized. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, apologize for the 

name calling today, it is just unwarranted. 

Ms. Boushey, just to comment—and I am not asking a question— 

in your exchange with Mr. Nunes here, you blamed the 2001 tax 

cuts, the 2003 tax cuts, in part for our structural deficits. It is interesting to note that in February, just last month, we had a higher deficit than we had the entire year of 2007, years after both tax 

cuts were in place. That is not my question. My question to you, 

ma’am, first; your research with respect to this debt that we have, 

the structural debt that we have today, what would it do to solve, 

in part, that debt problem—which the President’s budget just 

punts on—if we just raise taxes to do it? What impact would that 

have on our economy and job creation in the private sector? 

Ms. DE RUGY. Well, I mean, I think it will have—I think we 

have already said it, it will probably have long-term disastrous consequences for economic growth. I mean, in order to get tax revenue, 

you need a thriving economy. And if you increase taxes to the point 

where there creates your disincentive to work, you will not get the 

revenues that you get. In fact, I would like to mention the research 

by Christina Romer, the former Chair of the Council of Economic 

Advisors, and her husband, David Romer, that has shown that if 

you raise taxes by 1 percent point of GDP in order to reduce the 

deficit, what you get is a decrease in GDP by 3 percent. And her 

research is very consistent with a lot of the economic research on 

this issue, so it would just not be a good idea. 

I would like to add one more point, which is that every solution 

that members of this committee design has to be realistic. I mean, 

in the history, in the last 60 or 70 years, as Mr. Biggs has said, 

the average rate of tax collection has been roughly 18 percent of 

GDP. Whether we like it or not, whether we think it should be 

higher or not, it is a reality and this reality is nonnegotiable. 

So any solution that we design should actually have a realistic 

expectation about what the government can do. For instance, the 

Deficit Commission, unfortunately, its solution rested on the government being able to raise 21 percent of GDP consistently. It has 

never happened before, and there is no reason to think that it 

would. That is why I am begging you to—whether we like taxes or 

not, to at least design solutions that are consistent with what the 

government can do based on how people respond. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Biggs, kind of to tail on what you just talked about in your 

research, when the private sector looks—from what I have heard 

back in my district from small business owners—looks at things 

that we do or don’t do, whether it is uncertainty on what the Tax 

Code is going to be or a health care bill that is going to add cost 

to employers, they say that it causes them to kind of stand in 

place, not hire. Does your research indicate, whether it is the 

health care bill or the uncertainty of the Tax Code and the strucVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:58 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070877 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70877.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70877

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
89 

tural debt that they believe will cause us to increase taxes significantly, impact behavior in the research that you have done? 

Mr. BIGGS. Well, the research I have reviewed shows that one 

of the reasons why getting on top of your budget problems in the 

near term can spur economic growth is because it resolves these 

sorts of doubts that people have. Any investor dislikes risk. Risk 

reduces the value of your investment. Similarly, if you know that 

you are going to have higher costs in the future because taxes are 

going to decrease, that makes you less likely to invest as well. So 

resolving these issues in the near term helps both individuals, 

businesses and financial markets have confidence in the activities 

they are undertaking, and as a result they seem to undertake more 

of them. So there is a connection between getting on top of our fiscal problems in the right way and helping the economy recover 

over the long term. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Lazear, I see you have a comment? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I completely agree with the points my colleagues 

raised. I still think that what we need to do is get—the kinds of 

things the government does and does effectively is not pick sectors, 

not try to grow particular programs, not try to grow particular jobs, 

but rather to create the kind of environment that is conducive to 

private businesses, the ones to which you referred, and allowing 

them to do the growth. And what that means, we really only know 

one way to do this, and the way we know to do this is to keep taxes 

low to allow for an open economy and to make sure that markets 

are free and open. And that is the best that the economists, I 

think, can advise you. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Chairman CAMP. Mr. Lewis is recognized. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Boushey, the Bush tax cuts have been in place now for almost 10 years and they have not created a single job. During the 

Clinton administration, we created more than 22 million new jobs. 

In fact, we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, the budget is 

no longer balanced, the deficit increased under the Bush administration, and we all know the unemployment numbers. Despite this 

failed policy, Republicans want these tax cuts to continue and 

claim they will create jobs. What is your response to this argument? What would you suggest we do in terms of a tax policy to 

create jobs? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I have two comments on that. Number one, the 

kinds of tax cuts that happened at the beginning of the Bush administration were focused on the highest income earners in the 

country, not necessarily people that invested that money in job creation, but just rich people in America. The evidence shows that 

that was not something that led to an increase in investment. We 

saw the slowest investment growth of any recovery in the recovery 

that happened in the 2000s after those tax cuts. The logic was you 

give more rich people their money back, they were going to invest 

and create jobs. Quite frankly, we know now that they didn’t. 

At the same time, what you saw happening over the 2000’s was 

a squeeze on the middle class. Again, that was the only economic 

recovery in the post-World War II period where middle class families had less income at the end of it than they did at the prior peek 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
90 

before the recession in the early 2000’s. That, again, is failure, and 

that, of course, is part of the economic stability picture that we 

have seen in the ensuing years, families lost income, they put more 

people in the labor force, they took out more loans. And that, of 

course, was a piece of the housing bubble and the ensuing crisis. 

Then the third point I want to make is that, one of the things 

that we haven’t talked enough about this morning is that we continue to be in a unique economic situation. The models that economists have about taxes and spending are, for the most part, research done in ‘‘normal’’ economic times. But we are in a moment 

where interest rates are at zero, they have been for a number of 

years now; we are in what is called a liquidity trap, where even 

if the government continues to spend, it is not crowding out private 

investment. There is no evidence that that is happening right now. 

And a piece of that is how we get to this output gap and how we 

need to keep spending. So while we may need to sort of deal with 

this deficit in the long term, in the immediate term, if we do that, 

we will probably experience the kind of contraction that the U.K. 

and Ireland are now experiencing after their austerity packages. 

Mr. LEWIS. Now, Dr. Boushey, I grew up in a little place in 

southern Alabama called Troy. And back then, a long time ago, 

when I was growing up—and up until some years ago in Alabama 

and many other parts of our country—people could kind of get a 

solid, dependable job at one of the local plants or factories. But our 

economy has changed now, hasn’t it, Dr. Boushey? 

Can you explain why cutting investment in education will only 

lead to worse unemployment? What effect will reducing investment 

in transportation have on our economy? How are goods and freights 

supposed to be moved across our country if we do not take care of 

our roads, our bridges? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Definitely. I mean, we have seen a decline in the 

middle class for decades now. And economists have tracked this polarization in the U.S. labor market with a growth in jobs at the low 

end, at the high end. But over the 2000’s, we didn’t even see the 

kinds of growth at the high end. You have really just seen a bottoming out of our labor market, and that has been hard on families. A piece of that right now, something that we can be doing is 

making these investments in infrastructure, in education, that 

would get people in jobs now, but it would also lay the foundations 

for long-term economic growth. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we can 

spend trillions of dollars just to repair our fraying infrastructure. 

And that has real consequences, not just for workers, but for small 

business owners. I live here in the District of Columbia on 18th 

and U, and across the street from me is a small business owner 

who has seen his water main break three times in the past few 

years, and each time leading to his business closing. Now, thanks 

to the recovery dollars, they are replacing the 100-year-old water 

main breaks on my street and so that small business owner won’t 

see that kind of challenge moving forward. So these investments 

are not only good for job creation now, but they are what keep our 

economy moving forward. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
91 

Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Boushey, the last question; I am sure you have 

heard the reports that the Republican CR will cost our economy 

700,000 jobs. 

Chairman CAMP. Very quickly, because the gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

Mr. LEWIS. If you were Speaker Boehner, what would you do? 

What would your response be to the thousands of people who will 

lose their jobs? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I think I would encourage him to focus on job 

creation and building a strong middle class. And I would ask 

whether each of those items in the cuts he is making would actually accomplish those goals. And I think the answer is many of 

them are not focused on that goal. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis is recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A recent report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal 

Budget suggests that one of the groups most likely to be hurt by 

massive debt are the poor. That is because, as the report puts it, 

‘‘the poor and working poor already facing tough living conditions 

are particularly vulnerable to any deterioration in the economy 

which will reduce limited employment and income opportunities. 

Debt-related higher interest rates, whether through crowding-out 

pressures or a fiscal crisis, will make conditions even worse. 

Chances are that the fiscal pressures and political battles will 

mean less safety net resources available.’’ 

I would like to ask the panel whether they agree with that view. 

And if we don’t get the debt under control, who will suffer the most 

when it comes to undermining job creation, the rich, the middle 

class, or the poor? Who is the most at risk, and what are the lasting impacts? And we can begin with Mr. Lazear. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, again, I would refer back to the letter signed 

by the 10 CEA chairs because the scenario that you are talking 

about is exactly the one that we feared and that we were trying 

to speak to. If we encounter another crisis of the sort that we have 

now or one that is potentially worse, we do expect to see very high 

rates of unemployment, very low rates of GDP growth. And we 

know that when unemployment goes up, the groups that suffer the 

most are the ones who are most vulnerable. 

So certainly to your question, I don’t think there is any doubt 

that if you see high rates of unemployment, the people who can’t 

easily carry through that period of tough times are the people with 

the least resources. So obviously, my concern would be for those individuals. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Biggs. 

Mr. BIGGS. I would agree and echo Professor Lazear’s remarks. 

In a weak economy, where you are facing financial instability, 

higher income people, better educated people, people with some assets, they have the greater ability to whether that, to hedge the 

risks, to adjust things to get through tough times. People who don’t 

have that ability are just in a much more difficult situation. So the 

point here is that you want to strengthen the economy, in particular, for the people at the bottom who really do need the help 

over the long term. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
92 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Boushey. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. We are already in a crisis for those families. And 

I agree with you that we should be focusing on them. What we 

need to be doing is focusing on getting them back to work now. And 

once we do that, then we can deal with our long-term debt. We are 

sort of putting the cart before the horse. 

And again, I point to the situation in Ireland, for example, which 

bailed out its banks, did an austerity package, and now has seen 

its bond rates double. The austerity has actually worsened the economic situation. So focusing on the debt before you have gotten 

your labor market in order is only going to add to the woes of 

America’s working class. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. de Rugy. 

Ms. DE RUGY. One of the reasons why low-income people and 

their families are hurting is because for many years this government hasn’t been doing the right thing. And when I hear the conversation about tax cuts costing the economy, there might be something to this, but it is comparing oranges and apples because there 

is also the, during the Bush years, a 60 percent increase in real 

term of spending, and we should not forget this. And it was unfunded, a large part of it. 

But to your direct question, one of the reasons we need to act 

today is if we don’t get our debt under control, if we don’t get our 

spending under control, we are going to find ourselves in a situation where it is going to be a dramatic change right away. And we 

are going to find ourselves in a situation where we won’t be able 

to actually sell assets in an organized fashion, but we are going to 

have to cut things across the board, like a fire sale type of thing, 

and we won’t have enough time to actually set our priorities and 

make sure that the neediest people in our society are taken care 

of. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

As a follow up, when it comes to choosing between maintaining 

the status quo of out-of-control spending or protecting the opportunities for Americans to achieve self-sufficiency, I think it becomes 

obvious that that needs to go. There is a direct correlation between 

increasing debt and reduced opportunities, particularly the unwillingness or pensiveness of employers to hire people or create new 

jobs because of the economic uncertainty. 

Is there any additional collateral damage that will be caused by 

not addressing our debt issues, that it will impact those primarily 

the most in need? And we can start with you and go back across. 

Ms. DE RUGY. Absolutely. I mean, I think we all agree that the 

most vulnerable people in society are poor people, and they are the 

one paying the brunt of all of the downturn of the economy. One 

of the reasons why we need absolutely to reform Social Security 

today is so that the program can actually be reverted to actually 

its original purpose, which is take care of the neediest of society. 

And the problem is if we don’t do anything today, by the time the 

trust fund assets run out, the Social Security program is going to 

cut benefits across the board by 22 percent, and the people who are 

going to be hurt the most are low-income people. So, yes, absolutely 

we need to do things right now. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
93 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Neal is recognized. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Professor Lazear for saying that it was a good 

idea today to retrace our footsteps. Do you think in retrospect, Professor, that it was a good idea to cut taxes by $2.3 trillion and invade Iraq? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I am sorry. 

Mr. NEAL. I don’t think that question could be any more clearer. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I just didn’t hear the last three words. Oh, and invade Iraq. Mr. NEAL. Do you think, in retrospect, to cut taxes by $2.3 trillion and invade Iraq? 

Mr. LAZEAR. And invade Iraq. I am sorry. Well, I certainly 

won’t speak to the invasion of Iraq, that is outside of my area of 

expertise. Mr. NEAL. That is where the money has gone; $250 billion annually we are being asked to come up with and it is all borrowed 

money. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I understand that, sir. But again, if you look at the 

spending pattern during the Bush administration, what you will 

see is that spending average, 19.6 percent of GDP, which is the 

lowest level of spending—— 

Mr. NEAL. You come back to those numbers. I am asking you 

a policy question, Professor. 

Mr. LAZEAR [continuing]. Relative to any recent President. So 

that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that we could do that 

would improve the situation. 

Mr. NEAL. Were you in the room with Paul O’Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury? 

Mr. LAZEAR. No, I was not there. 

Mr. NEAL. You weren’t there. Are you familiar with Lawrence 

Lindsey? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I didn’t overlap with Lawrence Lindsey. 

Mr. NEAL. Do you accept now, in retrospect, his recommendation 

that we should have budgeted substantially greater dollars for the 

invasion of Iraq? 

Mr. LAZEAR. In terms of the accuracy of the budget, I think 

Larry was right, that it did cost more than I think they were projecting at the time, but again—— 

Mr. NEAL. Well, good God, that is something we can all agree 

on in this room today. 

Now let me ask you this along the same line of reasoning here. 

President Obama mentioned on Monday night in his comments to 

the country that the war in Iraq was now going to cost $1 trillion. 

Do you agree with that? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I haven’t tallied up the exact number, so I can’t 

testify to that right now. 

Mr. NEAL. Do you want to take a wild guess? That is frequently 

what economists do. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I prefer not to. 

Mr. NEAL. Do you agree with this following statement, that because of our VA system, for the next 40 or 50 years for those young 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
94 

men and women who have served us honorably, that they are going 

to be in need of a substantial amount of increased dollars for their 

health care? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I certainly think that we should take care of those 

who have served this country and take care of them well, absolutely, sir. 

Mr. NEAL. What is interesting about the commentary from our 

panelists today is Ms. de Rugy, she is of, I think, a similar mind 

to you on many of the policies here, but she is intellectually honest 

about what happened during the Bush years with spending. You 

haven’t mentioned that. 

Mr. LAZEAR. I thought I did. I thought I gave you the exact 

numbers, sir. 

Mr. NEAL. Do you think that spending got out of control during 

the Bush years? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I thought I just told you—I stand by my statement. 

Mr. NEAL. Why don’t you say it again. 

Mr. LAZEAR. The statement is, during the Bush years the average spend-to-GDP ratio was 19.6 percent—— 

Mr. NEAL. All right. Let me come back to make perhaps a more 

simple statement. Are you arguing this morning that there was 

greater economic success during the Bush years than there was 

during the Clinton years? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I didn’t say that. 

Mr. NEAL. I hope you didn’t. 

Mr. LAZEAR. What I said was the economy certainly was doing 

very well during the period of 2006/2007. We had 4.4 percent unemployment. Those were very good times for the economy. We hit, 

obviously, one of the toughest financial situations we have had in 

this country in many, many years. 

Mr. NEAL. It needs to be acknowledged that TARP took place in 

October of 2008. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Correct. 

Mr. NEAL. Who was the President then? 

Mr. LAZEAR. President Bush. 

Mr. NEAL. Okay. That is a very important consideration as you 

lay out these dates. 

Now are you suggesting to me that on January 19, 2001, that the 

economy was ailing? 

Mr. LAZEAR. On January 19, 2001? Absolutely. 

Mr. NEAL. The economy was ailing? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Absolutely. We were in the beginning of the 

dot.com crash. 

Mr. NEAL. Let me take you back to this; do you think that it 

is accurate, as Mr. Lewis pointed out, that there were 22 million 

jobs created during the Clinton years? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I understand that, but your question was, was the 

economy ailing in 2001? It certainly was ailing. We were going into 

a recession. We were going into the recession that started the Bush 

administration. We had just—— 

Mr. NEAL. The Wall Street Journal says today that the economy 

began to tank in 2007. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
95 

Mr. LAZEAR. Excuse me, sir. In 2000, we had two negative 

quarters of GDP growth. We were going into a recession. 

Mr. NEAL. This is the difficulty with witnesses coming here like 

this. I gave you some very basic numbers and you were evasive on 

them. And Ms. de Rugy, she was not evasive on those numbers. 

She was very clear; she said spending got out of control during the 

Bush years. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Sir, I am trying to answer your questions honestly, 

I am happy to do that. You posed a question, you said, do I think 

that we were in trouble in January of 2001? And I said absolutely. 

That is an honest answer. We were going into a recession. The data 

are clear on that. We had two negative quarters prior to that. 

Mr. NEAL. I am going to close on the statement with which I 

opened; do you think it was a good idea in retrospect to cut taxes 

by $2.3 trillion and invade Iraq? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I think that the Bush tax cuts in 2003 were absolutely a good idea. The investment tax credits stimulated investment and got the economy going again. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. 

Mr. Reichert is recognized. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 

for being here today experiencing this pleasant discussion. 

I have a simple question first for Dr. Lazear. The administration 

has stated that we will reach the statutory debt limit sometime 

this spring. The current limit is $14.2 trillion, or nearly equal to 

the value of every good and service produced in the United States. 

How do you think the financial markets and the broader economy 

would react if Congress simply increased the debt limit and there 

was no credible commitment or action taken in addressing our current fiscal crisis? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, I think that the debt limit, to my mind, is 

more of a symbol than a reality. The reality comes earlier, I would 

say. So the front line of defense against increasing expenditures is 

not so much the debt limit, it is the actions that you and your committee in particular can take and take now in thinking about appropriations in the future budget. 

So I would actually urge action at an earlier stage rather than 

at the debt limit stage. I think that is really where the action has 

to be had in order to make a credible commitment to reducing future spending. I believe that that is where you are headed, I believe that is where you are trying to go, but I am not convinced 

that simply dealing with the debt limit would be an effective mechanism at this point. 

Mr. REICHERT. Anyone else on the panel care to comment? 

Mr. BIGGS. I agree with Professor Lazear. I think the symbolism 

in terms of the debt limit matter, things like dealing with the debt 

limit, things like do we take up the recommendations of President 

Obama’s Fiscal Commission, does the administration’s budget try 

to tackle deficits over the long term? My concern for the financial 

markets is when opportunities to get on top of these problems are 

pushed aside. When we say we appointed a debt commission, but 

we are going to ignore what they did. We have a debt limit, but 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
96 

we are going to raise it without taking any reforms. We have various opportunities to fix these problems and we push them aside. 

My fear is eventually financial markets may say they no longer 

have the will to get on top of these problems. And when financial 

markets begin to doubt you, that is when you enter a pretty dangerous zone. 

Ms. DE RUGY. If I can add something. I agree. I think this is 

a sign of where we stand with our reputation abroad. I think there 

is a lot of talk about how the bond market will get rattled if we 

don’t increase the debt limit. But I actually think that if we increase the debt limit and then either with the debt limit legislation, which is not necessarily the right place to do it, but also later, 

if we increase the debt limit without signaling that we are going 

to be seriously committed to changing the path on which we spend, 

it will rattle the bond market too. This is one of the signs that the 

U.S. is really at the cusp of a potentially very grave situation 

where do or don’t, you are dammed. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. 

Dr. Boushey, did you want to comment on that? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly, thank you. 

I mean, I agree that the debt limit is an opportunity for us to 

have this conversation about getting our long-term fiscal house in 

order. However, in the short term, we need to be cognizant of the 

reality of our economic situation, that we do need to continue to 

keep spending to help boost job creation. And we don’t want to be 

cutting back on making investments in long-term economic growth. 

So in the short term, that is a very important thing to do, to increase the debt limit. 

Over the long term, we do need to have a plan in terms of raising 

taxes and addressing the spending moving over the long term? 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you. 

Let me ask one more question real quick. At the end of 2008, our country had a total debt of $10.7 trillion, it is now $14.2 trillion, 

a 32 percent increase in a little over 2 years. And due to our current projected spending levels, no one expects this debt level to decrease. In fact, the President has submitted a $3.6 trillion budget, 

revenue projections have been $2.6 trillion, so we are $1 trillion in 

debt going into 2012. 

If I understood Dr. Boushey correctly, she agrees with this sort 

of math because it is a job creator. Dr. Lazear, what do you think 

about another $1 trillion deficit added to our country’s debt 2012 

as it relates to job creation? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, I guess I have a different view than Dr. 

Boushey. I was never a firm believer that the stimulus programs 

did much to increase jobs; and as a result, I don’t think that cutting expenditures right now would have much of a negative impact 

on jobs. 

My concern is really for the longer run. I think that if we do add 

another $1 trillion to the deficit and then to the debt, we are talking about approaching numbers that are really going to have a significant detrimental effect on economic growth and on our longterm ability to borrow. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
97 

Mr. Becerra is recognized. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 

the witnesses for your testimony. 

We have been talking quite a bit about debt long term, the existing deficits, and how we want to get all of that under control. And 

interspersed in this conversation is how we get ourselves back on 

track. What I keep hearing is the more we do private sector investment, the more we see productivity increases for our workers, the 

better things will be. It sounds like at the end of the day what we 

are saying is the more we create jobs for Americans to take, the 

better off we will be. The more Americans can go to work, the more 

they can pay their fair share of taxes. And if we pay our fair share 

of taxes, our revenues will increase so we can cover some of our investments in education and defense and the rest. 

So it seems to me the more we have this conversation, the more 

we should talk about the fact that the worst deficit we face is the 

jobs deficit, is how we put those 14 million Americans who are still 

looking for work back into a good-paying job. And so when you see 

that during the Bush recession we lost 8 million jobs, and when 

you see that we had a turnaround, a situation where economically 

we were hemorrhaging close to three-quarters of 1 million jobs per 

month—that was the case in January, 2009, when George Bush 

handed the keys over to Barack Obama. 

Now that we are gaining jobs—in the last month, close to a quarter of a million new jobs—that is all great, but we have to still continue to do more. But as you talk about making cuts to our Federal 

investments, I think some of us are concerned that we are not really targeting the main contributors to these massive deficits. 

I have a chart on the screen that pulled together what the biggest contributors have been over the last decade or so toward our 

deficits, incoming deficits. And obviously the biggest is, as we 

would expect, the recession, naturally occurring at times that we 

have the cycles and the down cycle. Obviously, the cycle contributes 

quite a bit. But we also see that the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 

2003, if you continue to extend them forward, you can see the size 

of the contribution to the deficit that we get from those Bush tax 

cuts. You see there, the discussion has it centered a bit on the two 

wars that have not been paid for as well. You can see the other 

things that help contribute to these massive deficits. 

I am wondering if I could ask those of you who are here, if we 

were to make cuts and if we were to make investments, would it 

be wise to target the principal causes of our deficits before you 

start making cuts to investments to our kids, to our seniors, to our 

workers and to our veterans? Ms. Boushey. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly. I will start and I will leave time. 

Certainly, I mean, if we look at your chart, which the blue is the 

Bush tax cuts? 

Mr. BECERRA. That is correct. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly. You are asking us to think about 

what our national priorities are. And you are sort of forcing us to 

think about the role of job creation and investment in those priorities and how the Federal budget actually represents those. It 

doesn’t seem to me that tax cuts for the wealthiest—that did not 

lead to strong investment or employment or gains for the middle 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
98 

class—should be a national priority over job creation in building a 

strong middle class. Yet the kinds of things that are being cut in 

H.R. 1 are those very investments that middle class and working 

class families can’t buy out of. They can’t send their kids to private 

school because they can’t afford it. We need food safety, we need 

bridges and transportation, all the things that are going to be cut 

in this piece of legislation. So I think that is the right priority and 

what we should be thinking about. 

Mr. BECERRA. You mentioned H.R. 1, which is the Republican 

budget bill for 2011, the continuing resolution. That bill, H.R. 1, 

makes a cut of $1.1 billion to Head Start, which would leave 

200,000 children without a Head Start program to attend as they 

get ready to go on to kindergarten. It would also probably lead to 

pink slips to about 55,000 Head Start teachers. That doesn’t seem 

to be like a way to make investments for people who are currently 

working, teaching our children in Head Start programs who would 

ultimately be fired. Does that, Ms. Boushey, sound like a way to 

reduce our deficit in a smart way? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly not. It is kind of cutting off our nose 

to spite our face. We need to be making those investments in education and in teaching America’s children. We also need to make 

sure that those people that have jobs can keep them. Programs like 

Head Start or the childcare programs or home health aides that we 

are cutting as a part of these budget cuttings both here and in the 

States make it harder for people who have those care responsibilities to keep their jobs. So we are harming America’s families and 

making it harder for people to work, while at the same time, not 

investing in our future. 

Chairman CAMP. All right. Thank you. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

Mr. Buchanan is recognized. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank our panelists today for being here. A couple of questions. One is, our debt is at $14 trillion, and you 

don’t have to project far down the road we are going to be at $20 

trillion. Money is almost historically free today, the cost of money, 

I think the interest debt is maybe a couple hundred billion. But if 

you have a normal rate, 4 or 5 percent, you are looking at $1 trillion a year in interest before you pay anybody anything in the very 

near future, say 5, 7 years, pick a time frame, but they are projecting trillion dollar deficits. 

When I was in Tampa last week talking to business people, that 

is one of the things, the reason we are not getting the job creation 

is because of the uncertainty around our debt and deficit and looking forward and Washington’s inability to deal with it. So I guess, 

Mr. Lazear, what is your thought, first off, on the $1 trillion a year 

in interest—which could be very quickly down the road in the next 

5 to 7 years—and then the uncertainty that is created by that possibility and where we are at today? So I guess it is a two-point 

question. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Thank you, Congressman. I think that is an excellent question. 

The point about interest rates going up I think is an important 

one. I think Dr. Boushey referred earlier to the liquidity trap, the 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
99 

fact that we are at low interest rates today—low, by the way, for 

the short term, not necessarily so low at the longer term—but absolutely true. And I think most people do expect that we will not see 

these interest rates being sustained into the long run, that we do 

expect the kinds of changes we are talking about which will place 

additional burdens on the budget. 

I guess my concern, you mentioned the word ‘‘uncertainty,’’ and 

one of your colleagues did as well, my concern is actually not the 

uncertainty, my concern is the certainty of the deficit and this high 

debt problem that we have now. That is the problem that is plaguing the economy and that will plague business investment in the 

future. It is not the uncertainty, it is the fact that unless we do 

something, unless you, our elected officials, do something and do 

something pretty dramatic and pretty soon, we are going to be in 

the certain situation where our debt is so high relative to GDP that 

we are going to be placing very significant pressures on our economy. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Boushey, would you like to comment on that? If we don’t do 

something substantial in the very near future, $1 trillion in interest that we are going to have to pay out, taxpayers’ money? I can 

just tell you, talking with people, a lot of business people, there are 

health care issues they are concerned about in the cost of hiring 

an employee, but also the uncertainty with spending and debt is 

very real. I have been in business for 30 years, and I can tell you 

it is not comfortable. But I would like to get your thoughts on it. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly. I want to make three points. One is 

that every month the National Federation of Independent Businesses comes out with a survey and they ask small business owners what they are worried about. And month after month they do 

say sales. They are worried about customers coming in through 

their doors. I think that one of the big uncertainties that has hit 

people really hard is that people didn’t expect this financial crisis 

to happen, they didn’t expect the devastation that we have seen in 

our economy. Are we taking the steps now to make sure that it 

doesn’t happen again? Are we moving forward? And so there certainly is uncertainty certainly about that and what Congress will 

do. 

But I think I want to reiterate, in the short term, we do need 

to make sure that we get people back to work. That is the foundation of having a strong economy. We need customers, we need people in charge. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Let me just say, let me mention getting people 

back to work is important for us as leaders to deal with this issue 

in a real way on a bipartisan basis. 

Let me go to my next question because I haven’t been here 30 

years, I have been here 4. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. One the things that concerns me is people like 

to talk about Bush, Obama, Clinton. But if you look back over 50 

years the Democrats and Republicans have only balanced the budget five or six times in the last 50 years so there is plenty of blame 

to go around. You can come up with whatever rationale you want 

to come up with. I was here when the Democrats came up with 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
100 

PAYGO. I voted for it. When they had the Commission on looking 

at the deficit, I applauded that. I think it is a great opportunity. 

But again, we talk about it, but we don’t do anything. But 49 out 

of 50 States have a constitutional balanced budget amendment. 

Doesn’t that make sense, I mean you have to—if you think of a 

family or if you think of a business. I have been in business, created a lot of jobs over 30 years. You have to be able to make a 

budget and pay your bills. But it forces Washington, the Congress 

to say, look, we take in 2.7 trillion, we give the taxpayers the best 

value we possibly can for the money. That is it, make the hard 

choices. 

The State of Florida, for example, has cut their budget every 

year, it seems like 2 or $3 billion, they have made hard choices. 

There is much shared pain that goes around. But doesn’t a constitutional balanced budget amendment that phases in over time 

give some certainty to people in America as well as the right thing 

to do for Americans? I mean, Mr. Biggs, what do you think. 

Chairman CAMP. Very quickly, because the gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

Mr. BIGGS. You can make the argument that a balanced budget 

amendment constrains Congress’s ability to conduct countercyclical 

fiscal policy, and there is a cost there. But there is benefit in terms 

of restraining the natural impulse to overspend. And so I think on 

balance, it is something I would support because the problems we 

face going forward are so difficult. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Mr. Thompson is recognized. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank all the witnesses for being here today. 

Dr. Lazear, in your statement, you said that policy is primarily 

responsible for the large deficits that are projected to be sustained 

into the near and distant future. Now in regard to that policy, does 

this include borrowing to fund two wars? Borrowing to pay for 

Medicare Part D? And borrowing to finance a tax cut? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Yes. I would say legitimately that including policies of the Bush administration did add to that. Now, that was not 

the policy to which I was referring in that statement, but I would 

not deny that there were things that—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is policy. Irrespective of when that tax 

cut was borrowed, when we borrowed to pay for that tax cut, it still 

adds to the problem. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, again, we have to be careful about the tax— 

when you say the tax cut. Remember there were three, as I recall, 

tax bills during the Bush administration, 2001, 2002 and 2003. The 

2003 was quite different from the other two, so I would distinguish 

those. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So I agree that our debt and our deficit is a 

huge problem, and it is a problem that we need to tackle, but I also 

believe that we are in a very fragile recovery right now in this economic recovery. And do you agree that with Senator Simpson and 

Erskine Bowles who chair, cochair the Debt Commission that we 

really need to be careful here, and this is something that we need 

to tackle, but we need to do it in a way that doesn’t disrupt this 

fragile recovery. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
101 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, I agree that we need to do it in a way that 

doesn’t disrupt the fragile economy, no question about it. Again, my 

guess is that you and I have different views of what that would 

mean in terms of the disruption of the current economy. As I said 

earlier, I have not been an admirer of the stimulus program. I don’t 

think it has done much to create jobs. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I am asking you about the stimulus program, 

I am asking your about Debt Commission’s proposals that actually 

get to the problem, they deal with it in a tough but responsible 

way, and they are very clear in pointing out that we need to do this 

in an appropriate way. Now Mr. Neal pointed out the third-party 

analysis, their disinterested party analysis, if you will. Other 

economists from around the country who point to H.R. 1. And if 

that were to go into effect, it would be the antithesis of what the 

Debt Commission is talking about when they say watch out for the 

fragile economy, that it would lose—it would cost us 700,000 jobs. 

That was the only point that I was trying to make. 

Dr. Boushey, again, I agree we have got fiscal problems and we 

need to deal with them, but at the same time, I think it would be 

penny wise or pound foolish, whatever that is, if we ignored appropriate government responsibilities and appropriate investments. 

And one of the areas where I think we are really, really lacking 

is in infrastructure, because bad and unsafe roads, bridges, rail 

lines, overpasses, our harbors, I believe is, in fact, a tax on American businesses. 

And that tax increase on American businesses means higher 

prices to American people, many of whom are unemployed, many 

of whom can’t afford to pay that. These are the same American 

people as I say who are unemployed and who could be put back to 

work, if, in fact, we did make that investment in infrastructure to 

do away with this hidden tax that is there. Do you have any comments on that? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Certainly. I think that those are exactly the 

kinds of investments we should be making right now. Interest rates 

are low, it is a good time for municipalities and for us to be sort 

of borrowing to pay for those necessary investments and getting 

our economy on the right road to recovery. We have an enormous 

backlog of projects that need to get done, an enormous backlog of 

unemployed workers who need jobs, many of whom lost their jobs 

in the construction industry. So it makes sound economic sense. It 

also will help push our economy into the 21st century, we have infrastructure in the country that is 50 to 100 years old in many 

places. I already gave the example of the water pipes here in D.C. 

I mean, this is something that is unsustainable. We are gong to 

have to make that investment at some point. If you look over the 

course of an economic cycle, now is the perfect time to do it. 

Mr. THOMPSON. It is not just in D.C. There is not a congressional district in this country, every one of us represents a district 

that is woefully behind in our infrastructure investment. I don’t 

care if it is clean water and sewer, healthy, safe, and passable 

bridges and roads. So thank you very much. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you, Ms. Jenkins is recognized. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for 

being here. I think we can all agree that America’s financial situaVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:58 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070877 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70877.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70877

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
102 

tion, as it stands today, is unsustainable. Yet the President sent 

Congress a $3.7 trillion budget proposal with a record $1.6 trillion 

deficit that continues a very aggressive agenda of more government 

spending, more taxes, more deficits and more debt. The CBO predicted the national debt under Obama’s proposals would double in 

10 short years. The President refers to this as investing in our future. I consider it robbing our kids of their future. 

I think Dr. Boushey has made her position well-known this 

morning, agreeing with the President that it is an investment, but 

I would like the other panel members to comment on how you 

would characterize a proposal that doubles our national debt in 

this budget window. 

Mr. BIGGS. Well, I would fully acknowledge that President 

Obama entered office in a very difficult economic time, just as 

President Bush entered office in a difficult time. The thing that 

worries me about the administration’s budget proposal is the lack 

of ambition over the medium in the long term. You would like to 

think they could say well, we have large deficits today because of 

the economy, but over 10 years, we are to bring ourselves back to 

balance. Their argument, well we will go through a down payment, 

which is we will bring ourselves back to primary balance, which is 

a lower standard. The CBO scoring of the budget proposal says 

they come under best year, about $175 billion short of that. 

So an answer I made to an earlier question is lost opportunities 

are the sorts of things that give people doubt about our will power 

to get on top of these problems. We have certain opportunities 

handed to us, where we can stand up and say yes, we are willing 

to make these difficult decisions. Each time we pass is another opportunity for people to say they are not serious about this. 

So, really the short-term problems, I think, are indeed an issue. 

What worries me more is there is no plan on how to get out of 

them. 

Ms. DE RUGY. I agree with you that a lot of the time we hear 

the word ‘‘investment’’ mentioned when really what we are talking 

about is just government spending. And giving it the label ‘‘investment’’ doesn’t make its consequences any lesser. In fact, I would 

argue that it is time for everyone to think that yes, if our roads 

are in dire need of repair, what is this Congress willing to actually 

cut in the budget in order to make the necessary investments? And 

the problem is each time you heard the word ‘‘investment,’’ it is oh, 

this investment is necessary, but so is everything else. 

I agree, one of the things that is extremely worrisome with President Obama’s recent budget is the actual lack, first of creativity or 

willingness to even address the future. And this is, as we have all 

said, worrying us because it will have consequences. We talk about 

the budget but we don’t talk about the fact that our investors have 

got to be looking also at the financial statement of the United 

States the way we do and see the massive amount of unfunded liability. They must be knowing when the Social Security trust fund 

runs into a cash flow deficit forever, we are going to have to come 

up with money for this. Either in the form of taxes or more borrowing. So it is not even just what is on paper, it is all the things 

that are not on paper that adds up to the bill. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
103 

Mr. LAZEAR. I certainly agree. I think the point that I would 

raise is one that we probably haven’t talked enough about, and 

that is again, let’s use the President’s numbers, because you referred to the President and his budget. If you use the President’s 

projections and you look at his charts, the charts I showed earlier, 

what you see is even with the kinds of tax increases that the President is proposing, we are nowhere near close to solving this problem. So this is not a situation where we can get there with the 

President’s arithmetic, it is just not going to happen. 

The kinds of concerns that you have about your children’s future, 

I think are concerns that I have as well and concerns that we need 

to address in ways other than the ones that the President is suggesting, simply because his budget, his own numbers acknowledge 

that this is just not going to do the job. So it is going to take some 

additional creativity on your part to get us there. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you. I believe, in today’s testimony, we 

have proven that the Nation’s debt and deficits are an immediate 

concern and that they are not a result of Americans paying too little taxes. Some of us believe that we really need to cut spending 

now. President Obama, through his proposed budget, however, has 

suggested that we merely freeze some discretionary spending at today’s inflated levels as his solution to solving the Nation’s problems. I see I am about out of time. Perhaps—— 

Chairman CAMP. Time has expired. Mr. Pascrell is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be here, 

to listen to a lot of things that have been repeated and repeated. 

I would like to jump right into questions. I know I only have 5 minutes but there is always time. 

Mr. Biggs, you were associate director of the National Economic 

Council for the White House in 2005. In your testimony before the 

committee today, and I respect your academia, I respect your research ability, but I have to ask you this question. You used the 

word gradual, these things sneak up on us, they don’t happen usually over night, they don’t happen all at once. What did you see in 

2005 gradually happening to the economy, since we knew that the 

balloons were inflating. And we knew what was basically coming 

down the road, there were a few economists who warned us. What 

were you warning the White House about in 2005? 

Mr. BIGGS. My time at the National Economic Council in 2005 

was focusing on Social Security reform, which is a period of which 

President Bush proposed to reduce the rate of growth of benefits 

over the long term for medium and high income retirees while protecting benefits for low income individuals who need those benefits 

the most. That proposal that I worked on would have reduced the 

long-term Social Security deficit by somewhere around 60 percent, 

and I think, given considerable fiscal relief over the long term, in 

terms of reducing debt, that was the issue I focused on the time, 

I was not there given general economic advice to the President. 

Mr. PASCRELL. In order to give specific advice, you would have 

to see the clouds coming, there are distant early warning signals. 

We weren’t paying for anything, Mr. Biggs? What was your position on not paying for two tax cuts, not paying for two wars, not 

paying for the prescription drug recommendation that was passed 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
104 

3 o’clock in the morning when it was passed 8 years ago? What 

were your recommendations about those things? 

Mr. BIGGS. I did not make any recommendations on those 

things. I believe most of them took place prior to the time I was 

at the NEC, so it is not something I made any recommendations 

on at all. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. 

Ms. de Rugy, am I pronouncing your name correctly? 

Ms. DE RUGY. Yeah. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. The debt versus the Gross Domestic 

Product, you talked about that. You said it was the highest in 

2011, did you not? 

Ms. DE RUGY. Well, I mean, since the Second World War. 

Mr. PASCRELL. The highest was in 1947. 

Ms. DE RUGY. I said ‘‘since.’’ 

Mr. PASCRELL. The debt versus the Gross Domestic Product in 

2008, it was already 82 percent under President Bush. It was 56 

percent under President Clinton. So I want us to try to, in some 

manner, shape or form, get out of this amnesia we have about 

those 8 years. I think there is really systemic amnesia about what 

happened between 2001 and 2008. We know, for instance, that revenues as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 2000 were 

20.6 percent; in 2010, 2010, 14.9 percent, projected by CBO to be 

20.8 percent; and between 2012 and 2020–2021, rather, 19 and 9 

percent. 

We are talking about paying off our debt, it is a very serious 

problem. I think you all enunciated it quite well. But we must remember what happened, compared to what happened in the 1990’s 

or what happened in the 8 years preceding Clinton’s administration. We created in the 1990’s, 27 million jobs. That is a fact. You 

are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own 

facts. 

Now what we did in 2001 and 2003 was to cut taxes, that is 

clear. We know what the record is. I am entitled to my own opinion 

but I am not entitled to Pascrell’s facts. These are the facts. If you 

look at the jobs that continue, they went down from that period of 

time, cutting taxes automatically produces jobs. No, they don’t. 

When you are spending frivolously, when you are not paying for 

anything you could cut taxes all you want. Because there is a revenue situation here we need to talk about, and I think it is very 

important that we do talk about it. The highest level at our best 

times, we had the revenues at the highest, highest levels—— 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman’s time expired. 

Mr. PASCRELL [continuing]. When Clinton was the President. 

So don’t blame this whole situation—— 

Chairman CAMP. Regular order. 

Mr. PASCRELL [continuing]. On 2 years of the Obama administration. 

Chairman CAMP. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized, 

Mr. Paulsen. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, thank 

you for taking the time to come and testify. I think hearings like 

this are very helpful. What is interesting to me is that as I travel 

around my district and I have met with a lot of small business peoVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:58 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070877 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70877.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70877

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
105 

ple, and sure they talk about the tax environment, they talk about 

the regulatory environment. But increasingly, there are more and 

more of them that are talking about—actually, their concern about 

government’s role in spending and the national debt and what that 

means in terms of that fiscal responsibility or lack thereof, eroding 

confidence in their investment decisions. 

And that is something that has been growing more and more in 

number over recent months, and especially over the last year, 

which is very interesting. And so I think this conversation is important because the chairman started out, unemployment levels 

are predicted to be fairly high for the next couple of years still, 

which is not a good situation which we all absolutely want to 

change. 

And in a global economy you can allocate capital at a click of a 

mouse so easily, anywhere you would like. I would like to obviously 

have this committee continue as the chairman wants to make the 

United States destination number 1, to create ideas, to generate 

economic growth and make it an opportunity, if you have an idea 

in the garage or in the backyard you can turn it into a company 

that is successful. 

I will start with Dr. Lazear. Do you believe that maintaining our 

current levels of spending where they are now, will help make the 

economy the number 1 destination for new ideas and innovation 

down the road where we have been and where we need to go. 

Mr. LAZEAR. No, I don’t. And I think, again, that is my major 

concern and also the major concern of the other CEA chairs who 

signed that letter. The reason that we have that concern is that we 

believe if we allow the current situation to continue and to get out 

of hand, investors not only American investors, but investors 

around the world will lose confidence in the United States as a primary investment destination. If that happens, if that happens, we 

will find that the cost of funds goes up, we will find that the cost 

of doing business goes up. And with it, investment will decline, 

with that, productivity will decline, and with that wages and job 

growth will decline, so that is certainly my concern. 

Mr. PAULSEN. And Mr. Biggs, maybe you can elaborate too, because you cited studies that have suggested that cutting spending 

versus raising taxes in terms of rehabilitating our country’s economy or their budget situation because some countries have approached a balanced approach from raising taxes, but looking at 

that proposition through the innovation lens, which option, cutting 

spending or actually raising taxes as a part of the equation might 

be more beneficial to those who have new ideas to create companies 

or create jobs? 

Mr. BIGGS. The interesting thing in the empirical research that 

we have reviewed is how overwhelming the case is that balancing 

your budget on the spending side is more likely to be successful 

than balancing it on the tax side. Study after study you can cite, 

they all come to very similar conclusions. What was still a little bit 

of a mystery is why that takes place. One of the reasons, I think, 

is especially if you do it in a large way, if you are sending a message that this is a place where your future is stable, and where you 

can make the kinds of investments, and you can take the kinds of 

risks that help make an economy vibrant over the long term. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
106 

So you are not simply doing a bookkeeping exercise of reducing 

your deficit debt. You are also sending a message to individuals, to 

businesses, to financial markets that the country is open for business, and it is the place where you want to be. Ultimately, over the 

long term, that is an extremely important thing to do. 

Mr. PAULSEN. And Ms. de Rugy, you can comment as well, but 

let me ask you this as well, because I think you have got some part 

of your testimony, you raised some issues about the debt burden 

we have and the interest payments that we will have as a part of 

our debt. And obviously, a lot of my colleagues, we have been 

through tough economic times. And I am pretty brand new to Congress, but the fact is, if interest rates do climb, as the bond markets react as they will at some point that is going to consume a 

larger portion of our budget as paying interest. 

Ms. DE RUGY. Yes. It is—already you can see it in the CBO projection. And the CBO projections are already built in some level of 

interest increase, but they don’t build in the type of increase and 

interest rate that we may see the day our investors get completely 

rattled, and we can actually see interest rates being way bigger. 

And when that happens, the debt can get out of control because we 

are going to be starting to actually pay—borrow money just to try 

to pay interest and it could get out of hand. 

I would like to add something which, we have been focusing a 

lot on investors and how they will look at us. One of the important 

things about tackling our problems today and signaling to the 

American people that we are not continuing on the path that we 

are because—I mean, the American people is smart. They understand that when we spend today and we don’t have this money, it 

is going mean that taxes are going to go up. And also, it is in the 

news all the time that interest rates are going to go up. So that 

is why demand is low, and that is why they are not going to shop. 

It is not because the government isn’t investing enough. It is because they actually want to pay down their line of credit. They 

want to save money for when the really hard times hit again. 

And I think it is important to understand that the more government spends, or actual at least not change its path, the more it 

paralyzes investors and the American people, business owners and 

potential shoppers. 

Chairman CAMP. Thank you time has expired. Mr. Larson is 

recognized. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

the panelists for their fine testimony today. I just have a brief 

question for Dr. Lazear and Dr. Boushey. We are all concerned 

about reducing government spending in the short term, I share 

those concerns. We are also concerned that we have to deal with 

the raising of the debt ceiling. My question is very specific, do you 

believe that it is wise to hold the full faith and credit of the United 

States hostage to deep cuts in order to deal with the issue of raising the debt ceiling? 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, as I already testified, I think that the debt 

ceiling is one more symbol than substance. And I don’t believe it 

would have significant impact one way or the other on markets 

right now. With that said, I don’t feel that using the debt ceiling 

as a mechanism to control spending is probably the most effective 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
107 

way to do it. I would like to see your committee get ahead of that. 

I think that the appropriations process, the process that you go 

through is the appropriate one. And I hope that you will take our 

testimony seriously and work on those problems. 

Mr. LARSON. Dr. Boushey. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I think the answer would be no. That I don’t 

think that we should be held hostage to the debt ceiling in terms 

of making significant budget cuts that will significantly harm the 

economy. 

Mr. LARSON. Well, with regard to Social Security, I would just 

like to point out, and have this for the record that over time, Social 

Security has raised 14.6 trillion and spent 12 trillion and people 

continue to pay into it. And I would concerned, Mr. Biggs, could 

you define nor me what you mean by middle earners? 

Mr. BIGGS. People in the middle of the earnings distribution. 

Mr. LARSON. And what would that be? If I am a middle earner 

in America, what portion of my benefit are you going to reduce? 

Mr. BIGGS. I think the average wage index now is about $42,000 

per year. 

Mr. LARSON. So a person earning $42,000 per year should expect a decrease in their benefits in Social Security in your opinion, 

in order to make it more secure for the future? 

Mr. BIGGS. Well, if we don’t take certain steps on Social Security that same individual and everybody else is going to get a 22 

percent across-the-board benefit cut when Social Security becomes 

insolvent. 

Mr. LARSON. So the idea is that person in the middle that the 

middle class once again, a person that earns $42,000 a year will 

see his benefits shrink. And what does that do to that person? And 

what does that do to the economy? And what does that do in terms 

of this large group of Baby Boomers that will be coming through 

here? What do they do with income that they are going to spend 

in an economy if we are reducing that rate? 

Mr. BIGGS. What I have discussed is not reducing benefits for 

current retirees in any way, so the Baby Boomers really wouldn’t 

be affected at all. And also to the degree you would reduce for higher earners, they would be done on a progressive basis. So somebody 

at the middle of the distribution would have a very, very small reduction in the growth of their benefit. 

Mr. LARSON. One man’s tea is another man’s poison. And when 

you say very small reduction, and you are living on that, the average that people are living on Social Security is something like 

$14,000 annually, these are very modest benefits. 

Mr. BIGGS. Why is one reason—— 

Mr. LARSON. Why is it always the only way to help out a beneficiary is for them to take the cut? 

Mr. BIGGS. You can’t—— 

Mr. LARSON. We have got billionaires that aren’t paying any 

taxes all over this country, we have everyone sheltering money offshore and we are going to have the middle class, a $42,000-a-year 

person bear that burden. That is what is an outrage, that is what 

is wrong when we have a program, one of the best programs in the 

world that is working for people. And we are preparing to look at 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
108 

a road map that privatizes Social Security and vouchers Medicare 

for these people in the middle. Thank you. 

Mr. BIGGS. Should I respond? 

Chairman CAMP. I think the gentleman has yielded back his 

time. Mr. Marchant is recognized. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Depending on what 

publication you believe today in the United States, we have—corporations have about $2 trillion in liquidity set aside, not spending 

it. The Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet to $2.5 trillion. And it is arguable, depending on what numbers you believe, 

that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of profits that are still 

abroad that have been earned and have not been brought back to 

the United States. 

So as a Ways and Means Committee, it looks to me like one of 

the big opportunities that we have is to find a way to persuade that 

large amount of capital, that is a historic amount of capital, that 

is sitting on the sidelines now, persuading them, incentivizing 

them and trying to find a way to help them convert that capital 

to jobs. They could do it today if they wanted to, but there is a tremendous reluctance on their part to take that capital and create 

jobs with it. A country that has combined austerity, budget cutting 

with job creation has been Germany in the last 2 years. They have 

gone through a significant austerity program. Yet their economy 

has started to grow. They are creating new jobs and their economy 

has recovered. 

One of the fears that I have is that very soon in the next year 

or so, these companies that are sitting on these assets will begin 

to, and you have seen it in just the last week, instead of creating 

new jobs, they will begin to look at mergers and acquisitions. When 

you look at a merger and acquisition situation, you don’t really look 

at job expansion first. You look at consolidation of redundancy, you 

look at—you try to exploit every inefficiency that is in the business, 

and usually there is not a new net job creation. 

What do you think that this committee should be looking at in 

the theme of creating jobs, which creates economic activity, which 

creates additional income, which you combine with austerity to 

bring the economy back and put us back on the footing that we 

have? What can we do as a committee to reach out to this liquidity 

and say create jobs, help us back by creating jobs. Mr. Lazear. 

Mr. LAZEAR. Well, that is a tough question, so let me try to get 

at it in a couple of different ways. You talked a little bit earlier in 

your question about capital overseas and how that capital could be 

brought back to be productive. Repatriation of overseas capital is 

a big issue. Much of this has to do with a complicated set of international tax issues having to do with whether we have a worldwide 

or a territorial tax structure. That, to me, should be embedded in 

a more general picture of tax reform that we ought to be talking 

about taxes that are more friendly to investment, and there are a 

number of different ways to get at that. But again, I think that the 

lesson that we learn from looking at the economic literature, and 

there is a lot of it on this particular issue, is that the best way to 

enhance an economy’s ability to grow and to create jobs and higher 

wages, by the way, is through low and efficient taxes, through an 

open economy, and through flexible and free markets. That is realVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:58 Dec 02, 2011 Jkt 070877 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\70877.XXX GPO1 PsN: 70877

anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
109 

ly the only way we know that works and that is the only way we 

know that works historically. And so I would stick with those three 

prescriptions and just push everything you can do to get in that direction. 

Now I know you have been talking about tax reforms, significant 

reform, I hope you do push down that path. I have spent much of 

my career thinking about it and I think it would be a very good 

way to go. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. [Presiding.] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Berg, do you care to question? 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a very interesting hearing today for the last 21⁄2 hours. And we have gone 

down a lot of different trails and different tracks. Clearly, I guess, 

one of the observations that I had in North Dakota, if we have a 

prairie fire, everyone comes together and tries to get it put out. We 

don’t waste any time figuring out who to blame the fire on. And 

it seems like today we spend a lot of time trying to blame who 

started the fire. I think we all agree there is a fire. And we all 

agree, I hope, that we need to get our economy back. And it seems 

that we have two separate views on how to do that. 

The view that was laid out was we would reduce spending. We 

encourage private sector growth through freezing or reducing taxes 

and regulation. And I am not quite clear on what the other alternative is, but it appears the other alternative would be not to reduce spending, possibly increase spending, possibly increase taxes, 

maybe increase some borrowing, which, again, from my perspective, that was something we did last year. 

So that is my first question for Ms. Boushey, is there any place 

that you can say this country, or this is the policy that we follow, 

was followed and historically look at the facts and say this policy 

of increasing spending and increasing taxes has resulted in a 

stronger economy and more jobs? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. The kind of economy we are in right now is one 

where interest rates continue to harbor near zero and we need to 

encourage people to invest that are not doing it. We have a lack 

of demand in our economy. So that is why, at this moment in time, 

you don’t want to cut back government spending because that will 

reduce the amount of demand. 

Mr. BERG. I understand your argument. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Oh, I am sorry, that what I thought you wanted 

me to—— 

Mr. BERG. No, what I am asking for is are there any facts? We 

have facts laid out that said this country did this to reduce spending, they didn’t cover their debt by increasing taxes. So I guess 

what I am looking for are specific examples where, again, some 

similar economy increased spending, increased taxes or increased 

debt and that created jobs. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Japan, when it tried fiscal stimulus, saw improvements in its economy growth and performance, the United 

States. 

Mr. BERG. What years would that have been? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Oh, now you are—I will get back. 

Mr. BERG. I am not trying—— 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
110 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Let me go to the United States example. When 

Obama took office, we implemented, you implemented a massive 

stimulus proposal that then did lead to a sharp immediate reversal 

in job losses. The nadir of job losses in terms of jobs losses per 

month were in winter of 2008 and then it started going up, so that 

each month you saw fewer and fewer, and it was a very, very sharp 

reversal. And that is clear evidence above and beyond the kinds of 

analysis we have seen of the Recovery Act, that that certainly took 

things out of free fall and pushed them in the right direction. We 

have seen economic growth for 6 quarters now after—— 

Mr. BERG. I just don’t have much time and I know a lot of people are hungry. So the two examples you have are Japan and then 

the United States. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Sweden, Germany. The example that Congressman Marchant just brought up of Germany. Germany saw larger 

output—— 

Mr. BERG. Let me just ask you another question. Again I would 

be more than happy if you have specific time periods on these countries again, of U.S., Japan and Germany, I would love to have that. 

The other question again is everyone is saying we need a government program that creates jobs. Has there been a government program that has passed in the last 10 years that you can say this 

program created 2 million jobs? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. I can’t think of one specific program, but let’s try 

the chains of emergency dollars, they created a quarter of a million 

jobs last year in public private partnerships. 

Mr. BERG. You can get back to us on that. I would like to know 

what specific government program passed in the last 10 years that 

had the impact clear and direct of 2 million jobs, or, say, a million 

jobs or more. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, my belief, and of course, the other thing 

I would like to say is I did not vote for the stimulus. I was enjoying 

life in North Dakota when the stimulus passed. I am here because 

of that stimulus and because of a lot of other things, which brings 

me back to one question, that is the health care debate. 

Mr. Lazear, could you explain the job impact of the health care 

law? I know you were cut off several times, but very quickly, what 

that impact will have on jobs? 

Mr. LAZEAR. I would say there is a direct impact of some of the 

taxes that are associated with the health care bill. One primarily, 

the tax on employers of $2,000 if you don’t have a health care bill. 

So those kind of taxes are never good for creating jobs, we know 

that. I was more concerned about the long-term implications of 

very large increases in spending. Whether we cover it with tax increases or not, it is still a huge increase in spending, and that 

means, to my mind, that we are going in the wrong direction. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. BERG. I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Ms. Black, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you panel 

members. I am the last one here standing, and I appreciate others 

that are standing behind me but I especially appreciate you all. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
111 

I certainly agree with my colleague from North Dakota that it 

will not do us any good to litigate the past and we should learn 

from the past. 

And I also agree with my colleague from the other side of the 

aisle that said that there was some amnesia, because I think there 

is some amnesia here when we talk about President Bush and the 

Congress. And at that point in time when we started seeing all of 

this happening, I want to remind my colleagues that while President Bush was at the helm, there was also a Congress that was 

a Democrat-controlled Congress. So I think if we want to sit here 

and start throwing these things back and forth we ought not to 

have amnesia on all levels. 

I do want to say, as I have been back in my district in the last 

100 days, it has been my goal to get to every one of my counties 

and to visit industry, to also do town hall meetings, and to visit 

with the elected officials. And without a doubt, the top two issues 

have been jobs and the spending. There is no doubt that that is the 

issue. But what I am hearing from those that are creating jobs is 

that they are scared. They are scared about what we are going to 

do to them next with regulation, with mandates. They are very uncertain about the economy and what is happening in the economy 

and the amount of debt. 

And you know what else they tell me, is they have the money, 

they have the capital. And not only that, there is also the demand 

for them to grow their businesses and to create jobs. If we want 

to help the middle class people to get back to work, that is what 

we need to do is make sure that we are helping those who are creating those jobs to have an environment where they can grow. And 

certainly piling up more debt is not giving them certainty that they 

can use their capital, this hard-working capital to put into their 

business to find out that they are not going to be able to reap a 

return on it. 

Ms. Boushey, you continue to talk about the rich. Can you define 

for me who are the rich? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. In the context of what I was talking about in 

terms of the tax cuts? Certainly. 

Mrs. BLACK. Yes, you talk about the rich and wealthy continually in both your testimony and also in your written. 

Ms. BOUSHEY. In that case, I would define it probably as the 

top fifth percent of earners in this country. 

Mrs. BLACK. Can you give me what that salary would be? 

Ms. BOUSHEY. That would be probably over around $250,000 a 

year, but I am probably getting the math a little bit off, but I am 

happy to—— 

Mrs. BLACK. So someone who has invested everything that they 

own, put their life on the line and they go into business as a small 

business entrepreneur, and they finally make it. And they make 

$250,000 a year, which, by your definition that is rich, but I would 

argue with you, if you were to ask some of my businesses who have 

really worked hard to get there, and they finally are making a good 

salary, a good income, they would not probably consider themselves 

rich, but you consider them wealthy, you consider them rich. So 

what we should do is we should tax them at a very high level and 

punish them for being successful. 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
112 

Ms. BOUSHEY. Let’s go back to the tax rates of the 1990’s 

where we saw strong employment gains for everyone and we saw 

growth for incomes across the board. So that is actually what I am 

recommending, is that we reverse those tax cuts that gave the bulk 

of the tax benefits to people at the very top of the income distribution but that didn’t help the rest of us, it didn’t help our economy. 

Mrs. BLACK. Ms. Boushey, I think that what you are doing here 

is you are trying to just isolate one thing and not look at everything else that was going on around that time that may have affected what was happening at that time. But what I would like to 

do is I would like to hear from the other panelists. Now, I will tell 

you if I think there are tax loopholes for people who make millions 

and billions of dollars as have been used, then yes, we need to take 

a look at that if those people in those income brackets are not paying what we would consider to be their fair share. 

But to say that we want to punish those who have been entrepreneurs and done well, and they truly are the American dream, 

I mean that is what we want, we want the American dream. I 

would like to hear from the other panelists, what do you think 

about that? 

Ms. de Rugy. Can I add just a very short point? The fact, we always talk about the 1990’s and how it was great and how it is always used by the other side by saying look marginal tax rates were 

increased. But I would also like to remind people that during the 

Clinton administration’s year, spending in real terms only grew by 

12 percent, 12 percent. And that was a significant impact, because 

when you increase spending, people understand, when you increase 

spending massively people understand that there will be tax increase in the future and that actually creates a lot of uncertainty 

and forces them to stay home. 

Mr. BIGGS. I would just give an example, I will say good things 

about my in-laws. My father-in-law is retired, but he was small 

businessman in rural Oregon, and when you are the owner there, 

you work hard for a long time, you sacrifice, you take the risk. If 

profits are low, you go without because you still have to pay your 

employees. When things turn out well, then you get the rewards. 

They are taking a risk in sacrificing at certain times in order to 

get that in later days. When they do succeed the more you penalize, or the higher tax that, it reduces the incentive to do the sacrifices that are needed to make the economy grow. 

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I know that I am out of time but 

I really want to make the point here since this committee hearing 

today was about how we create jobs, that we do not lose sight of 

the way we create jobs and that is by entrepreneurs, because 80 

percent of our economy of businesses are created by entrepreneurs. 

And if we really want to encourage our entrepreneurs to take the 

risk, we need to also say to them we understand you take the risk, 

we are not going to take from you, but thank you very much. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Your time has expired. I want to 

thank the panelists; all of you for your perseverance, and maybe 

you have got time for some lunch now. Thank you so much for 

being here. This committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING
113 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.060
114 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.061
115 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.062
116 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.063
117 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.064
118 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.065
119 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.066
120 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.067
121 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.068
122 

f 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.069
123 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.070
124 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.071
125 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.072
126 

Æ 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with HEARING70877a.073