U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

25–204 2017

SMALL BUSINESS: THE KEY TO ECONOMIC 

GROWTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, 

TAX, AND CAPITAL ACCESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 27, 2017 

Small Business Committee Document Number 115–017 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

DAVE BRAT, Virginia 

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American Samoa 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JAMES COMER, Kentucky 

JENNIFFER GONZA ́ LEZ-COLO ́ N, Puerto Rico 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas 

VACANT 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania 

STEPHANIE MURPHY, Florida 

AL LAWSON, JR., Florida 

YVETTE CLARK, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

VACANT 

KEVIN FITZPATRICK, Staff Director 

JAN OLIVER, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ADAM MINEHARDT, Minority Staff Director 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Dave Brat ........................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Dwight Evans ................................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Robert Barro, Ph.D., Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA ....................................................................................... 4 

Mr. Andrew Sherman, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC ............. 6 

Mr. Stephen Moore, Distinguished Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, The Heritage Foundation, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 8 

Chad Stone, Ph.D., Chief Economist, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 11 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Mr. Andrew Sherman, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, DC ...... 24 

Mr. Stephen Moore, Distinguished Fellow, Project for Economic Growth, 

Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC ............................................................................... 32 

Chad Stone, Ph.D., Chief Economist, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC ................................................................................... 39 

Questions for the Record: 

None. 

Answers for the Record: 

None. 

Additional Material for the Record: 

None. 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

(1) 

SMALL BUSINESS: THE KEY TO ECONOMIC 

GROWTH 

THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, TAX, AND CAPITAL ACCESS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Dave Brat [chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brat, Knight, Kelly, Evans, and Murphy. 

Chairman BRAT. All right. Good morning, and welcome everybody. And I will call this meeting to order. And we are very excited 

for this panel on economic growth. I think it is very important for 

our country right now. 

No matter where you stand or what side of the aisle you are on, 

I think everybody in this room hopes to help create and sustain 

long-term economic growth. Achieving economic growth can improve the health, wealth, well-being of every American amongst 

every other variable under the sun. I think our panel will probably 

get to that today. However, the best course to achieve sustained 

economic growth is frequently debated here in Washington. The 

United States has been stuck in a slow growth period for a couple 

decades. While the growth in the United States was about 3.5 percent from 1950 to 2000, the economy grew at an anemic rate of 1.6 

percent in 2016, and about 1.5 percent over the last 8 years. 

However, when Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was asked this 

week if the U.S. can return to 3 percent growth he responded, 

‘‘With all the initiatives that we are doing, regulatory reform, trade 

reform, tax reform, and unleashing energy, there is no reason why 

we should not be able to at least hit that long-term average, if not 

beat it.’’ 

This morning’s distinguished panel will cite a variety of reasons 

why the country has experienced slow growth, but one overarching 

theme we will hear is that Washington can do more to help America’s businesses with the largest growth potential small businesses. 

They represent 48 percent of the workers in the private sector and 

make up an overwhelming amount of all businesses. And yet, today’s panel will examine that more can be done to ensure their success. 

With next week being National Small Business Week, today’s 

hearing is a timely opportunity to discuss the connection between 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

2 

small businesses and economic growth. This Committee and the 

Administration’s prioritization of regulatory relief is sure to greatly 

benefit small business in the coming years. 

While small business owners painstakingly finished their tax returns last week, simplifying and lowering tax burdens would be a 

significant boost to both small businesses and economic growth. 

Access to capital is another issue that must be addressed to ensure the success of small businesses. While Congress and the Administration are committed to reviewing regulations that inhibit 

access to capital, the Subcommittee is also concerned that venture 

capital investment is largely concentrated in only a few metropolitan areas. 

As all of these suggestions point out, there is not a simple fix to 

improve economic growth. There is no silver bullet. However, 

through examining what creates economic growth and promoting 

pro-growth policies, the Subcommittee hopes to help the economy 

return to the historical average, and perhaps beyond. 

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank them 

very much for being with us today. We will certainly benefit from 

their perspectives on how to improve economic growth through fostering small businesses. And I now yield to the ranking member for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. EVANS. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ten years ago, our Nation was hit with the largest economic disaster since 1929. During the fiscal crisis of 2007-2008, we saw 

housing prices and unemployment skyrocket. By 2009, unemployment had reached 10 percent nationally. Fortunately, today, several years of steady and sustained growth have put our economy 

on the right track. Unemployment has remained below 5 percent 

for well over a year. In fact, last November, the employment rate 

dipped to 4.6 percent, the lowest it has been since 2007. 

We have seen considerable job growth. Over the course of the 

Obama administration, America gained over 11 million new jobs. 

His presidency saw 75 percent straight month job creation, the 

largest continuous stretch of job growth in the U.S. since 1939. Finally, median household income surged in 2015, rising by 5 percent 

for the first time since 2007. These economic markers indicate that 

our Nation has made great progress, yet we are still feeling the effects of the Great Recession. 

Access to capital remains a major challenge for small businesses 

and business formation at an historic low. GDP, growing at an average of just over 2 percent, and many economists do not believe 

a significant increase is likely. That is why it is so critical that we 

examine our current economic situation and the policies that will 

boost economic growth. 

Unfortunately, as the Trump administration approaches its 100- 

day mark, policies that are likely to reverse these trends are scant. 

The administration has offered proposals that rely on failed economic theories that will help the wealthy at the expense of the 

middle class. We have ill-responsibly slashed regulations, proposed 

huge tax breaks for the wealthy, and proposed major cuts to funding for education, health care, and programs that small businesses 

rely upon, all while likely raising the deficit. 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

3 

In order to truly grow our economy, we need to invest in our Nation’s infrastructure, our human capital, and our small businesses. 

Due to chronic underinvestment, America’s infrastructure is crumbling. The state of infrastructure has a big impact on the economy’s 

ability to function and grow. Investing in infrastructure creates 

jobs. Increasing spending by just 1 percent point of GDP would increase to 1.8 million jobs with 1.3 million in the construction industry alone, one of the industries that was worst hit by the financial 

crisis. 

Small businesses have been called the ‘‘backbone of the American 

economy,’’ and as we evaluate tax policies and the effectiveness of 

regulations, we must ensure that small firms have a seat at the 

table. By supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs, we spur 

job creation and economic growth. 

Finally, as we develop policies to spur economic growth, we must 

ensure that all Americans can benefit from it. That means ensuring 

economic opportunity for all individuals. Barriers to economic opportunity can include a lack of access to quality education, health 

care, employment, housing, and equal pay. 

All of these issues directly impact our economy and small businesses and they work for us. We must examine policies that directly address these barriers to not only create a more equal society, but a stronger one. 

I look forward to today’s hearing and thank the witnesses for 

being here. I thank the chairman, and I yield back the balance of 

the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRAT. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Dwight. 

If Committee members have an opening statement prepared, I 

ask them be submitted for the record. 

I would like to take a moment to explain the timing lights for 

you. You will each have 5 minutes to deliver your testimony. If you 

go over it is no big deal. 

The light will start out as green. When you have 1 minute remaining the light will turn. Finally, at the end of your 5 minutes 

it will turn red. Try to stay somewhere in that time limit, but we 

do not have a full panel here and so I think we are all going to 

take advantage of the expertise in front of us today, and you are 

all on the cameras so do not make any mistakes at all. 

With that, I will start off with an introduction. 

Start off by introducing someone very special to me, our first witness is Dr. Robert Barro, the Paul M. Walberg Professor of Economics at Harvard University. He is one of the preeminent experts 

on macroeconomics and the determinants of economic growth and 

has written extensively on both topics. Over two decades ago, I did 

my Ph.D. up here at American University on economic growth, and 

Dr. Barro was the leading light in the Nation on growth. And so 

I read every paper. I could not read fast enough to keep up with 

all the papers he was writing at the time. But inspiring and leader 

at Harvard, obviously, and for the country, and speaks for itself. 

Other research interests for Dr. Barro include the impact of rare 

disasters on asset markets and macroeconomic activity, as well as 

the interplay between religion and the political economy. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University, his bachelor’s degree 

from California Institute of Technology. Thank you very much for 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

4 

joining us here this morning, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

And you may begin your testimony. Thank you, Dr. Barro. 

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT BARRO, PH.D., PAUL M. WARBURG 

PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; ANDREW SHERMAN, PARTNER, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP; STEPHEN 

MOORE, DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, PROJECT FOR ECONOMIC 

GROWTH, INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION; CHAD STONE, 

CHIEF ECONOMIST, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BARRO 

Mr. BARRO. Thanks very much for those kind words. I hope I 

do not disappoint you given your Ph.D. thesis. 

I wanted to make some general remarks about economic growth, 

and I think sustained economic growth is certainly the key to levels 

of standards of living in the United States and in other countries. 

And so as some quick examples, in the United States, the average 

growth of the real GDP per person from 1869 to 2000 was about 

2 percent per year, and that was enough over that period of more 

than a century to increase the level of per capita income by a factor 

of about 16. And basically explains why today the GDP per person 

is more than $50,000 in the United States. It is a little less clear 

whether since 2000 this record of growth has been continued because it appears to be more sluggish than it used to be. 

A prominent example of the importance of growth is China, 

which opened up considerably after the death of Mao in the mid1970s to market forces and to enterprise. They managed to grow 

at a remarkable per capita rate of over 6 percent since the early 

1980s. This has moved several hundred people out of poverty in 

China. I think it is probably the all-time greatest experience with 

respect to improving human welfare. 

India has moved since the mid-1980s and not quite the same, but 

in some analogous ways and has done almost as well in terms of 

growth since then and has similarly contributed to a vast reduction 

in world poverty. 

Another prominent example is the comparison between South 

Korea and North Korea. The main difference since the end of the 

Korean War in those two countries is the openness to markets, to 

enterprise, to rule of law; also, democracy later on in South Korea. 

And this experience explains why today the difference in terms of 

levels of per capita income is a remarkable 15 to 1 between the 

South and the North. By comparison, at the end of the U.S. Civil 

War, the difference between the North and the South was a factor 

of about 4 to 1, and the difference in Germany between West and 

East Germany was about 3 to 1. So the Korean situation is actually 

quite unprecedented. 

I have looked a lot at the determinants of economic growth for 

a broad group of countries, so over 100 countries looked at especially since 1960, and tried to assess what things matter for economic growth. So things that seem to matter especially are market 

orientation and the nature of regulations. Ease of doing business 

is important, maintenance of rule of law. Human capital is also imSBREP-219A with DISTILLER

5 

portant. Education and health, I think, are central matters. International openness is an important factor, so economics usually view 

that free trade is a plus for growth I think is borne out by this kind 

of data. Saving behavior is important. There is a list of forces that 

matter. As Congressman Brat said, it is not just one silver bullet, 

but it is an array of factors and policies that matter for economic 

progress. 

There is also a convergence process that shows up in these crosscountry data. One way to look at that is that poor places can grow 

fast if they get the underlying conditions into the right shape in 

terms of the nature of institutions, openness to business, and so on, 

but that is a very difficult thing for poor places to accomplish. 

It is also implied that eventually countries will slow down in 

terms of growth and approach something more like the world average, and I think that is true currently for China. I do not think it 

is going to continue growing at anything like 6 percent per year per 

capita, but more like 2 to 3 percent if one looks into the future. 

So if I say something more specifically about the U.S. recent performance in terms of economic growth and productivity, a striking 

fact since the end of the Great Recession in 2009 is the nonrecovery 

of real GDP. The normal pattern following the end of a big downturn is to have stronger than usual growth for a while. That is the 

nature of a recovery. So that has not happened. And if you cumulate that up till today from 2010, you are basically missing about 

10 to 15 percent in terms of the level of real per capita GDP that 

you might have expected, so that is a fairly big deal. 

And the surprising contrast, as Congressman Evans said, is that 

the labor market has been pretty strong over this period. So the 

unemployment rate has gone down a lot particularly over the last 

few years. Employment growth has been pretty good in terms of job 

creation. So you have to look at those two things together. GDP 

growth has been anemic at the same time that the labor market 

has been pretty good. 

If you put those forces together, what it says is that output per 

worker has been doing nothing. Productivity growth has been zero 

since 2010. That is why we do not have as much per capita income 

today as we normally would have expected. And if you think about 

what policies would be a good idea, you have to think about what 

policies would spur productivity growth. 

So some of the issues that have been brought up I think are relevant if you think about productivity. So I think regulatory reform 

is something that can be very useful. If you look at the World 

Bank’s measures of ease of doing business, for example, the U.S. 

has slipped from third or fourth place to eighth place, and improving those kinds of measures would help to spur economic growth, 

and regulatory reform is certainly relevant there. I think an attractive fiscal package could spur economic growth, and here I would 

look at things like the proposed cuts in corporate income taxes and 

individual income tax rates as being positive. I would like to see 

a 1986 Reagan-style package of tax reform involving further base 

broadening. Perhaps entitlement reform would be part of this. That 

would be a more effective fiscal package. 

I think infrastructure investment can be important. I think the 

productivity of infrastructure capital in the U.S. at the margin is 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

6 

pretty high, especially in terms of transportation-type projects. An 

important issue is how you pay for that. I think there is a good 

case for that kind of investment on a large scale, but you have to 

pay for it in a way that does not mess up the overall fiscal balance. 

Some privatization related to roads, airports, ports, et cetera, can 

be relevant there. 

The biggest concern I have in terms of prospective policies from 

the administration is in terms of possible protectionism. I would be 

very much opposed to curtailing international trade. I would, as a 

related matter, not be in favor of curtailing immigration. Those are 

the biggest concerns I have. 

If I put the overall package together, and if you get reasonable 

outcomes along the lines of policies that I sketched and you do not 

have a move toward protectionism, then I think it is quite reasonable to think of generating GDP growth in the range of 3 to 4 percent per year, at least for a few years. I do not think that is anything out of the realm of possibility and that is what I would hope 

to see coming out of the administration policies. 

Chairman BRAT. All right. Thank you very much, Dr. Barro. 

Our next witness is Andrew Sherman, partner at Seyfarth Shaw 

here in Washington, D.C., where he focuses on issues affecting 

business growth. He has also written several books on aspects of 

how to grow a business and how all businesses can cultivate innovation to succeed. He received his bachelor’s degree from University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and his J.D. from American 

University. You are now recognized for 5 minutes as well, and if 

you go a hair over that is all right with us. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW SHERMAN 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Brat. It is truly an honor 

to be here, not only in front of all of you, but with this very esteemed panel. It has the makings of a great joke, right, when three 

prominent economists and a lawyer walk into a bar. We can finish 

that joke after the hearing. 

As you mentioned, I have devoted my life to being a legal and 

strategic advisor to small and emerging companies. I have had the 

honor of being outside general counsel to a group called The Entrepreneurs Organization that started with 20 members back in 1987, 

and now has 12,000 members worldwide, and have worked with 

many, many entrepreneurs over the years. My passion for small 

business and entrepreneurship must be contagious because my wife 

and daughter are both now small business owners and entrepreneurs themselves. 

This Committee, as you know, is the champion and guardian of 

small business entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, innovation, and 

creativity in this country. You have a fiduciary duty as guardian 

to make sure that this entrepreneurial ecosystem that both Dr. 

Barro described, I will be talking about, I am sure others will be 

talking about, is preserved and protected. You hold much of our 

country’s economic growth in your hands as leaders and as legislators. It is important that we look at that entrepreneurial ecosystem 

as the crown jewel of our economy. A big component of that entrepreneurial ecosystem is made up in some of the policies that the 

Federal and State and local governments bring, as well as univerSBREP-219A with DISTILLER

7 

sities, government labs, a number of resources that we, the taxpayers, all support, and we trust you to do the right things and 

make the right decisions. 

As Dr. Barro mentioned, it is a delicate balance between doing 

too much versus too little. In my written testimony I lay out the 

18 elements of this entrepreneurial ecosystem as I see it, and those 

range everywhere from human capital issues, which Dr. Barro 

mentioned, to the importance of strong government R&D partnerships, access to university resources, which I will talk more about. 

One of my big sticking points, I think as you know in the background, is reliable and fair IP laws, things that we can do to facilitate innovation once it has been created. 

One of my big concerns I will get to in a moment is the amount 

of innovation that we as a country are capable of creating, but then 

never commercialize. And if you want GDP growth, it is sitting like 

coins under the sofa cushion. We just all have to get up, lift that 

cushion up, and distinguish between what is a valuable coin and 

what may be some old Cheerios. 

We need to do better in that role, and I am going to focus the 

rest of my commentary on three key buckets. In working with entrepreneurs and small business, from a business and strategic 

planning perspective, most economic growth and their business 

plans for growth fall into one of three key buckets: the human capital bucket, which has been mentioned; the innovation capital bucket, which I will talk more about; and the financial capital bucket. 

I know that it is the work of this Committee to look at access 

to capital, affordable capital. I think that great progress was made 

with the passage of the JOBS Act, but as you know, the JOBS Act 

so far, once the SEC got around to writing the regulations, has 

been underutilized. We will see how that plays out over time. 

One thing that this Committee can focus on is still the access to 

debt capital. We still have an issue mostly around the nature of 

small business and entrepreneurs’ collateral. If they are not pledging personal assets, most of their assets will be intangible assets, 

assets that banks are not ready to deal with. I proposed a couple 

of ideas in the written testimony about things we might be able to 

do to facilitate. 

So the next issue, the issue I want to drill into for a minute is 

this human capital issue. I recently wrote a book called ‘‘The Crisis 

of Disengagement.’’ I read a Gallup study called ‘‘The State of the 

American Workforce.’’ It came out about 3 or 4 years ago. It was 

recently updated in December. We have 4 percent of the American 

workforce; 4 percent that describe themselves as highly engaged. 

That is a concern, right? We have almost a third of the American 

workforce that describes themselves as highly disengaged. 

Now, the last time I checked, no American worker at a small 

business or otherwise will be up at night thinking about ways to 

improve customer service, to improve the product or service of the 

company if they are highly disengaged in the workplace. They will 

be up at night thinking about their next job or their upcoming vacation. We need to examine that issue in greater detail. 

I called this issue a crisis in my book because I believe in my 

heart it is a crisis. We cannot have economic growth without an engaged workforce. I mean, that is a huge gap. We have a human 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

8 

capital gap. It is an issue that I am happy to drill into in future 

hearings, but this part of the human capital gap must be improved. 

I will briefly touch on the other two buckets and turn it over to 

Mr. Moore. 

On the intellectual capital gap, we have incredible innovation 

waste in the country. Millions and millions of dollars that you allocate through university research, through government lab research, 

never finds its way into the hands of entrepreneurs and small business owners. What can all of us do, whether from a legislative perspective, a policy perspective, a communication perspective, to close 

that gap? Entrepreneurs and small businesses do not have the resources to create these assets, but they have all of the knowledge 

and the channels and the energy to bring those assets to the marketplace. So if we can do a better job closing the gap between the 

two, I think that we can spur economic growth in that fashion. 

Many commentators from Baruch Lev up at NYU, to Ocean 

Tomo—to others, have discussed how our economy has shifted. 

In 1975, 85 percent of the overall value of the S&P 500 was captured in tangible assets. That has shifted all the way to the other 

side, and we now have an economy that is driven. I mean, think 

about the Facebooks, the Googles, all of the great growth stories. 

They are all made up. Primarily 95, 98 percent driven by intangible assets. So we need to think about the role that those assets 

play in the economy more effectively, and I think that those two 

issues alone are capable of really moving the needle on the GDP 

front. 

Thank you. It has been an honor to provide this testimony, and 

I will turn it over to Mr. Moore. 

Chairman BRAT. Thank you very much, 

Mr. SHERMAN. We appreciate your testimony and look forward 

to asking questions. 

Our third witness is also a personal friend over the years, highly 

respected in the field of growth, Stephen Moore, distinguished fellow with the Project for Economic Growth at the Heritage Foundation. He is also a key contributor for the Institute of Economic 

Freedom and Opportunity at Heritage where he focuses on advancing policies that benefit economic growth in the United States. He 

received his bachelor’s from the University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign, his master’s from George Mason University. Thank 

you for coming to testify this morning, and Steve, looking forward 

to your testimony. You may begin. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MOORE 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Evans. 

And I must say that I have agreed with everything I have heard 

so far. And thank you for letting me talk about my favorite subject, 

which is growth, growth, growth. And we do not have enough of it. 

I think that is the central problem with the U.S. today. 

I agree with Professor Barro’s assessment that there is something that has happened over the last 15 years that has slowed 

down growth. The latest forecast by the Congressional Budget Office is forecasting with U.S. economy over the next 10, 20, and 30 

years we will grow between 1.8 and 1.9 percent. That is completely 

unacceptable. We cannot solve any of the problems that we want 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

9 

to solve as a Nation, whether it is lowering the debt, lowering the 

deficit, building the infrastructure that Congressman Evans was 

talking about, reducing poverty, improving schools, just about anything. 

We need faster growth. And at one point, 9 percent growth, we 

are going to see the United States in terms of our debt in the next 

25 years look like Greece and Puerto Rico, and that is very troubling. But if we get faster growth, if we can work together to find 

ways to just about the growth up to 3 percent, which as Professor 

Barro said, that would actually be slightly below what we normally 

had, 3 percent is not shooting for the moon, we can start to see our 

debt curve slope downward. 

If you look at the last, let us see, where is this chart in my testimony? I think it is worth looking at. It is on about the fifth page, 

the power of expanding the economy, you can see with the red line 

it is showing what happens to the debt if we stay on the course the 

Congressional Budget Office is predicting. If we can get to 3 percent growth, look at that, the debt actually does not grow. It does 

not go to 150 percent; it falls to 50 percent. So growth is everything 

when it comes to dealing with this budget. Of course, we have to 

make some tough decisions on the budget, which you have really 

devoted your time here in Congress, Chairman Brat, but that is important. 

Second of all, growth is not just about improving people’s living 

standards. A lot of people say, well, yeah, you know, you can have 

a lot of growth, but what about income inequality? What about the 

health? What about the environment that we live in? And if you 

look at some of these other charts in my testimony, you can see 

that growth is highly associated with improvements in everything. 

So, for example, if you look on the fourth page of my testimony, 

chart 1, you can see what Professor Barro was talking about, the 

big increase in living standards, especially in countries like China 

and India, and you can see the dramatic increase in growth. And 

look what happened to poverty. So as growth goes up, poverty goes 

down, which means that a rising tide in most cases really does lift 

all boats. It makes everybody better off. 

But then if you turn to the next page you can see that growth 

is actually highly associated with these other measures. So life expectancy is highly associated with growth. 

Professor Barro talked about the situation in North Korea. Not 

only is their growth horrendous, but North Korea has one of the 

lowest life expectancies of any country in the world. Their life expectancy is less than 50, and South Korea, I do not know their 

exact number. They are probably at about 75. I mean, that is a gigantic difference, 25 years. And that is associated with lower 

growth, lower nutrition, and so on. 

And even environmental protection, by the way, is highly associated with growth. Countries that are prosperous, like the United 

States, have cleaner air, cleaner water, than nations that do not. 

So how do we get there? I would just suggest a couple of things. 

Number one, this idea that there is secular stagnation and that the 

U.S. economy can only grow at 2 percent, I think we all need to 

reject that. Congress needs to reject that idea and say, no, 2 percent is insufficient. How do we get to 3 and 3.5? Well, as Professor 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

10 

Barro mentioned, there are two ways to do that. You grow the 

labor force, number one, and number two, you make the labor force 

more productive. 

I want to just in my last minute and a half discuss this issue 

about growing the labor force. I think there is no reason we cannot 

see a lot more people working in this country. You all know these 

figures; the last 15 years or so we have seen a steady decline in 

the labor force participation rate. By the way, that is not only because people are retiring. It is partially because of that because 

there are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, but that is only 

part of the story. The more troubling part is that younger people 

are participating in the labor force at a later age. 

You know, when I was at the Wall Street Journal, every week 

we met incredible captains of industry in finance, sports, medicine. 

People were great in whatever field it was. And what struck me so 

much was I would always ask these people, where did you come 

from? So many of them even grew up on farms. They started working when they were 8, 9, 10 years old, and they developed a work 

ethic. We have got to get that back. 

We spend a trillion dollars a year paying people not to work at 

the Federal level through welfare programs. Every Federal welfare 

program, we are a generous, compassionate country, but every single welfare program should have a work component for able-bodied 

people to get them in the workforce because you cannot escape poverty, Mr. Chairman, if you are not working. It is that simple. 

And finally, we need more immigration. I agree with Professor 

Barro on this. Because of the aging of the baby boomers, we are 

going to need more legal immigration, not less. And the idea of capping things like the H1B visas at this low level I think is lunatic. 

I think there is no question that the more skilled and talented and 

entrepreneurial people we bring into this country actually adds to 

the number of jobs in this country; it does not subtract from them. 

So we can do this. We can do it with the right set of policies. 

The final thing I will say in the last 10 seconds is that I do think 

that the tax cuts that Donald Trump introduces tomorrow could 

have a positive effect on productivity and on labor force. If you reduce the tax on working, you are going to get more work. It is not 

that complicated. If we can reduce those tax rates on businesses 

and individuals and increase the reward for working, the after-tax 

income that people make, you are going to get more people working 

and that will have a positive impact as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRAT. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore, for your testimony. 

And I will yield now to the ranking member to introduce Dr. 

Chad Stone. 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to introduce Dr. Chad Stone. Since 2007, Dr. Stone 

has been the chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities, a nonpartisan research and policy institution in Washington, D.C. Dr. Stone has also served as an economist of several 

government organizations, including the Joint Economic Committee, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, the Senate 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

11 

Budget Committee, the Office of Management and Budget, and the 

Federal Trade and Communication Commission. 

Outside of government, he has worked at the Urban Institute 

and taught economics at Wayne State and Swarthmore College. Dr. 

Stone has a B.A. from Swarthmore and a Ph.D. from Yale. Welcome, Dr. Stone. 

STATEMENT OF CHAD STONE 

Mr. STONE. Thank you. Chairman Brat, Ranking Member 

Evans, and other members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today about the causes, benefits, and current 

limits on economic growth. These are important topics to understand better if we are to evaluate properly President Trump’s bold 

claim that his policies will supercharge the economy and return us 

to the higher rates of growth we enjoyed in an earlier era. 

I make four broad points in my written testimony. I agree, 

growth matters, for raising living standards and for fiscal stability. 

Second, economic growth over the next decade is likely to be 

much closer to the 2 percent that CBO is looking for than the 3 

percent that the Trump administration is promising. That is looking at the constraints on growth. Policy can nudge that, but policy, 

I do not think, can make such huge increases in growth. 

Third, large tax cuts. They are far from a sure fire way to spur 

growth, higher taxes do not preclude growth and tax cuts can harm 

growth if they add to the budget deficit or are paired with cuts to 

productive public investments. 

Finally, small businesses are important pieces of the American 

economy, but in evaluating sources of growth, it is important to 

know that it is new businesses, entrepreneurial businesses, rather 

than small businesses, per se, that are the real thing that matters. 

So growth matters for our standard of living and our fiscal 

health. A growing and increasingly productive economy has the potential to make all our lives better if the fruits of that growth are 

broadly shared as they were in the generation from 1948 to 1973, 

when strong productivity growth doubled living standards up and 

down the income distribution. Strong growth also contributed to a 

sharp decline in public debt as a share of GDP during that period, 

even though we ran budget deficits almost every year. 

Growth since then has been more uneven and inequality has 

widened. The economy’s capacity to supply goods and services, 

which is really the ultimate limit on growth—economists call it potential GDP—grew more rapidly in that earlier period than it has 

on a sustained basis anytime since, and it is likely to slow further 

going forward. 

I refer you to figure 1 in my testimony which shows CBO’s estimates of the past and projections for the future of the contributions 

to potential GDP growth of growth in the potential labor force and 

growth in productivity, which we all agree are the things that we 

want to focus on for where growth comes from. 

So CBO, as Steve said, projects, and as others have said, projects 

that the economy will only grow 2 percent over the coming decade, 

and that is below the 3.2 percent growth in potential that we 

achieved in the period from 1950 to 2016. And it is slower prospects for growth in potential that CBO focuses on. So President 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

12 

Trump has claimed that growth could be 3.5 or even 4 percent. 

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin more recently said 3 percent or higher. This gap between CBO and the administration is historically 

large in the history of such forecasts. 

Economist Edward Lazear, who was president of George W. 

Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, is sympathetic to the Trump 

policy goals and cites 3.2 percent growth as a target, nevertheless 

concluded in his op-ed about this that achieving such a high rate 

of growth is ‘‘unlikely’’ with respect to the budget. 

CBO and OMB calculations suggest that faster economic growth 

would improve the fiscal outlook. Their evidence suggests that a 1 

percentage point increase in annual growth would reduce deficits 

by roughly $3 trillion over a decade. Of course, that only happens 

if the growth actually materializes. Basing one’s budget forecast on 

an overly optimistic economic forecast as a way to offset the cost 

of one’s policies will understate the adverse impact, perhaps substantially, of those policies on actual future deficits. 

Exaggerated claims for economic growth benefits of large tax cuts 

have been around since the emergence of supply-side economics in 

the late 1970s and persist to this day, but there is scant evidence 

that tax cuts have such large effects, or that tax increases preclude 

economic growth. 

I have just an illustration that growth need not be impeded by 

tax cuts in figure 2 of my testimony, which looks at growth and job 

creation following the 1993 Clinton tax increases on high-income 

folks and the 2001 Bush tax cuts. It is anecdotal evidence; it is not 

a controlled scientific experiment, but it illustrates that conclusion. 

Let me just tick off a list of the other things I discuss in my testimony. First, I discuss Kansas’s experience with large tax cuts as 

a notable recent supply-side failure that has wreaked havoc on the 

State’s budget. 

Second, I discuss how tax cuts are likely to hurt growth if they 

increase deficits or if they cut investments in infrastructure, or 

antipoverty programs. There is research showing that antipoverty 

programs actually have a significant positive effect on life outcomes 

of poor children farther on, going to college, succeeding at work. 

Now, today, even the Tax Foundation, which produces the most 

aggressive dynamic scoring estimates of tax cuts, rejects the claim 

that Trump tax policy is going to produce enough economic growth 

to pay for its tax cuts. Now, that is the most extreme of supplyside claims, but even the Tax Foundation says that their model, 

their aggressive model, does not find that. 

Finally, I discuss how a Trump plan to cut rates on so called 

‘‘pass-through income’’ encourages tax avoidance, provides almost 

all of its benefits to very high-income individuals, and does almost 

nothing for most small businesses, true small businesses, who already pay the lowest rate and would not get any cut from proposals 

to cut the rate on pass-through income. Figure 3 in my testimony 

illustrates that. 

Finally, with respect to small businesses, I liked Mr. Sherman’s 

testimony and I will add that one of the experts in changing our 

view about small businesses per se being the main engine of 

growth to the view that it is new and entrepreneurial businesses 

that are the engine of growth. And that is John Haltiwanger at the 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

13 

University of Maryland. What he says is that most entrants fail. 

Most surviving young businesses do not grow. But a small fraction 

of surviving young businesses contribute enormously to job growth. 

A challenge of modern economies is having an environment that allows such dynamic, high-growth businesses to succeed. That is your 

challenge on your Committee. Thank you. 

Chairman BRAT. Thank you very much. 

All right. I think I will start off questioning. I was going to start 

off on regulatory with Dr. Barro, but I think we will go back and 

forth on tax cuts for a minute. And so Steve, if you could address 

in a couple minutes, tough to do, but number one, the supply-side 

term. I am not exactly sure what that means, right? If you gave 

a tax cut, you can do it on the consumer side to people, right, and 

that puts money back in people’s wallet. But if you are going to enhance productivity, that almost by definition is on the supply side. 

That is business. 

And so the pejorative supply side as a reference to business, I do 

not understand. But Steven, if you want to take it from there and 

we are going to try to broadcast some of the proceedings to the 

public as an educational opportunity. So can you explain just in 

laymen terms how tax cuts do lead and can pay for themselves, or 

at least partially pay for themselves in a minute or two? 

Mr. MOORE. Look at the Trump plan because that is right 

smack in front of us right now. We have very, very high business 

tax rates, virtually the highest in the world. 

If you look at the chart on the last page of my testimony, it is 

instructive. What you can see is that we are living in a globally 

competitive world today. Do you have the testimony, by the way? 

It is this chart here with a yellow background. 

We are living in a global economy. There is no putting the genie 

back in that bottle, no matter how big you try to build a wall or 

a fence around the country. So what has happened over the last 30 

years is the rest of the world is, if you see these red pillars falling, 

these are the reductions in the tax rates of all the countries that 

we compete with: Germany, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and on and on. 

So what has happened is we used to have a competitive business 

tax. If you look back in the ’80s and ’90s, our corporate rate was 

actually lower than the rest of the world. The rest of the world has 

been very aggressive in cutting the rates. They are effectively engaging in Reaganomics. They are cutting their tax rates in large 

part to steal businesses from the United States. I mean, they are 

looking at the U.S. 

I was just not long ago in Ireland, in Dublin. It is amazing. You 

know, Ireland does a 12.5 corporate rate. An amazing number of 

American companies are located there right now. 

Well, Chairman Brat, you cut me, I bleed red, white, and blue. 

I do not want American jobs in Ireland. I want American jobs here 

in Michigan and Ohio and my home State of Illinois, and so on. 

This cannot work anymore. We are 15 to 20 percentage points 

above the average. It is almost unpatriotic to support a system like 

this where we are putting every American corporation, whether it 

is Google or Microsoft or Boeing and so on, at, you know, I call this 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

14 

like a Head Start program for every country that we compete with. 

And it is costing us jobs. 

So do I believe that if we bring this rate down from way up here 

to maybe at or below the international average, that is going to 

bring jobs and growth back to the United States? Hell, yes, I do. 

I do not think there is any question about it you are going to see 

more jobs created. Now, whether or not that is going to pay for 

itself or not, I do not know. Maybe it could, maybe it could not. 

Probably not. My only point is that if you can bump up growth by 

even 0.2, 0.3 percentage points, do it. Do it. I do not even care what 

it costs. Do it because the long-term benefits and living standards—by the way, we measure these things in 10 years. 

The reason my chart is looking at the 30-year impact of these 

things, is that, you know, there is an old saying that the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. If you get the compounded effect of even 0.5 percent growth over not 10 years but 20, 

30, 40 years, you are talking about major, major increases, not just 

in growth, but in revenues to the government. And I would say 

that is a good deal to have. 

Chairman BRAT. Dr. Barro, you emphasized the regulatory burden and how we can enhance productivity by dealing with regulations. If you can just go into a little more detail on what you have 

in mind. Americans, if you could knock door to door like politicians 

do, if you ask the average family do you want more or less regulation, they will say more, surprising. And so, but at the same time, 

we have $2.5 trillion of regulatory burden. And so if you are explaining to the average American, how do you differentiate between 

regulation that is good for the consumer versus that which inhibits 

economic growth? 

Mr. BARRO. If I could respond briefly first to what Steve just 

said. So I agree what he said on the corporate tax rate. So we have 

been trying to estimate that in detail for a broad group of countries 

where we have been trying to measure corporate income tax rates. 

So preliminary finding there is if you cut the corporate tax rate by 

10 percentage points, the proposal now in the U.S. is for even more 

than that, that that boosts the rate of economic growth on a sustained basis by about 0.3 percent per year. So that is a substantial 

contribution to growth if that estimate is right in terms of the proposals that are being floated with regard to U.S. corporate taxation. 

I have spent more time myself looking at the individual income 

tax in the U.S. and how it impacts the macro economy. So I found 

that reducing the average marginal income tax rate in the U.S. 

system, if you do that by 2 percentage points, the growth effect 

over a 2-year period is about 0.5 percent per year. It is fairly substantial. 

In terms of U.S. history that matters there, the biggest cuts by 

far are the Reagan cuts in two phases in the 1980s accumulating 

to 8 percentage point cuts. So that is very dramatic. In contrast, 

the Clinton episode that was mentioned before was actually an increase by 1 percentage point. It was basically trivial. It was a tax 

increase, but very small. And I certainly agree the economy grew 

very well in the 1990s despite that. But it does not really contradict the evidence about tax effects. 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

15 

The other tax change that was particularly important in the 

sample is in the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts of the mid-1960s, which 

is also fairly substantial and seemed to promote economic growth. 

So what you asked about regulations, we have been particularly 

trying to measure that better using the World Bank indicators 

about ease of doing business, which has 10 different components, 

such as cost of starting a business, cost of ending a business, in 

particular, what do you have to do to go bankrupt, basically. Cost 

of getting electricity, cost of getting credit, it is a very impressive 

research effort that the World Bank has been carrying out in this 

manner since 2004. And it does turn out to be true in this context 

of this cross-country economic growth experience that better regulation measured in that way has a noticeable effect. So that is an 

impact that you think about the likely change you could do today 

in the U.S. that might spur growth by about 0.3 percent per year. 

That is sort of part of the administration package that one might 

think about. 

So basically, I put together a number of those components. That 

is what gives the prediction that growth could be higher, in the 3 

to 4 percent range over some interval. Infrastructure investment I 

think could contribute there, but I do not really have good estimates as to exactly by how much, but I think that that could also 

be positive. 

Chairman BRAT. All right. Thank you very much, Dr. Barro. My 

time has expired. 

I would now like to yield to the ranking member, the very patient and kind ranking member, Mr. Evans, for at least 5 minutes 

or as long as you would like to go. Thank you. 

Mr. EVANS. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I really want to follow up on the chairman’s question and give 

Dr. Stone and Mr. Sherman an opportunity from your perspective 

because you were showing a lot of body language, Dr. Stone, when 

Mr. Moore was commenting. So you get your chance to give your 

comment there, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, first of all, Chairman Brat, when I say 

‘‘supply-side policies,’’ I am talking about anything that increases 

potential GDP as opposed to short-term economic demand stimulus. And I think that we are very close to full employment now 

and supply side policies can, if properly well-constructed, supply 

side policies can boost economic growth to a certain degree, that includes all the things we have talked about. It is just the estimates 

that Steve likes about how large those estimates are really, that is 

my complaint. Not that you cannot nudge it a couple of tenths. 

Now, Professor Barro and I could have a conversation about 

whether all those things and adding them all up based on crosscountry comparisons is where the United States is going right now, 

but we all agree on what the sources of growth are. Our question 

is, what is the magnitude of the supply side? And if you have tax 

cuts that contribute to the deficit, make the deficit worse, then you 

are creating a drag from the deficits and that is harmful to growth. 

Notwithstanding Professor Barro’s views, very interesting insights 

onto long-term savings behavior. 

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Sherman? 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

16 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Evans, thank you for giving the lawyer the 

last word on this. It is always much appreciated. 

Rather than debate, I want to augment two important points. 

Number one, look, I think everyone in this room would like a tax 

cut of some sort. Who does not want a few more dollars in their 

pocket? But let us not talk about tax cuts. Let us also talk about 

tax incentives. 

For 100 years, we have used the tax code to foster and reward 

behaviors that we want businesses or individuals to make, and I 

think that as important as the tax cuts are, and I am all in favor 

of them, I also would like to see a package of tax incentives. The 

issue is not unemployment anymore, but it is underemployment. 

We still have a crisis of underemployment in this country. People 

have jobs, but they are not the jobs that they are capable of doing. 

I would love to see a package of tax incentives that would close 

the gap in the underemployment crisis, reward training and education, reward mentoring and coaching. Reward giving people the 

kinds of skills within companies that they can be doing what they 

were educated to do, and I think you will see the ripple effect of 

that being economic growth. So that would be kind of point one. 

I think the other thing is to really, you know, address the issue 

of how we are going to allocate these resources. Will people, if we 

give them the tax cuts, you know, put the money into places that 

will truly stimulate economic growth, and can there be additional 

rewards or policies that will do that? There is a finite number of 

dollars in the country and it is about allocating those dollars in the 

right places to do the right things that will foster economic growth, 

whether that is in the area of fostering innovation and rewarding 

innovation or whether it is on the human capital side in closing 

this underemployment gap that I think exists in this country. 

Mr. EVANS. Dr. Barro, you stated poor places can grow fast if 

the right underlining factors are in place. What are some of those 

underlining factors? 

Mr. BARRO. So those are some of the variables that I mentioned 

before. The underlining institutional framework, I think is quite 

important. I think about maintenance of rule of law and market 

orientation, the nature of the regulatory system that particularly 

allows businesses to operate effectively. I think policies related to 

human capital are important, and I mentioned education and 

health as being important aspects of that. International openness 

is an issue. 

So if you look at a typical poor country, which today the biggest 

concentration is actually sub-Saharan Africa. It would have been 

different if you looked earlier you would have found more Asian 

countries, and you asked, well, why can they not grow rapidly and 

converge to the richer places? 

So I think it is systematically the case that countries that are 

impoverished are unable to maintain the kinds of institutions 

human capital policies, other policies that are conducive to economic growth. That is why if you look across a broad group of countries and you ask do the poor grow faster than the rich, the answer 

was no. But if you look in a conditional sense and you ask if you 

are a poor place and you get things reasonably in place, like China 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

17 

did starting in the mid-1970s, can you grow fast, and the answer 

is yes. So it is sort of good and bad news in that respect. 

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Moore, during your appearance on CNN Tuesday, you said that the U.S. has the dumbest corporate tax system. 

What would you suggest to the Trump administration to fix the 

system? And what is your take on the decision by the current administration to abandon the TPP and the impending decision to do 

away with the North American Free Trade Agreement? I do not 

know if the language would be that they said do away with it or 

renegotiate it. So you now have that chance, you are the Treasury 

Secretary or you are the senior advisor, which you did say the 

dumbest corporate tax system. Did you say that? 

Mr. MOORE. It is pretty dumb. You could not come up with anything much dumber than what we have. 

Mr. EVANS. You did say that. I just want to make sure we got 

your quote right. 

Mr. MOORE. I would bring the rate down. I would get rid of a 

lot of the exemptions. And one of the things that is really interesting about our corporate tax is that you actually do have a lot 

of companies that are paying this 40 percent rate, but you have 

others that are paying almost nothing. The wind industry pays 

negative income tax. We pay them to produce. So the inequities of 

the system are also not very efficient for the economy. 

So I would try to lower the rate. I would try to get rid of the 

loopholes in the system. You know, just as the individual system 

has a lot of loopholes and special interest carve outs, so does the 

corporate system. 

And by the way, I just want to make this point very clear. I am 

not saying that taxes are everything, by any means. I mean, you 

know, we have heard testimony today about 100 factors that affect 

growth and they are all right. I am just saying taxes are one of the 

factors, and I think we could have a much more efficient corporate 

tax. 

On trade, I am not an expert on trade, but I would simply say 

this, that I believe in international trade. I agree with what Professor Barro said. There is good news today that Donald Trump announced that we are not going to withdraw from NAFTA, which I 

think is a smart decision. 

On TPP, I have to say I am going to pass on that just because 

I do not know enough about it. I am for trade with Asia for sure. 

I just do not know enough about the specifics of that trade agreement to know if there are things on that agreement that were not 

in America’s interest. But on balance, we should absolutely have 

free and open trade with Asia. 

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRAT. With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, the very patient Mr. Trent Kelly, my good 

friend, for 5 minutes at least. Thank you, Trent. 

Mr. KELLY. All right, guys. I am a military guy, so let us finish 

up in 5 minutes and leave some time back to the chairman. 

I think one of the greatest things, whether it is tax cuts or we 

are talking about economic policy or whether we are talking about 

the stock market is consumer confidence or the confidence of the 

American people. And I do not think you can measure that. But I 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

18 

can tell you just last week I was meeting with a business from another country that is talking about moving another manufacturer 

to Mississippi because they like what the President says about the 

corporate tax rate. Well, to me, I do not know how much money 

we will get out of the corporate tax rate, but all those individual 

income tax rates that we have. 

The other thing that really concerns me is how we talk about the 

employment rate in this Nation. We are not almost at full employment. We have people who have given up on getting good jobs. We 

have people who are overqualified for jobs because of college educations when they should be trained in something that has earning 

power as opposed to a lot of fun at college. And so I think our 

workforce is very, very important. 

But I disagree that we are at the lowest unemployment rate that 

we have ever been. We may be by that number and that standard, 

but I know in Mississippi, when someone gets on government assistance of some sort, 88 percent never get off. And most of those 

people are not people who cannot do jobs. So I think we have got 

to get folks to working and everybody have a great opportunity to 

work. 

What is the best way to make sure that we are getting people 

trained? I think the workforce skilled workers who can make a 

great wage as opposed to thinking going and getting a liberal arts 

degree from wherever is going to make them employable. How do 

we do that as a Nation to make a workforce that is second to none? 

And, I guess, yes, Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Corporate treasuries in this country have 

reached record levels of cash. I mean, multiple articles have been 

written. The latest trend in CFOs after deploying some cash towards M&A and some other initiatives, not enough towards innovation in my opinion, are now stockpiling again. We talked about 

tying perhaps a tax incentive of some sort. I would love to see, you 

know, most large companies have all kinds of private universities 

that exist within their companies, private education and training 

initiatives. 

I agree with everything you have said. You know, we have a 

workforce that is hungry for better jobs, to earn more. Those will 

easily have a ripple effect on GDP by any of our panel of standards. 

You know, is there something we can do to either lightly or not so 

lightly encourage the deployment of that cash and the deployment 

of those resources to get a better trained workforce. 

I agree with Mr. Moore, our workforce is not competitive globally. 

Closing our borders is not going to help that at all. It is going to 

hurt it. And there has got to be some things that we can do, either 

create tax or nontax incentives to reward companies for deploying 

just a sliver of those cash stockpiles and those intangible resources 

they have to put the people of Mississippi and the other 49 States 

as well to work. 

So it is all there. All of the pieces that we need for 4, 5, 6 percent 

GDP growth, if I could be that bold, are sitting like coins under the 

sofa cushion. I ask this Committee, and I ask the leaders of our 

country to lift up those sofa cushions and start picking at those 

quarters and half dollars because they are all there. We have the 

resources to be competitive. 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

19 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. And very quickly, Mr. Moore, I want to ask 

you this. What can we tax-wise or capital access-wise do for small 

businesses that help us to create that workforce that sustains those 

small businesses? I mean, it could be regulations. It could be some 

type of tax benefits. But how do we incentive our businesses, our 

small businesses, specifically, to get a workforce that works for 

them? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I was struck by the last comment you made 

in your testimony, that quote from the professor about the different 

types of companies that are leading to growth, and it is these innovative companies that just take off. You know, trying to find the 

next Google, trying to find the next Microsoft, and so on. That is 

hard to do, you never know, and it is true that two out of three 

companies fail small businesses. So what you need to do is try to 

find the capital for these companies so that they do not—there are 

too many examples of companies that actually have a great idea 

and they run out of money. And before they can launch the thing 

and really get it to the next level, they run out of money and they 

go out of business. That happens with drug firms. So finding ways 

that we can get capital into companies, investment capital, I think 

would be crucial. 

I will make one other quick point. I agree with you on this issue 

of the labor force, that we can have a lot more people in the labor 

force. I just did the statistics about a month ago. Looking at the 

age-adjusted change in the labor force, because it is true, one of the 

reasons the labor force participation rate has fallen is because so 

many more people are over the age of 65. 

But if you just look at people in a prime 18 to 65 year, so take 

out the people who are retiring, if we had the same labor force participation rate today that we did, say, in 2000, there would be 7 

million more Americans in the workforce. 

So I do not buy this idea that we are falling. I hear that all the 

time. I am like, what are you talking about? We are not near full 

employment. It is just the unemployment rate number has become 

really kind of a meaningless—we should really probably report the 

U6 number because the headline unemployment rate to me has become highly misleading. 

Mr. KELLY. And Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me. And I 

think the key is most of those people who are not—they are not in 

the unemployment rate, but they want to work. They want to do 

a job and they want to be productive for this Nation. Unfortunately, we have got to figure out how to give them businesses 

where they can work and they are back in the workforce. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MOORE. Can I just suggest one other quick thing because 

you mentioned this? What could we do to get people better ready 

for the labor force? I agree with you. The idea of spending $200,000 

to go to a 4-year university in a lot of cases in my opinion has become a waste of time. Why not allow people apprenticeships? 

You know, when I talk to employers, it is interesting, a lot of 

them say the biggest problem I have is finding the workers that 

have the skills we need. I mean, 90 percent of them say that is 

their biggest problem even when we have tens of millions of people 

outside the workforce. Why not have a program where you have apSBREP-219A with DISTILLER

20 

prenticeships for somebody who wants to become a carpenter, 

somebody who wants to become a mechanic, or something like 

that? And if they get that apprenticeship they have the equivalent 

of a college degree. Because you know what? That apprenticeship 

might be better for them than getting a degree in sociology. 

Mr. KELLY. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman BRAT. Thank you all. I think we are verging in at the 

end. This is a very good conversation and for me it is always kind 

of interesting because I taught college for 20 years and we all say 

human capital and everyone talks about policy and politics up here 

in D.C. But maybe just in closing, if each of you could just give a 

minute, I am interested in kind of the intersection between policy 

and culture. And so we all know in K-12 education right now, the 

teachers are being asked to do the impossible. They have to teach 

the subjects. They have to teach to the test. They have to do discipline. They have to do gym class. They have to do everything. It 

is not happening, right? 

So I think there is pretty broad agreement on this. Labor force, 

you know, the unemployment rate, and that all gets into politics 

as to who is doing good and who is not. And I think we are kind 

of getting by that. 

But there is a cultural issue, and Dr. Barro talked about convergence. Right after you reach high incomes, some of it is just cultural at the high end. You say, hey, I do not need to work as many 

hours, right? I am going to take vacation. I am going to take a little 

break from the workforce. But for the lower income folks that is 

not an option, right? And so we always get into the politics of the 

haves versus the have nots, and so if the panel, if you want to just 

comment. 

So we wanted to get the right tax policy, but this stuff has to 

pass bipartisan. So what is a compromise? How do you think about 

a compromise across the aisle where we get it right for the poor 

in the inner cities, in the K-12 that is broken? And at the same 

time, I mean, I do think tax cuts, especially on the corporate side, 

we have got to get the economy rolling, just the psychological energy there. 

But any comments, and let us just start, Dr. Stone, if you just 

want to kind of close and give us any ideas you have on kind of 

bipartisan, what can we do to get some agreement going? 

Mr. STONE. It is a tough environment for bipartisanship, as you 

well know. 

So first, I would like to respond to the notion—I agree that the 

Great Recession produced a whole lot of people who were out of the 

labor force, and that has come way down. U6 is pretty far down. 

Part-time jobs is a bigger problem than people outside the labor 

force—too many people still have part-time jobs when they want 

full-time jobs. 

But this argument that so many people on assistance are not 

working, that is just not what the evidence shows. Large numbers 

of people on SNAP, on TANF, in fact, work. The lower income population is moving in and out of the labor force. Many times when 

they are receiving assistance they are still working. The idea that 

we need work requirements because people are not working is, I 

think, misplaced. 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

21 

I think we would do better to look at the evidence on how much 

people actually are working, and we need a strong economy. If you 

are going to have work requirements, you need a strong economy 

where people can actually find jobs. And part of that is increasing 

the overall growth rate, but part of it is making sure that money 

is in the places where communities need it. 

Chairman BRAT. And so in your view, the kids on SNAP, do you 

think they have expectations of achieving greatness in their life? I 

mean, it is always interesting, we talk about vo-tech and technical 

education, all these kinds of things after college. We are paying 

$14,000 per year per kid for 13 years, right? I taught economics. 

Kids do not know what a price is from a cost from a profit after 

they graduate from high school, and half will not go to college. And 

so that is what I am getting at. I mean, where do we give this psychological boost that every kids needs to have regardless? Because 

I do not see it there. 

I mean, I taught kids at the higher end. And even they, right, 

I mean, what are you going to do after you graduate, Johnny? I am 

going to go ski in Colorado for half a year or something. I am like, 

okay. They are not pumped up to get to work. 

Mr. STONE. I mean, you do not want to hear about more resources, but resources matter, especially in disadvantaged communities in the school system. But also, I will echo what Steve said 

about apprenticeships or community colleges. That is a place where 

people who come lately to the idea about success can get education. 

So if we have useful support for those, encouragement, that is 

something. 

Chairman BRAT. And that is coalescing up here in the Committees. There is broad agreement we have got to go in that. 

If you want to close, Mr. Sherman, with a minute or so. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yeah, I apologize. I do need to run. But I think 

that we are getting to the heart of what could be a bipartisan solution and that is around this issue of training education, whether 

it is apprenticeships, internships, more corporate participation at 

all levels of education, more engagement in the classroom. This crisis of this engagement is affecting teachers and students and drawing a bigger gap between ability to learn. Relooking at curriculum, 

you know, we are still teaching big clumps of information that may 

not be very useful. 

You know, I heard a statistic the other day that the average middle school student, 50 percent of the jobs that they will have when 

they are in their twenties or thirties do not even exist today. How 

do we look forward in time and adjust our teaching curriculums 

around the jobs that will be available and impacted by artificial intelligence, robotics, automation? 

I am afraid that we are spending all this money on education, 

we are not getting the results that we want. Teachers and students 

are disengaged and we are not teaching the skills that they are 

going to really need to be competitive and that we are going to 

need to be competitive in a global workforce. 

Chairman BRAT. Thank you very much. I invited the Education 

members. The members are just slammed right now with all the 

issues flying around here, but I knew this panel was going to coaSBREP-219A with DISTILLER

22 

lesce around those issues and they have an interest, so we are 

going to start trying to work across Committees on some of this. 

Steve, closing remarks? 

Mr. MOORE. There is virtue and work. You know, work, work, 

work. You mentioned the word ‘‘culture.’’ I mean, there is a culture 

now that somehow working with your hands is a bad thing. It is 

amazing. If you are a mechanic, a pipefitter, a welder, you know, 

you can make $60,000, $70,000 a year, maybe you start your own 

business, you can make $100,000 a year. So this idea that everyone 

has to go to college I think is silly. And I think it is actually even 

counterproductive. 

I am friends with a guy named Bob Funk. He is the single, biggest employer in the United States. He runs a temporary employment agency. He puts 800,000 people a year in jobs. And he always 

tells me, Steve, I can find a job for anybody in 72 hours as long 

as they do not have a degree in sociology, history, or political 

science. You know, it is kind of an interesting dynamic. 

And in terms of a compromise or something we could do, look, 

the point of my testimony is we cannot stay on the track we are 

on. We have got to do something differently. 

And you talked, Congressman Evans, about the infrastructure. 

We have been talking on our side about tax cuts. I mean, why not 

a deal where we have a big infrastructure program. Let us make 

sure that money is spent wisely, and then compare that with some 

tax reductions that could help spur growth. I cannot remember the 

last time we had a bipartisan bill in Congress. I would love to see 

that. I would love to see you two work together to come up with 

something. I mean, truly, it would be a real breakthrough. 

Chairman BRAT. Great. Dr. Barro? 

Mr. BARRO. Just one comment on the standard unemployment 

rate. It is actually surprising how good that indicator is for gauging 

the tightness of the labor market, sort of the nature of the business 

cycle situation, whether the market is sort of amenable to kind of 

standard aggregate demand management. And the standard unemployment rate being close to 4.5 percent is, I think, indicative that 

in that sense we are close to full employment and do not want to 

have that kind of demand stimulus. 

At the same time, I agree that labor force participation is surprisingly down, particularly in certain parts of the population, so 

I would emphasize that along with productivity changes in terms 

of what you can do to spur growth. So I also agree with that commentary. 

I certainly think education is the most important factor in terms 

of underlying productivity and throughout that influencing economic growth. That does not mean that I want a bigger role for the 

Federal Government in terms of promoting education. I really 

think typically it is better for public schooling to be at the local 

level, local and State level, and I would like to see a bigger private 

role in terms of K-12 education. 

So I certainly think that education is very important, but that is 

not the same as saying I want the Federal Government to do more 

in that area. That is a conflict between those two conclusions. 

Chairman BRAT. Dwight, any closing? 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

23 

Mr. EVANS. I want to thank you, all three of you, four of you, 

Mr. Sherman left there, really for this conversation and dialogue. 

I think it has been, I know for me at least, personally, very helpful. 

And I thank the chairman for allowing the flexibility. I did not 

think that happened here. I come out of a legislature where we did 

not have this like 5 minutes. If you were getting on a roll, you got 

on the roll. And if the chairman was raising something, you raised 

a little question, I think that is the only way we are going to get 

some substantive discussion. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRAT. Well, I think we will close on that nice set of 

remarks right there. You can hear the tone. There is a lot of chatter up here that we do not get along across the aisle and it is just 

baloney. We all work out in the gym in the mornings and like each 

other, so I feel some good stuff is coming. 

This is the best panel I have ever seen in Congress, just to congratulate you all. I listened to every word, which is very rare. And 

so this was tremendous. You all did a tremendous job preparing 

and shared your personalities along with it. And we had differences, but in a good spirit. 

So thank you all very much for sharing and that is it. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER

24 

A P P E N D I X 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 25204.001

Testimony of Andrew J. Sherman 

Pat1ncr at Seyfarth Shaw 

Before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business 

Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital Access 

Small Business: The Key to Economic Growth 

April27, 2017 

10:00 a.m. 

Andrew J. Sherman i Partner I Seyfarth Shaw LLP 

975 F Street, N.W. I Washington, DC 20004 

Direct: +1-202-828-53811 Fax: +l-202-641-9258 
25 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 25204.002

Chairmen Chabot and Brat, Ranking Member Velazquez, and to all of you hard-working 

members of this Committee, flrst I'd like to say it is truly an honor to speak before you today on 

the economy and the impact of small business and entrepreneurship. 

My name is Andrew J. Sherman and I am a Partner at Seyfarth Shaw. My practice focuses on 

issues affecting business growth for companies at all stages. Over the past 32 years, I have 

counseled thousands of U.S. and international clients from early stage flrms to multibillion dollar 

conglomerates. 

This Committee is the guardian and fiduciary of small business and entrepreneurship in our 

society and the gatekeeper of economic growth. I commend you for your efforts in supporting 

the Small Business Association ("SBA"), the Small Business Development Center ("SBDC") 

network, and (as I will discuss later in my testimony), the Defense of Trade Secrets Act 

("DTSA"), and the JOBS Act, which have allowed greater access to crowd funding channels. I 

have seen first-hand the positive impact of these efforts throughout my career, and especially 

having served as outside general counsel to the Entrepreneurs' Organization since 1987, which 

now comprises more than 12,000 members throughout 160 chapters and whose members employ 

roughly 2.8 million workers worldwide. 

Background 

Over the course of my professional career, I have written nearly 30 books on entrepreneurship, 

the legal and strategic aspects of business growth, franchising, capital formation, the leveraging 

of intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, and my latest book, which is on the crisis of 

disengagement and its impact on the workforce and innovation. I have also served as an Adjunct 

Professor in the MBA program at the University of Maryland for the past 28 years and at 

Georgetown University Law School for the past I 0 years. 

In addition, I was the founder of the Small and Emerging Contractors Advisory Forum 

("SECAF"), an organization of small and emerging government contractors in the Washington 

D.C. region, with over 400 members committed to empowerment and advocacy for the 

contracting industry. For the past 10 years, I have served as a keynote and workshop speaker at 

the annual meeting of the SBDC and currently serve on the SBDC Foundation Board of 
26 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 25204.003

Directors. In 2001, Fortune Magazine included me in their list of the Top Ten Minds in Small 

Business and Entrepreneurship. In the 1970's, I dropped out of college to become an 

entrepreneur and while I have since devoted my career to a life serving and supporting 

entrepreneurship, both my wife Judy and daughter Jennifer are entrepreneurs and small business 

owners. 

Current Data 

Turning to present day trends, 2017 has seen a widespread but tempered increase in confidence 

among small business owners regarding the economy and overall trends in business investment. 

Business owner optimism has increased in part due to promises of tax reform, regulatory reform, 

and the strength of the capital markets. We are all aware that small and emerging businesses are 

the backbone of our country and a significant engine for the creation of new jobs. According to 

Small Business Trends, family owned businesses account for 78% of new jobs created in 

America and a significant portion of our overall GDP. Moreover, an increasing number of 

millennials are poised to take on management positions and bring a fresh outlook to the 

workplace. Many small businesses are forecasting significant increases in revenue for 2017 and 

2018. In just six months, from July 2016 to January 2017, the concern of economic uncertainty 

for small businesses declined from 49% to 44%. While these statistics are all good signs for the 

economy, 70% of small businesses with revenue under $1 million are still reporting that access 

to affordable fmancing is their biggest hurdle to growth. 

In my experience as a legal and strategic advisor, there are several factors that support the 

entrepreneurial eco-system in the United States, as shown in the chart below. 

Elements of the Ecosystem Needed for Small Business and Entrepreneurship to Flourish 

Overall Societal/Governmental Accessible and Stable Capital Enforceable Ru1e of Law/Court 

Structure Markets System 

Reliable and Fair IP Law to Culture that Supports Economic Business Structures that Limit 

Foster Innovation and Creativity Advancement Personal Liability 

3 
27 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 25204.004

Human Capital, Culture, and Fair 

Our Ability to Redefine 

Fair and Effective Governance Ourselves and Engage in Serial 

and Flexible L&E Laws 

Entrepreneurship 

Access to Global Markets and 

Overall Educational Training Bankruptcy Laws Trade/Ability to Compete Systems Globally 

Access to Mentors and 

Government/Private R&D University/Private R&D 

Advisors, Coaches and 

Resources/Networks Partnerships Partnerships 

Exit Strategies (M&A, IPO's, Estate Planning and Wealth 

Antitrust Laws 

ESOP's, etc.) Transfer Laws 

Raising Capital 

Capital is the lifeblood of a growing business. The only way to take any business to the next 

level is to gather the funds needed to fuel growth. Small businesses find that this is the most 

difficult hurdle to overcome. Stringent regulatory requirements have made it more difficult for 

banking institutions to offer loans to small business. Moreover, while cycles of the economic 

downturn put a dent in everyone's pocketbook, for smaller and entrepreneurial companies it 

robbed them of the critical fuel they needed to keep the engines of the economy moving forward. 

Main Street often recovers mu<:h slower than Wall Street. Payrolls are slashed, creativity is 

halted, inventories are reduced, capital investment decisions are delayed, and workforce 

motivation is virtually nonexistent. If entrepreneurial leaders refrain from making new hiring, 

growth, or capital investment decisions because they are concerned with what new crisis, 

burdensome regulation, budget deficit, tax hike, or economic downturn may await them, then we 

face a very slow journey to a complete and widespread economic recovery and our job creating 

engine will stall. 

Reducing Regulation 

Streamlining agencies' approval processes at the state and federal level, while still maintaining 

comprehensive business guidelines, will help businesses open their doors faster and with lower 

4 
28 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 25204.005

ongoing compliance costs. The current trend to better defme the true cost of regulation and its 

impact on smaller companies, as well as pressure on agencies to publish clearer regulations so 

that small businesses can understand guidelines, rules and regulations without having to involve 

lawyers, accountants and other business counselors must continue to be the focus of this 

Committee. 

Narrowing the Innovation and Productivity Gap 

We have reached a point where, for both big companies and small ones, over 85% of the assets 

driving shareholder value and economic growth are intangible, taking the form of innovation, 

intellectual property, and intrapreneurship (Ocean Torno, Baruch Lev). These assets include 

brands, systems, processes, channels, best practices, social media, customer recognition and 

loyalty, know how, relationships, and related strategic intangible assets. Yet, the latest State of 

the American Workforce study published in December of 2016 observes that less than 5% of 

employees surveyed describe themselves as "highly engaged." These are the most creative, 

innovative, and productive employees in our workforce and surely overall. If we can't engage 

more workers in the short-term, and sustain them in the long-term, then entrepreneurship as a 

driver of economic growth and our ability to compete in the global marketplace are severely in 

jeopardy. 

In spite of the potential value of corporate innovation contributing to improved organizational 

performance, many small as well as established companies overlook the critical importance of 

engaging their workforce, and thus fail to encourage entrepreneurial behavior or implement 

effective rewards and incentives. Executives tend to be more concerned about the images of 

chaos that innovation can portray. In addition, there are often structural impediments in place, 

most of these being the product of bureaucratic routines and red tape policies that have outlived 

their usefulness, as well as politics, cronyism, and silo's that stand in the way of meaningful 

collaboration. Effective managerial efforts are essential to developing an engaged culture that is 

capable of cultivating employees' interest in and commitment to effective entrepreneurial 

behavior and the innovation that can result from it. 

There are a multitude of studies that emphasize the connection between truly engaged workers 

and better customer service, higher levels of creativity and productivity, higher sales margins, 

5 
29 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 25204.006

higher quality products, increased attention to safety, and lower turnover rates. However, what 

businesses have also recognized, and research has supported, is that innovation within a 

company is one of the primary drivers of company success, determined through growth. The 

more interesting element of this equation is where that innovation comes from: engaged 

employees. A Gallup Management Journal study found that employees who were "engaged" 

indicated they "strongly agreed with the statement that their current job 'brings out [their most 

creative ideas."' The reverse was true for those who indicated they were actively disengaged-in 

other words, the disengaged individuals in the survey were the least likely to fmd that their 

current job incited creativity. 

For decades, workers at companies of all sizes and in all industries were expected to know their 

jobs, do their work, keep their heads down, and only "bother" management with questions to 

avert a crisis. If a problem arises, know how and when to solve it, and don't interfere with the 

supervisor's valuable time. That mantra needs to shift if we are going to improve engagement in 

a way to drive more innovation and shareholder value. Employees at all levels need to feel 

liberated to ask the "Whys?" and the "What ifs?" They need to be able to ask (without retribution 

or punishment) "Why am I doing my job the way I am doing it?" "Is there a better way?" "What 

would it take to change and why?" People are likely to be more engaged when they are 

empowered to think for themselves and permitted to question the "status quo"-within reasonwithout the fear of retribution. Empowering workers in this way not only permits the workforce 

to begin organizing its thinking around the unknowns instead of the knowns, which will inspire 

greater creativity, innovation, and productivity, but it also demonstrates humility by the 

leadership team as they acknowledge that they do not have all of the answers and become more 

accepting of innovation at all levels. Fostering curiosity and inspiring and rewarding creativity is 

surely an effective elixir and a cure for our nation's current level of disengagement and 

complacency. 

It is imperative that we make efforts to offer more tools to both small and large businesses to 

allow them to compete more effectively on a national and global business platform. 

Congressional initiatives, such as last year's DTSA and the 2013 America Invents Act (AlA) 

amendments to our nation's patent law systems, help provide entrepreneurs with a competitive 

edge. In order to keep our nation's job-creating engine well lubricated and running smoothly this 

6 
30 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 25204.007

Committee should also explain similar regulations to address new technologies such as 

automation and robotics, copyright reform to keep up with developments in publishing and 

regulation, tax reform to encourage entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, and patent troll 

legislation. This Committee must delve further into the root causes of the barriers that stand in 

the way of innovation, productivity, creativity and profitability, and be a catalyst for change and 

a champion and defender of those willing to undertake economic risks. 

Common Barriers to Innovation 

• Aversion to risk 

• Politics (turfinanship) 

• Red tape 

• Pressure to live quarter to quarter (for public companies) 

• Disconnect between innovation projects and overall strategic goals 

• Communication silos 

• Demand is unclear; Limited insights and inputs from customers 

• Inadequate measurement tools & weak selection criteria 

• Not enough ideas/creative focus within teams 

• Lack of reward systems to motivate and encourage innovation 

• Organizational chart: wrong people in the wrong jobs 

• Time management constraints 

• Lack of systems (how and where to start), focus, or resources 

• Closed-mindedness 

• Bum-out and Complacency 

• Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome 

• Poor planning (or a lack of planning) 

• Overly short-term investment horizons (public companies living in a fishbowl quarter to 

quarter) 

• Inventor's syndrome (a better mousetrap vs. market/margin focused) 

• Loss of touch with the needs and values of the end user/customer 

• Inadequate skills (poor recruiting) or resources (weak capital structure) 

7 
31 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 25204.008

Suggestions for Further Policy Research 

We are living in a time of constant change and uncertainty. To protect and preserve the role of 

small businesses and entrepreneurs as drivers of economic growth and creators of new jobs, I 

respectfully suggest that this Committee consider the following areas for additional research and 

possible legislation or programming: 

• Impact of Automation, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics on Small Business Job 

Creation, Retention, and Transformation 

• Training, Education, and Incentives to Improve our Nation's Level of Employee 

Engagement 

• Foster Access to the Capital Markets (Especially the Debt Markets by Allowing Smaller 

Companies to Pledge Intangible Assets as Collateral for Loans) 

• Examine Intellectual Property Laws to Ensure Fair and Legitimate Opportunities to 

Harvest Intangible Assets and Restrict Patent Trolling 

• Tax Reforms that Reward Measured Business Risks, Entrepreneurial Growth, and Exits 

to Foster Greater Wealth Creation 

• Regulatory Reform to Unburden Small and Growing Business from the Costs that 

Prevent them from Being Competitive in a Global Marketplace (Consider Carrots v 

Sticks, Self-Regulatory Bodies, and Peer-Reviews, etc.) 

• Replacing Certain Welfare Programs with Job Training and Mandatory Educational 

Programs to Keep our Workforce Relevant and Productive (Federal and State Welfare 

Programs Should Not be more Lucrative than Engaged Career Paths) 

Summary 

I have no doubt that dozens of very well-trained minds from academia, trade associations, 

research organizations, to industry leaders have previously appeared before this Committee. My 

perspectives are from the trenches and based on my experiences in working with thousands of 

entrepreneurs and small business owners over 32 years as a legal and strategic advisor. Our 

entrepreneurial ecosystem is one of the primary assets we all share as a nation in remaining 

competitive in a global marketplace. The role of our government is to allow it to flourish 

through the undue burden of regulation, to support it with creative initiatives that will fuel 

economic growth and new jobs, and to celebrate it by recognizing the day-to-day efforts of our 

nation's entrepreneurs and small business owners, who, like those who defend our county and 

those who serve as our emergency responders and educators, are our truest American heroes. 

8 
32 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 25204.009

Testimony 

Stephen Moore 

Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Economics 

The Heritage Foundation 

April27, 20!7 

On 

The Intrinsic Value of Economic Growth 
33 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 25204.010

Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, 

Tax, and Capital Access on the intrinsic value of growth, and why I believe it is the single most 

important element to fixing many of the economic problems we currently face. My name is 

Stephen Moore and I am an economist at the Heritage Foundation. Neither I nor the Heritage 

Foundation receive any federal funding. 

Over the last 8 years, economic growth has been stagnate. Wages are, for the most part 

flat, and many on the left believe our days of sustainable 3 percent growth are over. CNN 

Money recently asked leading economists about President Trump's desire to see 4 percent growth, 

and they found a strong consensus that it's ''impossible, or at least highly unlikely." They say 

there aren't enough workers with the retirement of the baby boomers and that automation means 

fewer jobs available. Many point to the widely cited 2016 San Francisco Fed study which argues 

that the "new normar' is 1.5 to 1.75% GDP growth- or less than half the post-World War II 

average pace of progress. 1 

In addition, The CBO projects that America will see an average 1.9% annual growth over 

the next 30 years. 2 This represents a massive downgrade from historical perf01mance. Between 

1974 and 2001, average growth was 3.3%. An extra percentage point makes a world of 

difference. 3 

But when it comes to these devastating growth predictions, throughout modem history, 

they are outliers, and history sides with growth. Consider President Kennedy's call to cut taxes at 

the New York Economic Club to spur growth. After they were implements, the economy grew 

by 4.5 percent, and unemployment levels sank. The same is true tor Reagan. After cutting taxes, 

the economy expanded by 4 percent from 1983-1989, putting to shame those who doubted 4 

percent growth was possible. 
34 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 25204.011

Chart I 

According to the Index for Economic Freedom and Opportunity published by The Heritage 

Foundation, "People in economically free societies have longer lives. They have better health and 

access to more effective education. They are able to be better stewards of the environment, and 

they push forward the frontiers of human achievement in science and technology through greater 

innovation." 4 I believe that the hope of human achievement, and policies that allow for us to 

produce and grow, free of government intervention will break all expert predictions. This is all 

possible is Congress enacts policies that reduce regulation, lower taxes, and empower small 

business expand beyond what we thought possible. 

Take the miracle ofF racking. Over the last decade, America blew away expert predictions 

that we were running out of fossil fuels. Because of private sector ingenuity, America is on its 

way to becoming a dominant global energy producer. Thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling 

technologies, we are producing more natural gas than ever before. Natural gas is a wonder fuel: it 
35 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 25204.012

is cheap. It is abundant. America has more of it than anyone else we have several hundred 

years' worth of natural gas. And it is clean burning. It will only be stifled by government 

intervention, and regulations. (See chart 2) 

Chart 2 
36 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 25204.013

The recent CBO report paints a very bleak picture of what our economy will look like 

with a 1.9 percent growth rate over the next 30 years. But consider what happens to the CBO's 

numbers assuming 3% annual growth. By 2040 the economy would expand not to $29.9 trillion, 

but to $38.3 trillion, according to an analysis by Research Affiliates, a California investment 

firm. That's an additional output of$8.4 trillion. 

By 2047, the economy would grow to $47.1 trillion, almost $13 trillion more than the 

CBO's baseline estimate. That would spin off new tax revenue to Washington of about $2.5 

trillion each year. That money ought to be more than enough to pay all the bills and cover most 

of the unfunded costs of Social Security and Medicare. 

Growth of 3% would stop the debt-to-GOP ratio from skyrocketing. Instead it would start 

to fall almost immediately, eventually to about 50%, because the economy would be so much 

larger. Congress and the White House ought to understand that what matters most for heading off 

a fiscal crisis is making sure that the economy grows faster than the government. No other debtreduction policy--;;:ertainly not a tax increase--;;:omes close to having the fiscal effect that 

sustained prosperity does. (See Chart 3) 

Chart 3 

The Power of an Expanding Economy 

Federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP.193Q-2047, CBO 

projection (assuming 1.9% growth) and adjusted projection (3%) 

I CBO ProJected I Adjusted ProJectiOn 

150% 

125 

100 

75 

50 

25 

l·4o l·so l·6o bo l·so l·9o l·oo ho l·4o 
37 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 25204.014

As discussed above, the greatest thing that government can do to encourage growth is to 

get out of the way and let business flourish. I propose a permanent reduction in the 

corporate/business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. This should be accompanied by 

expensing for business capital purchases. 

Apple and GE might bring back tens of billions of dollars for assembly plants and research 

centers on these shores. The current U.S. Rate of 35 percent (federal) is the highest of all the 

nations we compete with. The rest of the world is at a rate closer to 25 percent with some nations 

like Ireland as low as 12.5 percent. Let's go from the highest rate in the world to one of the lowest 

and jobs and capital flows will reverse course and rush back the United States. 

We have seen companies like Burger King, Medtronics. Pfizer, and dozens more leave the 

U.S. in search of lower tax rates. In January Johnson Controls announced a merger and we could 

wind up with yet another American company leaving to reside in foreign nations. 

Liberals like to pretend that the U.S. tax rates aren't chasing out businesses and jobs, but 

then why are all the nations we compete with slashing their rates? See chart 4. The international 

average has come down from almost 40% in 1990 to 25% today. For two and a half decades the 

U.S. rates haven't budged, while the rest of the world keeps chopping. We're like a 6th grader who 

stops growing and then goes out and tries to play competitive basketball with 20 year olds over six 

feet tall. 
38 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 25204.015

Chatt4 

In sum, Congress should get ahead of these dire growth predictions by the CBO and pass 

reforms that encourage small business to flourish. Refmms like the ones above will increase 

revenues, and potentially spur growth unlike anything we've seen. 

Finally, Mr. Chaimmn, I am very excited about the potential to see small business grow 

under your leadership here. I know you have for years expressed a commitment to fundamental 

tax refom1 and I believe you can get this done in the next couple of years. The last time tax reform 

happened was 30 years ago and Ronald Reagan helped clean out the stables of the tax code and 

chop the top tax rate to 28 percent with strong bi-partisan support. This can happen again with 

your leadership and vision and we at Heritage wish to continue to help every step of the way. 
39 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 25204.016

820 First Street NE, Suite 510 

Washington, DC 20002 

Tel: 202-408-1080 

Fax: 202-408-1056 

center@cbpp.org 

www.cbpp.org 

Economic Growth: Causes, Benefits, and Current Limits 

Testimony of Chad Stone, Chief Economist, Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities, before the Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Economic 

Growth, Tax, and Capital Access, U.S. House of Representatives 

April27, 2017 

Chairman Brat, Ranking Member Evans, and other members of the Committee, thank you for 

this opportunity to testify today about the causes of economic growth, the benefits associated with 

economic growth, and current limits on economic growth in the United States. These are important 

topics to understand better if we are to evaluate properly President Trump's bold claim that his 

policies will supercharge the economy and return us to the higher rates of growth we enjoyed in an 

earlier era. 

My testimony makes four essential points: 

• Growth matters both for fiscal stabilization and for raising living standards. 

• Economic growth over the next decade will be much closer to the 2 percent average annual 

rate the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects than to the 3 percent or better the 

Trump Administration is promising. 

• Large tax cuts are far from a surefire way to spur growth, higher taxes don't preclude growth, 

and tax cuts can harm growth if they add to the budget deficit or are paired with cuts to 

productive public investments. 

• Small businesses are an important piece of the American economy, but in evaluating sources 

of growth, it's new businesses rather than small businesses per se that matter. 

Why Growth Matters 

Faster growth in gross domestic product (GDP) expands the overall size of the economy and 

strengthens fiscal conditions. Broadly shared growth in per capita GDP increases the typical 

American's material standard of living. But GDP is not meant to be a measure of economic welfare, 

and other considerations are important in fully assessing the costs and benefits of policy changes. 

Estimates from both the Office of Management and Budget and CBO suggest that faster 

economic growth would improve the fiscal oudook. They find that a 0.1 percentage point increase 
40 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 25204.017

in annual economic growth would reduce deficits by roughly $300 billion over a decade, mostly 

through higher revenues. 1 While actually boosting economic growth does reduce future budget 

deficits, all other things equal, making unrealistic growth claims for one's policies as a way to offset their 

cost will understate the adverse impact of those policies on actual future deficits. 

Broadly speaking, there are two main sources of economic growth: growth in the size of the 

workforce and growth in the productivity (output per hour worked) of that workforce. Either can 

increase the overall size of the economy but only strong productivity growth can increase per capita 

GDP and income. Productivity growth allows people to achieve a higher material standard of living 

without having to work more hours or to enjoy the same material standard of living while spending 

fewer hours in the paid labor force. 

GDP measures the market value of goods and services produced in the country, but it captures 

only market activity and. is not designed to be a measure of economic welfare. A parent in the paid 

labor force contributes to GDP; one who stays home to take care of children or an aging family 

member does not, but, if the family hires someone to perform these same duties, that labor would 

contribute to GDP. Health, safety, and environmental regulations can impose costs on businesses 

that may slow measured GDP growth, but any such costs must be compared with the benefits of 

better health, safer workplaces, and a cleaner environment that may not be captured in GDP. 

Finally, a full assessment of the benefits of economic growth requires consideration of how widely 

Americans share in that economic growth. There's a big difference between growth like that we 

experienced between 1948 and 1973, which doubled living standards up and down the income 

distribution, and the growth accompanied by widening income inequality we've experienced since. 2 

Sources of Economic Growth 

CBO projects that, under current laws and policies, the economy will grow 2.3 percent this year 

but that growth will average just 1.9 percent a year between now and 2027.' As a candidate, 

President Trump boasted that his economic plan "would conservatively boost growth to 3.5 percent 

per year on average ... with the potential to reach a 4% growth rate." 4 And Treasury Secretary 

Steven Mnuchin has said that under President Trump's policies, economic growth will pick up to "3 

1 Office of Management and Budget, .. Economic Assumptions and Interactions with the Budget," FY 2017 Budget,Anafytical 

Perspectiws, Table 2-4, https: I /obamawhitehouse.archives.~mvlsites/default/fi!es/omb/byd2tt /fjr2017/assets/ap 2 assumprions.pdf 

and Congressional Budget Office, The But/get and Ewnomic Outltiok: 2011 to 2021,January 24, 2017, Appendix B, p.83, 

hrrps: I I www.cbo.gov /sites/default/ files/ llSth-cong:ress-2017 -2018/r@orts/52370-avpendixb.pdf . 

2 Chad Stone, et al., "A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 

updated November 7, 2016, http://www.cbpp.org/research/povetty-and-incqualitv/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-inincome-inequality. 

3 Congressional Budget Office, The But/get and Eronom1c Outltiok: 2017 to 2021,January 24, 2017, Table C-1 and Summary Table I, 

htt.ps: I /www.cbo.goy/publjcation/5'J370,. 

4 Fact Sheet: Donald J. Trump's Pro-Growth Economic Policy Will Create 25 Million Jobs, September 15, 2016, 

htt~ps: I lwww.donaldjtrump.com/press-rdcases I fact -sbeet-dona}d-j.-trumps-pro-growth-ewnomic-policy-will-creatc-?5-milli. 

2 
41 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 25204.018

percent or higher."' Last week, Mnuchin said the President's economic plan would pay for itself 

with growth. 6 

It is not unusual for an administration's economic forecast to be somewhat more optimistic than 

CBO's, since the administration is presumably proposing policies it expects will improve economic 

performance over current laws and policies. But the gap between CBO's forecast and the numbers 

we are hearing from the Trump Administration is unusually large. 

An economy recovering from a recession can temporarily achieve relatively high rates of "catchup" growth as demand for goods and services rebounds from weak recession levels. Businesses can 

readily meet the rise in demand for their output by hiring unemployed workers and more fully 

utilizing productive capacity that had been idled by the recession. Once excess unemployment has 

been eliminated and capacity utilization is back to normal, however, the economy's growth rate is 

constrained by growth in its ability to supply goods and services. 

Economists use the term "potential output" or "potential GDP" to describe the economy's 

maximum sustainable level of economic activity. Growth in potential GDP is determined by growth 

in the potential labor force (the number of people who want to be working when the labor market is 

strong) and growth in potential labor productivity. The potential labor force, in tum, grows through 

native population growth and immigration, while potential labor productivity grows through 

business investment in tangible capital (machines, factories, offices, and stores) as well as 

investments in R&D and other intangible capital. Improvements in labor quality due to education 

and training can also boost productivity, as can improvements in managerial efficiency or technology 

that allow businesses to produce more with the same amount of labor and capital. 

Well-conceived tax, regulatory, and public investment policies can complement labor force growth 

and private investment in expanding potential GDP. They can also reap public benefits that GDP 

does not necessarily capture, such as distributional fairness and health and safety protections. Poorly 

conceived policies, of course, can impede growth and hurt national economic welfare. 

Potential GDP represents the economy's maximum sustainable level of economic activity. Actual 

GDP falls short of potential GDP in a recession, when aggregate demand is weak; it can temporarily 

exceed potential GDP in a boom, when aggregate demand is strong. But, over longer periods, actual 

GDP and potential GDP tend to grow together. 

The Great Recession produced a large output gap between actual and potential GDP, which 

narrowed only slowly over the next several years as the economy recovered from the recession. 

CBO projects that the remaining gap will be closed by the end of2018 and that the major constraint 

on economic growth going forward will be the growth rate of potential output rather than weak 

aggregate demand. 

5 "Treasury Secretary Steven Mnucbin Sees Tax Overhaul by August," WaU Street Jo1U71(1~ February 22,2017, 

htt;ps· //www.wsi.com /artidcs/treasuzy-secretaty-stcven-mnuchin-pushes-hard-for-stronger-dollar-1487798404 

6 "Trump's treasury secretary: The tax cut 'will pay for itself," Washington Post, April20, 2017, 

htt:ps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/w/?017/04/?0/tmmps-treasucy-secrerar:y-the-tax-cur-\vill-pay-foritself/?utm term-.1290bd4ccc05. 

3 
42 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 25204.019

CBO estimates that GDP "~ll grow at an average annual rate of a little under 1.9 

over the next decade. 0.5 points of that growth comes from increases in 

labor force and about comes trom increases in labor 

projections of labor force arc each lower than those 

3.2 percent average annual growth in potential between 1950 and 2016 (sec Figure 

Conditions arc different now. The population is 

potential labor force will grow much more than 

marker. abo grew much tilStcr the age" of economic the 

generation after \\'ar [[and the late than projects it will grow in coming years 

and the benefits of that productivity growth were shared more equally than hm·e been 

recently. policies would ha\"C to produce some combination 

productivity growth totaling I A percentage points to 

Economist lcd\vard Lazear, Chairman of President George \'C Bush's Council of Economic 

:\dviscrs, attempted in a recent to explain how this might Like 

team, l~uear touted the of"investment-fricndly tax and business 

"burdensome" However, he concluded that achieving such a high growth 

rate is "nnlikcly." 

3.2% Not a Realistic Target for Future Growth 

Percent contributions to average annual growth in potential GOP 

4% 

3 

2 

0 

Labor force growth rate Productivity growth rate 

1950·2016 2017-2027 

(projected) 

productivity 

growth to achieve 

3.2% growth 

Note: Data D'iW not sum to total due- to rounding 

Source Actual projected growth figure::; from Congressional BlJdget Offlce 

4 
43 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 25204.020

Tax Cuts and Economic Growth 

Exaggerated claims for the economic tax cuts ha\T been around since the 

emergence of supply-side economics in to this day. But there's scant 

evidence to support, for example, House Speaker Paul Ryan's claim that cutting tax rates across the 

board is the "secret sauce'' that generates faster economic growth, more upward mobility, and faster 

creation or Treasury Secretary i\!nuchin's claim that the Trump economic plan will pay for itself 

growth. \\"hat the e\·idcncc shows is that tax cuts particularly for high-income peoplearc an way to spur economic grmvth, and they're likely to IMrm the if they add 

to the deficit or are paired with cuts to inwstments that support the economy and families-' 

History shows that tax cuts for the rich are far 

from a sure tire way to boost growth and that 

higher taxes don't preclude robust economic and 

job growth. Compare, for example, 

employment and economic growth 

Bush tax cuts of 2001 \\~th those follo\\~ng 

Clinton tax increases on high-income taxpayers 

in 1993, which supply-siders were certain would 

lead to slower growth and job losses (see 

Figure Sn1all business \vas also 

more under Clinton. After the Bush tax 

cuts for the very highest-income households 

expired at the end of2012, the economy 

continued to grow and add jobs steadily. 

In a comprehcnsi,·e review of the literature, 

economists Bill Gale and Andrew Samwick 

conclude that "growth rates over long periods of 

time in the C.S. have not changed in tandem 

with the massive changes in the structure and 

of the tax system that have 

Tax Cuts Didn't Supercharge 

Growth in the Bush Era 

Cumulative annual growth rate in period 

following tax change 

II Clinton Tax Increase 

(Aug. '93-March '01) 

Employment 

II 2001 Bush Tax Cut 

(June '01-Dec. '07) 

Real GDP 

Note: Additional tax cuts were passed in 2003. Analysis 

ends the Bush tax cut period in December 2007 because 

the Great Recession began afterwards. 

Source. CBPP analysis based on data from Bureau of Labor 

Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis 

\'Chen Kansas enacted large tax cuts 

overwhelmingly for the wealthy, Gm·. Sam 

Brownback claimed the tax cuts would act "like 

a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas 

economy.'' But rather than seeing an econotnic 

Ct:NTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PR!OR!TlES i CBPP_ORG 

'l. \ndrC\\' \.Sam wick and \'\"illiam G. G,-tlc "Effi..·cts of Income Tax Chant,~~:·s on l·:conom.ic Growth. Brookings [nstitntion, I•'cbru.1ry 

1, 2016, !U~cc~...oi~..!."Jl'.CGill.\C=UL=:l'J:~~:llC=llLL'.U.J2DJ:~.hlLUJJJJ);C:.:'C.\ .. LU.U.\JOll'!..:.:lJ-"\.UL. 

5 
44 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 25204.021

boom since the tax cuts, Kansas' growth -including small business job growth, economic growth, 

and growth in small business formation - has lagged behind the country as a whole. 10 

These simple relationships are not controlled experiments to isolate the effect of tax cuts on 

growth, but they are a warning against credulous acceptance of supply-side claims. Careful 

economic research reinforces that conclusion. It finds that tax cuts on high-income people's 

earnings or their income from wealth (such as capital gains and dividends) don't substantially boost 

work, saving, and investment. 

They are likely to hurt growth if they increase deficits or are paired with cuts to investments that 

help working families and the economy. CBO, which aims to provide objective, impartial, and nonpartisan analysis reflecting expert opinion, finds that even tax cuts that increase incentives to work, 

save, and invest with potentially positive effects on growth are a net drag on growth if they increase 

the budget deficit. 

Financing tax cuts for the rich by cutting productive public investments that help support growth, 

such as education, research, and infrastructure, are also harmful. Finally, a growing body of research 

suggests that investments in children in low-income families not only reduce poverty and hardship 

in the near term, but can have long-lasting positive effects on their health, education, and earnings as 

adults. 

Unless it is dramatically different from candidate Trump's tax plan or the House "Better Way" 

plan, the tax plan President Trump is working on will provide massive tax cuts that overwhelmingly 

benefit high-income taxpayers and lose huge amounts of revenue. That's certainly true under 

conventional revenue-estimating methods used by Congress's official budget scorekeepers, CBO 

and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCI). 

It's also true under most "dynamic scoring" that takes into account macroeconomic feedback 

effects on economic growth and revenues. The Tax Foundation, to whose analysis supply-siders 

gravitate, is an outlier with respect to dynamic scoring. 11 It tends to find significantly larger dynamic 

effects for tax proposals than CBO or JCT have found in their own past analyses, and significantly 

larger effects than the Tax Policy Center/Penn Wharton model finds in its analyses of the Trump12 

and Better Way13 proposals. But even the Tax Foundation's Alan Cole rejects the idea that Trump 

tax policies could produce enough economic growth to pay for themselves. 14 

to "GOP Tax Plans Would Emulate Failed Kansas Expedment," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April21, 2017, 

http: I lwww cQpp.org/research/federal-tax/go.p-tax-plans-would-emulare-fai}ed-kansas-experimem . 

tt Chad Stone and Chye-Ching Huang, "Trump Campaign's Tiynamic Scoring' of Revised Tax Plan Should Be Taken With More 

Than a Grain of Salt," CBPP, September 15, 2016," http://"'-ww.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/trump-campaigns-dynamic-scoringof-revised-tax-plan-shou1d-be-taken-wjth-more 

u Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, 

October 11, 2016," http: I I www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan /full 

13 Leonard E. Bunnan, James R. Nunns, Benjamin R. Page, Jeffrey Rohaly, Joseph Rosenberg, '~An i\nalysis of the House GOP Tax 

Plan," Tax Policy Center, AprilS, 2017, http://www.taxpoliqcenter.org/publications/analysis-house-gop-tax-plan-O. 

H Alexia Fem.indez Campbell and Dylan Scott, "Trump wants a "massive .. tax cut. Here's his best shot at getting it,'Vox.com, April 

25, 2017, http: //\1{\\'W. vox.com /policy-and-policies /?017 /4/?5 /15383806 /trump-white-house-tax-plan-budget-math . 

6 
45 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 25204.022

"\ centerpiece of President Trump's campaign tax proposal and the Better \\'ay tax plan is a 

special, much lower top rate for "pass-through" business income ---which is currently taxed at 

owners' indi,-idual income tax rates rather than the corporate rate and as dh-idend income in the 

hands of shareholders. ,\bout ha/(of pass-through income llcrws to the top 1 percent of households, 

while only about 27 percent goes to the bottom 90 percent of households. 15 

These proposals would cut the top rate on pass-through income below the top rate on ordinary 

15 percent and 25 percent respective!\·), giv·ing wealthy individuals a strong incenti,-e to 

their ·wage and salary incotne as "business incom_e" to get the lower pass-through rate. 

This would produce a substantial loss in re\-enue, while prm·iding no benefit to the vast majority of 

small businesses, whose tax rate would be unaffected (see Figure 3). 

Most Pass-Through Filers Are Already Taxed 

at Lowest Individual Tax Rates 

The beneficiaries don't fit anyone's reasonable definition of a small business. They include hedge 

fund n1anagcrs, consultants, and investtnent managers, \vho are anH>ng the pass-through business 

owners currently in the 39.6 percent tax bracket; the -100 highest-income taxpayers in the country, 

who have annu<Ll incomes exceeding $300 million each and receive about one-tlfth of their income 

from pass-throughs; and business owners like President Trump, who owns about 500 pass-through 

businesses, according to his attorneys. 

Kansas Cov. Sam Brownback exempted pass-through income from all state income taxes as part 

of his aggressive supply-side tax cutting in 2012. 1\s I've already noted, this did nothing for the 

Kansas economy, but it wreaked han1c on the state's budget, with the pass-through exemption 

7 
46 

Æ 

SBREP-219A with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 25204.023