CBO: Obama Stimulus Package Added 3.3 Million Jobs

[Wonkish1]

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

And honestly, I'm not really disputing that the CBO is...well...wrong...frequently...even consistently if you like...and you spelled out pretty decent reasons why it often errs.  If asked why the CBO isn't accurate, I'd rattle off many, but perhaps not all, the aforementioned reasons.  That said, I wouldn't make the leap that what the CBO does (forecasting, whatever) is malicious, or fraudulent.  Just on many occasions wrong, and there is a difference.

I wouldn't say its malicious. But they know their going to be off in the same direction every single time and they don't care. So call what you will, but its not accidental.

If they are consistently wrong in the same direction, then that makes their errors predictable and thus something that can be adjusted for because they are reproducible.  Conversely, if they keep adjusting their methodology in search of being more accurate, their estimates become less useful.

Which would you rather have, a clock that is consistently 15 minutes slow, or a clock that is always within 5 minutes of the correct time, but you can't be sure if it is fast or slow?

More like a clock that is 15 to 25 minutes slow vs. 5 minutes slow or fast would be a better analogy. Since these are estimations of costs then I would definitely rather have the "5 slow or fast". I don't see how you wouldn't.

[Wonkish1]

Just curious wonkish and CARL!: Since over a third of the stimulus involved tax cuts, are you both conceding that tax cuts aren't effective at spurring economic growth? Conversely, doesn't that mean that tax increases to the same degree won't inhibit economic growth?

Please advise <grabs popcorn>.

Well first a lot of those "tax cuts" weren't real tax cuts(more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits big difference). Second, it wasn't actually a 1/3rd(even though I'm sure you'll be able to produce a false link repeating that fallacious statement). Third, debt has a negative impact on growth so when tax cuts are a fraction of the new debt taken on then the debt will way overpower the "tax cuts". Fourth, temporary tax changes don't have much affect on long term investment(like hiring someone or expanding operations for example).

The package had no rate changes. Not to income, corporate, capital gains, dividends, gas, payroll, etc. Those long term changes have a real and large affect on behavior.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wonkish,

You put it very well.

The "static" nature of CBO "analysis" has been under attack by economists for several years.

CBO counters that it is impossible to accurately project such changes.

The bottom line is the CBO is consistently wrong!

And honestly, I'm not really disputing that the CBO is...well...wrong...frequently...even consistently if you like...and you spelled out pretty decent reasons why it often errs.  If asked why the CBO isn't accurate, I'd rattle off many, but perhaps not all, the aforementioned reasons.  That said, I wouldn't make the leap that what the CBO does (forecasting, whatever) is malicious, or fraudulent.  Just on many occasions wrong, and there is a difference.

I wouldn't say its malicious. But they know their going to be off in the same direction every single time and they don't care. So call what you will, but its not accidental.

If they are consistently wrong in the same direction, then that makes their errors predictable and thus something that can be adjusted for because they are reproducible.  Conversely, if they keep adjusting their methodology in search of being more accurate, their estimates become less useful.

Which would you rather have, a clock that is consistently 15 minutes slow, or a clock that is always within 5 minutes of the correct time, but you can't be sure if it is fast or slow?

I will try to explain in a simple manner so that you might be able to understand.

While CBO is almost always wrong in the same direction (i.e. underestimating the cost of government programs), the degree of their of error varies wildly.  Sometimes CBO underestimates the cost by a few per cent (forgiveable), usually by quite a bit, and occasionally by massive margins.  So, to take your "clock" analogy, we know the clock is "slow" but we don't know whether its just a few minutes slow, or several hours slow.

The consistent thing about CBO estimates is the direction of their error, not the extent of their error.

Just as you are generally (make that almost always) arguing for more government and less freedom, the degree of suppression of freedom you advocate varies from time to time (maybe depending upon medication).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and just to be fair, let me note that the institutional bias of the CBO is paralleled by the White House and the Federal Reserve.

All three of those sources tend to have a truly strange belief that somehow the economy will get better if only the government intervenes more.

Remember how the Obama administration told us that the unemployment level (U-3) would not exceed 8 % if the porkulus bill was passed?

[Badger]

Just curious wonkish and CARL!: Since over a third of the stimulus involved tax cuts, are you both conceding that tax cuts aren't effective at spurring economic growth? Conversely, doesn't that mean that tax increases to the same degree won't inhibit economic growth?

Please advise <grabs popcorn>.

Well first a lot of those "tax cuts" weren't real tax cuts(more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits big difference). Second, it wasn't actually a 1/3rd(even though I'm sure you'll be able to produce a false link repeating that fallacious statement). Third, debt has a negative impact on growth so when tax cuts are a fraction of the new debt taken on then the debt will way overpower the "tax cuts". Fourth, temporary tax changes don't have much affect on long term investment(like hiring someone or expanding operations for example).

The package had no rate changes. Not to income, corporate, capital gains, dividends, gas, payroll, etc. Those long term changes have a real and large affect on behavior.

As requested, "fake" link from your Bible, that right wing shill for labor, the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html

The $288 Billion in tax breaks, compared to $144 Billion in aid to states (almost all for Medicaid and education funding) and $357 Billion in federal spending, tax cuts constituted about 37% of the stimulus. So you're right, it really wasn't actually a third---it was higher. Thanks Wonky!

And as far as the tax cuts being not "real tax cuts (more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits" that only is correct at all for about $19.1 Billion in such credits. Less than a 10th of the overall cuts--and what lesser portion of that sliver actually constituted "subsidies" as opposed to actual cuts isn't clear---but it's apparently even less.

Tax cuts that don't contribute to hiring? look at the largest ($117 Billion) tax cut of all. A payroll tax credit for new workers. And.....ugh, why do I even try?

Your point about increased debt ameliorating the effect of tax cuts, you realize, repudiates conservative economics, both gospel and practice, from the last 3 decades?

[Wonkish1]

Just curious wonkish and CARL!: Since over a third of the stimulus involved tax cuts, are you both conceding that tax cuts aren't effective at spurring economic growth? Conversely, doesn't that mean that tax increases to the same degree won't inhibit economic growth?

Please advise <grabs popcorn>.

Well first a lot of those "tax cuts" weren't real tax cuts(more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits big difference). Second, it wasn't actually a 1/3rd(even though I'm sure you'll be able to produce a false link repeating that fallacious statement). Third, debt has a negative impact on growth so when tax cuts are a fraction of the new debt taken on then the debt will way overpower the "tax cuts". Fourth, temporary tax changes don't have much affect on long term investment(like hiring someone or expanding operations for example).

The package had no rate changes. Not to income, corporate, capital gains, dividends, gas, payroll, etc. Those long term changes have a real and large affect on behavior.

As requested, "fake" link from your Bible, that right wing shill for labor, the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html

The $288 Billion in tax breaks, compared to $144 Billion in aid to states (almost all for Medicaid and education funding) and $357 Billion in federal spending, tax cuts constituted about 37% of the stimulus. So you're right, it really wasn't actually a third---it was higher. Thanks Wonky!

And as far as the tax cuts being not "real tax cuts (more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits" that only is correct at all for about $19.1 Billion in such credits. Less than a 10th of the overall cuts--and what lesser portion of that sliver actually constituted "subsidies" as opposed to actual cuts isn't clear---but it's apparently even less.

Tax cuts that don't contribute to hiring? look at the largest ($117 Billion) tax cut of all. A payroll tax credit for new workers. And.....ugh, why do I even try?

Your point about increased debt ameliorating the effect of tax cuts, you realize, repudiates conservative economics, both gospel and practice, from the last 3 decades?

You claim there was only $19.1 billion in tax credits and then in the very next paragraph you say "look at the largest ($117 billion) tax cut of all. A payroll tax credit for new workers.

[Wonkish1]

Your point about increased debt ameliorating the effect of tax cuts, you realize, repudiates conservative economics, both gospel and practice, from the last 3 decades?

No. I said that increased debt is a substantial mitigating factor and when you have to take on debt for a ton of spending in a package plus a few minor tax cuts then the amount of new debt will be a bigger factor than anything a few small tax cuts can do.

The subject of what degree at which new debt mitigates each dollar of tax cuts is a tough subject but I can guarantee to you it is neither a 0 to 1 nor 1 to 1 ratio so its quite possible that new debt of a large spending package could outstrip any benefits from tax cuts if the ratio of spending to tax cuts is quite high.

[Badger]

I think you misunderstand two points. First, you referred to "subsidies" in the tax code, such as expansion of the EITC and Child Care Credit. You clearly (to me at least) implicated such cases where the Treasury sends someone a "tax refund" when they were too poor to pay income taxes in the first place---i.e. a subsidy. The Payroll Tax Credit was an actual tax cut on taxes that would've actually been otherwise paid--i.e. a genuine tax cut rather than a subsidy disguised as a "tax credit".  Whether it was facilitated by reducing the amount initially paid like the proposed continued payroll tax cut currently before Congress, or by a credit towards payroll taxes already paid, is meaningless. The end result was working taxpayers paid less to the federal government than they would have otherwise, not a camouflaged transfer payment like (part of) the expanded EITC and Child Care Credit were. Your fixation on the term "credit" for the payroll tax "cut" is simply your being misled by semantics.

Secondly, I understood your argument about increased debt mitigating the effect of combined tax cuts and spending increases the first time you posted it. My point here is the fallicy in your blind ironclad assumption that for stimulus purposes "$100 tax cut is worth $100 debt because it creates economic stimulus" but conversely "$100 of increased government spending isn't worth ANYWHERE near $100, or any non-negligible amount, of additional debt because all such spending is wasteful and carries no tangible economic stimulus effect" yadda-yadda-yadda.

What this argument has utterly ignored for 30 years is $100 of tax cuts creates just as much debt as $100 of federal spending (even <gasp> defense spending). Due to conservatives inability to appreciate increased debt ameliorates the benefits of tax cuts just as much as additional spending, we've acquired massive debt from across the board tax cuts with little tangible economic growth to show for it, particularly for the middle class.

My point was to challenge this delusion you, like many right wingers, hold so dearly. So I admit upon your further explanation, you don't repudiate 30 years of trickle down economics, but rather just neatly apply an imaginary and indefensible double standard for the stimulus value of tax cuts vs. an identical amount in government spending. A double standard which holds not merely the free market is generally more efficient than public efforts (as 99% of liberals also believe), but that public spending is always and entirely useless in stimulating the economy compared to an equivalent amount of tax cuts.

[Wonkish1]

I think you misunderstand two points. First, you referred to "subsidies" in the tax code, such as expansion of the EITC and Child Care Credit. You clearly (to me at least) implicated such cases where the Treasury sends someone a "tax refund" when they were too poor to pay income taxes in the first place---i.e. a subsidy. The Payroll Tax Credit was an actual tax cut on taxes that would've actually been otherwise paid--i.e. a genuine tax cut rather than a subsidy disguised as a "tax credit".  Whether it was facilitated by reducing the amount initially paid like the proposed continued payroll tax cut currently before Congress, or by a credit towards payroll taxes already paid, is meaningless. The end result was working taxpayers paid less to the federal government than they would have otherwise, not a camouflaged transfer payment like (part of) the expanded EITC and Child Care Credit were. Your fixation on the term "credit" for the payroll tax "cut" is simply your being misled by semantics.

Secondly, I understood your argument about increased debt mitigating the effect of combined tax cuts and spending increases the first time you posted it. My point here is the fallicy in your blind ironclad assumption that for stimulus purposes "$100 tax cut is worth $100 debt because it creates economic stimulus" but conversely "$100 of increased government spending isn't worth ANYWHERE near $100, or any non-negligible amount, of additional debt because all such spending is wasteful and carries no tangible economic stimulus effect" yadda-yadda-yadda.

What this argument has utterly ignored for 30 years is $100 of tax cuts creates just as much debt as $100 of federal spending (even <gasp> defense spending). Due to conservatives inability to appreciate increased debt ameliorates the benefits of tax cuts just as much as additional spending, we've acquired massive debt from across the board tax cuts with little tangible economic growth to show for it, particularly for the middle class.

My point was to challenge this delusion you, like many right wingers, hold so dearly. So I admit upon your further explanation, you don't repudiate 30 years of trickle down economics, but rather just neatly apply an imaginary and indefensible double standard for the stimulus value of tax cuts vs. an identical amount in government spending. A double standard which holds not merely the free market is generally more efficient than public efforts (as 99% of liberals also believe), but that public spending is always and entirely useless in stimulating the economy compared to an equivalent amount of tax cuts.

All tax credits are subsidies in the tax code because they are direct cash for the full amount of the credit(since most are netted is beside the point).

Tax deductions are different horse altogether. But I explicitly said tax credits so as to not be any ambiguity. As are marginal tax rate reductions.


Well I don't believe the government is an efficient vehicle that's why. Now your welcome to disagree with that, but that is why I can see the debt out mitigate government spending and not out mitigate tax reductions. But the argument we're going to end up in with the course of your argument is whether or not government spending or taxes are more efficient and which ones are being mitigated completely by new debt vs. only partially.


Actually since the CBO has consistently overestimated the 'cost' of tax reductions and underestimated the cost of government spending than I'm quite content saying that tax reductions don't cost the same debt outcomes according to the CBO mistakes that spending increases do. You want to dispute this?


It is you that is holding onto a delusion here my friend. Government spending has never produced the jobs that the CBO(let alone liberal think tanks) have claimed it would. And government spending doesn't equal tax cuts.

[Wonkish1]

You know I realize you thought you were going to be clever when you started this discussion up, but just keep in mind that I actually have spent considerable amount of time looking at these issues so your not going to catch me off guard.

Sorry, for bringing your clever inflated expectations back down to reality.

[opebo]

...if you have X amount of something and you increase its supply by, say 0.1%, that should decrease its price (per each unit) by a very tiny amount, no?  That is all the stimulous package did - increased the supply of treasuries by an infinitismal amount.

...any reduction in price doesn't make $800 billion new treasuries cost 0 through price reductions which is essentially the argument your making(although you may not realize you are). The price might drop causing total amount of capital directed to them to be less than if you modeled them statically. But there is still serious capital going into them.

No, I never said the cost was zero, just that it was less than 800 billion.  Even if it were 800 billion, that amount is a) completely insignificantly small, and b) just fine, because the point is that in a deflation/depression, there is no shortage of capital.  Capital is plentiful and uninvested in the inevitable downward spiral of a capitalist failure, and the job of the State is to take said capital out of the hands of the 'private investor' and invest it (spend it) Itself.  The point is is the control of the capital, and the need to reform capitalism by partial nationalization of same, because private control of capital is unworkable.

The ideal action an economic downturn is to seize the capital of the rich and spend it on the day-to-day hand-to-mouth needs of their poor.

[Wonkish1]

...if you have X amount of something and you increase its supply by, say 0.1%, that should decrease its price (per each unit) by a very tiny amount, no?  That is all the stimulous package did - increased the supply of treasuries by an infinitismal amount.

...any reduction in price doesn't make $800 billion new treasuries cost 0 through price reductions which is essentially the argument your making(although you may not realize you are). The price might drop causing total amount of capital directed to them to be less than if you modeled them statically. But there is still serious capital going into them.

No, I never said the cost was zero, just that it was less than 800 billion. 

Well in next to zero interest rates its actually pretty damn close. But your right its not exactly 800 billion. If they didn't do it the Federal government's cost of capital in longer duration would be cheaper today. And the difference between those two numbers isn't zero. But even factoring in that difference its still in the high 700s for how much additional capital left the capital markets at the time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You know I realize you thought you were going to be clever when you started this discussion up, but just keep in mind that I actually have spent considerable amount of time looking at these issues so your not going to catch me off guard.

Sorry, for bringing your clever inflated expectations back down to reality.

Yes.. It's Badger that has the inflated opinion of himself..

[Badger]

I think you misunderstand two points. First, you referred to "subsidies" in the tax code, such as expansion of the EITC and Child Care Credit. You clearly (to me at least) implicated such cases where the Treasury sends someone a "tax refund" when they were too poor to pay income taxes in the first place---i.e. a subsidy. The Payroll Tax Credit was an actual tax cut on taxes that would've actually been otherwise paid--i.e. a genuine tax cut rather than a subsidy disguised as a "tax credit".  Whether it was facilitated by reducing the amount initially paid like the proposed continued payroll tax cut currently before Congress, or by a credit towards payroll taxes already paid, is meaningless. The end result was working taxpayers paid less to the federal government than they would have otherwise, not a camouflaged transfer payment like (part of) the expanded EITC and Child Care Credit were. Your fixation on the term "credit" for the payroll tax "cut" is simply your being misled by semantics.

Secondly, I understood your argument about increased debt mitigating the effect of combined tax cuts and spending increases the first time you posted it. My point here is the fallicy in your blind ironclad assumption that for stimulus purposes "$100 tax cut is worth $100 debt because it creates economic stimulus" but conversely "$100 of increased government spending isn't worth ANYWHERE near $100, or any non-negligible amount, of additional debt because all such spending is wasteful and carries no tangible economic stimulus effect" yadda-yadda-yadda.

What this argument has utterly ignored for 30 years is $100 of tax cuts creates just as much debt as $100 of federal spending (even <gasp> defense spending). Due to conservatives inability to appreciate increased debt ameliorates the benefits of tax cuts just as much as additional spending, we've acquired massive debt from across the board tax cuts with little tangible economic growth to show for it, particularly for the middle class.

My point was to challenge this delusion you, like many right wingers, hold so dearly. So I admit upon your further explanation, you don't repudiate 30 years of trickle down economics, but rather just neatly apply an imaginary and indefensible double standard for the stimulus value of tax cuts vs. an identical amount in government spending. A double standard which holds not merely the free market is generally more efficient than public efforts (as 99% of liberals also believe), but that public spending is always and entirely useless in stimulating the economy compared to an equivalent amount of tax cuts.

All tax credits are subsidies in the tax code because they are direct cash for the full amount of the credit(since most are netted is beside the point).

Tax deductions are different horse altogether. But I explicitly said tax credits so as to not be any ambiguity. As are marginal tax rate reductions.


Well I don't believe the government is an efficient vehicle that's why. Now your welcome to disagree with that, but that is why I can see the debt out mitigate government spending and not out mitigate tax reductions. But the argument we're going to end up in with the course of your argument is whether or not government spending or taxes are more efficient and which ones are being mitigated completely by new debt vs. only partially.


Actually since the CBO has consistently overestimated the 'cost' of tax reductions and underestimated the cost of government spending than I'm quite content saying that tax reductions don't cost the same debt outcomes according to the CBO mistakes that spending increases do. You want to dispute this?


It is you that is holding onto a delusion here my friend. Government spending has never produced the jobs that the CBO(let alone liberal think tanks) have claimed it would. And government spending doesn't equal tax cuts.

Once again, you miss the point. The relative GENERAL efficiency of the private sector vs. the public is not at issue outside the feverish imaginations of the far right. The issue whether there is a somewhat/nothing or never/occasional black and white dichotomy.

Right wingers have consistently underestimated the cost of tax cuts--to a degree the CBO couldn't manage in decades if they consciously tried. You don't want to dispute this.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe Badger. It would be an interesting issue to research.

In any event, it depends in part on the type of tax cut. For example, a cut in the capital gains tax, causes more gains to be recognized. If you don't recognize a gain, you get no revenue at all no matter what the rate. If it is high enough, you just borrow against the appreciated assets if need be, and then the gain goes away when you die due to your heirs getting a stepped up basis. Thus, my heirs will sell my real estate, not I. It is literally a lifetime investment.

On the other hand, to suggest supply side will substantially mitigate the revenue loss if the marginal income tax rate goes from say 35% to 39% is almost facially ludicrous. It may slightly degrade economic efficiency to some extent, but the offset from a tax revenue standpoint is probably de minimus.

[Wonkish1]

I think you misunderstand two points. First, you referred to "subsidies" in the tax code, such as expansion of the EITC and Child Care Credit. You clearly (to me at least) implicated such cases where the Treasury sends someone a "tax refund" when they were too poor to pay income taxes in the first place---i.e. a subsidy. The Payroll Tax Credit was an actual tax cut on taxes that would've actually been otherwise paid--i.e. a genuine tax cut rather than a subsidy disguised as a "tax credit".  Whether it was facilitated by reducing the amount initially paid like the proposed continued payroll tax cut currently before Congress, or by a credit towards payroll taxes already paid, is meaningless. The end result was working taxpayers paid less to the federal government than they would have otherwise, not a camouflaged transfer payment like (part of) the expanded EITC and Child Care Credit were. Your fixation on the term "credit" for the payroll tax "cut" is simply your being misled by semantics.

Secondly, I understood your argument about increased debt mitigating the effect of combined tax cuts and spending increases the first time you posted it. My point here is the fallicy in your blind ironclad assumption that for stimulus purposes "$100 tax cut is worth $100 debt because it creates economic stimulus" but conversely "$100 of increased government spending isn't worth ANYWHERE near $100, or any non-negligible amount, of additional debt because all such spending is wasteful and carries no tangible economic stimulus effect" yadda-yadda-yadda.

What this argument has utterly ignored for 30 years is $100 of tax cuts creates just as much debt as $100 of federal spending (even <gasp> defense spending). Due to conservatives inability to appreciate increased debt ameliorates the benefits of tax cuts just as much as additional spending, we've acquired massive debt from across the board tax cuts with little tangible economic growth to show for it, particularly for the middle class.

My point was to challenge this delusion you, like many right wingers, hold so dearly. So I admit upon your further explanation, you don't repudiate 30 years of trickle down economics, but rather just neatly apply an imaginary and indefensible double standard for the stimulus value of tax cuts vs. an identical amount in government spending. A double standard which holds not merely the free market is generally more efficient than public efforts (as 99% of liberals also believe), but that public spending is always and entirely useless in stimulating the economy compared to an equivalent amount of tax cuts.

All tax credits are subsidies in the tax code because they are direct cash for the full amount of the credit(since most are netted is beside the point).

Tax deductions are different horse altogether. But I explicitly said tax credits so as to not be any ambiguity. As are marginal tax rate reductions.


Well I don't believe the government is an efficient vehicle that's why. Now your welcome to disagree with that, but that is why I can see the debt out mitigate government spending and not out mitigate tax reductions. But the argument we're going to end up in with the course of your argument is whether or not government spending or taxes are more efficient and which ones are being mitigated completely by new debt vs. only partially.


Actually since the CBO has consistently overestimated the 'cost' of tax reductions and underestimated the cost of government spending than I'm quite content saying that tax reductions don't cost the same debt outcomes according to the CBO mistakes that spending increases do. You want to dispute this?


It is you that is holding onto a delusion here my friend. Government spending has never produced the jobs that the CBO(let alone liberal think tanks) have claimed it would. And government spending doesn't equal tax cuts.

Once again, you miss the point. The relative GENERAL efficiency of the private sector vs. the public is not at issue outside the feverish imaginations of the far right. The issue whether there is a somewhat/nothing or never/occasional black and white dichotomy.

Right wingers have consistently underestimated the cost of tax cuts--to a degree the CBO couldn't manage in decades if they consciously tried. You don't want to dispute this.

No actually they haven't. Its the Dems(and static estimates) that consistently way, way, way overestimate the cost of the tax cuts. History has shown that over and over and over again.

And efficiency and behavior change is the core of the issue. And the core reason why static estimates are always way, way, way off.

[Wonkish1]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe Badger. It would be an interesting issue to research.

In any event, it depends in part on the type of tax cut. For example, a cut in the capital gains tax, causes more gains to be recognized. If you don't recognize a gain, you get no revenue at all no matter what the rate. If it is high enough, you just borrow against the appreciated assets if need be, and then the gain goes away when you die due to your heirs getting a stepped up basis. Thus, my heirs will sell my real estate, not I. It is literally a lifetime investment.

On the other hand, to suggest supply side will substantially mitigate the revenue loss if the marginal income tax rate goes from say 35% to 39% is almost facially ludicrous. It may slightly degrade economic efficiency to some extent, but the offset from a tax revenue standpoint is probably de minimus.

This analysis is spot on and is practically exactly what I've been saying about particular tax cuts in the Bush package(for example). Any notion that the reduction in capital gains taxes and the creation of qualified dividends weren't at least somewhat close to revenue neutral is laughable. Other tax cuts not so much.

But all tax cuts have at least *some* behavior change towards engaging in more of the taxable event that mitigates against the static projections. The degree of which completely depends on the tax cut.