Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 – HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog

Glenn’s Thoughts on Economic Policy Going Forward

Image created by ChatGPT of the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives

The following opinion column appeared in the Financial Times.

A New Economic Agenda for America

The results of last week’s midterm elections amounted to a significant rejection of the current trajectory of US economic policy. Voters were anxious about the impact that the Trump administration’s policies have had on affordability and the outlook for growth and jobs, as well as its light-touch approach to the regulation of artificial intelligence. Democrats also faced concerns about the effect that some progressive policies might have on already significant federal budget deficits.

An opening exists, therefore, for a new bipartisan agenda focused on growth and full participation in the economy.

The twin growth engines of recent decades—technological advances and globalisation—caused disruptions that left many people and places believing they weren’t participating in the economy’s upside. The AI revolution is exacerbating such anxieties.

Although certain policies introduced over the past decade—pro-investment tax changes in 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and 2025’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, for example—have helped the pro-growth agenda, tariffs and inflation have affected both economic prospects and popular sentiment. So while tax incentives and regulatory reform are important, three additional steps are required.

First, federal support for basic scientific research is critical for expanding the economy and generates high rates of return. The government should also support applied research centres around the country to encourage commercial applications of new ideas. AI-assisted research will be important in driving future productivity growth, so reforms that allow modernisation and the expansion of electricity transmission will be vital.

Second, a renewal of support for open markets is needed. While present policy can justify exceptions to openness for reasons of national security or to protect critical supply chains, broad interference in trade is counter-productive. Across-the-board tariffs raise the cost of important intermediate goods for US industry, and studies conclude that American consumers and firms have borne most of the costs.

Tax reform can address justifiable concerns that companies lack sufficient incentives to invest and grow in America. A cash flow tax, in which investment is expensed and interest is not deductible, would encourage investment, reduce leverage and more effectively tax the profits of large firms with market power. Adding so-called border adjustments would remove the incentive for both US and non-US companies to locate assets, employment or profits abroad.

Third, while acting aggressively against illegal immigration is warranted, broad limits on high-skilled immigration—as evidenced in recent attacks on H-1B visas for skilled workers or optional practical training authorisation for non-US students to gain work experience in technical jobs—are inimical to growth.

As for the full participation plank of the new economic agenda, this needs to be designed to reconnect individuals to work in the face of the structural shifts that accompany technological progress and trade—growth and disruption are two sides of the same coin, after all.

Elements of a full-participation approach include an expanded earned income tax credit to bolster rewards to work; better individualised training to adapt to new employment opportunities through personal re-employment accounts; and federal support for community colleges, the local engines of training and retraining.

Workers facing long-term job loss could be offered wage insurance that pays part of the difference between a previous wage and a lower initial wage in a new type of job. Initiatives of this sort can bolster public support for AI investments that enhance productivity, assuaging worries that these would lead to future job losses.

These policies are a practical response to voters’ reasonable concerns about the future—and provide a potent alternative to populist economic nationalism. Their emphasis on helping those who have been shut out of the labour market would appeal to progressives. Meanwhile, they offer conservatives support for open markets and economic growth.

The midterms showed that the American public is concerned above all about the cost of living. A “growth and participation” agenda is the right place to start economically and the best way to address voters’ rejection of the status quo.

Glenn on How the Trump Administration Can Hit Its Growth Target

Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent. (Photo from Progect Syndicate.)

By setting an ambitious 3% growth target, U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent has provided the Trump administration a North Star to follow in devising its economic policies. The task now is to focus on productivity growth and avoiding any unforced errors that would threaten output.

U.S. Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent is right to emphasize faster economic growth as a touchstone of Donald Trump’s second presidency. More robust growth not only implies higher incomes and living standards—surely the basic objective of economic policy—but also can reduce America’s yawning federal budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio, and ease the sometimes difficult trade-offs across defense, social, and education and research spending.

But faster growth must be more than just a wish. Achieving it calls for a carefully constructed agenda, based on a recognition of the channels through which economic policies can raise or reduce output. While a pro-investment tax policy might boost capital accumulation, productivity, and GDP, higher interest rates from deficit-financed tax or spending changes might have the opposite effect. Similarly, since growth in hours worked is a component of growth in output or GDP, the new administration should avoid anti-work policies that hinder full labor-force participation, as well as sudden adverse changes to legal immigration.

While recognizing that some policy shifts that increase output might adversely affect other areas of social interest (such as the distribution of income) or even national security, policymakers should focus squarely on increasing productivity. The three pillars of any productivity policy are support for research, investment-friendly tax provisions, and more efficient regulation.

Ideas drive prospects in modern economies. Basic research in the sciences, engineering, and medicine power the innovation that advances technology, improvements in business organization, and gains in health and well-being. It makes perfect sense for the federal government to support such research. Since private firms cannot appropriate all the gains from their own outlays for basic research, they have less of an incentive to invest in it. Moreover, government support in this area produces valuable spillovers, as demonstrated by the earlier Defense Department research expenditures that became catalysts for today’s digital revolution.

This being the case, cuts in federal support for basic research are inconsistent with a growth agenda. Still, policymakers should review how research funds are distributed to ensure scientific merit, and they should encourage a healthy dose of risk-taking on newer ideas and researchers.

In addition to encouraging commercialization of spillovers from basic research and defense programs, federal support for applied research centers around the country would accelerate the dissemination of new productivity-enhancing technologies and ideas. Such centers also tend to distribute the economy’s prosperity more widely, by making new ideas broadly accessible—as agricultural- and manufacturing-extension services have done historically.

To address the second pillar of productivity growth, the administration should seek to extend the pro-investment provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in 2017. While the TCJA’s lower tax rates on corporate profits remain in place, the expensing of business investment – a potent tool for boosting capital accumulation, productivity, and incomes – was set to be phased out over the 2023-26 period. This provision could be restored and made permanent by reducing spending on credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, or by rolling back the spending – such as $175 billion to forgive student loans – associated with outgoing President Joe Biden’s executive orders.

If the new administration wanted to go further with tax policy, it could build on the 2016 House Republican blueprint for tax reform that shifted the business tax regime from an income tax to a cashflow tax. By permitting immediate expensing of investment, but not interest deductions for nonfinancial firms, this reform would stimulate investment and growth, remove tax incentives that favor debt over equity, and simplify the tax system.

That brings us to the third pillar of a successful growth strategy: efficient regulation. The issue is not “more” versus “less.” What really matters for growth is how changes in regulation can improve the prospects for growth through innovation, investment, and capital allocation, while focusing on trade-offs in risks. Those shaping the agenda should start with basic questions like: Why can’t we build better infrastructure faster? Why can’t capital markets and bank lending be nimbler? Not only do such questions identify a specific goal; they also require one to identify trade-offs.

Fortunately, financial regulation under the new administration is likely to improve capital allocation and the prospects for growth, given the leadership appointments already announced at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve. But policymakers also will need to improve the climate for building infrastructure and enhancing the country’s electricity grids to support the data centers needed for generative artificial intelligence. This will require a sharper focus on cost-benefit analysis at the federal level, as well as better coordination with state and local authorities on permitting. Using federal financial support programs as carrots or sticks can be part of such a strategy.

Bessent’s emphasis on economic growth is spot on. By setting an ambitious 3% target for annual growth, he has provided the new administration a North Star to follow in devising its economic policies.

This commentary first appeared on Project Syndicate.

Glenn on the Economic Policies Necessary to Increase Growth

Image showing scientific research generated by GTP-4o

Note: The following op-ed first appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

The Trump Economic Awakening

Traditional policies like tax cuts, targeted aid and responsible spending can deliver stronger growth.

Political scientists will debate the forces that shaped Donald Trump’s victory, but one thing is clear: Americans yearn for a change in economic policy. Voters have rejected the interventionist policies that brought inflation and high deficits. They want an economic awakening, a new way forward that uses traditional economic policies to achieve Mr. Trump’s goal of more jobs for Americans whose fortunes have been harmed by technological change and globalization.

Any economic path to a successful awakening begins with growth: the engine that powers individual income and our collective ability to support the nation’s defense, economy, education and healthcare industry. To pursue this growth, the new administration should consider at least three measures:

First, by working with Congress, it should build on the successes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to make permanent the expensing of business investment. Second, it should increase support for science and defense research, which would have significant spillover to the commercial sector, particularly in space exploration. Third, it should build on this research by constructing applied research centers around the country, linked to regional university and city hubs. Like the land-grant colleges of the 19th century, these centers would generate and distribute knowledge, improving local capabilities in manufacturing and services.

Opportunity is also a pillar of the awakening. Community colleges are an underfunded source of skill-building and mobility. As Austan Goolsbee, Amy Ganz and I proposed in a 2019 report, a modest federal block grant to support community colleges on the supply side—rather than a demand-side emphasis on financial aid—can help these schools push more Americans toward better jobs by working with local employers on skill needs and curriculum development. Targeted aid to places with depressed economic activity can help distribute opportunity to communities better than one-size-fits-all Washington-directed programs.

Corporate tax reform can play a role, too, by improving incentives for companies to settle and invest in the U.S. This can magnify opportunities for Americans, all without having to rely on costly tariffs.

Working a job doesn’t merely generate income; it also promotes human dignity. Enlisting more people into the workforce is thus another element of the economic-policy awakening. While growth and opportunity policies can boost labor-force participation, strengthening the earned-income tax credit to boost the incomes of childless workers can help attract younger people to the workforce. Maintaining the child tax credit can also provide parents with easier pathways toward economic participation.

These ideas share several important themes with Mr. Trump’s campaign and the traditional conservative playbook. They emphasize that policy ideas should be practical and workable, not merely rhetorical. Each makes use of America’s federalist system and innovative ethos. Making a priority of strong local involvement in applied research centers and community colleges and as tailoring place-based aid are more effective approaches than Washington diktats. Programs need to be held accountable for results, not simply allocated money.

This economic-policy awakening requires a clear-eyed assessment of budget trade-offs. Profligate spending with little regard for debt and inflation—à la the American Rescue Plan—contributed to Mr. Trump’s victory. It is possible to accomplish the steps above in a fiscally responsible way by offsetting spending and tax changes.

Organizing for the policy awakening’s success will be essential. Lack of communication among cabinet agencies can stymie creative ideas for expanding the economic pie for American workers. Like the president’s Working Group on Financial Markets, created by Ronald Reagan in 1988 to convene disparate agencies, the new administration would benefit from a senior executive team that can coordinate economic ideas and learn from leaders in business, labor and social services. Such a body, unlike the National Economic Council, could more adeptly cut across silos related to tax, trade, regulatory and industrial policy.

Voters have signaled they’re ready for an economic awakening. The president-elect, equipped with a new playbook and vision, should seize the opportunity.