Jane G. Gravelle Senior Specialist in Economic Policy
Thomas L. Hungerford Specialist in Public Finance
Linda Levine Specialist in Labor Economics
The longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression ended and an expansion began in June 2009. The unemployment rate rose after the recession’s end, peaking at 10.1% in October 2009. Although economic output began to grow in the third quarter of 2009, the labor market remained weak in 2010, averaging 9.6% unemployment. Although the rate has fallen in 2011, unemployment of about 9.0% has prevailed from January to October.
Several policy steps were taken since the economy entered the Great Recession, including stimulus bills in 2008 (P.L. 110-185) and 2009 (P.L. 111-5), an unprecedented expansion in direct assistance to the financial sector by the Federal Reserve, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP; P.L. 110-343). In December 2010, P.L. 111-312 extended the 2001 and 2003 “Bush” income tax cuts through 2012, other tax provisions, and emergency unemployment benefits. The bill also cut the payroll tax by two percentage points for one year.
Continued high unemployment has led to concerns about the need for additional policies to promote job creation. In September 2011, the President proposed a stimulus package—the American Jobs Act—which was introduced by request in the House (H.R. 12) and Senate (S. 1549). The legislation provides a 50% reduction in employee payroll taxes, business tax cuts (primarily subsidies for employment), and additional spending.
This report considers three policy issues: whether to take additional measures to increase jobs, what measures might be most effective, and how job creation proposals should be financed.
Some view the measures already taken as extraordinary and expect that additional stimulus is subject to diminishing returns and unlikely to sharply hasten the expected decline in unemployment. In favor of a more interventionist approach are the costs of protracted unemployment, the possibility that a longer bout of unemployment could cause a higher permanent unemployment rate, and the possibility of a stagnant or slowly growing economy.
Most proposals discussed as part of a potential additional macroeconomic jobs bill are traditional fiscal stimulus policies. Their objective is to increase total spending in the economy (aggregate demand) either through direct government spending on programs or by providing funds to others that they will spend (through tax cuts, transfer payments, and aid to state and local governments). Proposals for employment tax credits are different from traditional fiscal policies, however, in that their objective is to directly increase employment through a subsidy to labor costs.
To be effective, fiscal stimulus is generally deficit financed. Although a stimulus measure could be paid for by cutting other spending or raising other taxes, these financing options will offset the simulative effects on aggregate demand. It is possible to choose a deficit-neutral package of tax and spending changes that would stimulate aggregate demand if some types of measures induce more spending per dollar of cost than others, but such an effect would likely not be very large. The choice of financing affects both the macroeconomic impact and the cost-benefit tradeoff of the policy proposal. If such an effective stimulus package could be designed, it would have the advantage of not exacerbating the challenges of a growing debt.
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.