President Bush yesterday eliminated a 27-year executive moratorium on off-shore oil drilling (NYT, 7/15/2008, p.A13), a move also supported by presidential candidate John McCain. 

The Democrats responded:

(1) that this was an election-year stunt,

(2) that the move would be too small to make a difference

(3) that it would bring no downward pressure on oil prices at the crucial short-term horizon, and

(4) that it would not ultimately help move the country in the direction of energy security. 

The Democrats have the right answer, but are perhaps giving the wrong reasons.

 No doubt they are right that it is a political stunt.  A Congressional ban on offshore drilling has been in effect since 1981, so the President’s action is moot.  But making a political point in this way is in itself fair game.  The Republicans are trying to blame high oil prices on the Democrats.   Similarly, the Democrats’ response could well be the right one from the viewpoint of political gamesmanship.

But I should try to stick to economics in my blog, rather than politics.  The issues can be slippery; but let’s take the bit in our teeth and drill down on what would make for good for policy.

On grounds of good economic policy the Democrats’ chosen arguments seem to me beside the point.  It is true that the oil in the offshore sites would not be enough to have much effect on the world price.  It does not amount to much as a percentage of world reserves, which is the relevant metric for determining the effect on price.   “The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continentail United States that are now closed to drilling…[A]t current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand.” (The New Yorker, Aug. 18, 2008, p. 28.)  But if one believed there were no cost to more domestic oil drilling, then one should conclude that every little bit helps.  Basic economic theory tells us to judge proposals by the ratio of benefits to costs, not by the absolute magnitude of the benefits.

Regarding point (3), both parties are responding (unsurprisingly) to the American public’s great sensitivity to short-term prices for gasoline (in the summer) and home heating oil (in the winter).  No doubt high prices are causing a lot of hardship.   (And even if it takes ten years to develop new oil reserves, the knowledge that the oil was coming should put a bit of downward pressure on prices today.)   But market prices are high today for a reason.   What is the market failure that would call for government intervention in the oil market?

The most obvious market failures are the externalities that characterize air pollution and emission of greenhouse gases.  The ban on off-shore drilling was originally enacted in response to damaging coastal oil spills;  in the years since then we have also learned that the atmospheric damage from oil consumption is far greater than we had realized.  The environmental externalities of course are reasons for higher prices, not lower.   I am struck every time I see an article on politicians’ commitment to action on global climate change sitting side-by-side in the newspaper with an article on their opposition to oil price increases.   

I realize that higher energy taxes are politically out of the question at this point.   But I could imagine legislation that would automatically raise energy taxes if and when oil prices fall, thereby putting a floor at recent levels and providing industry with the clear incentive to undertake the long-term investment in energy-saving equipment and technology that we badly need.  Rebate the proceeds by fixing the AMT, or removing the payroll tax on low-income Americans, one answer to the income distribution point.  In any case McCain’s proposal for a gas tax holiday is a spectacularly bad idea.

The other obvious market failure that might justify government intervention in the market is national security, and here we come to argument number (4), and the central point of my post.  While Americans need to recognize that achieving complete energy security is an impossible goal, it should indeed by a national objective to reduce our dependence on imported oil.  We could thereby reduce our need to fight messy wars in the Mideast and to coddle unpalatable autocrats worldwide.  But, in the first place, conservation — not new drilling – is the largest and most sustainable component of such a strategy.   In the second place, as high as world energy prices are now by historical standards, this is not the worst-case geopolitical crisis that we should be seeking to protect our economy against.  That worst-case scenario is a prolonged loss of world access to Gulf oil stemming from some combination of military conflict with Iran, anti-Western popular uprisings in the region, terrorism, and/or nuclear or radiological weapons. 

So Arthur Laffer — still arguing the improbable “supply side” proposition that cutting income tax rates generally raises total tax revenue — is apparently now a special adviser to John McCain. And McCain has taken on a big consignment of the snake oil, to Greg Mankiw’s dismay. The political temptation for a Republican candidate to promise both lower tax rates and higher revenues is irresistible. The policy-makers who cut taxes when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively, came to power subscribed to this claim. Remarkably, at the same time, the economists who were the chief economic advisers to Reagan and Bush during these tax cuts disavow the proposition that they increase revenue (Murray Weidenbaum, Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard, Mankiw…) . Almost all serious economists – let us say Ph.D. economists – disagree with this proposition, with only a microscopic handful of exceptions like Laffer. Indeed some of the advisers who defend the Reagan and Bush economic policies claim that this formulation of supply side economics is a caricature, and was not the true rationale of the tax cuts. This wishful thinking is directly at odds with quotes from the presidents themselves and their Treasury secretaries and other economic officials, to the effect that tax cuts stimulate income so much as to produce more tax revenue. Laffer is not a straw man. (See my next post.)

Even more interesting, the academic defenders of the Republican tax cuts often offer a proposition that is diametrically opposed to the defense offered by their political masters. This is the famous “starve the beast” hypothesis: the claim that if you deprive the government of tax revenue, it will reduce government spending, which is of course viewed as a worthy objective. If this proposition were true, and the supply side hypothesis were also true, it would lead to the nonsensical proposition that Republican presidents should raise tax rates in order to reduce tax revenue (Laffer) and thereby reduce government spending (Starve the Beast). I challenge some candidate to run on that platform !

As it happens, there is abundant empirical evidence against both the Lafferite hypothesis and the Starve the Beast hypothesis. In other words, just because two propositions are diametrically opposed doesn’t mean they are not both wrong. I hope that in this election campaign, the media do something they have failed to do in the past. If McCain proposes extending the Bush tax cuts, he should at least be forced to choose between the Lafferite defense, which tends to be driven more by political expediency, and the “Starve the Beast” defense, which has more support among at least some reputable Republican economists. Only then can the rest of us know which of the two propositions to refute.

At the 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq, estimates of its long-run cost range from $1.2-$1.7 trillion by my former colleague Peter Orszag, now Director of the Congressional Budget Office, to $2 - 3 trillion by my current colleague Linda Bilmes with another former colleague Joe Stiglitz (in a book that is appropriately getting lots of attention, including for example from John Cusack). The important point is that the costs far exceed the $50-$60 billion that the White House predicted ahead of time.

A story in today’s New York Times proclaims “Estimates of Iraqi War Cost Were Not Close to Ballpark.” It turns out that the pre-war estimates they are talking about are those that came from the Bush Administration. At the very end, the article finally mentions “Only one economist, William D. Nordhaus of Yale, seems to have come close. In a paper in December 2002, he offered a worst-case scenario of $1.9 trillion, ‘if the war drags on, occupation is lengthy, nation building is costly.’” You might not guess from the NYT story that Bill Nordhaus’s study was the only thorough independent professional attempt to estimate the cost of invading Iraq ahead of time. (At least it is the only one that I was aware of.)

The question is why the media did not give more attention to the Nordhaus estimates, and less attention to the Administration’s crazily over-optimistic forecasts, while there was still time for the nation to make an intelligent policy choice. The media’s omission was all the more conspicuous in that by December 2002 the White House’s crazily over-optimistic forecasts of the federal budget overall had already become apparent. And they are all still at it.

Floyd Norris notes in the New York Times (Feb. 9, 2008, p.B3),“George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector.”    It is another bit of confirmation of the truth behind a comment that “Joe S.” posted in response to my blog entry of February 6 (“Reagan and Stalin”): “What, pray tell, does the Republican Party have to do with conservatism?”  

The liberal and conservative labels are no longer useful.   It’s not that shorthand political labels are never useful; they are, even though individuals resist pigeonholing. 

And it’s not just that these particular words have long since lost their original meanings.   Linguistically, “liberalism” of course was supposed to refer to a philosophy of leaving individuals free from interference by government and other entrenched institutions, while “conservatism” was supposed to mean valuing continuity and stability.   But it is a commonplace that Americans use the word “liberal” to mean the opposite of what it meant in the 19^th century (which is now often called “neoliberal,” for some reason).  

Supporters and detractors alike still considered George W. Bush a conservative, despite the original meaning of the word, when he launched radical departures from longstanding American principles  in the spheres of foreign policy and domestic policy.   The White House has asserted maximal political powers for the executive, and has used these powers to enact virtually unprecedented levels of interventionist policies, ranging from Iraq to domestic citizens’ right to privacy.   

But people still seem to think that the Bush Administration also stands for conservatism in the economic sphere as well.   Or some think that President Bush may no longer stand for economic conservatism, but that other Republican politicians do.   I would contend that, not just George W. Bush, but also Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and (to a lesser extent) George H.W. Bush, all — in sharp distinction from their conservative rhetoric – in practice have been interventionist.  They have all wandered, far from the principles of good neoclassical economics, and far from from the principles of small government and laissez faire.  How far?   Farther than did, for example, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.  

The criteria are:
(1) Growth in the size of the government, as measured by employment and spending.
(2) Lack of fiscal discipline, as measured by budget deficits.
(3) Lack of commitment to price stability, as measured by pressure on the Fed for easier monetary policy when politically advantageous.
(4) Departures from free trade.
(5) Use of government powers to protect and subsidize favored special interests (such as the oil and gas sector, among many others).   

Documentation that Republican presidents have since 1971 indulged in these five departures from “conservatism” to a greater extent than Democratic presidents can be found in some writings of mine, listed below.   The name I would give to this set of economic policies, as well as to the parallel abuses of executive power in the areas of foreign policy and domestic policy, is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” but, rather, “illiberal.”

Original:     “Republican and Democratic Presidents Have Switched Economic Policies,” in Milken Institute Review, vol. 5, no.1, 1st Quarter, 2003, pp.18-25.

Shortest:    “Trading Places” , Financial Times, Sept. 13, 2002.

Most recent: “Responding to Crises,” for 24^th Annual Monetary Conference, Cato Institute.   Cato Journal vol. 27, no. 2, Spring/Summer, 2007, pp 165-1708.