Must-Read: Well, well, well, I was wrong: Glenn Hubbard has issued a peep—but not, I note, an op-ed. And Douglas Holtz-Eakin—well, I do not know what Douglas Holtz-Eakin is doing: Jonathan Chait: The Republican War on Economics: "On Meet the Press Sunday, Chuck Todd asked Susan Collins how she could support a huge tax cut after having complained about excessive debt...
...Economic growth produces more revenue and that will help to offset this tax cut and actually lower the debt...
she calmly replied. An incredulous Todd asked Collins how she could defend such a claim when every study has concluded the opposite. She cited Glenn Hubbard, Larry Lindsey, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Jennifer Rubin got ahold of two of the three, Hubbard and Holtz-Eakin. Both economists denied having ever claimed the Republican tax cuts would produce enough growth to recoup the lost revenue...
Unfortunately, Douglas Holtz-Eakin is a lead signer on the Hundred-Odd Unprofessional Republican Economists Letter: "Sophisticated economic models show the macroeconomic feedback generated by the TCJA will exceed... enough to compensate for the static revenue loss..."
This is, for Holtz-Eakin, a "who are you going to believe—me or your lying eyes?" moment.
For I have no idea how to reconcile Holtz-Eakin's role as leader of the Hundred-Odd Unprofessional Economists with this:
Jennifer Rubin: Republicans keep misrepresenting what they did on the debt: "Douglas Holtz-Eakin told me that 'we told her that pro-growth policy mattered, would help people and would offset (but not eliminate) the static budget loss'..."
Perhaps Douglas Holtz-Eakin is now saying that although "sophisticated economic models show the macroeconomic feedback generated by the TCJA will exceed... enough to compensate for the static revenue loss..." he does not himself believe in such sophisticated economic models?
