April, 06 2011, 11:31am EDT

Ryan's Unbelievable Path to Prosperity
New House Republican Budget Plan Relies on Fantastical Heritage Foundation Predictions
WASHINGTON
The budget put forth by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for fiscal year 2012 beginning in October makes fantastical claims about its impact on investment, economic growth, and jobs. Rep. Ryan is basing claims of incredible economic benefits from his 2012-2021 budget proposal--that cuts taxes for the rich and lumps burdens onto middle-class families--on forecasts generated by an economic model from the conservative Heritage Foundation. We've been down this path before.
And it wasn't pretty. Nor was it a prosperous path for most American families. Twice before, in 2001 and 2003, the Heritage Foundation provided economic forecasts purporting massive economic gains from President George W. Bush's tax cuts similarly slanted toward the very rich. To put it mildly, the Heritage economic model is worth less than a broken clock, which can at least be right twice a day. And something doesn't smell right about their latest predictions either--the ones that Rep. Ryan is trumpeting in support of his "Path to Prosperity."
If Heritage's model boasts any track record at all, it is that the opposite of what it predicts will happen, which means Rep. Ryan's new budget plan would be more aptly named "Path to Prosperity, But Only for the Rich." Consider the think tank's most recent predictions for the House Republican budget plan with its past failures.
The Heritage economic model predicts:
- Nearly 1 million additional jobs created in 2012, with the unemployment rate falling to 6.4 percent. Actually, at the pace of job creation they estimate, unemployment will likely be around 8 percent by the end of 2012. Heritage's job-creation estimate would need to be more than 2.3 million higher between now and 2012--more than 50 percent higher than their estimate--in order to actually reach an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent by the end of 2012; past Heritage predictions overestimated job creation by an average of 6.2 million jobs per year.
- An additional 2.1 million jobs by 2021, which they say will lead to an unemployment rate of 2.8 percent. This rate is below what most economists--and the Federal Reserve--consider inflationary. Well before reaching this rate, the Fed would certainly intervene to create more unemployment and slow the economy. That the Heritage model doesn't reflect this demonstrates it is not based in reality.
- Average 2.7 percent real annual growth in gross domestic product after accounting for inflation; past Heritage predictions overestimated GDP growth by nearly 1 percentage point, which means they overstated growth by a factor of more than one-third.
- Housing investment will grow, incredibly, at more than double the pace of its peak in the 2000s housing bubble, while business investment will grow at more than double the pace of the business cycle between 2001-2007. Past Heritage predictions for investment overall would grow 5.4 percent annually, while actual investment grew by less than half of that at 2.1 percent a year.
We've seen the reliability of Heritage economic modeling before. There's no reason to believe it now, either.
But this time around, the Heritage model's economic forecasts touted by Rep. Ryan are not just fantastical, they are wildly fantastical. We now have the data to evaluate the economic policies of tax cutting slanted toward corporations and the wealthy at the expense of middle-class families during the Bush presidency. We also have the data to evaluate the credibility of the Heritage Foundation's economic model. Both are clear failures that should be rejected by policymakers and the American people. So let's dig a little deeper into Heritage's inauspicious record.
Heritage economic model's inauspicious record
Economists use models to predict how changes in policy or other factors will potentially affect economic outcomes. But, as with any modeling exercise, the real issue is what assumptions about how the economy works go into the mix. And it's those assumptions that are the fatal flaw of the Heritage model.
The Heritage estimates begin with the Joint Committee on Taxation's model of the effects of tax changes on the federal budget. They incorporate this into a so-called "dynamic" model of the economy. Heritage's model incorporates what they believe to be changes in people's behavior that will occur as a result of the changes in tax policy, thus the moniker "dynamic." The problem isn't that Heritage models behavior; it is that their model of behavior is not connected to how people in our economy have been shown to actually behave.
The Heritage model then compares its estimates to the Congressional Budget Office "alternative fiscal scenario," which include the fixes to the Alternative Minimum Tax and Medicare payments to physicians, both of which Congress repeatedly "fixes" every year. Heritage researchers then claim that the difference between that CBO baseline and their model's output is what we should expect if Ryan's budget is implemented. Since their model includes unrealistic models of how people will react to the Ryan policy changes, this leads to fantastical estimates of output and employment growth.
Anyone can make an economic forecasting model. But the true measure of a model's worth is how accurately it forecasts future economic developments. Before looking at what their model predicts for the Ryan budget proposal, it's important to understand how well this model has performed in the past. Heritage analyzed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts using a similar dynamic scoring methodology. In 2001 they predicted that if the Bush tax cuts were implemented, between FY 2002 and FY 2011 income for a family of four would increase by $4,544, investment in our economy would grow 1.9 percent a year, gross domestic product would grow by an average of 3.3 percent per year, more than 1.6 million more jobs would be added, and the unemployment rate would average to 4.7 percent over the 10-year period. But that's not what happened.
In fact, the period following the Bush tax cuts yielded one of the worst economic performances, as investment growth, employment, and output were slower than in any other economic recovery in the post-World War II era. Further, rather than growing by nearly $5,000, for the first time in any economic recovery since the end of World War II, our nation's middle-class families saw their incomes fall after factoring for inflation.
The actual feeble performance of our economy under the Bush-era tax cuts was a far cry from what the Heritage Foundation's economic model had predicted. Take, for example, Heritage's 2001 forecasts for job creation and GDP growth effects from the Bush tax cuts. To measure the effect of the Bush tax-cut policies, Heritage's forecasts and actual economic performance are compared to a baseline scenario of what would have happened in the absence of any policy changes. Heritage's model did not fare well in predicting the job-creation effect of the Bush tax cuts (see Figure 1).
In every year, the Heritage model simply gets the employment forecasts wrong, even before the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. Between 2001 and 2007, Heritage predicted the economy--spurred by the tax cuts--would add an average of 739,000 new jobs in addition to what would have been created in the baseline scenario. Instead, the Bush tax cuts failed to even maintain job creation at the baseline and job growth fell short of the baseline by 5.5 million jobs per year on average, and 6.2 million fewer per year than predicted by the Heritage model.
Including the years of the Great Recession shows the Heritage job forecasts to be even farther from the mark. But perhaps it is too much to ask their forecasting model to predict the drastic economic consequences of the tax-cutting policies it supported. And as the Bush tax cuts underperformed, the economy also fell farther and farther away from the baseline employment scenario, let alone the egregiously errant Heritage model predictions (to see Figure 2 and for the full article, click here).
Heather Boushey is a Senior Economist at the Center for American Progress. Adam Hersh is an Economist at the Center.
The Center for American Progress is a think tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We combine bold policy ideas with a modern communications platform to help shape the national debate, expose the hollowness of conservative governing philosophy and challenge the media to cover the issues that truly matter.
LATEST NEWS
Michigan's Democratic AG Under Fire After Armed Agents Raid Homes of Palestine Defenders
"We are totally convinced that, but for their viewpoints, these students would not have been targeted," said one attorney.
Apr 23, 2025
Federal and local law enforcement officers smashed their way into the Michigan homes of pro-Palestine student organizers on Wednesday in what the state attorney general's office said was a vandalism probe—but critics called an attack on dissent against Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
Backed by FBI agents, officers broke into homes in Ypsilanti, Canton, and Ann Arbor on Wednesday morning. Video uploaded to social media by Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, showed officers battering down the door to a Ypsilanti house before others rushed into the home barking commands with guns drawn and pointed at the residents.
"No search warrant was provided," someone says in the video as the invaders crashed through the homes' locked front door. People in the house said their phones and other electronic devices and possessions, including vehicles, were taken.
🚨BREAKING | Officials Confirms Raids in Multiple Cities; TAHRIR Coalition Says FBI Agents, Michigan State Police, and Local Officers Targeted Pro-Palestine Organizers
[image or embed]
— Drop Site (@dropsitenews.com) April 23, 2025 at 12:44 PM
MLivereported that people inside the home were handcuffed and moved to the porch outside before being released about 15 minutes later.
The pro-Palestine advocacy group TAHRIR Coalition rallied supporters to two of the homes. Video posted on YouTube shows members of a crowd that gathered outside the Ypsilanti house taunting the agents as they came in and out of the home.
According toDrop Site News, Ann Arbor police said that the investigation involves "reported crimes" committed in the city and other jurisdictions.
An FBI spokesperson confirmed bureau agents took part in the raids, which he described vaguely as "law enforcement activities."
Danny Wimmer, a spokesperson for Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is Jewish, told the Detroit Free Press that the raids "were not related to protest activity on the campus of the University of Michigan," but were "in furtherance of our investigation into multijurisdictional acts of vandalism."
"There is no immigration enforcement angle to the execution of these search warrants," Wimmer added.
However, Liz Jacob, an attorney with the Sugar Law Center in Detroit, noted that "everyone who was raided has taken part in protest and has some relationship to the University of Michigan."
"We are totally convinced that, but for their viewpoints, these students would not have been targeted," Jacob added.
Jacob said seven people were targeted in Wednesday's raids. No arrests were made. The attorney also noted that the warrants were signed by Judge Michelle Friedman Appel, whose jurisdiction includes Huntington Woods, where vandals painted graffiti and inflicted other damage at the home of University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker while the Jewish man and his family slept inside last December.
Last month, vandals also damaged the Ann Arbor home of Provost Laurie McCauley.
The Graduate Employees' Organization, a union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, said one of its members was detained during Wednesday's raids.
"We strongly condemn the actions taken today and all past and present repression of political activism," the group said. "We urge University of Michigan administrators, the regents of the University of Michigan, and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to end their campaign against students and stop putting graduate workers in harm's way."
Dawud Walid, the Michigan director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a statement that "we call into question the aggressive nature of this morning's raids of activists' homes, which follows the recent misuse of prosecutorial power in Michigan and throughout our country against pro-Palestinian activists."
"In any other context, such minor infractions would be handled by local law enforcement or referred to local, elected prosecutors—not escalated to federal intervention," Walid added. "This disproportionate response further fuels the perception that Muslim and Arab students, and those who stand in solidarity with them, are being treated overly hostile by law enforcement compared to those who commit harm toward American Muslims."
According to CAIR:
This recent escalation comes on the heels of prior arrests and charges brought by the Michigan attorney general's office against University of Michigan student protesters for minor, nonviolent infractions—including misdemeanor trespassing—during peaceful demonstrations advocating for Palestinian human rights, an end to the genocide in Gaza, and for the University of Michigan to divest from companies complicit in the occupation and violence.
After Nessel announced criminal charges—some of them felonies—for 11 University of Michigan Palestine defenders last September, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American member of Congress, said the attorney general was "going to set a precedent, and it's unfortunate that a Democrat made that move."
"We've had the right to dissent, the right to protest. We've done it for climate, the immigrant rights movement, for Black lives, and even around issues of injustice among water shutoffs," Tlaib said. "But it seems that the attorney general decided if the issue was Palestine, she was going to treat it differently, and that alone speaks volumes about possible biases within the agency she runs."
At the federal level, the Trump administration has been arresting and initiating deportation proceedings against international students who have taken part in pro-Palestine campus protests. Although the government admits the targeted individuals have committed no crimes, immigration law allows the removal of foreign nationals deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abrego Garcia Family Flees to Safe House After Trump DHS Posts Home Address on Social Media
"The Trump administration doxxed an American citizen, endangering her and her children. This is completely unacceptable and flat-out wrong."
Apr 23, 2025
The Trump administration has not only sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a Salvadoran megaprison due to an "administrative error" and so far refused to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order to facilitate his return to the United States, but also shared on social media the home address of his family in Maryland, forcing them to relocate.
The news that Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and her children were "moved to a safe house by supporters" after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted to X a 2021 order of protection petition that Vasquez Sura filed but soon abandoned was reported early Tuesday by The Washington Post.
"I don't feel safe when the government posts my address, the house where my family lives, for everyone to see, especially when this case has gone viral and people have all sorts of opinions," said Vasquez Sura. "So, this is definitely a bit terrifying. I'm scared for my kids."
A DHS spokesperson did not respond Monday to a request for a comment about not redacting the family's address, according to the newspaper's lengthy story about Vasquez Sura—who shares a 5-year-old nonverbal, autistic son with Abrego Garcia and has a 9-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter from a previous relationship that was abusive.
On Wednesday, The New Republicpublished a short article highlighting the safe house detail and noting that "the government has not commented on the decision to leave the family's address in the document it posted online," sparking a fresh wave of outrage over the Trump administration endangering the family.
He was "mistakenly" deported to prison camp, and it was just a "slip-up" that they then posted his wife's address. Bullshit. If these are all accidents, who's getting fired?
[image or embed]
— Ezra Levin (@ezralevin.bsky.social) April 23, 2025 at 12:29 PM
"The Trump administration doxxed an American citizen, endangering her and her children," MSNBC contributor Rotimi Adeoye wrote on X Wednesday. "This is completely unacceptable and flat-out wrong."
Several others responded on the social media platform Bluesky.
"These fascists didn't stop at abducting Abrego Garcia, they've now doxxed his wife, forcing her into hiding," said Dean Preston, the leader of a renters' rights organization. "The Trump administration is terrorizing this family. Speak up, show up, resist."
Jonathan Cohn, political director for the group Progressive Mass, similarly declared, "The Trump administration is terrorizing this woman."
Katherine Hawkins, senior legal analyst for the Project On Government Oversight's Constitution Project, openly wondered "if publishing Abrego Garcia and his wife's home address violates federal or (particularly) Maryland laws."
"Definitely unconscionable and further demonstration of bad faith/intimidation," Hawkins added.
While Abrego Garcia's family seeks refuge in a U.S. safe house, he remains behind bars in his native El Salvador—despite the Supreme Court order from earlier this month and an immigration judge's 2019 decision that was supposed to prevent his deportation. Multiple congressional Democrats have flown to the country in recent days to support demands for his freedom.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Lawyers Coalition Says Elite Firms Have Only One Choice: Capitulate to Trump—Or Fight Back
"These threats reveal the administration's own fear. They don't want you in court where they will lose. They are afraid to find out what happens if you and other firms stand together as a profession," says an open letter from legal groups.
Apr 23, 2025
In an open letter published Wednesday, amid the Trump administration's unprecedented scrutiny on Big Law, multiple legal groups are calling on elite American law firms to convene and coordinate a unified response to U.S. President Donald Trump's "unconstitutional actions" and "threats to the rule of law and system of justice."
The legal groups include the coalition Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), the coalition Lawyers Allied Under Rule of Law, and the Steady State—which, according to the executive director of LDAD, "formed in the first Trump term as a loose association that maintained a low internet profile because many members were in government," but has "become much more organized and active" in response to the president's Department of Government Efficiency.
The groups drew a distinction between the several elite law firms who in recent weeks have negotiated deals with the Trump administration either in response to punishments imposed via executive order or to avoid the prospect of an executive order, and law firms who have resisted the Trump administration's pressure.
The law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have all filed suits challenging Trump's executive orders targeting them. All four have won initial relief in court.
According to the letter, more than 800 other firms, including 17 firms on the Am Law 200—a ranking of top law firms based on gross revenue—have joined amicus briefs in defense of the firms that have sued.
"Lawyers Defending American Democracy calls on the 170 undeclared Am Law 200 firms to avoid the path of those now notorious nine," the letter states.
"If you are one of these firms, you understand that the threatened executive edicts are not legal or enforceable. Rather, they are a tactic designed to enlist you in undermining the rule of law. Any concession by your prestigious firms only helps the administration intimidate the legal profession from challenging its actions," according to the legal groups.
The letter states that negotiating with the administration is futile in part because "there exists no reasonable terms for resolving this dispute."
The letter also points to the fact that all four courts that have heard the cases from firms challenging Trump "have held that the likelihood of these law firms succeeding on the merits is so great that they have taken the extraordinary step of issuing temporary restraining orders against the government’s enforcement." This is evidence, according to the letter, that negotiation is unnecessary.
"If you band together and agree to support one another, the White House strategy will collapse," the letter states. "These threats reveal the administration's own fear. They don't want you in court where they will lose. They are afraid to find out what happens if you and other firms stand together as a profession."
"We must fight because if lawyers don't stand up for the rule of law, who will? If we don't fight for the principles that we have devoted our professional lives to—and that make us a free society—those principles will be forever compromised," the letter concludes.
According to a statement from LDAD, the legal groups behind the letter collectively represent over 1,000 lawyers who who have worked as senior partners, judges, state attorneys general, senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, as general counsel for major companies, and state bar presidents.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular