Yes as long as "cuts" are interpreted as slower than projected growth. Provided that economic growth continues, no need for level cuts
|Alberto Alesina||Harvard||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
Raising efficiency of US healthcare to level of other developed countries would dramatically reduce need for tax increases and benefit cuts
|Alan Auerbach||Berkeley||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|David Autor||MIT||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Katherine Baicker||Harvard||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Abhijit Banerjee||MIT||Uncertain||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Marianne Bertrand||Chicago||Uncertain||1||Bio/Vote History|
|Markus Brunnermeier||Princeton||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Raj Chetty||Stanford||Agree||9||Bio/Vote History|
|Judith Chevalier||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
There are ways of making the health care programs much more efficient, which would obviate the need for tax increases for some time.
|Angus Deaton||Princeton||No Opinion||
Does the question include a potential VAT? Other taxes?
|Darrell Duffie||Stanford||Agree||3||Bio/Vote History|
|Aaron Edlin||Berkeley||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
You tell me the growth rate of GDP and evolutiom of relative health care costs, and I'll tell you...
|Liran Einav||Stanford||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Ray Fair||Yale||Agree||5||Bio/Vote History|
|Amy Finkelstein||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Pinelopi Goldberg||Yale||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
doesn't have to. we are cursed with the blessing of choice on this issue: nothing happens b/c everyone says 'let's let the other guy pay'
|Michael Greenstone||Chicago||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Hall||Stanford||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
It all depends on how much revenue can be raised by increasing taxes on those earning more than 250K. I don't know the answer to this.
|Bengt Holmström||MIT||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Caroline Hoxby||Stanford||Strongly Agree||10||Bio/Vote History|
|Hilary Hoynes||Berkeley||No Opinion||Bio/Vote History|
|Kenneth Judd||Stanford||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Steven Kaplan||Chicago||Strongly Agree||10||
The math becomes more inevitable (and uglier) after 2020.
|Anil Kashyap||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Pete Klenow||Stanford||Strongly Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Seems likely especially if health care costs grow.
|Eric Maskin||Harvard||Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|William Nordhaus||Yale||Agree||6||Bio/Vote History|
|Emmanuel Saez||Berkeley||Uncertain||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Larry Samuelson||Yale||Strongly Agree||8||Bio/Vote History|
|José Scheinkman||Princeton||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Richard Schmalensee||MIT||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
|Carl Shapiro||Berkeley||Did Not Answer||Bio/Vote History|
|Robert Shimer||Chicago||Agree||7||Bio/Vote History|
Impossible to answer without knowing more. What are the alternative revenue sources?
|Christopher Udry||Yale||Agree||2||Bio/Vote History|
This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.
Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".
The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.
Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.
The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.