This Trump Appointee Could Bring Fiscal Sanity to the White House
"Personnel is policy" has shaped past administrations. Kevin Hassett, who has been tapped to lead the National Economic Council, will have a hand in tax reform, debt reduction, and more.

The fate of President Donald Trump's ambitious economic policy plans will be determined by the people he appoints to critical positions. With a debt of over $36 trillion (heading toward $59 trillion in 2035 by some estimates), inflation not resolved, an entitlement crisis looming, and the need to extend the president's 2017 tax cuts, we'd better hope the cooler, more experienced heads prevail.
As it happens, Kevin Hassett, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and later a senior adviser to the president during Trump's first administration, has been appointed to lead the National Economic Council. Clearly one of the economists Trump trusts most, Hassett might just be the person capable of charting a fiscally responsible path through challenging circumstances.
"Personnel is policy" is not just a platitude; it's a fact that's shaped past administrations. Key advisers have long played leading roles crafting monumental economic policies.
It's a long list that includes Arthur Laffer, whose theories on tax cuts and supply-side economics fundamentally reshaped fiscal policy and spurred growth during the Reagan years. Ezekiel Emanuel has been called the architect of the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act, with long-lasting impacts on U.S. health care.
Hassett could play an equally significant role. Take the debate about extending Trump's tax cuts. Letting them all expire isn't really an option, but tax cuts are expensive. How to pay is crucial. Unfortunately, in this populist era, corporations are often scapegoated for all that's wrong with the world, and some voices are demanding higher corporate tax rates to pay for individual cuts.
Here, Hassett's scholarship will prove invaluable. In 2006, he and Aparna Mathur coauthored the first empirical study examining the link between corporate taxes and manufacturing wages. Analyzing data from 72 countries over 22 years, they found that the burden of corporate income taxes is largely shouldered by workers through lower wages.
This conclusion has since been reinforced by many studies. In a recent review of the academic literature, Cato Institute economist Adam Michel writes: "The best economic evidence suggests that workers pay more than half, and likely three-quarters, of the cost of the corporate tax. Thus, cutting business taxes is a tax cut for working Americans."
While there are still debates over details, it's now well established that corporate tax cuts aren't simply giveaways to wealthy capitalists. Having someone within the administration who is so authoritative on this issue will be essential if we're to avoid the mistake of paying for some tax extensions with damaging corporate tax hikes.
Indeed, Hassett's work will be important in assessing which expiring tax provisions should absolutely be extended based on an ability to trigger investment, productivity, and economic growth. In that respect, his recent paper on the 2017 corporate tax reforms, coauthored with the Hoover Institution's Jon Hartley and Josh Rauh, demonstrates the importance of restoring the full-expensing provision that is now phasing out. Allowing businesses to fully deduct their investments means productivity, growth, and a more prosperous workforce.
Beyond tax reform work, Hassett has been a key researcher on how best to reduce the debt. In 2010, he and coauthors Andrew Biggs and Matthew Jensen published a paper covering more than 100 instances in which countries tried to reduce budget gaps. Governments which "addressed their budget shortfalls through reduced spending burdens were far more likely to reduce their debt than countries whose budget-balancing strategies depended upon higher taxes."
What's more, "the typical unsuccessful fiscal consolidation consisted of 53 percent tax increases and 47 percent spending cuts. By contrast, the typical successful fiscal consolidation consisted of 85 percent spending cuts."
As Hassett, Biggs, and Jensen made clear, a vast majority of countries that have attempted to reduce debt-to-GDP ratios have failed precisely by relying too heavily on higher tax rates. Considering that the United States needs to implement austerity measures sooner rather than later—it's more a question of "when" than "if"—having someone who understands the importance of carefully designing fiscal adjustments is, once again, essential.
There are many other areas where Hassett could be influential. While he may believe that Trump's tariffs can be used to get concessions from other countries, he understands that, fundamentally, these are taxes imposed on Americans that pave no path to prosperity.
Much attention has been given to Trump's appointees in areas like health care and defense. Hassett's appointment should not be overlooked. It signals a focus on growth, job creation, and even elusive fiscal responsibility—not just short-term populist measures.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It signals a focus on growth, job creation, and even elusive fiscal responsibility—not just short-term populist measures.
Do... do you not understand how democracies work? Have you been living under a rock? Doesn't the whole premise of your 'Free Minds and Free Markets' magazine turn on the notion that these principles are actually popular and this isn't some sort of "A burning bush spoke to Hassett and told him to focus on growth, job creation, and fiscal responsibility." divine intervention or immaculate conception?
Indeed.
Trump w/a [R]-trifecta = $665 & $779B deficits
Biden w/a [D]-trifecta = $2,772B & $1,376B deficits
And it's mostly consistent throughout all of US history.
A [D]-trifecta will run a DEBT 3-TIMES that of any [R]-trifecta.
It's part of the [D]'s [Na]tional So[zi]alist mentality.
'Guns' don't make sh*t. And 'Guns' is all government has in it's toolbox.
And it's mostly consistent throughout all of US history.
so you'd prefer a Democratic president with a Republican Congress therefore.
Weird. For not being shrike you always have the same exact argument as shrike. Then again this is a standard leftist claim. Knowing GOPe is manufactured opposition.
He gave no such statistics. From what hat did you get the idea?
Pulled it out of his ass.
De Rugy states that how to pay for extending Trump's tax cuts is crucial. She seems to imply that an increase in corporate taxes isn't an option. There wouldn't be any point in increasing individual taxes to pay for extending Trump's tax cuts, or else they wouldn't be tax cuts anymore.
This Hassett guy must know some super special way to pay for them. De Rugy doesn't suggest what that even might be. This Hassett guy must know some amazing stuff.
You don't "pay" for tax cuts. That assumption means you believe all income is the government's and they are paying you to keep some.
Just because the government spends like mad, doesn't mean you have to support taxing, instead demand they stop spending like mad.
Your view is backwards.
"This Hassett guy must know some super special way to pay for them. De Rugy doesn't suggest what that even might be."
We must have read different articles; here's a pertinent quote from the article I read (which doesn't sound all that "amazing" to me):
" ... 'the typical unsuccessful fiscal consolidation consisted of 53 percent tax increases and 47 percent spending cuts ... the typical successful fiscal consolidation consisted of 85 percent spending cuts.'"
She is quite quite clear that reducing spending is the way to close the deficit. Did you RTFA?
To Doug Heffernan, spending cuts are not an option.
"...She seems to imply that an increase in corporate taxes isn't an option..."
You seem to think that "corporate taxes" are paid by the tooth fairy? Santa Claus? Purple unicorns?
Literally zero money is spent by allowing people to keep more of what they earn. What is expensive is the things government spends money on.
Most people understand that when A + B = C, if C stays constant, A must go up if B goes down. Most people understand the implication in the quoted sentence that it is in the context of C staying constant. Your complaint is a refusal to understand ordinary English.
And then she goes on to say that cutting spending, ie reducing C, is the best way to reduce deficit.
You sure try hard to misunderstand and misquote people.
Except I did none of that, and neither did she. She was explicitly talking about tax cuts, the expected result of which would be a loss of revenue. Losing revenue in and of itself is not an expense, and therefore cannot be expensive. A loss of revenue would ideally cause one to reexamine ones expenses and make attempts to reduce those in kind. Failing to do so still does not make the loss of revenue expensive.
I think this bears repeating, especially on "Reason" whose writers should know better: "Spurring growth" is not, and should never be, the goal for Federal government policy. What libertarians and fiscal conservatives should seek is a neutral government that does not hinder or promote growth. If the Federal government prints and issues currency into general circulation, and requires people to accept that currency for "all debts public and private," then it is reasonable to require it to stabilize the value of that currency. It is not necessary for there to be a National bank for that function; and it is not necessary for the Federal government to promote employment or any other social goals. It is sufficient for the government to pay for things it legitimately purchases through its legitimate functions under the Constitution with the currency it issues in non-inflationary amounts; and to take currency back out of circulation as needed to stabilize its value. This is especially important in an era when most transactions are conducted electronically and during international trades exchanging goods and services for U.S. dollars creating near-mythical "trade deficits."
"I think this bears repeating, especially on 'Reason' whose writers should know better: 'Spurring growth' is not, and should never be, the goal for Federal government policy. What libertarians and fiscal conservatives should seek is a neutral government that does not hinder or promote growth."
Where are you finding Reason writers advocating for the government to "spur" growth?
I found nothing in this article that advocated for "spurring growth", as I understand you to be using the term.
Government policies that try to spur growth directly are a mistake and typically fail.
But this article does not advocate that. If the government simply does not place barriers in the way of growth (an approach I believe Reason writers agree with); growth will effectively be spurred by private enterprise.
When the government is running budget deficits, as it currently is, tax cuts without spending cuts are not truly tax cuts, they are tax deferrals. They do not reduce the amount of money the government ultimately collects, they only change when the tax bill is due, and who pays it.
Maybe they are spending cut deferrals - why didn't you include that possibility? Either way, deferring reality is usually not a winning strategy for the future self.
deferring reality is usually not a winning strategy for the future self
"Not my problem!" -Current self.
lol
If you collect less in taxes, spend less. Period.
You can't "pay" for one tax cut by a tax raise elsewhere.
And, oh by the way, reducing the tax RATE is not necessarily reducing tax REVENUE.
Arthur Laffer, whose theories on tax cuts and supply-side economics fundamentally reshaped fiscal policy and spurred growth during the Reagan years.
LOL. Trickle-down economics doesn't work, we were on the wrong side of the Laffer curve so tax cuts resulted in a loss of revenue, and growth in the Reagan years was due in no small part to deficit spending as Reagan exploded the deficit.
Yes, a democrat like you believes things like that.
Of course we let the tax breaks expire.
And that paper is BS. Go look at it, their conclusions are not supported by the data, and their assumptions are questionable at best, easily refuted at worst.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20060315_TaxesandWages.pdf
The US had much higher taxes prior to the 80s and we had great economic growth and a solid middle class.
No. The US had much higher maximum tax rates, and many more exemptions, which does not equal higher taxes.
Indeed. And Molly’s conclusion were debunked as utter bullshit decades ago.
So was Molly; s/he smells of it.
No kidding. Practically no person paid a dollar of tax under the highest tax brackets. And prior to the tax reform act of 1986, taxpayers could deduct personal interest expenses.
No moron. You’re completely wrong. As usual. And if you’re looking for the culprit in stunted wage growth you need only look in a mirror.
Correlation is not causation. Between 1952 and 1999 federal revenue as a share of GDP remained between 15 and 19% despite significant variations in the top marginal tax rates.
Houses and cars were comparatively much cheaper back then. You legally couldn't build houses with two bathrooms for many years after WW2 due to restrictions on copper use. Houses were smaller on average, with fewer outlets per room, and anything more than a one-car garage was only for the wealthiest people. Three bedrooms was often the limit, with two or three boys or girls sharing one bedroom.
Cars weren't hyper-computerized, had no backup cameras or air bag systems, and were made more with steel than more expensive aluminum.
So it's no wonder they were more affordable.
"This Trump Appointee Could Bring Fiscal Sanity to the White House."
Any kind of sanity would be welcome anywhere in DC after four years of Biden's reign of error.