1. Paul says I have never admitted to making a math error. Well, I would if I thought I made such an error. I make them all the time. But in this case I am not convinced. Neither is University of Chicago professor Casey Mulligan, who thinks Paul made a math error. I spoke with several other economists (some of whom share Paul's politics) and they don't see Paul's point either.*
2. Paul says that economists like me have not been sufficiently critical of President Trump and his policies. Let me point out
A . I said during the election that I would not vote for him.3. Paul thinks that economists like me should be more vocal about how horrible the tax bill is. I might be if I thought it was completely horrible, but despite its many flaws, there are parts that I like, including the lower corporate tax rate, the move to a territorial tax system, the reduced deduction for state and local taxes, and the scaled back mortgage interest deduction (in the House bill). Overall, the tax bill is a mixed bag, with some bad features and some good features.
B. I criticized his obsession with the trade deficit.
C. I encouraged tax reform to be revenue neutral.
D. I called the tax bill an "unworkable mess."
E. I lamented the new tax on university endowments.
4. Paul seems to take the position that unless you agree with him about the tax bill, you are unprincipled. In the world as I see it, reasonable people can disagree, and progress is best made when people do not question the moral rectitude of others simply because they hold different opinions.
*Update: Robert Waldmann looks at the issue, concluding "no one has made an algebra mistake. Taxes on capital and capital income are different."