I'm not sure anyone should believe this, but The Wall Street Journal offers (on page A1 of the print edition) its guess of the new Congress's economic priorities:
The [Democratic] party has yet to spell out its entire legislative agenda, but its leaders are talking about quickly boosting the minimum wage, seeking to curb executive pay and pushing for higher taxes on business, particularly oil companies...
Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat who is expected to become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, cites "ending tax shelters for companies that move American jobs overseas" as one of his main objectives. He is also expected to complicate the White House's efforts to further liberalize trade by demanding strong protections for labor in any trade deals.
California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the probable new speaker of the House, has already called for ending "tax giveaways" to oil companies, negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for better drug prices for federal health programs and rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans...
Raising the minimum wage is one fight the Democrats are expected to win.
I suspect that last part is right, and although I am not a fan of minimum wage legislation, I'll admit that the conclusion that it is an unmitigated evil is controversial. But as I've said before, it makes a whole lot more sense to me to use mechanisms like the Earned Income Tax Credit that provide incentives to supply labor. Furthermore, the best way to improve the fortunes of low-skill workers is to turn them into high-skill workers.
As for the other part of the purported program, I am unenthusiastic to say the least. My thoughts on windfall profit taxes can be found here, here, and here. And without endorsing his interpretation of what it all means, Robert Blitz has a nice summary of recent comments from Federal Reserve officials regarding the positive power of globalization (hat tip to Dutchbook Partners' Stan Jonas for that link). "[E]nding tax shelters for companies that move American jobs overseas" does not sound to me like a useful step toward unleashing that power.
If I was in charge, everything on the economic front would take a back seat to addressing long-term fiscal imbalances with a combination of considered spending policy (Budget Enforcement Act, anyone?), tax reform, and Medicare and Social Security reform. Maybe those will indeed take center stage when the new majority's legislative agenda is spelled out. Here's hoping.
UPDATE:
pgl challenges me, in the comment section below:
Come on David - say it. "Considered spending policy" means what? Say spending CUTS. "Tax reform" means what? Say tax increases. We know we have do a lot of ome or a sizeable amount of both. But here we have a very clear economist using the terminology of a politician. Why? I know John Kerry can't bring himself to speak clearly no more than George W. Bush can. But we are not running for office - are we?
I am not running for office, but neither am I presuming in this instance to impose my value judgments on others. If the collective wisdom is that government spending should actually be increasing, then so be it. My plea is rather for institutional reforms that make spending choices more transparent and impose greater accountability on those who would dip into our pockets.
Nor do I equate tax reform with tax increases. While I of course agree that the aim has to be to bring the present-value of spending and the present-value of receipts into line, I am open to considering all approaches to that goal. I long ago lost my deficit fetish, and if getting an honest-to-goodness deliberation on, say, consumption-based or flat taxes comes at the cost of running the red ink for awhile -- at levels, it still needs to be said, that are utterly manageable --than I am all for it.