Cato Scholar Says Vance Misreads Policy as GDP‑First
Ryan Bourne argues JD Vance mischaracterizes economists and points to taxes, procurement, regulation and immigration as evidence that lawmakers often trade off GDP for other aims.
Overview
- Bourne counters JD Vance’s claim that the U.S. is governed to maximize GDP by showing economists do not advocate simple GDP maximization and routinely discuss broader measures of welfare.
- He points to concrete policy choices—individual income taxes, welfare spending, Buy‑American rules, the Jones Act, environmental permitting and zoning—that raise costs or limit output for non‑GDP goals.
- A review cited by Bourne finds that of 17 bills the CBO and JCT dynamically scored for GDP effects since 2000, only four became law, suggesting those projections do not determine legislative outcomes.
- Quantified examples in Bourne’s critique include OECD estimates that scrapping Buy‑American could add roughly $22 billion to GDP and ending the Jones Act could add $19–$64 billion, showing deliberate tradeoffs.
- Bourne also argues Vance confuses GDP as an accounting result with a political motive, noting much GDP growth comes from voluntary private choices and that longstanding laws like NEPA institutionalize non‑economic priorities.