Posts Tagged ‘ politics ’

The Government Needs to Improve the Economy

The title of this post may seem to be a no-brainer, and if it is, that’s good. Too much of the thinking in Washington at the moment is focused on the deficit and not on improving the economy. Both the economy and the deficit need work, but which is the more important and most pressing? Clearly, its the economy. No one should be complacent when we have 9% unemployment and anemic growth, but all anybody wants to talk about is the deficit which (shockingly) has nothing to do with unemployment. Sure, if we don’t deal with the deficit, at some point in the future we will have to pay higher taxes or get by with less government spending, but is that an immediate danger? Not at all.

The United States currently finds itself in the peculiar position of having an ever-growing mountain of debt and also having a lot of investors who can’t wait to buy it from us at rock-bottom rates. Under normal circumstances, as the amount that we owe increased we would have to increase the amount we payed investors (in the form of interest interest) to order to get them to buy our debt. But, thanks to a host of factors mostly out of our control (European debt crisis, Japanese economic troubles), we are currently selling our gobs of Treasury I.O.U.s for next to nothing. We are racking up tons of debt almost for free! Now, eventually the interest on our debt will rise and we will have to raise taxes and/or cut spending in order to pay it off, but for now (and probably for the next year or two) the US  deficit can increase almost without consequence.

That leads me back to my original point. Fixing the economy. The burst of the housing bubble wiped out much of Americans’ home equity and forced many into bankruptcy and foreclosure, while the stock market crash wiped out Americans’ savings and the subsequent mass layoffs left  many without jobs. As a result, Americans’ disposable income is at very low levels and that is a very bad thing in an economy that is based  70% off consumption. Without an infusion of money from somewhere, America is doomed to a slow, long slog back to good economic health.

Where could this infusion of money come from? The government of course. Robert Frank lays out the case for a payroll tax cut in the New York Times here. There is a 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on employees on every paycheck they receive and a 6.2 percent tax on employers every time they give their employee a paycheck. Cutting these taxes would give employees more money in their wallets which they would spend, buying things to stimulate the economy. Frank says it would also give employers more of an incentive to hire new employees since it would be cheaper for them to do so. While this is true in theory, I’m not so sure about this particular claim. Employers have been very reluctant to add to their workforce even though there are already some tax incentives to do so. Some Obama administration figures have been floating the idea of a payroll tax cut as part of the debt negotiations. This would raise the debt in the short term, but in the long-term, a robust economy is the best way to reduce the debt. And as we have seen, a short term increase in the debt is almost free (for now).

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Republicans love tax cuts! Paul Ryan’s budget, which almost all Republicans love, proposed lowering taxes on the rich to levels not seen since before the Great Depression. Republican dogma says that cutting taxes is the best way to promote growth. Surely Republicans are the ones pushing for these tax cuts.” If you were thinking that then you are sadly wrong. Republicans aren’t in favor of all tax cuts, just tax cuts for the rich. Republicans fought tooth and nail for tax breaks for the rich in the tax cut deal they worked out with President Obama six months ago and the Paul Ryan budget includes huge tax cuts for the rich, and nothing for anyone else. Payroll taxes primarily affect the working and middle class (they don’t apply to income above about $105,000) so sources say Republicans really aren’t very interested in cutting them.

Its too bad really. The economy needs help and the government is in a position to give it help by injecting money into the economy. But, all anyone seems to want to do is take money out of the economy to fix our debt problems. Oh well.

Honesty and the Debt Ceiling

Frequent readers of this blog will find that my biggest pet peeve is dishonesty. I truly don’t mind people with opinions different than my own (and I love to debate with them) but I really can’t stand it when people lie or are intellectually dishonest. So, much of my blog will focus on calling out and correcting lies floating around in the public sphere. This week, I start with a particularly bad and dishonest column on the debt ceiling.

The political negotiations on raising the United States’ debt ceiling are extremely important because they will determine whether the US is plunged back into recession this year and what our government programs will look like in the years to come. Because of the importance of these negotiations, there is a lot of demagoguery and dishonesty floating around about the US debt and about the political talks which are aimed at bringing down the debt. One particularly egregious example is this column by Yuval Levin in the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard entitled “We Don’t Estimate Speeches.”

He starts by talking about a recent report by the non-partisan, score-keeping Congressional Budget Office (CBO) where it finds that if the US Congress continues on its current, likely spending trajectory, the US will rack up a large (and unsustainable) amount of debt in the coming decades. He does this to scare his audience and to let them know that the US debt is, indeed, a huge problem. However, along the way he conveniently forgets to mention that the CBO, in the same report he cites, also produced another scenario, one in which the debt is not as large a problem in the US’s future. But, the CBO’s “extended-baseline scenario” projects that the Bush tax cuts will fully expire (as they are scheduled to) while letting the Alternative Minimum Tax expand (as the law says it should), along with a couple other fixes which are anathema to Republicans, so Levin just talks about the scarier scenario. (More on this at the CBO and at Ezra Klein’s blog)

Anyway, now that his audience is sufficiently scared about the prospects of an ever-growing and strangling US debt, Levin starts talking about the debt negotiations. Along the way, he offers the obligatory praise for the Ryan budget that is now mandatory among Republicans. (I’ll address the Ryan plan at a later date but here’s a nice non-partisan evaluation of the tax cuts for the rich in the plan.) Here’s his summary of the debt negotiations:

Until last week, that fight had been focused on negotiations led by Vice President Biden. Those talks certainly revealed something about the Democrats’ priorities: In the midst of a spending-driven debt explosion and a weak economy, Democrats in Washington want to raise taxes. But the negotiations also revealed the continuing unwillingness of the president to make specific proposals about how to reduce spending, reform entitlements, and bring the debt under control. On June 23, House majority leader Eric Cantor (who had represented House Republicans at the negotiations) decided he’d had enough, and left the talks in order to force the issue to a higher level and compel the president to get specific.

Egads! Tax increases? The nerve of those Democrats! You mean that in the middle of debt-reduction talks, the Democrats are proposing a way to decrease the debt by raising revenue?? Insane! Let’s forget for a minute (Levin certainly has) that total federal tax revenue is already at the lowest levels since 1950 (table 1.2). Acknowledging that inconvenient fact would mean that we are not in the middle of a “spending-driven debt explosion,” but, in fact, in the middle of a debt explosion caused by the government taking in too little revenue (Hellooooo Bush tax cuts).

Levin is probably right though. We are in the middle of a weak economy and now is not the time to raise taxes because when the government taxes, it takes dollars out of the economy, and right now the economy needs all the extra dollars it can get. Of course, if Levin was being intellectually honest he would oppose any government spending cuts for the same reason. If the government cuts spending, it also takes dollars out of the economy, hurting economic growth at a particularly fragile economic moment. That contradiction, sadly, is central to Republican thinking at this time. In their view, the government can’t raise taxes because it will hurt the economy, but the government can cut spending all it wants, even though that too will certainly hurt the economy.

Also, its not like Democrats just proposed increasing taxes out of nowhere. They proposed taxes as a deficit-reduction measure in negotiations over how to reduce the deficit. Its not like they just enjoy raising taxes for the hell of it.

Then Levin tries to say that the President is not being “specific” enough in the debt negotiations. Huh? The debt negotiations are going on behind closed doors. Levin doesn’t know what’s been specifically proposed. None of us do. Eric Cantor, the lead Republican negotiator, was the one who withdrew from the talks. When he stopped negotiating for the Republican side he said it was because he could never support a tax increase as part of the deal, not because the President wasn’t being “specific” enough. By all accounts, the negotiators have plenty of very specific cuts hammered out, the only sticking point is whether taxes will also be raised as part of this deal. Republican obstinacy on taxes killed this round of negotiations, not a lack of “specificity” on the part of the President.

Levin’s account of the negotiations is all the more confusing because the President wasn’t even involved in the negotiations. Vice President Joe Biden was handling them for the Democratic side. The President presented a debt reduction vision in a speech earlier this year (the “Speech” referred to in the title of Levin’s column) but has wisely left the actual deal to be worked out by the VP and the Congressmen who will actually be voting on the deal. Would it make any sense at all for the President to be out making speeches and policy proposals while negotiations are still ongoing? Wouldn’t doing so just undermine and distract from the talks that were already happening? In one last hypocritical moment, Levin fails to mention that the Ryan plan that he adores also fails to specify what cuts it will make in tax expenditures. The Ryan plan has to make huge cuts in tax expenditures in order to afford lowering taxes on the rich, but Levin doesn’t take Ryan to task for being mum on what specifically he would cut.

For the sake of brevity, I’ll stop my critique there. Its a shame that you can get a job writing this kind of drivel. Disputes? Questions? The comment box awaits!