Skip to main content

What's more important? Cutting the deficit or spurring job growth?

That's the question for this week's Scripps Howard column. I take a slightly fatalistic approach:
Actually, the debate is already over. Americans may be worried about their jobs, but it's possible they're even crankier about the growing national debt. Politicians in Washington D.C. are responding accordingly, with President Obama even calling on most federal agencies to reduce their budgets by 5 percent. With a bipartisan deficit commission now on the job, those cuts may just be the beginning.

Perhaps that's as it should be: The bill for decades of deficit spending – in good times and bad, under both Republican and Democratic presidents – was going to come due sooner or later. It appears now may be the time. But Americans should understand one thing about the belt- tightening: It's gonna hurt.

Federal spending doesn't just prop up unpopular programs, after all: Right now, it's helping keep teachers and police officers on the job while states and cities deal with their own budget problems. Austerity will threaten such efforts. There is even talk the deficit commission will recommend big changes – and, perhaps, big cuts – to Social Security benefits. Americans won't like that one bit, but it's a logical result of efforts to bring spending under control.

The problem, as economist Paul Krugman explains, is that cutting spending during a recession is costly and ineffective. "Costly, because it depresses the economy further," he writes. "Ineffective, because by depressing the economy, fiscal contraction now reduces tax receipts."

So: Job growth or deficit reduction? Austerity now might give us very little of either. But it will still hurt a lot.


emawkc said…
I agree 100 percent with you on this. And you can add to this Federal belt tightening another 90 billion in "austerity" cuts among state governments.

As you say, it's the result of decades of overspending and entitlements. Very similar to what many European countries are going through right now.

You just simply can't spend money that you don't have.
Notorious Ph.D. said…
I disagree, emawkc: most of us spend money we don't have all the time. The trick comes in differentiating good debt from bad debt. I went over 70K in debt to finance an education that qualified me for the career I now have, and am likely to have for the rest of my life. Contrast this with the credit card I pulled out to buy two pair of $100 shoes this spring.

Spending -- even deficit spending -- is good when it can create growth or security. Spending to put out a fire is sometimes necessary. It's best to do it using the money you actually have. But sometimes that's just not practical.
Notorious Ph.D. said…
Sorry for double-dipping, but I realize that I forgot to include my thesis statement (Bad Ph.D.! Very bad!): Deficit spending is sometimes a good thing, but only if we can differentiate between needs and wants.

But this is the core of the problem -- we can't agree on what those mean. I would classify "new deal-style jobs program" as "need" (and thus debt worth incurring). Others might say "increased military spending" or "tax cuts."
emawkc said…

You are correct. I should have written "You just simply can't continuously spend money that you don't have."

Eventually you have to pay the piper, either by earning more money to pay back you debt, lowering your standard of living or defaulting on your debt (which has it's own set of costs).
namefromthepast said…
I contend that reducing the deficit can LEAD to job growth.

Good example is the failed stimulus. It only stimulated govt growth compared to the private sector.

A case is made by Keynes that the stimulus cycle can destroy private sector jobs(remember we were promised unemployment not to exceed 8%) thus lowering the tax revenues, then expanding the need for deficit spending, stimulus, lowering tax revenue, etc.

Krugman's recycled and unimaginative Fabian Socialist approach to economics wasn't proposed by Keynes to create private sector jobs.

Should we be surprised it has failed to meet it's stated objective?

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…