The Recession and the National Debt Are Separate Problems

June 28, 2010 RSS Feed Print

You have to feel sorry, if only a little, for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats right now. They’ve lost any and all ability they had after the 2008 election to frame debate about the economy.

And, rhetorically speaking, Republicans have successfully conflated short- and long-term considerations: Amid persistently high unemployment, the economy is taking scarcely perceptible baby steps toward recovery. And there is a large and growing national debt. In reality, these two phenomena have little to do with one another.

The economic crisis that came into sharp relief in October 2008 was not caused by out-of-control deficits. In fact, the reverse is true. Today’s spiraling annual deficits, at least in the short term, are the result of poor economic performance and nose diving tax receipts.

Democrats have—for reasons having to do with their own lack of credibility as much as conservative media criticism—failed to persuade voters that a “Lord, give me virtue, but not yet” approach to the economy is the right answer: “Let us deficit-spend our way of this hole, and then we’ll fix our long-term debt problem. I know, I know; we already spent close to a trillion dollars. But even that wasn’t enough to plug such an enormous hole—and the stimulus was blunted by state and local cutbacks.”

That the public and policymakers here and apparently in Western Europe aren’t buying what may be the correct, if politically vexing, argument is making Paul Krugman’s head steam. He says we’re headed for a third depression (after the Great one of the 1930s and the years following the Panic of 1873), and that this one “will be primarily a failure of policy.” He writes:

Around the world—most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting—governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

At RedState.com, Francis Cianfrocca sensibly replies that federal pump-priming via state and local governments may just prop up already-bloated payrolls, rather than stimulate demand. Cianfrocca wonders, too, if it’s realistic to expect an aging population to ever produce enough to pay back debt we rack up today—not to mention the mandatory entitlement spending that’s set to skyrocket in the near future.

In any case, neither Republicans nor Democrats are helping voters understand that today’s economic woes and tomorrow’s Big Debt are two separate problems, and that immediate recovery and long-term solvency are two separate goals. Republicans have benefited politically from this misunderstanding, and Democrats compounded it with a healthcare debate that I believe will turn out to have been a giant distraction—a Great Recession followed by a Great Postponement.

Despite the rapid and fierce resistance that met the 2009 stimulus, it stands to reason that the public would have granted Democrats more latitude to deal with deflationary pressures if they weren’t simultaneously erecting a new program that may or may not yield significant budget savings. (No one, including its advocates, can say for sure.)

As it is, Democrats stand to lose one or both of its congressional majorities, and the country is still not prepared for what is surely an unavoidable restructuring of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—a restructuring that will in all likelihood require both benefit cuts and higher taxes.

Democrats will inevitably complain about a “Republican attack machine,” “epistemic closure,” and all that.

But before they do, they’d better realize that the hard-left rump of their party is as captive to “soak-the-rich” illusion as the Tea Party is to pipe dreams about more tax cuts. See here and here to get a glimpse of liberals pooh-poohing the idea that entitlements can’t be fixed simply by hiking taxes on the rich.

When President Obama starts talking sense into his party’s base, then I’ll feel more than just a little sorry for him.

 

Tags:
deficit and national debt,
Great Depression,
Congress,
economy,
economic stimulus,
democratic party,
Barack Obama,
recession,
republican party,
debt

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

in the USA and several other nations is tax on high-end net income (including capital gain) that is far higher than present level. The government does not need to stop spending. It needs to start really collecting. There is no reason for a smaller and smaller tiny percentage of people to be gathering (and keeping) 90% of the wealth in the nation. Income tax is the fix for this. Not value-added tax, not sales tax, not property tax-----INCOME TAX, and plenty high. Tired of Limbaugh setting your national agenda? Me too. Why isn't he paying 90% like he would have been under even Republican Dwight Eisenhower?

Muser of NM 11:57PM June 28, 2010

Reagan's "seven fat years," as conservative supporters proudly call it (1983-1990), cannot be credited to supply side economics but rather to support for massive deficit spending, mostly on the military budget. Even then, when annual GDP growth is averaged out of the course of the entire business cycle (1980-90) we only have about 3.1% average annual growth rates. We also have an annual average of deficits that amounted to nearly 4.5% of GDP (despite a fairly strong expansion phase).

Another factor that contributed to US recovery was that the high interest rates, though temporarily depressing on economic growth and employment, attracted massive amounts of foreign direct and financial investment which strengthened the dollar, held down inflation and ultimately led to renewed domestic business investment. After 1985, US exports grew as the world economy recovered to some limited extent. US export sector wage rates, according to a recent Peterson Institute study, tend to be about 10% above the national average. This also expanded spending and growth.

The US economy has always relied on deficit spending as a path to recovery as well as to sustain stable growth. It is disingenuous to act as though deficits were some kind or anomaly or short to medium term problem.

steve of IL 6:25PM June 28, 2010

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement