• Comment (8)

What the French Elections Mean for the U.S.

May 7, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Americans politicians don't like to be compared to the French. It's a simple adjective, one that oddly became an actual slur against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 campaign, much as the esteemed term "professor" is being used as an insult now against Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. But U.S. lawmakers and candidates would be wise to look closely at the results of France's presidential elections.

Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy was narrowly (by French standards) defeated by Francois Hollande, a moderate socialist, in Sunday's elections, and the results (along with a similar result in Greece on Sunday) are widely viewed as a rejection of austerity policy. Sarkozy in particular had been a chief architect, along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, of the European strategy of making deep budget cuts to deal with the region's soaring debt. Voters thought the tactic was too severe, and threw the leaders out.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the European debt crisis]

There's an unfortunate comparison as well, here, with many American voters, who don't want their taxes raised but also don't think the government should stop doing things like maintaining roads and bridges. The high cost of healthcare also needs to be dealt with, particularly the huge amount of money spent on healthcare during the last months of one's life. But European voters weren't merely putting their hands over their ears, refusing to accept the sacrifices needed to steady the economies there. They were saying that the task can't be done merely by cutting budgets, a view shared by many economists.

The same question is under scrutiny here, as lawmakers and presidential candidates argue about whether to cut spending, raise taxes, or both to keep the recovery moving (and perhaps speed it up). When the debt is this high, it's not realistic for the government to spend its way out of a recession. But with the private sector so skittish about hiring (despite the fact that a number of large corporations are making record profits), it's not sensible to reduce the debt by cutting spending alone. The private sector is, indeed, the primary creator of jobs. But when private industry can't (or won't) do it, the government needs to step in.

[Rick Newman: Why a Shrinking Government Is Bad News]

Hollande, whose socialist party identity comes with a strong free-market approach, will move into Elysee Palace because French voters didn't want the budget-cuts-only approach (Sarkozy limited tax rates for the wealthy). The U.S. election includes a slew of other issues that make it less of a referendum on budget cuts. But the European results may offer a warning to both parties here.

Tags:
Nicholas Sarkozy,
economy,
France,
debt,
deficit and national debt,
global economy

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

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

When the central bank create 2 trillion $ for giving it to the banksters, none million jobs are created, and the speculators create inflation on commodities like cereals. Muslims wars are the consequence.

Would the central bank have created 2 trillion $ for repairing all crumbling USA infrastructures, then no inflation would have been created, but 50 millions jobs would have been created, 50 millions people paying again taxes!

Central bank himself must repair the USA ailing infrastructures, because neither the Goldman Sachs government nor the Mitt Romney style private companies will ever do it: they would only take the money and run!

Jean-Francois morf, Charrat, Switzerland 1:33PM May 08, 2012

brucetee _ I know you rarely learn from your many mistakes(no learning curve)...

Still fantasizing “lack of financial acuity that was shown by George Bush during tenure in office” & “this spending cut only policy thats being touted by the republicans,is as absurd as bleeding patients was during George Washington's time”.

Well brucetee I store answers. I know you will repeat, repeat, and repeat even more OF the SAME LIES. HERE is one of many corrections to WHAT YOU SAID I HAVE:

"In every case over the last 60 years, major tax cuts have more than paid for themselves. In fact, every major tax cut since JFK has been followed by substantial increases in revenue, not to mention solid economic growth. Moreover, total federal revenue rose at a faster rate after each of those tax cuts than it did before them. Anyone can confirm these basic facts for themselves by checking federal budget data and economic indicators before and after major tax cuts (see, for example, Federal Budget Data, Data 360 Unemployment U.S., and Total Economy Database). Let’s take a closer look at the results of the last four major tax cuts (and then for good measure we’ll examine the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s)."

"Bush Tax Cuts: President George W. Bush’s 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007":

"2003 -- $1.78 trillion

2004 -- $1.88 trillion

2005 -- $2.15 trillion

2006 -- $2.40 trillion

2007 -- $2.56 trillion"

"Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year."

"It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford."

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 3:02AM May 08, 2012

The country saw the lack of financial acuity that was shown by George Bush during tenure in office.this is,in no small part, the reason that the country went to the edge of the financial cliff.

this spending cut only policy thats being touted by the republicans,is as absurd as bleeding patients was during George Washington's time.

bruce b of NV 11:28PM May 07, 2012

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer and contributed to a biography of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, "Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." Follow her on Twitter @MilliganSusan.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement