Skip to main content

Deficit Attention

Berkley MI

Tuesday

 

I am the last one who should be explaining economics to anyone, and my apologies to readers who know this stuff better than I. Which is not a high bar.

But as one of those rare Americans who actually received a basic, barely adequate education in the subject, I feel obliged to bring up two common misconceptions that simply will not go away. Or rather, they will not be allowed to go away, since they have historically dovetailed quite nicely with the long-term aims of the Republican party. Who never met a misconception they didn’t like.

The first is that a balanced budget is always a good thing. It’s not, though we’re brought up to think otherwise. It’s intuitive to us that we all need to balance our personal budgets, and that towns, counties, and states need to balance theirs as well. And Republicans are thrilled to have you think that way.

Because they never tell you that the federal government doesn’t need a balanced budget, and that it should not be forced into one. Most legitimate economists will agree, generally, that governments should spend more when times are bad and less when times are good. There’s plenty of room for argument about the nuances, but the basic idea is not in dispute.

Yes, this is counterintuitive to most people. If you lose your job, you tighten your belt. Same with your company if it gets in trouble. Same with your city and state. And yes, there’s a lot of belt-tightening going on right now.

But what’s correct for them is not so correct for the federal government. It has been demonstrated time and again, in downturn after downturn, that when you inject money into a distressed economy — like, say, this one — you create a stimulus effect that ripples through that economy and gets its people working and spending once again. The trade-off is that you incur a deficit. You spend more than you take in.

Trouble is, this only works when Republicans are not running things. Or obstructing things. They have deliberately undermined the whole idea of deficit spending for well over half a century. And they have encouraged and exacerbated the natural confusion surrounding it.

And it’s worked well. For them, not us. Because the second misconception, widely held, is that deficits are always a bad thing. They’re not. They are a necessary part of any stimulus effort. But when deficit spending collides with rigid ideology and bad faith agendas, we too often get duped.

So whenever a Democratic administration spends more money than it takes in, and the government indeed incurs a deficit, Republicans, without fail, scream bloody murder.

When a Republican administration (2000-04) delivers two massive tax cuts to the wealthy, ballooning the deficit to levels never before seen, well, suddenly deficits are a beautiful thing.

But when a Democratic administration raises spending to stimulate an economy devastated by a recession largely caused by Republican mismanagement, thereby incurring a much larger deficit, well, Republicans are back to screaming, but louder, like you shot their dog. (This happened in 2009. Obama saved their ass. They compared him to Hitler).

But here’s the fun part:

When a Republican administration gives a massive tax windfall to corporations, (as they did in 2017), resulting in the biggest, multi-trillion-dollar deficit in living memory, well, guess what. No screams. Not a peep about the evils of deficits, which just four years ago had been the harbinger of the end of civilization. Do we see a trend here?

More than just a trend, it’s a basic principle of real-world economics in the age of the pandemic: 

Deficits are only bad when Democrats are in charge.

Remember that next time Democrats are in charge, hopefully soon. Think of me when you hear the screams.

Why is this important? Because now that we’re running up an unimaginably massive deficit that might just be the most important, life-and-death, save-the-country action we have ever been forced to take in our entire history, a curious thing is happening. Republicans are running for cover. They’ve been caught with their pants down.

Their voters are finally starting to catch on that their criminally incompetent stewardship of the country — the decades-long starving of the federal government that long pre-dates Trump — has real-world consequences. That it’s actually killing people in unconscionable numbers. That the country was in no way prepared for this pandemic. And that even life-long Republican voters can see that.

But with citizens dying, the economy tanking, and a lunatic driving the bus, we will soon be looking at an almost inconceivably steep deficit. Managing that will be a massive and complex problem, one for which these felons have neither the aptitude nor the appetite. Their instincts are to obstruct and grift, though some of them (not all) seem at least mildly embarrassed that their constituents are dying.

Even so, we desperately need to be spending at unprecedented, dizzying levels. And it’s not even about stimulus. Not yet. It’s still about rescue, about dealing with the pandemic itself, about saving lives and livelihoods. The government is  already more than $4 trillion in the hole, and very little of it is about stimulating the economy. That comes later. I’ve read we could need as much as $8 trillion just to get through the next six months.

As far as I know, no country has ever seen a deficit of this scale. Nobody knows how it plays out. And it’s easier to imagine bad scenarios than good ones.

Meanwhile, economists from the sublime to the ridiculous, from Nobel-prize winners to Fox News charlatans, will soon be weighing in on this subject (Hint: listen to Paul Krugman, ignore Larry Kudlow). But don’t expect any of them to really know anything, because we’re truly in uncharted territory. The good ones will admit that right up front.

But the deficit will loom large in the national conversation for a long, long time.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gerrymanders, Dummymanders, and Why Panic is Totally Uncalled For

    Panic is sometimes unavoidable, but it’s almost never useful. Which is why we all have to chill about the gerrymander problem and appreciate the position in which we continue to sit. From all indications, the coming midterms will be a wave election, where we can expect people to be voting Democratic in overwhelming numbers. And in a wave election, all bets are off. No district will be safe for Republicans, no matter how cynically it’s been molested by gerrymander. I wasn’t planning to talk about the current orgy of redistricting now taking place in the wake of the odious Callais decision, but then I encountered, in the New York Times, a succession of above-the-fold articles that spiked my blood pressure. Once again, the Times has fallen back on the tired old Democrats-in-disarray model for its framing, the better to scare the clicks out of their readers. Here is one of the headlines, and they’re all in the same vein: Democrats Searc...

All Roads Lead to Putin, and They’re Getting Bumpy

  Back in the days when there was still a filter, sort of, on Trump’s brain, Nancy Pelosi tried to explain his inexplicable behavior on the world stage, famously concluding that “All roads lead to Putin.” Nothing has changed. The same questions about Trump and Putin that we’ve had since 2015 remain unresolved, which doesn’t mean they haven’t been answered. They have indeed been answered, and in painstaking detail. It’s just that they’ve been neither acknowledged in the legacy media, nor pursued by law enforcement. Trump is, has been, and always will be doing Putin’s bidding. It’s hard to think of any move made by Trump and his toadies that hasn’t in some way been helpful to Putin and harmful to us. Almost as if Putin planned it that way. The list of these betrayals is endless, and most of us know the obvious ones, though it will take decades to unravel the less obvious ones. Still, everything Trump has done fits the basic pattern: bad for us, good for Putin....

He Didn’t Mean to Make Ukraine Great Again

  T he Ukrainian P-1 Sun interceptor is a small drone that hunts bigger drones. It seeks and destroys the Shahed drones currently being used to such devastating effect by Russia against Ukraine, and by Iran against the entire Middle East region. Shooting one down is no small thing. Just a month ago, the conventional wisdom was that the only way to neutralize a $50,000 Shahed was with a $3 million Patriot missile, which the U.S. has been using up at a rate that has Putin and Xi cackling with glee. Now Ukraine has turned that math on its head. The P-1 Sun can be mass-produced for $1,000 apiece. It’s built from 3-D printed parts and off-the-shelf components. It’s modular, so you can swap out the camera, battery, radio module, and explosive payload, using tools from Home Depot. Every part except the camera is made in Ukraine, and they’re working hard to develop their own camera. They can build up to 50,000 P-1s per month. The P-1 is impressive on a lot of levels...