Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

The “Better Off Budget” is the only budget proposal in Congress that really places people’s needs ahead of political compromise.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has issued its annual budget and it is in different ways the antithesis of what both the Republicans and Democrats are offering. The Caucus calls it the “Better Off Budget,” and it puts its money where its mouth is. Thank goodness they’ve issued it, because it puts in perspective how much is actually within our nation’s reach. It is aimed right where it should be: at creating jobs. The budget acknowledges that our jobs crisis is far from over (I’d call it the jobs emergency budget, of course). And it rightly says we can solve our problems.

The proposals err slightly on the side of economic optimism, but that is as it should be. It stands in contrast to the modest improvements in social policy proposed by the Democrats, which won’t get unemployment down to 5 percent in the foreseeable future, and to the insensitive regression proposed by Paul Ryan and the Republicans. Those proposals are all politics, with little caring about the people’s thirst for jobs and opportunity. The progressives toss political compromise aside to do the right thing.

Their proposed budget does a lot of good in a lot of areas. It refuses to reduce entitlements; it provides a middle-class tax break; it raises income tax rates on the wealthy; it provides a lot of money for infrastructure investment. I could go on.

But in this brief analysis I want to focus on the question of how much stimulus the economy can stand, which is really a question about how much slack there is in the economy. Conventional analyses say that slack—the potential to grow—has fallen. It’s mostly not because the economy is growing and catching up with its potential. The reason is that people are dropping out of the workforce, maybe for good. They are losing skills. Some are retiring or getting close to retirement. Capital investment has been okay, but it has been far from stellar and therefore not likely to create exciting new products and industries that also increase productivity.

If the potential is not as high as typical economists, including the Congressional Budget Office, thought just a couple of years ago, we can’t push the economy up as fast as we might like, they argue.

The irony is that potential is down, as conventional economists measure it, because of the Great Recession and historically slow recovery, not because of a structural change in the economy. In particular, labor productivity growth is not very good. Total factor productivity, which (allegedly) measures the productivity of capital and labor combined, is somewhat stronger by historical comparison. I say “allegedly” because total factor productivity is a pretty flaky number.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • dpaano

    Uh oh, tax the rich……the GOP isn’t going to like that one at all!!! Grover Norquist will slap their hands if they even BEGIN to vote yes on this budget!

    • Pamby50

      That is so true about Grover!!!

    • Independent1

      Another couple death knells for the “Better Off Budget” from the GOP perspective was when Jeff said: “Their proposed budget does a lot of good in a lot of areas. It refuses to reduce entitlements;”

      On top of raising taxes on the rich as you point out, the GOP would never support a budget that would “do a lot of good in a lot of areas”. Doing good for the country has been absolutely taboo for the GOP ever since Obama has been in office; the GOP will kill it just because it does to much good for the country. And to suggest that there wouldn’t be any reductions to entitlements (Social Security and Medicare), so retirees could maybe enjoy their retirements, is like committing heresy to the GOP.