Tag: federal deficit
Right Now, Fiscal Restraint Is The Worst Folly

Right Now, Fiscal Restraint Is The Worst Folly

Fiscal discipline was once a durable American practice. But in the 1940s, it went out the window. The federal government embarked on a sudden, unprecedented binge of borrowing that put the nation in hock up to its ears.

From 1940 to 1945, federal spending rose tenfold. The national debt increased sixfold. The public would have to shoulder the burden of paying down that debt for decades to come.

There was, however, a good excuse for this gross budgetary excess: World War II. For a government, as with a person, there is usually no difference between being frugal and being wise. But when the nation’s survival is at stake, the risks of underspending are far greater than the risks of overspending.

A similar imperative exists today, as the new coronavirus endangers lives and causes economic disruption on a scale not seen since — well, since World War II. Last year, the federal budget deficit soared to nearly $1 trillion, at a time of sustained economic growth and prosperity. It was an atrocious figure, representing the latest fiscal failure by our political leaders.

But the spending package forged by Congress and the president to address the fallout of the pandemic will add up to more than double that amount, pushing overall spending to levels never imagined just weeks ago. The rescue plan is probably only the first of a series of huge spending bills meant to reduce the devastation from a locked-down economy.

For more years than I care to remember, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, I have been a consistent voice — OK, an insufferable scold — on the need for a thrifty and responsible governmental budget policy. I have stressed the importance of living within our means, paying the full cost of what we demand of our government and not piling needless obligations on future generations. There are many good moments for fiscal restraint. This is not one of them.

On the contrary, this is a moment when fiscal restraint would be the very definition of a false economy. In 1942, it would have been lunacy to worry about the cost of building up U.S. military capacity as rapidly as possible. The potential cost of not doing it, after all, would have been cataclysmic.

Today, we face enormous dangers. One is that millions of Americans thrown out of work or otherwise deprived of income will be unable to pay their bills, put food on the table or keep their homes. Refusing to help them through this crisis, which came about for reasons beyond their control, would exact a horrific human toll. It would also create general chaos that would stymie economic recovery for months if not years.

Likewise with businesses. In the absence of prompt federal aid, a wave of bankruptcies could wipe out companies that were healthy and profitable before — and have every prospect of being healthy and profitable afterward. The businesses would be gone, and so would the jobs they provided. People and companies desperately need a bridge across this troubled water.

Yes, the necessary measures will be shockingly expensive. Yes, they will have to be paid for with borrowed funds. Yes, they will enlarge a national debt that was already in the neighborhood of $24 trillion.

But the alternatives would be more costly yet. Replacing the old roof on your house sounds expensive until you compare it to the price of your home being wrecked in a storm because you didn’t replace the roof. New tires cost money, but bald ones can be fatal.

We should think of these federal outlays not as expenditures but investments. They are an essential recourse to protect our long-run interests.

How could we afford all this new debt? Through the robust revenue-generating economic activity that will resume if we successfully navigate the crisis. The larger debt burden will be easier to bear in the long run than a smaller debt would be if we let a brief, severe downturn become a prolonged depression.

Debts have to repaid with dollars, and dollars are something the Federal Reserve can create in any quantity needed. The worst case is that we will have to endure an eventual spell of inflation, which would be far preferable to an immediate and total economic collapse.

In most cases, our politicians deserve condemnation for spending money with wild abandon. In this moment, it’s the best thing they can do.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Mnuchin Again Insists 2017 Tax Cuts Will ‘Pay For Themselves’

Mnuchin Again Insists 2017 Tax Cuts Will ‘Pay For Themselves’

Trump administration officials continue to make wildly inaccurate statements about the economic impact of the Republican 2017 tax law. On Wednesday, contrary to all available evidence, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told the Senate Finance Committee that he stands by previous administration claims that the tax cuts “will pay for themselves.”

“This will be simple math,” Mnuchin testified under oath. “We measure this over 10 years. We got eight years left. I look forward to writing the committee a letter in eight years going through all the exact numbers.”

Mnuchin’s claim, flagged by American Bridge, a progressive opposition research organization, is widely disputed by experts, even experts who tout the benefits of the 2017 law.

“Secretary Mnuchin’s statement is clearly false,” Josh Bivens, research director at the Economic Policy Ienstitute, said in an email. “No reputable economist thinks that the 2017 tax cuts will pay for themselves. Mnuchin is either somehow ignorant of mountains of evidence on this front, or he’s being intentionally misleading. Neither inspires confidence in a Treasury Secretary.”

The Tax Foundation generally supports a rosier view of large tax cuts like those contained in the 2017 law. And even their experts dispute Mnuchin.

“The 2017 tax law will not pay for itself,” Erica York, an economist with the Tax Foundation, said in an email. Her organization predicted the new law would spur economic growth, but even revenue generated from the new growth is not enough to offset the cost of the law. In total, the group anticipates the law will result in a deficit increase of $762 billion to the deficit, after factoring loss of tax revenues and anticipated growth from the cuts.

The GOP tax law passed Congress and was signed into law by Donald Trump in December 2017. It dramatically reduced tax rates for wealthy corporations, and more than 80% of the benefits for individual Americans were targeted at the richest 1 percent.

Mnuchin and other Republicans claimed the law would pay for itself when it first passed, too, even though independent analyses pointed out that it could add up to $1.7 trillion to the deficit.

“Mnuchin’s claims that Republican tax cuts for the wealthy will pay for themselves are dishonest nonsense, and he knows it,” Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), vice chair of the congressional Joint Economic Committee, said in an email. “No one should believe him, but if anyone is in doubt the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now forecasts trillion-dollar deficits for the coming decade.”

Beyer said that what started as a political promise by Trump “has become economic gaslighting.”

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

Danziger: His Moral Deficit

Danziger: His Moral Deficit

Jeff Danziger lives in New York City. He is represented by CWS Syndicate and the Washington Post Writers Group. He is the recipient of the Herblock Prize and the Thomas Nast (Landau) Prize. He served in the US Army in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Air Medal. He has published eleven books of cartoons and one novel. Visit him at DanzigerCartoons.com.

Poll: Americans Concerned About Economy, Don’t Really Care About Deficit

A new New York Times poll shows that voters’ top concerns have shifted over the last two months.

For one thing, voters are much less concerned about the federal deficit. Only 7% of respondents in June thought the budget deficit was the most important problem facing the country, while in April, that number was 15%.

Instead, voters appear more concerned about jobs and the state of the economy. A full 27% of people listed the economy as the number one problem facing the country in the latest survey, compared to only 18% in April. And 26% are now most concerned about jobs, a slight increase from the 21% who felt that way in April.

When asked to specifically exclude unemployment, a plurality (36%) of respondents declared that the budget deficit was the national economic issue that concerned them most. A close second, though, was rising prices (33%), followed by financial markets (14%) and the housing market (13%). [New York Times Poll]