The President’s re-election (More Discussion IV)

In a number of recent posts I set forth a long, and I believe very useful, discussion between Roger Streit of West Orange, NJ and me.

I urge the reader to review that discussion as previously set forth in my posts "The President’s re-election (Discussion)" where I set forth at its beginning exchanges with various people, but near its end my discussion with Roger commences. This discussion continued at length in my post "The President’s re-election (More Discussion)"

However, I then published my exchange with Albert Nekimken, of Vienna Virginia, who had commented on the exchange with Roger in my posts entitled "The President’s re-election (More Discussion II)" and "The President’s Re-election (More Discussion III)."

In the following three posts I digressed from this stimulating discussion. I now want to share the rest of it with my readers.

On November 28, 2012 where after having watched a Paul Krugman / Joseph Stiglitz discussion on C-Span, which Roger recommended to me, I wrote to Roger:

I want to comment on the Krugman/Stiglitz discussion. Krugman used WW II as an example of running up a large deficit that stimulated the economy. He didn't say, and I don't know, (nor do I want to research it) how large the deficit was as a percent of GDP going into the war, nor how large it was at its end. But by his logic we could deal with our present economic problems by quadrupling the budget of the defense department even without a tax increase. I know he wouldn't favor that, but if what he says is true, that is one thing Republicans would go for. So it seems that this would be an easy political solution.

This was never responded to directly, but on December 2nd Roger called my attention to a post by Timothy Egan in the New York Times that can be accessed here, and quoting from that column called my attention to this statement in the column:

Liberalism, in the broadest sense, is about expanding human rights and opportunity, while embracing science and reason.

My response was lengthy! (Brevity isn’t my strong suit.)

I have no problem with that definition. It is too bad that the general public doesn't see it that way. Too discuss why would require a dissertation by itself, so maybe another time.

As for the column as a whole, I think he is too easy on the Republican Party. Since as early as 1876, Republicans gave up their only saving grace as the party of Lincoln. 

"Reconstruction was brought about in the disputed 1876 Presidential election. The Democratic candidate, Tilden, won the popular vote, but neither candidate initially had a majority of electoral votes due to disputes over returns in Florida, Louisiana and S. Carolina--the only states in which federal troops were still stationed in 1876. Although they were not numerous enough to stop white intimidation of black voters, the troops were considered an affront by white Democrats. In back room negotiations, Democrats conceded the disputed election returns to Hayes in return for his agreement to withdraw the remaining 3,000 federal troops, thereby putting a formal end to Reconstruction and assuring Democratic control, based on a platform of white supremacy and black disenfranchisement, throughout the South.” See here. While they had some "liberal" or "progressive moments" after that, they were more aberrations, than real party policy, e.g. Teddy Roosevelt was not popular in the Republican Party. They hated his progressive agenda when he was governor of New York and so to get rid of him, they kicked him upstairs to V-P, figuring he could die on the vine there. This backfired when President McKinley was assassinated and Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the Presidency. 

Along the way there were some real progressive Republicans, such as Morse of Oregon, La Follette of Wisconsin, Hiram Johnson in California, Charles Evans Hughes of New York, and later Jack Javits of New York, and Chase of New Jersey, but they were always a minority.

Nixon supported some progressive things such as the Environmental Protection Agency and even proposed a national health insurance plan, but he was always a political opportunist and was the architect of the Republican Southern Strategy. The Republican Party is and always has been the Party of the rich, and its alliances with racists, theocrats, and misogynists, is opportunistic. But they can't shed them and survive.

After this digression, Roger returned to the main theme, by citing Krugman’s blog and added:

Anyway, my own answer is still what it has been all along: the time for austerity is when the economy is close enough to full employment that the Fed is starting to raise rates to head off an undesirably high rate of inflation; at this point, given the case for somewhat higher inflation, I’d say that we shouldn’t even think about this until unemployment is well below 7 and falling fast. At that point you can, in effect, make a deal — fiscal austerity in return for not hiking rates — that leaves the economy harmless.

And went on to quote from one Paul Mathis:

Since the focus of policy over the past three years has been almost entirely on the federal debt and the implicit danger that its size represents, there has been relentless fear mongering by conservatives about an unspecified danger somewhere in the future that will cause our economy to collapse. Therefore, austerity right now is essential to prevent this calamity regardless of the consequences for economic growth and employment. 

Liberals have been no help in negating this fear mongering because they have agreed, without evidence, that the federal debt is "unsustainable" and must be reduced. In fact, liberals have proudly pointed to the reductions in federal spending that have already occurred, e.g., the wage freeze for federal employees that has gone on for more than 2 years already. 

Those who have said that the federal debt is no problem because interest rates are at historic lows and that any debt, if necessary, can always be repaid with newly "printed" money are derided for "enslaving" us to the Chinese who "own" us and control our future. 

So the bottom line, as usual in American politics, is racism in the form of xenophobia against the Chinese. Against that derangement, we all contend in vain.”

To which my reply was:

While the Chinese have been a whipping boy, it is not fair to blame Republicans entirely for this. To a very large extent, the attack on the Chinese was started by the Labor Unions, who stupidly wanted to stop globalization. They started the campaign against globalization under the Clinton Administration when they vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, a treaty that has benefited both the US and Mexico. In fact Obama kind of bought into this when he kept talking about jobs shipped overseas. Jobs shipped overseas are an inevitable consequence of globalization, which can no more be stopped, than could the industrial revolution, which the unions also vigorously opposed, resorting to breaking machinery, which is where the term "sabotage" comes from.

Don't get me wrong, I am for unions, but they are often their own worse enemy.

As for the Chinese, it is wholly a stupid argument, no matter who employs it. "China, it turns out, holds less than eight percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years...But politicians like to find an external enemy to rally the troops against, and China is an easy target." 

To which Roger asserted:

…you have bought into the fear of economic calamity because of “unsustainable” deficits.  Krugman says there has never been a collapse of a country with its own currency.

To which I cited:

Argentina.

Roger went on to say:

We can print money when necessary and we can raise taxes and slow spending when the economy is overheating.

And I forcefully pointed out:

Like so many, you simply ignore arguments and facts that don't fit your predilections. In my last e-mail I pointed out the inflation under Nixon and Carter that was caused by the huge deficits during the Johnson Administration's policy of bread and war.

I also asked why; if deficits are the solution, why not simply create a huge deficit by not raising taxes and exploding the Pentagon budget. No response!

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Are Deficits Good?

Are deficits good? Are they bad? Don’t they matter as Vice-president Cheney said some time ago?

Is increasing taxes good? Is increasing taxes bad? Is decreasing taxes good or bad?

My answer to all these questions is, it all depends.

By and large deficits are undesirable because they are a burden on the budget since interest must be paid on the debt, thereby placing a further burden on the budget in the form of an uncontrollable expenditure. During the last few years the payments on the debt have been the third highest item after Defense and Health and Human Resources. This year the US has paid $451 billion or almost a half trillion dollars in interest and the year is not yet ended. The National debt has gone over $10 trillion. According to the Wall Street Journal the budget deficit for fiscal 2008 will be $407 billion or more than double the deficit for 2007. In January 2004 President George W. Bush pledged to cut the annual deficit, which was $412 billion in fiscal 2004, in half within five years.

Instead as can be seen the deficit has ballooned.

McCain has pledged to balance the budget by 2012, which is probably even more hot air than Bush’s pledge was, when one considers that McCain wants to extend the tax on the super-wealthy and cut corporate taxes, as well as continue the war in Iraq. Total costs for the war from 2001-08 could top $800 billion, according to federal estimates.

It seems absurd for McCain to promise to balance the budget without ending the war, yet he has indicated a willingness to stay in Iraq for up to fifty or even 100 years, provided there are no American casualties, without ever considering the economic costs, which Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts at $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops.

So far the only expenditure McCain has identified for cost cutting is earmarks, which while desirable only amounts to $7.4 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, hardly an amount that would make a dent in our budget deficit.

But all these figures are simply background to my initial question are deficits good or bad. The answer is found in the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes to which I subscribe. During good economic times we should have a balanced budget. When the economy slows or goes into recession we must pump prime it and deficits are the way to do this.

To be sure when the Clinton Administration took office they inherited from twelve years of Republican misrule a failing economy and a $290 billion deficit and Clinton proposed raising taxes on the wealthy which would appear to have been the wrong prescription for a failing economy. But to a large extent the economy was handicapped by very high interest rates and Alan Greenspan then the Chairman of the independent Fed was not prepared to lower them unless the budget was in balance. Clinton correctly reached the conclusion that lower interest rates were vital to an economic recovery. His tax increase passed in the Congress on a tie vote with Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaker in favor of the tax increase. The result was a booming economy and a $100 billion surplus that was expected to quadruple in the decade ahead. Everybody was better off even the people whose taxes were being raised, because they ended up with more in their pockets after taxes than they had before the tax increase. There was even an expectation that before long the National Debt accumulated since the founding of the Republic would be wiped out. In other words a good tax increase.

The situation now is opposite. Interest rates as set by the Fed are at an all time low and so no lowering of interest rates can be effective in stimulating the economy. Therefore the only thing possible is to either lower taxes or increase spending, or a combination of the two, either of which would further increase the deficit and the debt. That is one of the main reasons that creating the deficit during a period of relative prosperity was so reckless, for it now means we need a deficit on top of an existing deficit. Whether, as McCain claims, we should further lower taxes on the rich to stimulate the economy depends on whether you are an apostle of Supply Side economics, as Bush, McCain and most Republicans are. This holds to the theory that if more money is made available to the producers in the economy they will buy more equipment, which will have to be made by others, thus creating a chain effect that will stimulate the economy. The fallacy in this theory is that no matter how much money is placed into the hands of producers, they will not increase their production capacity unless there is demand for its output. In order to increase demand, money must be put into the hands of consumers. To a limited extent this can be done by cutting their taxes, and Obama has proposed this, but the vast majority of Americans already have a fairly low tax exposure, and in a recession as more become unemployed and under-employed they have even less tax exposure. So this has a limited effect. A quicker and more satisfactory way of doing this is by directing money their way in the form of expenditures. This can be done in a variety of ways, some of which will have immediate effect and some will take effect at a later time. Thus increasing the duration of unemployment insurance has an immediate effect. Offering consumers bankruptcy protection, as corporation have when they cannot meet their debt obligations, has an immediate effect, and would ameliorate the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Lending money to states, who have lost much of their tax revenue as a result of the economic downturn would have an immediate effect, preventing the laying off of large numbers of state employees and the drastic cutting of social programs to people who can not be consumers without such aid. Somewhat slower in effect but crucial to the long term prosperity of the US economy is repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure, which has been neglected for too long, resulting in one bridge having fallen down and many others in danger of doing so. Our ports, crucial to our prosperity in a globalized economy are inadequate to the task of handling huge quantities of container cargo and the vital port of New Orleans desperately needs repair and upgrading. The US should take a leaf from the activities of the Dutch, whose port at Rotterdam is a paragon of efficiency and modernity. In a few years the Panama Canal will have been enlarged, allowing much larger container ships to ply these waters. Our ports must be ready to accommodate these greater loads.

No matter the cost, a new energy policy cannot wait. As has been pointed out we are now sending $700 billion dollars to import our energy supplies, a staggering drag on our economy even if it turns out to be half that. For us to drill our way out of it is nothing less than a myth. We do not have anywhere near enough reserves, and even if we allowed drilling everywhere, no matter what the ecological cost, it would still be a drop in the bucket, and would not come on stream for ten years or more. Nuclear energy could contribute a significant supply, but here too we are talking in excess of ten years and it is expensive. Especially now that the price of oil has come down, other forms of energy are no longer competitive. To make them competitive means giving subsidies to such alternative energy sources, which will further impact our deficit. The energy sources with the best potential are wind and solar energies, and we must be prepared to encourage their development by subsidizing their development and, if necessary, their use.

Health care reform cannot wait any longer. Our health care system is costing more and delivering less.

Reform will save enormous amounts further down the line and give people the care they need at a cost they can afford.

These and other needs of the country are not expenditures. They are investment that will repay us many times over.

One of the tragedies of ’29 was that there was orthodoxy that budgets must be balanced. We must not make that mistake again. The media seems to be fixated on this idea, and asked the candidates over and over what they would cut in view of the growing deficits. There are undoubtedly many places to cut where programs are not effective. A major saving in spending will be a dividend of the drawdown in Iraq. This drawdown may very well be the direct result of the Iraqis insisting on the end of the occupation. But the needs of our people and of our economy must be met. We cannot, we must not, cut the budget of the FDA or OSHA or toy inspections. By following policies that are consumer oriented, we will trickle the wealth upward instead of downward, and we will grow the economy, until we once again arrive at a balanced budget.

The discredited Supply side economics must see their well-deserved demise.