President Obama announces the debt-ceiling deal.

Better than a government default

It's official: Congress passed a debt-ceiling deal--concerns about a nail-biter in the House yesterday were overblown--and the president signed it. This is certainly preferable to the country defaulting on its obligations, and Obama never showed much interest in running an end around Congress.

This is not, however, an inspiring piece of legislation. It makes deep cuts to discretionary spending--a relatively small slice of the budget pie but one that includes many antipoverty programs--and establishes a process for more such cuts later. (Defense cuts are included here as well.) The bill punts on entitlement reform, tax expenditures and new revenues. And while some spending cuts are delayed to reduce harm to the fragile economy and the Americans it's left jobless, the bill does nothing to alleviate this situation in the meantime.

It didn't have to be this way. Tackling the deficit and tackling unemployment may be in conflict conceptually and, more to the point, in terms of political rhetoric. But as a long-term economic strategy, they work in tandem. Ezra Klein explains:

The economy is weak now, with too little demand and too little growth, and threatened by mounting deficits later. The answer, as any economist can tell you and as many told Congress, is simple: do more to support the recovery now and more to cut deficits later. . . . These two priorities don't conflict. In fact, they support each other. Faster growth now will mean smaller deficits later.

Not long ago, this was conventional wisdom--not only among economists but among politicians on both sides of the aisle. Debates about how and how much the government should stimulate the economy when it's weak (targeted tax cuts are one way!) are routine. But the notion that it shouldn't do so at all makes sense only to those who begin with the principle that government can do no good. Lately, they seem to be running the place.

With the debt-ceiling fight behind them, Democrats plan to finally turn their attention to jobs. That's welcome news, but it's far from clear that they'll be able to accomplish much. These days, the political climate is almost as hostile to pro-job efforts as the job market is to the unemployed.

Join the Conversation

Comments

Only when talking about government spending

does a reduction in the rate of growth get portrayed as "deep cuts to discretionary spending".

Even if all the spending cuts proposed by tea party "terrorist" groups had been implemented, the size of government would continue to explode and add to our nations enormous debt year after year.

The debt/spending debate has been framed dishonestly for way too long. I'm hoping we get some real change in Washington, but it doesn't appear likely until 2012.

BTW, Whatever happened to wanting a new "tone" in Washington. Where's the civility and how about some Democrats denounce Joe Biden for his latest attack.

I'll continue to post anonymously to liberal hate blogs until a real change in rhetoric is embraced.

In no way, in any reasonable

In no way, in any reasonable point of view can this blog be legitimately characterized as a "liberal hate blog".

As to the growth in government, even assuming living in the bounds of a balanced budget, a growing economy, and a growing population both require a growing government.

Join the Conversation via Facebook

To post a comment, log inregister, or use the Facebook comment box.