Why Johnny Can't Cut Spending

Well, said, Jonathan Chait. Well said, indeed!

(The Johnny in the title "Why Johnny Can't Cut Spending" refers to Speaker Beohner, not Mr. Chait.)

From "Why Republicans Can’t Propose Spending Cuts",

"Reporters are presenting this as a kind of negotiating problem, based on each side’s desire for the other to stick its neck out first. But it actually reflects a much more fundamental problem than that. Republicans think government spending is huge, but they can’t really identify ways they want to solve that problem, because government spending is not really huge. That is to say, on top of an ideological gulf between the two parties, we have an epistemological gulf. The Republican understanding of government spending is based on hazy, abstract notions that don’t match reality and can’t be translated into a workable program."

This is exactly the problem! We have one major party that has some idea -- if an imperfect grasp -- of what's going on struggling to reach agreement with the other major party ... the one that not only has no idea what's going on but fundamentally opposes the whole idea of what's really going on at an ideological level. We're dealing with a faith-based community of Republicans who insist that we really need to cut spending. But it's just because they believe in cutting spending for its own sake. There is no logical grounds for dramatically cutting spending supported by cold, hard fact. There is only a doctrine claiming that cutting spending is always the right thing in all circumstances. That's incorrect. And it's a harmful error ... a potentially disastrous error.

The Cost of Balanced Budgets and a Longer View on Presidents and Jobs From Ike To 2012

I'd usually heard the 50s described as more or less a golden era of rising prosperity. But till recently I tended to skip over digging into that decade's economic data to focus on the Great Depression up through World War II (when not mucking about the peaks and valleys of more recent times). So I have to admit this chart surprised me.

starting with Ike, the first President fully covered in the monthly POP data; to June 2012

I was expecting that adding in the Republican Presidents before Reagan would show that prior to Trickle-down / Supply-side economics / Reaganomics infecting the Republican party, they'd done better. I expected to be illustrating the post-Depression glory days of the Republican party via Ike, Nixon, and Ford. Instead, the data gave me what we see above. In jobs, Nixon and Ford both did worse than Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. While Nixon and Ford did better than Obama's marks for his full term so far, they each did worse than during his tepid recovery span from February 2010 on to the latest data. And then there's Ike -- whom we admire -- down there with the likes of the Bushes. I didn't want to see that. Frankly, I wanted to believe Ike pulled off the Clinton trick of balancing the budget while improving employment. But I can't deny the data.

If we look a bit further back, before the dates in the data used above to put payroll growth in perspective via population growth, we can at least compare Ike's raw payroll figures to those from FDR (since 1939) and Truman, but that only rules out claiming Ike's dismal jobs performance as part of a longer trend.

Ike's sad job numbers with context: at least he's not Bush II

It's not a pretty picture for Ike, which I'm sad to see. Thankfully there's still much to admire from President Eisenhower in the highway system and his work for civil rights. I still like Ike. I still think I'd have voted for him if I'd been old enough at the time. But his economic record is tarnished.

In his defense, President Eisenhower did start his term with a 2.6% unemployment rate during that first full month. It's hard to improve on 2.6% unemployment. Still, unemployment rose dramatically to 6.9% by the first full month of his successor's term. Ike's shift: +165% unemployment. That's a rather lousy fumble. And while the Eisenhower years saw increasing family incomes, the same can be said for the Kennedy / Johnson years except without the rising unemployment, as over the course of their span they reduced that rate from the 6.9% that Eisenhower left them back down to 3.4% by the end of Johnson's Presidency.

So what went wrong? Let's look at the modern history of balanced budgets:

• At Republican urging, FDR tried to balance the budget with spending cuts and it brought us the Recession of 1937-38. 
• After World War II we saw dramatic cutbacks in spending with balanced budgets in 1947 through 1949 and the recessions in 1945 and 1949. (Of course, the war spending was unsustainable; there was probably no way to avoid recession in the late 1940s.)
• Truman balanced the budget in 1951. But like the later Clinton-era balanced budgets this one was done while expanding federal outlays ... rather swiftly increasing from the 1948 lows. Then after we slowed spending at the end of the Korean War, we got the recession of 1953.
• Eisenhower balanced the budget in 1956 and 1957 and we got the Recession of 1957.
• Eisenhower balanced the budget again in 1960 and we got the Recession of 1960.
• Nixon balanced the budget in 1969 and we got the Recession of 1970.
• While Clinton balanced the budget in 1998 lasting through Bush's first budget in 2001, the balancing in these years was done without reducing the growth of federal outlays but rather through moderate increase of tax rates. As such, this particular instance was thoroughly different from most previous balancing of the budget (except Truman's).

There were also some recessions that didn't correspond to these balanced budgets: the oil shock under Nixon, the extremely high interest rates under Reagan, the S&L crisis under Bush I, the Dot-Com crash under Clinton and Bush II, and the housing/finance crash under Bush II. I'm not suggesting that all recessions are caused by cutting to achieve balanced budgets. However, it would seem that balancing our national budget via cuts -- even if only in inflation-adjusted terms as in 1960 and 1969 -- tends to lead to recession.

The impact of Eisenhower's budget balancing exploits are particularly of interest for its parallel to job losses in the Great Recession. Private payrolls dropped by 2.385 million between August 1957 and June 1958, a 5.26% decline. By comparison, that's just barely below the 5.47% decline during the worst job-loss months of the Great Recession from August 2008 through June 2009. Remember that saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results. If we implement massive cutbacks like Eisenhower with our sequestration fiscal cliff, we can expect yet another massive fall just like the Eisenhower recession ... and we've not climbed far enough back from the jagged rocks as it is.

In case after case, budgets balanced with spending cuts have brought on recession. And now the Republicans are once again pushing us to balance the budget with dramatic spending cuts. Democrats may not be leading the charge, but Obama like FDR is far too willing to accept the Republican push for cuts. If we don't turn away from this push to slash budgets, previous experience shows us it will hurt the economy. When we make the debt more manageable by growing our economy such that the debt shrinks by comparison, that's tended to work out well. When we clumsily attempt to tackle the debt directly by slashing spending to balance the budget in the hopes a primary surplus, the records shows it tends to work out poorly.

Updated Job Picture Under President Obama

How's the job picture look under President Obama's term in office so far? Not only did payrolls stop the inherited plummeting but also private sector jobs have strongly, steadily grown since turning around in February 2010. Meanwhile, aside from the Census spike, steady govt cuts -- mainly at the state and local levels -- have taken government payrolls in the opposite direction.

We have here a good, solid private recovery that's impeded by heavy govt cuts diminishing it from how good it'd be otherwise. Below, we can see roughly the hypothetical difference that govt cutbacks (aside from the brief census surge) have made to the overall employment picture by looking at total employment assuming private sector hiring had still followed exactly the path it did and govt payrolls had held steady at February 2009 levels.

The adjusted line likely understates how much it would have helped to avoid the govt cutbacks. After all, those laid off govt workers couldn't buy as many goods and services, so there would arguably have been more demand fueling more private sector jobs and making the private component grow faster if we hadn't had cutbacks. But for the chart above, the only adjustment reflected in the green line versus the blue line is a freezing of govt payrolls at precisely the February 2009 level. A more complete picture of the difference cutbacks made would reflect an estimate of anticipated higher private payrolls resulting from avoiding the govt layoffs.

Grunwald Clarifies Exactly Where Ryan Stands

Highlights from Grunwald on Ryan in "Paul Ryan and the Stimulus: A Match Designed to Make My Head Explode":

"Funny, Ryan somehow forgot to mention that he was one of those proponents. He had voted for the Bush stimulus, along with the Bush tax cuts, the Bush wars, the Bush security spending binge, the Bush prescription drug benefit, the Bush highway bill that included the Bridge to Nowhere, and the Bush bank bailout. Fiscal conservatism!"

and

"Republicans never explained how $715 billion worth of tax cuts and spending could be good public policy while $787 billion worth of tax cuts and spending was freedom-crushing socialism. In the minority, they didn’t have to. And Paul Ryan? As usual, he fell off both sides of the horse. He voted for the ideological tax-cut bill that would have increased the deficit, and the political spending bill that would have increased the deficit. And then he railed about Obama and the Democrats increasing the deficit."

Grunwald, of course, gave more detail around the above, but those're the real biting crux of it. For all of his reputation, Paul Ryan really turns out to be about nothing more than GOP partisan politics. His records shows that he's got the typical Republican history of ranting about Democrats and deficit spending out of one side of his mouth while voting for Republican budget-busting policies with the other.

What Caused the Deficit and Who Should Pay?

James Crotty's entry in the January 2012 issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics, "The great austerity war: what caused the US deficit crisis and who should pay to fix it?" reads like it has a bit of a chip on its shoulder ... but perhaps reasonably so. Crotty clearly cares about what he sees happening.

According to his analysis from the abstract, "our deficit crisis is the result of a shift from the New Deal-based economic model of the early postwar period to today’s neoliberal, free-market model. The new model has generated slow growth, rising inequality and rising deficits. Rising deficits in turn created demands for austerity."

The piece begins with a brief history of how we got into such a mess from the twists and turns of interaction between economics and politics. That history leads naturally into discussing the method through which the right-wing's neoliberal model works its madness.

"Since the right-wing economic model relentlessly pursues regressive tax cuts and slows the economic growth rate, it has a strong structural tendency to restrain the growth of government tax revenue. While committed to reducing government spending on the social safety net and public investment, it supports increased defence expenditure and giveaways to corporate America. However, proposals by conservative politicians to defund or privatise popular spending programmes such as Social Security and Medicare have, until recently, triggered a powerful political backlash that has made them impossible to implement. In practice, at least until now, the model restrains revenue growth more effectively than it lowers spending. This combination has made rising deficits a structural attribute of the right-wing model."

Another observation along the way that would probably surprise the "taxed enough already" crowd is that we're very lightly taxed by international standards.

"Total federal tax revenue in 2010 as a percentage of GDP was at a 60-year low (Bartlett, 2011). The fact that the USA is, by international standards, a very lightly taxed nation suggests that it would be possible to raise substantial additional tax revenue without serious economic side effects. If the USA had the same tax-to-GDP ratio as the median country in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) country in 2009, we would have had $1.4 trillion in extra revenue that year and we would not have a deficit problem at all." 

But we don't even need to go that far. Simply letting the so-called temporary tax cuts finally expire in 2012 and massively reducing troop numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2015 should, according to Crotty, "cut the prospective decade-long deficit in half, reducing it to manageable proportions without gutting important government programmes."

The Wealthy Don't Create Jobs; Good Jobs Create The Wealthy

What came first, the wealthy or the building blocks of wealth? This is no idle "chicken or the egg" question. Major political players base real policies with serious impact on their own answer to the question. What if most of them are getting it wrong? What if getting it wrong could wreck the system and ransack wealth?

To get the answer, the GOP base are obviously looking at wealthy investors. Our tax-cutting crowd clearly thinks they're the starting point. They say that getting more money to them will mean more jobs. The idea runs that investors bet their capital on starting or expanding a company that can then hire folks, thus jobs. This seems to pass for unquestionable truth among the "starve the beast" set. They figure that the more money the wealthy have the more they'll put into creating jobs. Even leaving aside the question of whether they'd likely choose to invest their money elsewhere, the anti-tax set need to reconsider two questions: 1) Is that usually how jobs are made? and 2) Where'd the capital come from in the first place? These two questions are necessarily linked. You can't explain where the capital came from without considering ways to make jobs without capital.

So where'd the first capital come from? Unless you think it was somehow handed over to man by divine intervention -- capital raining down from heaven or appearing from nothing -- it had to come from work. We can set aside the factor of inherited wealth, since somebody had to collect it in order to pass it down to lucky heirs. That first capital accumulating work -- whatever it was -- was collecting and/or making something that could be sold or traded. In short, it was a job. It may not have been a modern job, but close enough for our question. Somebody did some work. It may have been all on his own. Or the work may have been getting others to do things for him. But whatever it was, somebody did some work that produced a surplus. Perhaps that surplus was then -- directly or through heirs -- reinvested by getting other folks to do more work to produce more surplus. At root, the workers involved still created the surplus. The worker-created surplus was then used to spur more work to create more surplus. The job came first. The assets produced were just a product of the job that lets that job contribute to even more jobs. Get together a lot of surplus produced from a lot of jobs, and you've got wealth. Even if you then use that wealth to spur more work that creates more wealth, the wealth still didn't create itself but rather came as the sum effect of the work ... the jobs.

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased." -- Adam Smith 

Ultimately, the idea that wealth comes from somebody investing in business is a myth. If I build a factory and hire 50 people to make widgets, I'm not going to get any return on my investment unless there are people who can be interested in widgets and have enough money to spend on my widgets. If my widgets aren't essentials, those people will only have enough money to spend if they're making a surplus beyond the cost of living. Even if the widgets are essential, folks who don't have an income aren't going to be buying many widgets. If I don't have enough potential customers to break even, I'm not going to be employing those 50 widget makers for long. But if I have enough customers to make a profit, I'll keep employing them. And if I have too many customers for them to keep up, I'll hire more. Then who really created the wealth I reap from my factory? Sure, I made the factory investment that allowed me to sell widgets. But without the customers, that investment would have just been a foolish building that couldn't support long term jobs. It's the customers who really make the difference.

Jobs further wealth in two ways. Obviously there's the surplus collected by the initial business owner. But there's also the circulation of resources wherein the worker's share of surplus is spent at other businesses. The worker's paycheck allows him to be a customer contributing to other jobs that yield other surpluses for other business owners. The paychecks from those other jobs may in turn be spent at yet further businesses or even end up winding back to the initial business. Jobs have no choice but to create wealth, even when they fail to do so directly for a specific employer. Unless they're inefficient jobs, they'll create a surplus. And even if they're inefficient jobs they'll mean money for workers to spend at efficient businesses yielding surplus. The job just can't hold itself back from contributing to the creation of wealth. Wealth, on the other hand, can sit idle. It can be stored in some valuable thing that'll sit collecting dust. Sure, wealth may be further invested in jobs and help yield more wealth. But it can also hang on the sidelines for years or even centuries and do nothing productive.

Clearly it's the job that creates the wealth. We can use that answer to figure out what to do to get our economy rolling again. We want wealth and jobs. We need to push the one that creates the other. If we change our tax structure to get more money to the wealthy, we're just tinkering with accelerating redistribution of income to the rich who may just sit on it. That risks having it grind to a halt if too much money is removed from the system to just sit idly in the stockpiles of the wealthy. I'm all for building wealth, but not at the cost of having all the money locked down to the point where it no longer flows from business to business through employees and customers. Since wealth ultimately comes from jobs, those of us who want both more jobs and more wealth need to focus on jobs in order to get both. With more wealth, there doesn't necessarily have to be more jobs. With more jobs, there will be more wealth.

Now we've got a situation where there isn't enough demand for products and services to spur widespread hiring. Too many people don't have enough money to spend. And unemployment causes much of that current lack. Private industry can't fix the situation because it won't make any sense for them to hire until there's demand for products and services. There's only one credible way out: govt must step in to fill the void. Govt must stop hiding their heads in the sand and pretending that we can count on the wealthy to hire out of the goodness of their hearts -- without enough demand causing it to make sense as an investment -- if we just help a bit more money stick in their accounts. Govt must stop laying off workers and start hiring so there will be more paychecks to spend on goods and services. And to do that, govt is going to have to start leveling with us and facing that we'll have to rack up a future bill in order to make things work here and now ... and for the future.