If the Hill had anyone on staff old enough to remember the 1995 budget standoff surely they would have pointed out to readers that Republican Senator Richard Burr was being misleading when he unfavorably compared President Obama’s conduct in the current crisis to President Clinton’s conduct in the earlier standoff.
The Hill piece told readers:
“Burr said Obama has been much less involved in resolving the shutdown than then-President Clinton was in 1996.
“‘The president is totally disengaged,’ Burr said. ‘The president in 1996 was engaged in an hour-by-hour basis.'”
If the Hill had anyone on staff old enough to remember the 1995 budget standoff surely they would have pointed out to readers that Republican Senator Richard Burr was being misleading when he unfavorably compared President Obama’s conduct in the current crisis to President Clinton’s conduct in the earlier standoff.
The Hill piece told readers:
“Burr said Obama has been much less involved in resolving the shutdown than then-President Clinton was in 1996.
“‘The president is totally disengaged,’ Burr said. ‘The president in 1996 was engaged in an hour-by-hour basis.'”
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Yes, we all know that income inequality is due to the hollowing out of the middle. Technology is destroying the jobs that used to support the middle class. Somehow technology doesn’t destroy the jobs that pay people in the financial industry millions and tens of millions a year to do absolutely nothing useful as consultants to pension funds. It’s hard to believe that anyone would take this technology story seriously if it were not so appealing to the rich and powerful.
Yes, we all know that income inequality is due to the hollowing out of the middle. Technology is destroying the jobs that used to support the middle class. Somehow technology doesn’t destroy the jobs that pay people in the financial industry millions and tens of millions a year to do absolutely nothing useful as consultants to pension funds. It’s hard to believe that anyone would take this technology story seriously if it were not so appealing to the rich and powerful.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The national media continue to express their disdain for logic and arithmetic when they warn that we will face a debt ceiling, in addition to a government shutdown, on October 17th. That one doesn’t make sense.
The government shutdown means that much of the spending that would otherwise be going to support the $1.2 trillion discretionary portion of the federal budget is not being made. As a result, the government’s borrowing needs will be considerably lower over this period. Depending on how much spending goes out the door, it is possible that the government is not even borrowing at all during the period of shutdown.
This means that the shutdown will extend the date at which a debt ceiling will be reached. That would change if the standoff is settled and all the delayed payments are made retroactively. However, if the government remains shut for several weeks, the debt ceiling deadline will be pushed out past the October 17th deadline indicated by the Treasury Department.
The national media continue to express their disdain for logic and arithmetic when they warn that we will face a debt ceiling, in addition to a government shutdown, on October 17th. That one doesn’t make sense.
The government shutdown means that much of the spending that would otherwise be going to support the $1.2 trillion discretionary portion of the federal budget is not being made. As a result, the government’s borrowing needs will be considerably lower over this period. Depending on how much spending goes out the door, it is possible that the government is not even borrowing at all during the period of shutdown.
This means that the shutdown will extend the date at which a debt ceiling will be reached. That would change if the standoff is settled and all the delayed payments are made retroactively. However, if the government remains shut for several weeks, the debt ceiling deadline will be pushed out past the October 17th deadline indicated by the Treasury Department.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Annie Lowrey presents a scenario in which a partial debt default would lead to a full-fledged financial crisis. The basic story is that some government bonds will be in default. Defaulted bonds cannot be used as collateral in the huge repo market where hundreds of billions of dollars of money and bonds are traded every day and is the basis for the country’s systems of payments. Since there is no simple mechanism for marking defaulted bonds that distinguishes them from other bonds, there will be no way to ensure that collateral is valid, therefore the whole market will shut down and the system of payments will collapse.
This is an interesting scenario. On the other hand, it is interesting to look at the fundamentals here. The vast majority of bonds that might be used as collateral will not have defaulted. Even the ones that are technically in default will have only lost a small fraction of their value. Think it through. You have a government bond that was supposed to have a coupon payment on October 17th which was not made because of the debt ceiling standoff. How much less are you willing to sell this bond for on October 18th? (If you say 3 percent or more, send me a note.)
While this set of events could possibly undermine the system as it functions today, if the bankers could not develop a workaround pretty quickly, they are a lot dumber than people give them credit for. Remember, this situation is fundamentally different than what we saw in 2008. In 2008 there was trillions of dollars’ worth of genuinely bad collateral tied to defaulting mortgages, which were in turn tied to houses that had lost much of their value. This was a case where the music stopped and the money really wasn’t there. In the current situation, does anyone really doubt that at some point the government will make the interest and principle payments on its debt?
None of this is to dispute that Lowrey’s scenario of a financial crisis may not be right. The Wall Street boys really don’t seem to be very good with numbers. Put to the test, they may well fail.
Annie Lowrey presents a scenario in which a partial debt default would lead to a full-fledged financial crisis. The basic story is that some government bonds will be in default. Defaulted bonds cannot be used as collateral in the huge repo market where hundreds of billions of dollars of money and bonds are traded every day and is the basis for the country’s systems of payments. Since there is no simple mechanism for marking defaulted bonds that distinguishes them from other bonds, there will be no way to ensure that collateral is valid, therefore the whole market will shut down and the system of payments will collapse.
This is an interesting scenario. On the other hand, it is interesting to look at the fundamentals here. The vast majority of bonds that might be used as collateral will not have defaulted. Even the ones that are technically in default will have only lost a small fraction of their value. Think it through. You have a government bond that was supposed to have a coupon payment on October 17th which was not made because of the debt ceiling standoff. How much less are you willing to sell this bond for on October 18th? (If you say 3 percent or more, send me a note.)
While this set of events could possibly undermine the system as it functions today, if the bankers could not develop a workaround pretty quickly, they are a lot dumber than people give them credit for. Remember, this situation is fundamentally different than what we saw in 2008. In 2008 there was trillions of dollars’ worth of genuinely bad collateral tied to defaulting mortgages, which were in turn tied to houses that had lost much of their value. This was a case where the music stopped and the money really wasn’t there. In the current situation, does anyone really doubt that at some point the government will make the interest and principle payments on its debt?
None of this is to dispute that Lowrey’s scenario of a financial crisis may not be right. The Wall Street boys really don’t seem to be very good with numbers. Put to the test, they may well fail.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
One of the most pernicious myths of the Fix the Debt Gang and other Peter Peterson type outfits is that Social Security redistributes money from the young to the old. This is bizarre because people pay for their benefits with the taxes they contribute during their working lifetimes. In fact, the average return current beneficiaries receive is not especially high (less than 2.0 percent real).
If workers contributed the same amount to a privately managed pension fund and then collected an annuity in their retirement no one would call it a redistribution from young to old. It hard to see how it becomes a generational redistribution because Social Security is run by the government. But that is what Robert Samuelson is telling readers in today’s column.
There is a bit more of a case of a redistribution with Medicare, but it is not from young to old. While the cost of Medicare benefits on average exceed what workers pay into the system this is not because of the generosity of the benefit but rather because the United States pays so much for its health care. If per person payments in the United States were comparable to those in other wealthy countries then the cost of Medicare benefits would not exceed the taxes paid in. Given the excessive cost of health care in the United States Medicare can be seen as a redistribution to drug companies, doctors, medical equipment manufacturers and other health care providers.
Samuelson also refers to economists who believe that productivity growth will fall off sharply in the years ahead. While there are some prominent economists who argue this case it is worth noting that this view is still far from being accepted in the mainstream of the profession. It is also important to point out that it is 180 degrees at odds with the robots will replace all the workers view.
Since this one seems complicated for Washington policy wonk types, let me repeat. If you believe that productivity growth is slowing then you absolutely do not think that we will have a problem with robots replacing workers. These views are completely opposite to each other. If you don’t understand this point, please refrain from discussing economic issues until you do.
Addendum:
I see the comment on Social Security and redistribution has prompted much response. Yes, Social Security is redistributive in the sense that the people who are collecting it are not working for the money in the year they collect it. In this sense, the items they consume must be produced by the working population at the time.
However a 401(k) account is redistributive in the same way. A retiree living off their 401(k) income must rely on the goods and services produced by the working population. In the latter case, we say that the worker’s purchase of assets held by the 401(k) gives them claim to the income in later years. The same logic applies to Social Security.
If people want to complain about 401(k)s being redistributive from young to old, then there is a claim against Social Security. The folks who don’t see a problem with 401(k)s should not see a problem with Social Security either.
One of the most pernicious myths of the Fix the Debt Gang and other Peter Peterson type outfits is that Social Security redistributes money from the young to the old. This is bizarre because people pay for their benefits with the taxes they contribute during their working lifetimes. In fact, the average return current beneficiaries receive is not especially high (less than 2.0 percent real).
If workers contributed the same amount to a privately managed pension fund and then collected an annuity in their retirement no one would call it a redistribution from young to old. It hard to see how it becomes a generational redistribution because Social Security is run by the government. But that is what Robert Samuelson is telling readers in today’s column.
There is a bit more of a case of a redistribution with Medicare, but it is not from young to old. While the cost of Medicare benefits on average exceed what workers pay into the system this is not because of the generosity of the benefit but rather because the United States pays so much for its health care. If per person payments in the United States were comparable to those in other wealthy countries then the cost of Medicare benefits would not exceed the taxes paid in. Given the excessive cost of health care in the United States Medicare can be seen as a redistribution to drug companies, doctors, medical equipment manufacturers and other health care providers.
Samuelson also refers to economists who believe that productivity growth will fall off sharply in the years ahead. While there are some prominent economists who argue this case it is worth noting that this view is still far from being accepted in the mainstream of the profession. It is also important to point out that it is 180 degrees at odds with the robots will replace all the workers view.
Since this one seems complicated for Washington policy wonk types, let me repeat. If you believe that productivity growth is slowing then you absolutely do not think that we will have a problem with robots replacing workers. These views are completely opposite to each other. If you don’t understand this point, please refrain from discussing economic issues until you do.
Addendum:
I see the comment on Social Security and redistribution has prompted much response. Yes, Social Security is redistributive in the sense that the people who are collecting it are not working for the money in the year they collect it. In this sense, the items they consume must be produced by the working population at the time.
However a 401(k) account is redistributive in the same way. A retiree living off their 401(k) income must rely on the goods and services produced by the working population. In the latter case, we say that the worker’s purchase of assets held by the 401(k) gives them claim to the income in later years. The same logic applies to Social Security.
If people want to complain about 401(k)s being redistributive from young to old, then there is a claim against Social Security. The folks who don’t see a problem with 401(k)s should not see a problem with Social Security either.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That fact might have been worth mentioning in a NYT article that discussed a new program by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to offer government guarantees on mortgages where homeowners made down payments equal to just 5 percent of the price of the home. The article noted that the average house price in the U.K. is already $274,000.
While it pointed out that a recent rise in house prices brought them back to their pre-crash level it also might have been worth noting that the average price in the U.K. is almost 25 percent higher than the $220,000 average price in the United States. This might provide some cause for concern, since the per capita income in the U.K. is more than 25 percent lower than in the United States. (Until the bubble years, house prices had typically been somewhat lower in the U.K. than in the U.S.)
If house prices in the U.K. fell to the same level as in the United States, new homebuyers would find themselves 20 percent underwater and the government could find that it has added considerably to the national debt that it is trying so hard to reduce.
Note: Typo corrected.
That fact might have been worth mentioning in a NYT article that discussed a new program by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to offer government guarantees on mortgages where homeowners made down payments equal to just 5 percent of the price of the home. The article noted that the average house price in the U.K. is already $274,000.
While it pointed out that a recent rise in house prices brought them back to their pre-crash level it also might have been worth noting that the average price in the U.K. is almost 25 percent higher than the $220,000 average price in the United States. This might provide some cause for concern, since the per capita income in the U.K. is more than 25 percent lower than in the United States. (Until the bubble years, house prices had typically been somewhat lower in the U.K. than in the U.S.)
If house prices in the U.K. fell to the same level as in the United States, new homebuyers would find themselves 20 percent underwater and the government could find that it has added considerably to the national debt that it is trying so hard to reduce.
Note: Typo corrected.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The New York Times told readers that Mayor Bloomberg is right, the data show that the poor have benefited by having more billionaires in the city. The basis for this assessment is that rich people pay a disproportionate share of the city’s tax revenues. Therefore by having more rich people, the city has more tax revenue to help out poor people.
The article even gives readers some basis for quantifying this gain. It tells readers that households with incomes of more than $10 million a year accounted for almost 20 percent of the city’s income tax revenue last year. Since the city raised just under $8 billion in income taxes, this means that the rich paid a bit less than $1.6 billion to the city in income taxes.
By comparison, the article tells us that 46 percent of the people in the city have an income of less than 1.5 times the poverty level. With a population of 8.25 million, this implies that roughly 3.8 million people live near or below the poverty line. This means that if all the tax revenue from the wealthy was used to benefit the poor, as opposed to benefiting the wealthy by providing them services or general support for the city infrastructure and services, it would come to $420 per poor person per year.
However tax payments are not the only way that the rich would affect the well-being of the poor. Their demand for housing and other resources (e.g. building space devoted to restaurants, gyms, art galleries, etc) drives up the cost of real estate in New York City. As a result, rent costs the poor more than it would if there were fewer rich people in the city.
It’s not easy to calculate what rents would be in the city if the number of rich people had not increased so much under Bloomberg, but they would almost certainly be considerably lower. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), since 2000 rents in the New York have risen by 40.7 percent in the New York metropolitan area compared to 36.2 percent in the country as a whole. The increase in rents in the city itself is almost certainly more than this number, since the BLS figure is for the whole metropolitan area.
The Census Bureau reports that the median rent for the city is $1,125 a month or $13,500 a year. If the presence of such a large number of rich people raised this figure by 10 percent, then rich people cost low and moderate income people $1,350 in higher rents. With an average of 2.7 people per housing unit, this is considerably more than the $1,130 they would get if all the income taxes raised from the rich were redistributed to the poor.
Of course the rich would impose costs on the poor in other ways as well. Because the price of real estate in general is higher due to their demand, all the stores in the city must pay higher rents because of the presence of so many rich people. These higher rents are passed on to low-income people in the price of their food and clothes and everything else they buy.
If the NYT wanted to do a serious analysis of whether the poor in New York City benefit from having so many rich people in the city, then it would have to examine all the ways in which their presence has an impact on the well-being of the poor. Just looking at tax revenue collected from the rich is an incomplete and obviously biased way to make this assessment.
Note: typos corrected.
The New York Times told readers that Mayor Bloomberg is right, the data show that the poor have benefited by having more billionaires in the city. The basis for this assessment is that rich people pay a disproportionate share of the city’s tax revenues. Therefore by having more rich people, the city has more tax revenue to help out poor people.
The article even gives readers some basis for quantifying this gain. It tells readers that households with incomes of more than $10 million a year accounted for almost 20 percent of the city’s income tax revenue last year. Since the city raised just under $8 billion in income taxes, this means that the rich paid a bit less than $1.6 billion to the city in income taxes.
By comparison, the article tells us that 46 percent of the people in the city have an income of less than 1.5 times the poverty level. With a population of 8.25 million, this implies that roughly 3.8 million people live near or below the poverty line. This means that if all the tax revenue from the wealthy was used to benefit the poor, as opposed to benefiting the wealthy by providing them services or general support for the city infrastructure and services, it would come to $420 per poor person per year.
However tax payments are not the only way that the rich would affect the well-being of the poor. Their demand for housing and other resources (e.g. building space devoted to restaurants, gyms, art galleries, etc) drives up the cost of real estate in New York City. As a result, rent costs the poor more than it would if there were fewer rich people in the city.
It’s not easy to calculate what rents would be in the city if the number of rich people had not increased so much under Bloomberg, but they would almost certainly be considerably lower. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), since 2000 rents in the New York have risen by 40.7 percent in the New York metropolitan area compared to 36.2 percent in the country as a whole. The increase in rents in the city itself is almost certainly more than this number, since the BLS figure is for the whole metropolitan area.
The Census Bureau reports that the median rent for the city is $1,125 a month or $13,500 a year. If the presence of such a large number of rich people raised this figure by 10 percent, then rich people cost low and moderate income people $1,350 in higher rents. With an average of 2.7 people per housing unit, this is considerably more than the $1,130 they would get if all the income taxes raised from the rich were redistributed to the poor.
Of course the rich would impose costs on the poor in other ways as well. Because the price of real estate in general is higher due to their demand, all the stores in the city must pay higher rents because of the presence of so many rich people. These higher rents are passed on to low-income people in the price of their food and clothes and everything else they buy.
If the NYT wanted to do a serious analysis of whether the poor in New York City benefit from having so many rich people in the city, then it would have to examine all the ways in which their presence has an impact on the well-being of the poor. Just looking at tax revenue collected from the rich is an incomplete and obviously biased way to make this assessment.
Note: typos corrected.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
See, nothing gets by those vigilant super-sleuths at the Washington Post. In yet another front page story highlighting government waste the paper told readers that the Agriculture Department spent almost 0.000004 percent of the budget on toner cartridges, the Department of Veterans Affairs spent 0.000014 percent of the budget on artwork, and the Coast Guard spent 0.000004 percent of the budget on cubicle furniture. Of course the Post didn’t tell people how large these items were as a share of the federal budget, instead it told readers that the Agriculture Department spent $144,000 on toner cartridges, the Department of Veterans Affairs spent $562,000 on artwork, and the Coast Guard spent $178,000 on cubicle furniture.
These were all end of the fiscal year expenditures. The intention of the paper is clearly to imply that these are examples of wasteful spending but none of the information in the article provides a basis for this assessment. Government office buildings need office furniture, they use printing cartridges, and they also typically have some amount of artwork. This piece provides no evidence whatsoever that these particular expenditures were wasteful, they simply were spending that agencies decided to put through at the end of their fiscal year when they knew they had the money for them.
This may actually have been very prudent spending on the part of the agencies. For example, the Coast Guard may have badly needed new furniture for its cubicles. (Furniture does wear out — I have been to the WaPo’s office, they replace their furniture on occasion.) It may have put off the purchase until it was certain that it could meet its other expenses for the year. Once it was apparent that it had met all essential expenses, the Coast Guard may have then decided to use its remaining funds to buy the needed furniture. This would be very rational budgeting, not evidence of waste.
The whole piece is trying to make a scandal when it really has no evidence to show anything of the sort. That might have been more apparent to readers if it had written the alleged boondoggle spending as a share of the budget rather than trying to impress people with the size of the expenditures.
See, nothing gets by those vigilant super-sleuths at the Washington Post. In yet another front page story highlighting government waste the paper told readers that the Agriculture Department spent almost 0.000004 percent of the budget on toner cartridges, the Department of Veterans Affairs spent 0.000014 percent of the budget on artwork, and the Coast Guard spent 0.000004 percent of the budget on cubicle furniture. Of course the Post didn’t tell people how large these items were as a share of the federal budget, instead it told readers that the Agriculture Department spent $144,000 on toner cartridges, the Department of Veterans Affairs spent $562,000 on artwork, and the Coast Guard spent $178,000 on cubicle furniture.
These were all end of the fiscal year expenditures. The intention of the paper is clearly to imply that these are examples of wasteful spending but none of the information in the article provides a basis for this assessment. Government office buildings need office furniture, they use printing cartridges, and they also typically have some amount of artwork. This piece provides no evidence whatsoever that these particular expenditures were wasteful, they simply were spending that agencies decided to put through at the end of their fiscal year when they knew they had the money for them.
This may actually have been very prudent spending on the part of the agencies. For example, the Coast Guard may have badly needed new furniture for its cubicles. (Furniture does wear out — I have been to the WaPo’s office, they replace their furniture on occasion.) It may have put off the purchase until it was certain that it could meet its other expenses for the year. Once it was apparent that it had met all essential expenses, the Coast Guard may have then decided to use its remaining funds to buy the needed furniture. This would be very rational budgeting, not evidence of waste.
The whole piece is trying to make a scandal when it really has no evidence to show anything of the sort. That might have been more apparent to readers if it had written the alleged boondoggle spending as a share of the budget rather than trying to impress people with the size of the expenditures.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
George Will is apparently still obsessed with inflation and very disappointed that the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing has not led to hyperinflation thus far. This led him to write a seriously confused column condemning the Fed and its Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Will complains:
“A touch on the tiller here, a nimble reversal there — these express the fatal conceit of an institution that considers itself capable of, and responsible for, fine-tuning the nation’s $15.7 trillion economy.”
This assertion is incredibly wide of the mark, even getting the size of the economy wrong by $1 trillion. Certainly Bernanke and the Fed are not claiming the ability to fine-tune the economy. If they had this ability then the economy would not currently be operating at a level of output that is $1 trillion below its potential. That is not anywhere in the ballpark of fine-tuning.
The comment that apparently upset Will is Bernanke’s claim that the Fed would have no problem raising interest rates and slowing the economy if there was an outbreak of inflation on the horizon. It’s not clear why this comment would seem so strange. Inflation only rises very gradually and there has been no problem of inflation growing out of control for more than three decades in the United States or any other wealthy country. This would suggest that Bernanke has some reason for believing that he or his successor will continue to be able to prevent an outbreak of accelerating inflation.
Will is also convinced that the stock market has been artificially inflated by the Fed’s quantitative easing and zero interest rate policy. The S&P 500 peaked at over 1550 in the fall of 2007. If it had risen in step with the trend growth rate of GDP it would be over 1950 today, almost 20 percent higher than its current level. For some reason Will never complained about the 2007 stock market level in spite of the fact that it was markedly higher relative to the value of GDP at the time.
Note — typo corrected in first sentence.
George Will is apparently still obsessed with inflation and very disappointed that the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing has not led to hyperinflation thus far. This led him to write a seriously confused column condemning the Fed and its Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Will complains:
“A touch on the tiller here, a nimble reversal there — these express the fatal conceit of an institution that considers itself capable of, and responsible for, fine-tuning the nation’s $15.7 trillion economy.”
This assertion is incredibly wide of the mark, even getting the size of the economy wrong by $1 trillion. Certainly Bernanke and the Fed are not claiming the ability to fine-tune the economy. If they had this ability then the economy would not currently be operating at a level of output that is $1 trillion below its potential. That is not anywhere in the ballpark of fine-tuning.
The comment that apparently upset Will is Bernanke’s claim that the Fed would have no problem raising interest rates and slowing the economy if there was an outbreak of inflation on the horizon. It’s not clear why this comment would seem so strange. Inflation only rises very gradually and there has been no problem of inflation growing out of control for more than three decades in the United States or any other wealthy country. This would suggest that Bernanke has some reason for believing that he or his successor will continue to be able to prevent an outbreak of accelerating inflation.
Will is also convinced that the stock market has been artificially inflated by the Fed’s quantitative easing and zero interest rate policy. The S&P 500 peaked at over 1550 in the fall of 2007. If it had risen in step with the trend growth rate of GDP it would be over 1950 today, almost 20 percent higher than its current level. For some reason Will never complained about the 2007 stock market level in spite of the fact that it was markedly higher relative to the value of GDP at the time.
Note — typo corrected in first sentence.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
No one expects serious budget or economic analysis on the Washington Post’s editorial page, but endorsing a tax and spending freeze until the unemployment rate falls below 6.5 percent (bizarrely called “Jobs First”) is an embarrassment even for the Post. Incredibly, neither the Post nor their “No Labels” leaders explain what a freeze even means. Is spending frozen in nominal terms, in real terms? Does it allow for increases in spending in mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare?
You won’t find answers to these basic questions in either the Post’s editorial or on the No Labels website. (For those folks who aren’t familiar with them, No Labels was started by a bunch of Wall Street types who think that everyone should just stop fighting and agree with them.)
Anyhow, it is hard to comment much on something that is so vague, but the irony of the “Jobs First” label should be apparent to everyone. In order to get down to 6.5 percent unemployment in a reasonable period of time we are likely to need more government spending. By freezing government spending, the No Labels crew are effectively putting jobs last. But hey, this is the Washington Post editorial page, who cares about economics, logic, or jobs?
No one expects serious budget or economic analysis on the Washington Post’s editorial page, but endorsing a tax and spending freeze until the unemployment rate falls below 6.5 percent (bizarrely called “Jobs First”) is an embarrassment even for the Post. Incredibly, neither the Post nor their “No Labels” leaders explain what a freeze even means. Is spending frozen in nominal terms, in real terms? Does it allow for increases in spending in mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare?
You won’t find answers to these basic questions in either the Post’s editorial or on the No Labels website. (For those folks who aren’t familiar with them, No Labels was started by a bunch of Wall Street types who think that everyone should just stop fighting and agree with them.)
Anyhow, it is hard to comment much on something that is so vague, but the irony of the “Jobs First” label should be apparent to everyone. In order to get down to 6.5 percent unemployment in a reasonable period of time we are likely to need more government spending. By freezing government spending, the No Labels crew are effectively putting jobs last. But hey, this is the Washington Post editorial page, who cares about economics, logic, or jobs?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
