September 17, 2010
The Washington Post used the release of new Census data on poverty to promote its fairy tale view of U.S. politics. According to the Post:
“The statistics have quickly become fodder for a debate on the proper role of government in combating economic downturns.”
It is not clear what the Post thinks it means by this assertion. Immediately following this statement the article presents two quotes from conservatives who argue that it is important to get the economy growing to combat poverty. It then notes that Congress approved increased jobless benefits over the summer.
It is almost certainly the case that all of the proponents of increased jobless benefits also believe that stronger economic growth is the best way to combat poverty. It is also true that the vast majority of economists agree that increased jobless benefits in the middle of a steep downturn, like the current one, lead to increased growth. These benefits will be quickly spent, spurring demand. Since lack of demand is the main constraint on growth at present, almost anything that spurs demand will spur growth.
In short, the Post has invented a fairy tale about a debate on “the proper role of government in combating economic downturns.” There is no such debate in Washington politics. The real debate is between people who want to use the government to shift income upward and those who would rather see the less wealthy majority share the benefits of economic growth.
The Post article also includes a somewhat bizarre quote from Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute:
“We’re spending more money fighting poverty than ever before, yet poverty is up. Clearly, we’re doing something wrong.”
This is comparable to noting that we used a lot of water to combat a really huge fire, yet the fire still did lots of damage, and then concluding that water does not help against fire. Unless the argument is that anti-poverty spending somehow caused the recession, it is not clear how this statement makes sense. The Post has no obligation to print such statements just because someone at a prominent conservative think tank made them.
Comments