Meet MoneyWatch | Log In
Why are we happy that we are cutting the deficit at the beginning of an economic recovery?:
Deficit: This Is Not Good News, by Brad DeLong: David Cho writes:
The federal deficit is running significantly lower than it did last year, with the budget gap for the first half of fiscal 2010 down 8 percent over the same period a year ago, senior Obama administration officials said Monday. The officials attributed the results to higher tax revenue and to lower spending than projected on bailing out the financial system. If the trend continues for the rest of the year, it would mean the annual deficit would be $1.3 trillion — about $300 billion less than the administration’s projection two months ago for 2010…
This is bad news: unemployment is higher than it was a year ago, and so the deficit ought to be higher…
Stan Collender says this signals four things about how the administration is thinking:
But will talking about deficit reduction translate into votes?:
The false hopes effect, Monkey Cage: Via a correspondent, David Cho of the Washington Post engages in some unlicensed political science.
But by suggesting the deficit may have peaked, administration officials are taking a political gamble. If the favorable number does not hold up in coming months and the budget shortfall surpasses the $1.4 trillion recorded last year, voters in the November midterm elections could punish the Democrats for offering false hope.
It is certainly true that the electorate "?could' punish the Democrats for offering false hope on the deficit. But it's also possible that the electorate "?could' punish the Democrats for how much Tim Burton's latest movie sucked, for increases in shark attacks, or for failing to prevent the massive invasion of green alien space monkeys that's due to take place this summer. Actually, there is some interesting evidence on the shark attacks. The false hopes, Alice in Wonderland and green space monkey effects? Not so much.
The electorate could also punish the administration for high employment numbers. Is that a real worry? Yes, but apparently it’s more about the rate of change in employment than the level. That is, so long as the unemployment rate is falling at a decent rate as the election approaches, the actual level isn’t so important. Thus, from a political vote-getting point of view, if the administration believes that employment will be falling near the elections, as it seems to believe, there’s little reason to spend the politi8cal capital it would take to try to bring the unemployment rate down faster.
But taking a different view, one that focuses on people rather than votes, there is a reason to help households struggling to find employment. Even if there is little political gain to doing so, every job that is created changes the circumstances some household faces for the better, and that alone ought to be enough motivation to do as much as possible to help. But Stan Collender is correct, as I explain here, to conclude that the administration has no plans to even propose doing more to help. No matter what effect that decision has on votes, with households still struggling to find decent jobs, or any job, I think that’s the wrong choice to make.
Update: I should have noted that the source of the falling deficit — higher than anticipated output growth translating into higher tax revenue and lower demand for social services — is good news. The bad news is that there’s no chance that the extra revenue will be used to provide further support to employment. The benefit from the reduction in the deficit, which is small, is less than the benefit from helping to accelerate job growth, but the administration is not even trying to make that case.
Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS
Rebecca Wilder
Hello Mark,Good article. Deficit hysteria is now mainstream thinking, while the more appropriate hysteria should be ?jobs hysteria?. How in the world is nominal income growth expected to finance a drop in consumer debt leverage when government spending is falling. Transfers are supporting consumption and saving right now, whether you like it or not.Let?s just put it this way: as long as the US current account deficit is rising or stable, then a shrinking government deficit will, by definition, squeeze liquidity from the private sector. That?s not good during a ?balance sheet recession? (See Richard Koo?s book). The government should be growing its balance, not shrinking it.Let me leave you with this quote from the Bank of Japan?s quarterly report in 1997 (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/type/stop/js/js97sm.htm):?Thus, recovery in personal consumption is expected to continue after the reaction to the rise in demand ahead of the consumption tax hike subsides in the near future. However, the pace of recovery is likely to be moderate considering the increases in the tax burden, such as the rise in the consumption tax.?Boy were they wrong - moderate?. GDP fell 2.0% in 1998 (from +1.6% growth in 1997) and consumption growth turned negative over the year, -1.1% (from +0.8% in 1997).We?re on this road. Squeezing liquidity, minimal wage growth, deleveraging that is already underway (more likely the default route) - Congress is happy they squeezing private sector liquidity?Rebecca Wilder
Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a>)
MoneyWatch.com
Mark Thoma is a macroeconomist and time-series econometrician at the University of Oregon. His research focuses on how monetary policy affects the economy, and he has also worked on political business cycle models and models of transportation dynamics. Mark blogs daily at Economist's View.
Mark Thoma About CBS MoneyWatch.com
MoneyWatch.com is the premier destination for smart, practical personal finance advice about your retirement, investing, savings, career and real estate. A joint effort between the news powerhouse CBS and the business experts at BNET, MoneyWatch.com is the place to go for personal financial insight you can trust.
Meet the CBS MoneyWatch.com Team
Privacy Policy (updated) | Terms of use | Site Map
About CBS Interactive | Jobs | Advertise
© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
Barack Obama is a master at grabbing and keeping his audience's attention, which is the number one goal of any public speaker. How does he do it? Here are five key lessons from Obama's rhetorical playbook.
Conan O'Brien's Twitter feed, as lighthearted as it is, could hold the key to a successful comeback strategy for the departed "Tonight Show" host.
The summer driving season is at hand, and gasoline prices are suddenly back on your mind. No wonder.
Read Full Article »