Why Cut Now?
It’s become common parlance, something so commonplace that when you argue contra wise you are classified a dummy, that the US needs to cut its Federal spending.
No it doesn’t.
But let’s go with the mainstream.
The problem as I see it is this: when you argue we need to cut spending you need to specify a timeframe in which that spending has become such a problem that we can no longer afford it. There are two obvious such timeframes. Now, and sometime in the future.
The majority of budget cutters are those who focus on the longer term. These include not just the usual rag bag of anti-safety net right wingers, but also a healthy number of so-called centrists and some progressives too. Being fiscally responsible is deemed a serious position to take. Opining on the dire nature of the ‘solvency’ of our entitlement programs and the horrible things that the baby boom bulge in retirement will do to our national finances gets you immediate credit as being a sensible person.
The normal response of these serious folk to this far off problem is that we simply have to set benefits on a downward trajectory right away. There is no other way. It is responsible.
Think that one through for a moment.
In order to avoid a possible future problem we have to act as if it were an immediate problem. Put differently: in order to avoid future cuts, we simply make those cuts now. We don’t avoid cuts. We exchange possible cuts for certain cuts.
The issue I take with this is that it is an extraordinary leap of faith to rely on projections of our budget 20 – 30 years hence and then to act upon them as if those projections are as solid as concrete. Given the complex and massive number of moving parts in the budget any prediction even a couple of years from now is likely to be more hope than certain. Couple this with the truly hopeless nature of economic forecasting – economists make meteorologists look like savants – and I wonder why it is that anyone claiming to be serious worries much about that distant future. And more to the case: why on earth would they want to behave as if the US had hit some irreversible wall in its capacity to finance its desired spending?
It would make more sense to manage our finances in a sensible counter-cyclical way as a routine, but I rarely hear any of these serious people arguing that case. And it would make even more sense for us to explore ways to ensure our economy is robust enough to pay for the things we want to buy.
The entire spending cut debate is unnecessary when viewed within a more holistic economic policy discussion. It only becomes serious when we discard any hope of regaining our strength.
Any progressive thinker arguing for spending cuts has either capitulated to right wing thinking and supports a limited safety net as a matter of policy, or has been overcome by a pessimistic view of our future.
Neither position is particularly progressive.
At least in my opinion.
