Biden and deficit politics

Here are two podcasts addressing a dilemma that Democrats face with raising taxes to pay for the infrastructure bill. Because while raising taxes on the wealthiest is necessary and long overdue, there is a danger that in justifying it, they may be giving credibility to deficit hawkery and the kind of austerity thinking that often results from it.

The Majority Report featuring David Dayen on Biden's first 100 days, Assessing the Biden Administration's First 100 Days w/ David Dayen 4/29/21. David's segment begins just after 15:45.

David Dayen also has a new article on how the Biden team is now sending more messaging that the deficit is important, The Deficit Obsession is Back The American Prospect 04/29/2021

TYT 04/29/2021, Ben Shapiro: Poor Don't Pay Enough Taxes!

One encouraging development in recent years is that the economic theory known as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has become more familiar and popular with progressive commentators. And MMT advocates like Stephanie Kelton bring forward strong arguments against the kind of deficit worries that conservatives bring forward to justify austerity economics in good times and bad. In the US, the Republican concern about deficits is entirely cynical and instrumental. When it comes to spending or tax cuts a Republican President wants, they revert to the position Dark Lord Dick Cheney articulated privately during the Cheney-Bush Administration, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

But taxes are important is regulating the maldistribution of wealth, which has become increasingly concentrated at the top. Having a few extremely wealthy people and corporations with lots of money that can't be directly reinvested in a business leads to things like the kind of real estate speculation that not only has very negative effects in cities like Los Angeles, but also creates financial speculation that leads to crises.

So the Democrats need to find a redistributionist rhetoric, which the neoliberal viewpoint regards as heresy. (So do traditional conservatives, obviously!) If Franklin Roosevelt could campaign successfully against the "economic royalists" in 1936, the Democrats today can find a way to do it, too.

But one doesn't have to be an MMT adherent to recognize the problem with deficit fetishism. Neo-Keynesian Paul Krugman has been on that case for years: Nobody Understand Debt New York Times 02/09/2015; How (not) to pay for building back better Substack 03/07/2021; Return of the Phony Deficit Hawks New York Times 12/17/2020

Democrats, PayGo, and the "Simpson-Bowles" mentality

PayGo is just the ultimate in Democratic politics -- an utterly unnecessary bit of infighting caused by an utterly unnecessary self-punishment caused by an utterly unnecessary sense of defensiveness & self-loathing, all in a futile attempt to impress ... who exactly?

— David Roberts (@drvox) January 3, 2019

The Democrats just passed new House rules including the notorious PayGo rule, which is what David Roberts there characterized it to be in that tweet. (Lindsey McPherson, House adopts rules package with few Democratic defections over PAYGO provision Roll Call 01/03/2019)

Even though almost all House Democrats voted for the rules including PayGo, the Dems‘ obsession with the deficit is a political ball-and-chain they‘ve put on themselves. The ”Simpson-Bowles“ mentality by the Dems was a big factor that opened the way to having the Orange Clown in the White House. Barack Obama repeatedly tried to cut Social Security and Medicare in his ”Grand Bargain.“ Even though today‘s Republican leaders would gladly do away with both, they successfully used that in campaigning against Dems, including in 2010.

The Reps‘ strategy was dishonest but politically shrewd. They blasted projected savings in Medicare from Obamacare/ACA as cuts to Medicare. The Democrats were hamstringed in responding because Obama was pushing for cuts in Medicare. It‘s hard for the Democrats to ridicule Republican hypocrisy on the deficits. Because Republican cynicism on the issue is beyond hypocrisy. They really, really don‘t care about deficits. They only pretend to when they push for ”entitlement reform.“

Sarah Kliff gave an explanation of this during the 2012 Presidential campaign in Romney’s right: Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion. Here’s how. Washington Post 08/14/2018. As the headline indicates, this WaPo presentation was going out of its way to give credit to Both Sides. But she does tell the story correctly. The "cuts" to Medicare were savings, the biggest part of which came from fixing a well-known and much-discussed problem with Medicare Advantage.

And Medicare savings were realized without reducing services: Obamacare program generates 'substantial' Medicare savings CNBC 05/04/2015; Bruce Japsen, Hillary's Right: Obamacare Reduces Medicare Spending Forbes 10/23/2016.

The Democrats should have been able to make this case more straightforwardly. That's too mild. It should have been a slam-dunk. But they would have to give up the neoliberal obsession with deficits and especially the Simpson-Bowles be-all-end-all of cutting Social Security and Medicare.

There is actually a very good case that economists like Jamie Galbraith make that in the post-Bretton Woods world, the US deficit really doesn‘t matter for the foreseeable future. But the Democrats won‘t be able to make even a mild version of that case until they flush the Simpson-Bowles mentality out of their political calculations.