I turned on my computer the other day to see the New York Times had the Republican party line on its front page as "News Analysis."
David Sanger wrote that "there is virtually no room over the next decade for new initiatives" because our deficits are too big. The NYT also had the Republican line on its op-ed page. David Brooks said "For decades, federal spending has hovered around 20 percent of G.D.P. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25 percent and rising. The higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth and fewer opportunities."
Both of these statements take for granted the implicit (and very Republican, even Norquistian) assumption that all government spending is just wasted, money down a rathole. David Sanger seems to imagine that there is no conceivable initiative that could possibly warrant borrowing money to achieve it. He seems to find it equally impossible that any new initiative could possibly be more valuable than any of the old ones we are already spending money on.
David Brooks bites the Republican hook even harder - he simply takes it as an article of faith that if you fully fund a new initiative with tax revenue, then you will get less growth.
What rot. These people should go take an intro econ course. It ain't rocket science and it barely even rises to the complexity of "common sense," but when you are looking at a 3 or 4 trillion dollar budget there are lots of different kinds of expenditure in there and not all of them are created equal. Some, indeed, are money down a rathole and we can all cite our favorite pork barrel project in support of that. Some though, are investments which really do promote growth and without which we would be in deep trouble.
By Brooks' logic, we should never have built our interstate highway system because "the higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth." Perhaps we should do away with spending on education because "the higher tax rates implied by that spending will mean less growth." Or maybe it is silly to fund research in clean energy or biotechnology.
These sorts of Republican truisms can only sound remotely plausible if you never attach any specifics to them. It is the job of the media to do just that, flesh out the specifics, and when the NYT starts sounding just like Grover Norquist they are completely abdicating their responsibilities. They are supposed to provide the factual context for silly economic statements, not just repeat them as if they were obviously true.
Read More......