The $24 billion question
| By Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign - Jun 9th, 2009 at 7:14 am PDT |
| Also listed in: Courage Campaign Staff |
How will budget cuts help promote economic growth?
It's a question that I rarely ever see asked, and one that is *never* answered, certainly not in a state where the conventional wisdom is that revenue increases are impossible, even though we've never tried to make them happen. Instead the supposed "political reality" of no new taxes is trumping the economic reality that taxes are preferable to spending cuts in a recession. The result is that spending cuts are treated as inevitable even though they are a sure path to Depression.
Yesterday's LA Times had a remarkable editorial calling for no delay or hesitation in making the cuts. But the only time they made mention of the economic impact of the cuts was when they argued against permanent revenue solutions:
And yet this ignores the evidence gathered by Peter Orszag and Joseph Stiglitz which showed that income tax increases were actually *better* for the economy than spending cuts.
Had the opinion page editors read George Skelton's column that ran in the same edition, they might have understood how that abstract point works out in practice:
What Jean's story shows is the ripple effect of safety net spending. I've heard it said that Cal-WORKS, for example, is de facto one of the most important rent subsidy programs in the state. When the state cuts aid to the needy, whether it's a poor family or an AIDS patient or a college student, they have to make up the difference out of their own pocket. That means they have to cut back on other spending, which means more foreclosures, more rental vacancies, less consumer spending, less tax revenue, fewer jobs, and more business failures.
Nobody in Sacramento has explained to the people how these cuts will help produce economic recovery. They ought to, and we should demand that we get such an explanation before any legislator votes for a single cut. I want an answer to the $24 billion question. Who in Sacramento will give it?
It's a question that I rarely ever see asked, and one that is *never* answered, certainly not in a state where the conventional wisdom is that revenue increases are impossible, even though we've never tried to make them happen. Instead the supposed "political reality" of no new taxes is trumping the economic reality that taxes are preferable to spending cuts in a recession. The result is that spending cuts are treated as inevitable even though they are a sure path to Depression.
Yesterday's LA Times had a remarkable editorial calling for no delay or hesitation in making the cuts. But the only time they made mention of the economic impact of the cuts was when they argued against permanent revenue solutions:
Be smart about new taxes. Reject, for the current year, broad-based sales and income tax increases as damaging to the recession economy and as politically infeasible, but move forward on carefully targeted temporary taxes, specifically on tobacco, alcohol and snack foods, to prevent cuts in particular health and human services (but not necessarily agencies).
And yet this ignores the evidence gathered by Peter Orszag and Joseph Stiglitz which showed that income tax increases were actually *better* for the economy than spending cuts.
Had the opinion page editors read George Skelton's column that ran in the same edition, they might have understood how that abstract point works out in practice:
Faced with what he calculates to be a potential $24-billion budget deficit in the fiscal year starting July 1, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting state supplemental payments for the elderly and disabled down to the minimum allowed by federal law. It would be their third cut this year.
The Legislature already has approved a $20 monthly cut beginning July 1, lowering the grant for single people to $850. That's it: No food stamps, and that includes any Social Security.
This was the cut Jean had read about. But the governor also is seeking another $20 trim starting in September, reducing the benefit to $830.
The rent for her one-bedroom condo is $850.
What Jean's story shows is the ripple effect of safety net spending. I've heard it said that Cal-WORKS, for example, is de facto one of the most important rent subsidy programs in the state. When the state cuts aid to the needy, whether it's a poor family or an AIDS patient or a college student, they have to make up the difference out of their own pocket. That means they have to cut back on other spending, which means more foreclosures, more rental vacancies, less consumer spending, less tax revenue, fewer jobs, and more business failures.
Nobody in Sacramento has explained to the people how these cuts will help produce economic recovery. They ought to, and we should demand that we get such an explanation before any legislator votes for a single cut. I want an answer to the $24 billion question. Who in Sacramento will give it?
Comments are closed for this post.
I'm very socially liberal and I joined CC and this email list because I believed it to be focused on achieving civil equality for gays in our society. I strongly believe in the need for redistribution of wealth in our society. I am of the camp, however, that believes that this can't be achieved on one small chunk of ground at a time. That simply results in driving the sources of wealth generation out of the area and into friendlier areas, leaving less for all of us. This is not just a theory, it is clearly evidenced by the manufacturing job flight of recent times.
Anyhow, my main point of writing is to say that by branching off into other areas of policy I believe you all are shrinking your tent, and that all anti-discrimination folks should be a part of this effort, not just those who are also well aligned with current liberal economic policy.
Please don't let the Courage Campaign turn into just another general liberal policy group.