Picture Credit: WyldKyss || The greatest mistake of economics is thinking we can influence the economy to make it do more over the long haul than it otherwise would do.
I am not a liberal; I am not a conservative. I wish the Balanced Budget Amendment had been passed in the1970s, such that we would not be making such grandiose as a result of legislative/bureaucratic tinkering. I think the government should not try to solve economic issues, and should focus on Issues of justice. The US government has never done well managing the economy. Set some basic boundaries to define fraud, and then let the economy run.
But in the present environment, i like anything that hinders the US Government from borrowing more. Most government spending reduces real GDP. You want infrastructure? Build it locally. Tax the area needing it, and see if they really want to pay the price. Don’t do it at the Federal level, where no one understands what is in any omnibus spending bill. It is all a waste, where those in Congress engage in a form of fraud telling their constituents what they got for them. If they really needed it, their state, county, or city should have done it. Projects should be done at the lowest level of government possible.
Think of the situation regarding ports. We have spent 10x+ more money on ports on the east of the US rather than the west, and far more freight comes to the west. If these decisions were not federalized, we would not make such stupid choices.
Bring back the sequester. Bring back anything that restrains the idiocy of the Congress and the last four Presidents. The high level of debt makes the economy unstable. You want more and more crises? Keep adding to the debt. The US and the World grew faster in real terms when the rule was balanced budgets and restrictive monetary policy. As such, I appreciate any measure that restrains the ability of the US government to borrow more.
Your policy descriptions- sticking to a budget for the government, etc., are basically conservative.
The balanced budget amendment would have been difficult to implement- but not impossible. If there were some kind of “emergency variance” in there it could work.
Actually, I don’t think much of the last five presidents in terms of government finances. Clinton presided over the .com boom- which predictably caused the .com bust that BushII had to deal with. BushII dealt with it by causing the garbage in 2008, basically, and then all the garbage in the financial/economic system since. There is a healthy dose of off-shoring that hammered the real economy too.
There is also “good” debt and “bad” debt. Once you get to a certain amount, it’s all bad. We crossed that point somewhere during Clinton’s terms, actually. All since have just been adding on to the problem at that point. Now we have the famous “deficits don’t matter” statement, and the related MMT. Simply ridiculous.
Thanks for the post.
Respectfully, the debt limit vote makes no sense. Congress passes laws that authorize spending. Then Congress has to re-affirm the debt to support the spending that they already authorized? Makes no sense. The kabuki theatre of roiling the debt markets, threatening default, is ludicrous. Congress passed the spending. Leave it at that. (Note that I am not supporting the wasteful spending by Congress, just that the two-step process is detrimental to government financing.)
It makes sense because that is what the debt ceiling
is really for – a way for Congress to not implement what it otherwise claimed to wanted to pass.
The fact that the Democrats could have neutered it w/o being effected by the filibuster reinforces this cynical truth.