The New York Times made quite an assertion in its news pages — not the oped page — today: \”For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those [deficit] projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives…\”
No room for new domestic initiatives? None at all?
Put aside the fact that one of the economists the Times cites in that very article, James Galbraith, just said that \”there is *no* level at which the rise in our public debt would act as a \’drag on growth.\’ Deficits promote growth. Debt finances it. The consequence of too much is not a \’drag on growth,\’ but inflation. But we are very far from that … One has to ask, why all the fuss and bother?\”
I have a different question for the Times: why are you assuming every new domestic initiative would increase the deficit?
Especially since, every major domestic initiative on the table has been officially estimated to reduce the deficit.
Both and the Senate and the House versions of health care reform were deemed as deficit cutters by the Congressional Budget Office — a fact which might be more widely known if anyone if the traditional media bothered to mention it every time it quotes a conservative pretend otherwise.
Even less known, both the House and Senate versions of the climate bill have also been scored by CBO as cutting the deficit.
Even less known that that, the House financial reform has been estimated by the CBO to reduce the deficit.
Let, me put the question to the Times differently: what the hell are you talking about?
Leave a Reply