"The Worst Possible Idea at the Worst Possible Time"

"The Worst Possible Idea at the Worst Possible Time":

Steve Benen cannot believe the GOP is seriously promoting a balanced budget amendment as a job creation policy:



The worst possible idea at the worst possible time, by Steve Benen: Unemployment is at 9.1%; the jobs report released Friday was awful; economic growth is anemic, and Americans are desperate for policymakers to take this crisis seriously. Yesterday, just 24 hours after we learned the economy didn’t generate any jobs at all in August, the Republican Party delivered a weekly address on the message the GOP wants the public to hear.



Republicans want President Barack Obama to demand a balanced budget amendment in his upcoming jobs speech to Congress.


“This would ensure spending cuts made today don’t easily disappear tomorrow,” said Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte in the GOP weekly address Saturday. “That doesn’t just mean a fiscal house in order; it also means more certainty for the private sector and a better environment for job creation.”



Oh my. If anyone was looking for a reminder as to why dealing with congressional Republicans on economic policy is practically impossible, the party’s weekly address certainly offered one.


Keep in mind, a month ago, the House GOP leadership told its members that “the best thing they could do during the August recess” was to sell their constituents on the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.


This is just madness... That congressional Republicans managed to create a BBA this year that was even worse than the previous version is a testament to their creativity, but it also reflects a degree of economic illiteracy that should disqualify them from any adult conversation on public policy.


What sensible policymakers should be doing is dismissing this “pathetic joke” of a proposal as quickly as possible. ...



I think sensible policymakers do dismiss it. The question is why members of the media (or sensible Republican economists) haven't laughed the GOP out of the room for even suggesting that we balance the budget in a recession, let alone as one of the keys to solving the employment crisis (the same question I've been asking about other statements from the GOP, e.g. claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves). Until there is some cost for making these statements -- and cost to a politician means loss of votes or loss of campaign support -- there is no reason to stop making them. Why aren't the costs higher? I suppose part of the answer is that the editorial page of the WSJ, Fox News, and other such outlets are ready to support "pathetic jokes" pretty much unconditionally so long as it furthers their ideological aganda (and keeps ratings high), and that keeps the political costs low relative to the benefits.


But to the point I wanted to make -- notice that he doesn't say, "This would ensure tax increases made today don’t easily disappear tomorrow." If tax increases are allowed to happen at all -- and they won't happen if the GOP can possibly stop them -- the GOP believes they should, in fact, disappear as soon as possible. The BBA has nothing to do with job creation, or even the deficit and we shouldn't argue with the proposal as if it does. This is just another way to try to realize the GOP's ideological goal of a smaller government. A balanced budget amendment would ensure that either tax increases or spending cuts must be made, and to the extent that they can force this to happen through spending cuts rather than tax increases -- and right now they believe their ability to block tax increases is very strong -- it moves them closer to their goal. If they thought the budget gap would be closed primarily through tax increases rather than spending cuts, we'd be hearing that deficits don't matter and there would be no talk of balanced budget amendments. (A balanced budget amendment won't pass, but this keeps the "we must cut the deficit now" mantra alive in the public discussion and any addiitonal spending cuts they get because of it are a bonus, it allows the GOP to sell budget hawk credentials to constituents without having to actually earn them, and it helps to set the stage for a push on this issue down the road when they may -- shudder -- control all branches of government.)


Comments