In (Moderate) Defense of Conservative Deficit Hawks

More

Ezra Klein considers the difference between deficit hawks and deficit frauds. On the first group, he writes:

There has been a genuine campaign on the part of people who are concerned about the economy to explain that the dangers of debt are longer term, while the pain of joblessness is happening right now.

I agree. It's consistently frustrating to be lumped with the austerity-now crowd just because I endorse a plan to slowly work on the deficit in the next decade. On the second group, he writes:

The deficit frauds are the folks who use deficits for short-term political gain: This year, they've mainly been Republicans who opposed unemployment benefits because they'd add $56 billion to the deficit but demanded tax cuts that would add $4 trillion to the deficit.

There's no question that I'd like to see higher taxes and higher unemployment benefit spending today -- while Republicans would like to see neither. There is also no question that some Republicans are being downright political about the deficit, railing against red ink when it benefits them and trotting out pathetic or non-existent plans to reduce spending when they're put on the spot. [Wonkroom is brilliant at compiling these episodes.]

But there are also some staunch conservatives who support just about any tax cut, resist most emergency spending, and also have crystal clear ideas about how to reduce outlays. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation has made the case to me many times that our long term deficits are a spending problem, not a low revenue problem; that fiscal stimulus cannot work; that long-term low-rate tax policy is the single best driver of growth; and that we have to reform our spending to meet ideal tax policy rather than the other way around. He's put forth a plan to cut $300 billion in the next few years and then reform Social Security and Medicare in the years after that.

His plan isn't my plan. Why should it be? He's a conservative, I'm not. A 100% spending-cut approach to the deficit is quixotic at best, draconian at worst, and basically misguided, if you ask me. But it's not fraudulent.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the entertainment business.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Why Are Americans So Bad at Saving Money?

The U.S. is particularly miserable at putting aside money for the future. Should we blame our paychecks or our psychology?


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

The Death of Film

You'll never hear the whirring sound of a projector again.

Video

How to Hunt With Poison Darts

A Borneo hunter explains one of his tribe's oldest customs: the art of the blowpipe

Video

A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon

An action figure and his reluctant sidekick trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.

Video

I Am an Undocumented Immigrant

"I look like a typical young American."

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Writers

Up
Down

More in Business

Just In