iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Reich

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Reich
 

How to Avoid the Austerity Trap But Still Deal With the Budget Deficit

Posted: 05/29/2012 8:46 am

We now know austerity economics is bad for weak economies facing large budget deficits. Much of Europe is in recession because of budget cuts demanded by Germany. And as Europe's economies shrink, their debts become proportionally larger, making a bad situation worse.

The way to avoid this austerity trap is to get growth and jobs back first, and only then tackle budget deficits.

The U.S. hasn't yet fallen into the trap, but it could soon. Last week the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office warned we'll be in recession early next year if the Bush tax cuts end as scheduled on January 1, and if more than $100 billion is automatically cut from federal spending, as required by Congress's failure last August to reach a budget deal.

Predictably, Capitol Hill is deadlocked. Democrats refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts for high earners and Republicans refuse to delay the budget cuts.

If recent history is any guide, a deal will be struck at the last moment -- during a lame-duck Congress, some time in late December. And it will only be to remove the January 1 trigger. Keep everything as it is, the Bush tax cuts as well as current spending, and kick the can down the road into 2013 and beyond.

Which means no plan for reducing the budget deficit.

I've got a better idea -- a different kind of trigger. Instead of a specific date, make it the rate of growth and employment we should reach before embarking on deficit reduction.

Say 3 percent growth and 5 percent unemployment. At that point the Bush tax cuts automatically expire, the wealthy pay a higher rate, and $2 trillion in spending cuts begin.

This way we avoid the austerity trap that Europe has fallen into. And we get on with the long-term job of taming the budget deficit when the economy is healthy enough to do so.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

 

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich

FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 142
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
03:15 PM on 06/01/2012
Interesting concepts raised by Reich, but not sure how realistic it is. He says instead of a date trigger, we should use an economic barometer of 3% growth and 5% unemployment before triggering tax hikes and budget cuts. In an ideal world, that's great. But with unemployment persistently high, the Euro on a knife-edge and growth still sluggish, how many trillions might be added to the debt before we can finally start fixing it?

We need to take the debate to a new level in Washington, introduce pragmatism to replace dogmatism and teach both sides of the aisle how to intelligently engage each other and COMPROMISE!s
photo
KarmaPatrol
Riverboat Gambler, satellite whisperer. Independe
11:03 AM on 05/30/2012
Sounds good but some of our political Benedict Arnolds get more mileage out of inaction at the detriment of the country. They and their supporters should be identified, fined, given a perp walk, etc... We still need a tax policy that at least doesn't favor moving industries overseas .... at the very least
10:34 AM on 05/30/2012
“The way to avoid this austerity trap is to get growth and jobs back first, and only then tackle budget deficits.”

In a growing economy with low unemployment, meaningful deficit reduction will be rejected because:

- cutbacks now threaten to derail the ‘still fragile’ economy
- people deserve to enjoy themselves after the bleak crisis period
- debt is shrinking as a percentage of GDP and therefore irrelevant
- there is 'unfinished business' that couldn't be tackled before because of the crisis
- the recovery proves that any future crash can always be corrected with stimulus spending later
01:40 AM on 05/30/2012
I don't understand how ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would cause recession. We need more revenue in government to maintain services and to stimulate the economy. Those with the most money are the ones who must contribute more to keep the nation on track for recovery.

What about private investment? JPMorgan just reminded us that private "investment" is often a euphemism for unaccountable speculative gambling.
11:29 AM on 05/30/2012
Republicans won't let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire while extending them for the middle class. They would rather play 'cat and mouse' with the American people. Reich is just being realistic with what can be accomplished in our polarized political arena.
12:24 AM on 05/30/2012
Western countries are getting poorer while money is getting siphoned into the 1% ( including the eurocrats getting huge wages from euro-taxpayers' money and not paying euro-taxes) and China and India.
The people from the West should reject the money system monopoly and accept complementary currencies to restart trade within their communities. These countries are rich, have educated work-force and rich industrial equipment. It's absurd to put this developed world into austerity in order to enrich a third world.
photo
LunaPark
Don't believe it until it's officially denied
11:03 PM on 05/29/2012
The choices are austerity now, or destroy the currency later. There is no free lunch. I wish there was an easy way, but there is not. It's funny how Progressives fancy themselves as champions of the middle class, the poor, the downtrodden, yet they embrace policies horrifically destructive to the most vulnerable in our society. Every time we debase our currency, we rob the economically disadvantaged of money they've earned, of an opportunity to better themselves, and the income gap spreads ever wider.
11:32 AM on 05/30/2012
LunaPar, you don't understand the economic problems we face. Look at Great Britain. They were working their way out of the recession until they started making cut. Now they have their double dip recession. We don't need to fallow their leadership to failure.
photo
LunaPark
Don't believe it until it's officially denied
01:09 PM on 05/30/2012
We have no choice and neither does the UK. Sweden in the 1990s, Canada 1990s, UK 1980s, US 1940s post WWII, all made DRASTIC cuts after facing a debt crisis. There was pain, then they recovered and have much stronger economies. What is making our problem worse is we're piling on more debt and bailing out failed institutions. We're only going to make the problems far worse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheTightwireGuy
Attempting to balance reason and passion
09:22 PM on 05/29/2012
Great idea except it works counter to the partisan politics of both party diehards.
05:17 PM on 05/29/2012
Robert Reich a man with degrees in economics and government,worked in the Clinton administration during the very prosperous and productive 1990s,is now a professor at a college and we have people on here thinking they are smarter and better informed than him.Sorry folks you have a long way to go before you get to his level.
06:09 PM on 05/29/2012
Clinton was successful because he didn't do a lot of the the things Reich suggests we do now in his articles.
photo
LunaPark
Don't believe it until it's officially denied
10:45 PM on 05/29/2012
Yea and we can add him to the 12 Ivy League educated eggheads who run the Federal Reserve, they've done such a bang up job central planning the economy. They are all so smart and know better.
09:28 AM on 05/30/2012
Face it, its planet of the apes here.
07:16 PM on 05/30/2012
LunaPark, the "eggheads" that run the Federal Reserve are folks like James Dimon and other Too Big To Fail bank heads. Been that way for years.
05:09 PM on 05/29/2012
Most macroeconomic decisions should be semi-automated, taking politicians and votes off the table. We should have a single tax rate, applied to retail-only consumption one time at a rate set by GDP. We should have a tax exemption for everyone tied to the poverty level (no tax up to poverty level spending). In one pass, we'd end the use of taxes as a weapon in the war against wealth. Taxes would become predictable, and jobs would blossom because there would be no sham of a corporate tax at all.

Then, we should tie spending levels also to the GDP. The government's sole job would become prioritization, and nothing new could be funded without adequate economic growth to fund it or without cutting something else (exceptions can be made for emergencies, such as war but not in an unlimited way).

Bam! 99% of our economic mess solved. But, there's no will to do it because it requires politicians to return their power to the individual. Thus, we also need term limits.
schatsie
Wall Street is Worse than Vegas
09:14 PM on 05/29/2012
Jobs would blossom if we would legalize marijuana and stop the Faux Forty Year War on the underclass in this country......
09:44 PM on 05/29/2012
Maybe, but I suspect there would be a lot more bus accidents.
 
If you mean welfare, it really just needs to be reformed so that the underclass doesn't make it a way of life..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Kenney
10:33 PM on 05/29/2012
" the use of taxes as a weapon in the war against wealth"?!! What planet are you living on? There is no war against wealth- although I must admit it's clever to claim there is. The war is against "non-wealth"- a entire system designed to put more money in the hands of those who already have plenty- that's what we have now. And it's dishonest to say "it's just the nature of things" because the way that wealth accrues now to those who already have it is actually encouraged by the very policies favored by Republicans for decades. Tax breaks for the wealthy were supposed to create jobs, but haven't. Consumer demand accounts for two-thirds of the economy, creating jobs. Even America's wealthy 1% can't consume enough to approach the level of demand of a prosperous working/middle class. But this is the very group that has been decimated by Republican policies, most of which undermine the strength of the middle class while pandering to the interests of a tiny minority in actual numbers but a majority in terms of wealth. There is class warfare, and has been for a long time, but not the warfare Republicans decry- it's the systematic attack on middle income earners, accelerating ever since Reagan's fraudulent "supply side" hoax, and juiced up to the level of disaster by Phil Gramm. Republican policies will only make the rich richer, at the expense of the rest of us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xarcturusx
08:59 AM on 05/30/2012
Amen to that!
09:19 AM on 05/30/2012
No. You do not understand. You don't seem to want to define the problem and the system in a way that gives everyone the best chance to retain and grow wealth. You want to blame a bogeyman and pretend something was stolen from you by this false bogeyman. That may make you feel better, but it's not a workable solution. I said war against wealth, not war against the wealthy. No one "wants more jobs" as much as they want wealth. If the former was true everyone would seek the minimum compensation possible so the companies could hire more people. No one does that, always seeking the highest compensation possible. What you fail to understand with your republican hatred, is it is not simply republicans, but democrats and independents too. As I said, all elected benefit from their war on wealth - why do you think there are lobbyists begging and paying them for a crumb? There are a very few politicians who back suggestions I wrote in my comment. A very few. It is a nearly flawless solution, but it removes their power.
photo
surfinnonreality
EIT Excellence in Trolling Thanks for the talking
03:47 PM on 05/29/2012
When the Solyndras and the GSA parties funding and other wasteful spending is removed from the budget I'll be willing to listen to the concept of revenue increases. A real serious change like getting rid of the current tax code and going with the Fair tax is better way to approach te revenue problem. Everyone should have to pay something. Not just the rich and upper middle class.
04:42 PM on 05/29/2012
You could get rid of 100 Solyndras and 1000 GSA parties and it would not be noticed in a $3.7 trillion budget. The only way to really get at this problem is to increase taxes, remove subsidies to big corporations, close loopholes, reduce defense spending, etc. just like Clinton did in the 90s. As far as the Fair Tax, maybe you should go read how that works. And that famous group of people that don't pay Federal Income taxes, most of those are the elderly, students and very poor. Not much revenue there, sorry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
babyspittle
Fox Fake News kills brain cells
05:50 PM on 05/29/2012
you can say that again.
facts are always welcome in rebuttal to right-wing nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Kenney
10:35 PM on 05/29/2012
Thank you for this intelligent, fact-based response to a predictable, if pointless, complaint by "surfin".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EuGeneTherapy
Local micro brew better than Belgium's Budweiser
05:01 PM on 05/29/2012
Still watching out for the pennies while the billions are fleeced by the very classes of people you seem most intent on protecting.

Keep your eye on the end game, which is 0% tax on capital gains, dividends and estate. And after they achieve those goals, and there is no money for SS or Medicare at all, even though the middle class pay into them with every paycheck, who will you blame then? Still the poor??
schatsie
Wall Street is Worse than Vegas
09:20 PM on 05/29/2012
Yep, they sure will...I mean why should the rich even bother to pay the 1.5% Medicare Part A tax at all when all of their income is exempted from it......WHY? Why would they want to pay for education when they can bring in all the educated immigrants that they want to bust labor.......Why would they want a healthy society, it just means more demands on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid....I am surprised that the rich are not standing on the corner passing out cigarettes so that we can all die early and cheap deaths......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christopher Hull
Democratic Socialist
03:39 PM on 05/29/2012
I like Dr. Reich but I'm not sure if he is intentionally missing the point or just refusing the obvious state of the world today.
Technology has made workers less necessary than at any other time in human history and coupled with science has led to there being more potential workers than at any other time in human history.
There is already a surplus of labor AND most labor that is done is done by slaves. Slaves in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, wherever we can find them. That pool of slave labor makes it IMPOSSIBLE for western style capitalism to survive. Which is why it has collapsed and instead become some weird facism/feudalism/corptocracy creature that simply cannot survive much longer.
Robert, this article does nothing to address ANY of the problems facing us or the EU. Raising the top rates back up above fifty percent, cutting military spending, ending free trade with countries who use slave labor, etc. Those things MAY bring us back. But at this point in time I think The March of Folly has begun.
schatsie
Wall Street is Worse than Vegas
09:23 PM on 05/29/2012
Heck if they just reversed the wage slave tax rate and the fat cat gangster bankster preferential tax rates, we would probably be out of the recession in one year.......and apply so called payroll taxes to all income because ALLL the increased life span has only been experienced by the top 50%....the bottom 50% has seen no increase in their life span over the last 30 years surprise surprise.....
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Baker
President:Common Ground-NYC;NYS Coordinator:PBI
02:39 PM on 05/29/2012
No....Here's how to avoid the austerity trap:
1. Audit and account for the 10s of TRILLION in state and local CAFRs, all available online, and increasingly documented by CAFR activists. This money could pay a citizen's dividend - forever.
2. Use some of that CAFR money to set up State banks like the wildly successful Bank of North Dakota, screwing the big banks in favor of the People
3. Tax the Land, not the People with a Land Value Tax, untaxing all productive activity at the same time. "Rent," 1/3 of GDP, now collected by private parties, should go back to the People whose demand created it.
4. Re-issue debt-free money the way Lincoln did as U.S. Notes, the way coins are issued, the way the constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8) allows Congress - and ONLY Congress - to do. No interest and money put directly into public works programs, providing jobs!
IC4U
Not a morron whisper.
03:15 PM on 05/29/2012
Please tell me about these 10's of trillions that are just waiting to be liberated from ?, what ?, who ?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Baker
President:Common Ground-NYC;NYS Coordinator:PBI
11:01 AM on 05/30/2012
This is too brief a forum to respond fully, but Google CAFRs, or look up your own State's CAFR, and examine the assets. Check Walter Burien's site, or the late Col. Klatt, etc. (the movement to recapture this money is growing). This is money that has been taken from taxpayers since WWII, stored in gov't accounts, incl. pensions. To give 1 example, net $5 billion is given to NY pensioners, but there is ~$150 billion in the state pension fund. Why not invest some of that in a state bank? As direct dividends, then pay for pensions with a relatively small tax? Because Wall Street would hat3e that, that's why
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Baker
President:Common Ground-NYC;NYS Coordinator:PBI
11:05 AM on 05/30/2012
See also my colleague at the Public Banking Institute's column in Op Ed News here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pennsylvania-broke-unles-by-Mike-Krauss-120529-121.html
$91 billion in PA accounts alone could be partly redirected into a State Bank.
There are >184,000 CAFRs in the U.S. so that's how you get to 10s of trillions.
the pariah
Author of "The Lean Pocket Diet"
02:34 PM on 05/29/2012
Too bad 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans felt compelled to vote against Simpson-Bowles. It was a responsible way to slow the rate of growth of federal spending and control the overall problem systematically over time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nevergiveup
04:16 PM on 05/29/2012
It was a death knell for Social Security and Medicare. There was nothing responsible about Simpson Bowles, unless you're a Republican and/or Rich.
the pariah
Author of "The Lean Pocket Diet"
09:06 AM on 05/30/2012
Nancy Pelosi supports it, did she switch parties?
02:33 PM on 05/29/2012
So we should not reduce spending and retire debt until after the economy and jobs return. When has this ever happened? It never has. Levels of debt have been increasing for the past 50 years. There is always a case being made for deficit spending regardless of any prosperity. The status quo is unsustainable. The doomsay of austerity is nothing but a scare tactic. Non stop increases in taxation and spending have been tried. It has failed. Common sense needs to prevail.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bio-man
An advocate for the middle class
03:42 PM on 05/29/2012
No we should absolutely NOT reduce spending in a time of high unemployment! In 1946 at the end of WWII, the ratio of the National Debt to GDP was 126% and in 1981 before all the tax cuts and deregulation kicked in, that ratio was only 31%, which means that what Reich proposes has worked before and worked quite well I might add. In order to accurately analyze Debt with respect to the economy, it must be measured as a proportion to income (GDP) and not in absolute terms. Austerity is a death trap for the middle class and those who propose it either suffer from economic ignorance or are in the 1% who benefit.
04:29 PM on 05/29/2012
After WWII the debt to GDP ratio was only bought down by planned inflation which amounts to the same as a tax,. "Death trap" is certainly a scare tactic. How do you know? When has this ever been tried? Clinton's spending reductions resulted in an increase in confidence and a boom. The deficit was brought to near zero with government spending at 18% as opposed to our current 24%. If you want to talk scare tactics compare how bad you think austerity will be (How would one know? It has never been tried.) to hyperinflation and the resulting political upheval that we have seen thruout history.
10:23 AM on 05/30/2012
The post WWII period doesn’t provide a useful example. All America’s major competitors had been devastated by the war, leaving America as the world’s preeminent industrial power by default. Those conditions are not going to exist again.
JVene
Software Engineer, Parent, Cook & Musician
04:05 PM on 05/29/2012
"When has this ever happened?"

Just post WW 2.

"There is always a case being made for deficit spending regardless of any prosperity."

Yes, and that was bad judgement.

"Non stop increases in taxation and spending have been tried."

In the US? When? Taxes peaked at over 90%, decades ago, with a low of about 28% in the late 60's. Small increases since then trickled on until the Bush cuts, which have remained constant (with occasional uncertainties) through today.

The US had a large debt to GDP ratio post WW2; taxes went high, growth went high, debt was paid down and the economic standing we're hoping to create "again" was realized for many years that followed.

Common sense isn't sufficient to understand the problem, let alone solve it.

Meditate on Romney's statement that severe cuts in the budget would initiate a recession and try to reconcile why that was an accidental statement of the truth.

Drop military spending, money saved. Jobs lost (oops).
Save pet (expensive) military projects, debt increases (oops) - jobs saved (ok).
Drop spending on education, money saved. Jobs lost (oops), GDP fades years later (oops).
Increase spending on education, GDP goes up years later (ok), debt increases (oops).

It's not that cutting is a bad idea, its that every such act has an opposing reaction contrary to our goals, requiring a calculus of balance of forces on a MOVING TARGET.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
billp65
Kennedy Liberal
02:30 PM on 05/29/2012
WHAT a common sense solution. Not ever going to happen. Not as long as Mitch is in charge of 41 votes....