Drastic expenditure cuts would imperil a shaky economy that still isn't generating enough jobs.
By ALAN S. BLINDER JUNE 21, 2011
It was the British economist John Maynard Keynes who famously wrote that ideas, "both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else." Right now, I'm worried about the damage that might be done by one particularly wrong-headed idea: the notion that, in stark contrast to Keynes's teaching, government spending destroys jobs.
No, that's not a typo. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans regularly rail against "job-killing government spending." Think about that for a minute. The claim is that employment actually declines when federal spending rises. Using the same illogic, employment should soar if we made massive cuts in public spending—as some are advocating right now.
Acting on such a belief would imperil a still-shaky economy that is not generating nearly enough jobs. So let's ask: How, exactly, could more government spending "kill jobs"?
It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget—whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere. But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.
The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?
One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates. That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue. But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today. The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes.
For example, the large fiscal stimulus enacted in 2009 was not "paid for." Yet it has been claimed that it created essentially no jobs. Really? With spending under the Recovery Act exceeding $600 billion (and tax cuts exceeding $200 billion), that would be quite a trick. How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment? In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the stimulus's effect on employment in 2010 was at least 1.3 million net new jobs, and perhaps as many as 3.3 million.
A second job-destroying mechanism operates through higher interest rates. When the government borrows to finance spending, that pushes interest rates up, which dissuades some businesses from investing. Thus falling private investment destroys jobs just as rising government spending is creating them.
There are times when this "crowding-out" argument is relevant. But not today. The Federal Reserve has been holding interest rates at ultra-low levels for several years, and will continue to do so. If interest rates don't rise, you don't get crowding out.
In sum, you may view any particular public-spending program as wasteful, inefficient, leading to "big government" or objectionable on some other grounds. But if it's not financed with higher taxes, and if it doesn't drive up interest rates, it's hard to see how it can destroy jobs.
Let's try one final argument that is making the rounds today. Large deficits, it is claimed, are creating huge uncertainties (e.g., over what will eventually be done to reduce them) and those uncertainties are depressing business investment. The corollary is a variant of what my Princeton colleague Paul Krugman calls the Confidence Fairy: If you cut spending sharply, confidence will soar, spurring employment and investment.
As a matter of pure logic, that could be true. But is there evidence? Yes, clear evidence—that points in the opposite direction. Business investment in equipment and software has been booming, not sagging. Specifically, while real gross domestic product grew a paltry 2.3% over the last four quarters, business spending on equipment and software skyrocketed 14.7%. No doubt, there is lots of uncertainty. But investment is soaring anyway.
Despite all this evidence and logic, some people still claim that fiscal stimulus won't create jobs. Spending cuts, they insist, are the route to higher employment. And ideas have consequences. One possibly frightening consequence is that our limping economy might have one of its two crutches—fiscal policy—kicked out from under it in an orgy of premature expenditure cutting. Given the current jobs emergency, that would be tragic.
Yet it is undeniable that we have a tremendous long-run deficit problem to deal with—and the sooner, the better. So it appears we're caught in a dilemma: We need both more spending (or lower taxes) to create jobs and less spending (or higher taxes) to tame the deficit monster. Can we square the circle?
Actually, yes. Suppose we enacted a modest fiscal stimulus program specifically designed for maximum job creation. My personal favorite is a tax credit for firms that add to their payrolls, but there are other options. And suppose we combined that with a serious plan for reducing future deficits—and enacted the whole package now. Then we could, in a sense, have our cake and eat it, too.
A package like that is not fantasy. I believe that a bipartisan group of economists, if given the authority, free of political interference, would design some version of it. But that's not how budget decisions are, or should be, made. And as long as one political party clings to the idea that government spending kills jobs, it's hard to see how we extricate ourselves from this mess. As Keynes understood, ideas, whether right or wrong, have consequences.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
On Fox, Jonathan Hoenig Says Obama's ATM Comment Is A "Ted Kaczynski, Luddite Argument" About Technology June 18, 2011 12:35 pm ET filed under MMtv
On Cashin' In, Hoenig Defends Oil Companies Against "Witch Hunt" By Democrats May 21, 2011 12:31 pm ET filed under MMtv
Cashin' In Panelists Attack Federal Workers As Overpaid May 07, 2011 1:38 pm ET filed under MMtv
Hoenig on Cashin' In: "Wealthy Earners Should Pay Even Less. The Poor Should Pay Much More" In Taxes March 05, 2011 12:52 pm ET filed under MMtv
Fox panelist Byrnes calls for phasing out Social Security while Hoenig calls for "scrap[ping]" it altogether November 13, 2010 5:01 pm ET filed under MMtv
Hoenig on Cashin' In: "The unions have ruined every industry in which they've dominated" October 02, 2010 11:50 am ET filed under MMtv
Hoenig freaks out over $50 million clean burning stove program, calls for "disgusting" "horrid" UN to be shut down September 25, 2010 12:26 pm ET filed under MMtv
Market bull: Right-wing media dress up political attacks as stock analysis August 04, 2010 11:04 am ET filed under Research
Fox's Business crew launches a class war against the poor June 26, 2010 5:06 pm ET filed under Blog
Jarrett, Hoenig repeat discredited attacks that Frank, Dodd, Fannie and Freddie responsible for economic crisis June 26, 2010 2:37 pm ET filed under MMtv
EPI's Dorsey destroys notion that 40% of U.S. tax filers not paying their fair share of taxes June 26, 2010 11:59 am ET filed under MMtv
Conservative media defend BP by claiming Obama is "demonizing" the company June 16, 2010 11:16 pm ET filed under Research
About that “not a reflection of the opinions of Fox News” disclaimer June 02, 2010 8:52 pm ET filed under Blog
Hoenig repeats discredited claim that "Social Security is, by definition, a Ponzi scheme" May 29, 2010 3:38 pm ET filed under MMtv
Fox's "$165 billion" "union bailout" is neither May 25, 2010 1:00 am ET filed under Research
Fox chyron asks if Obama is "Killing the American Dream?" May 01, 2010 3:35 pm ET filed under MMtv
On Fox, Capitalistpig's Hoenig says Obama has "a hatred for capitalism" January 09, 2010 1:38 pm ET filed under MMtv
Beck, Fox News lead conservative media in uniformly decrying "McCarthy"-like violation of Humana's "free speech" rights September 23, 2009 4:06 pm ET filed under Research
On Fox, Capitalistpig's Hoenig calls proposed executive pay regulation "another step towards total fascist rule" May 16, 2009 12:36 pm ET filed under MMtv
Capitalistpig's Hoenig berated AFL-CIO's Acuff for disputing Hoenig's suggestion that employers "have a right to fire" workers who unionize March 13, 2009 9:15 am ET filed under MMtv
Cavuto guest Hoenig: "[W]hy should I be responsible for paying for Joe Biden's brain aneurysms?" August 23, 2008 5:04 pm ET filed under Research
O'Reilly's guest Hoenig again advocated military strikes on Iran while discussing economy July 17, 2008 7:59 pm ET filed under Research
On Your World, for a third time, Hoenig advocates military attack to boost stock market July 11, 2006 2:24 pm ET filed under MMtv
On Your World, Hoenig again advocated military action to help the stock market -- this time against North Korea June 20, 2006 2:12 pm ET filed under Research
Cavuto guest Hoenig: "[I]f you want to see the Dow go up," bomb Iran June 06, 2006 5:40 pm ET filed under MMtv
Cavuto guest Hoenig: If Moussaoui is not executed, stock market will suffer April 13, 2006 4:41 pm ET filed under MMtv
Jonathan Hoenig Owner Capitalist Pig Asset Management LLC Middle school offered a perfect introduction to commodities and markets for Jonathan Hoenig, a fledgling wheeler-dealer who hoarded pens for resale to fellow students caught without one during a test. "I might get a quarter for one if it was desperately needed," he recalls. The Glencoe native, whose childhood hero was Donald Trump, hasn't stopped hustling. He's turning his fascination with markets and money into a multifaceted career including written commentary, radio and, most recently, a gig as a financial reporter for Fox-owned WFLD-TV/Channel 32. Now, he's launching an asset management fund targeting younger investors. [...] http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20000608/PAGES/123/40-under-40-hoenig
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
