Deficit Commission Project
In response to the economic downturn that followed the 2008 financial crisis, many nations, including the United States, experimented with austerity policies that constricted public spending and investment in the name of boosting business confidence. We now know that - far from restoring economic growth - slashing government spending on education, social welfare, retirement, health, and infrastructure has fostered economic decline and a slow, inadequate recovery.
This blog documents the failure of austerity policies that persist politically despite economic stagnation. As an alternative, SCEPA economists offer concrete policies to create economic growth and prosperity for everyone.
On December 4, 2013 The New York Times published an op-ed, "Federal Law Requires Job Creation" written by William Darity.
Darity's op-ed holds the United States accountable to comply with the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, commonly known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Act. The law mandates that if the private sector does not create full employment, the public sector is responsible for offsetting the missing jobs.
Darity's piece reflects research done with co-authors Alan Aja, Daniel Bustillo and Darrick Hamilton for an essay published in The New School's Fall 2013 edition of the Social Research journal, "Austerity: Failed Economics but Persistent Policy." In their article, "Jobs Instead of Austerity: A Bold Policy Proposal for Economic Justice," the authors discuss austerity policies measures and the subsequent job losses resulting from these policies. They put forth full employment policies to stimulate the economy, bridge the inequality gap and prevent another recession.
This volume includes thirteen essays by leading economists offering tools to escape austerity's ill-advised vision and concrete policies to create economic growth and prosperity for all people, rather than just a wealthy few.
Darity and his co-authors argue the only way to accomplish and enforce full employment is through Keynesian stimulus spending and the creation of a federal job guarantee. To do so, they call for the creation of a "National Investment Employment Corps" to both fulfill the mandate of the federal job guarantee and address the nation's need for environmentally-friendly infrastructure. This would simultaneously put the United States on the road to full employment while mitigating against the adverse effects of climate change.
They estimate that after 25 years, we could finally achieve the Humphrey-Hawkins Act mandate of zero unemployment.
Following a debilitating federal shutdown that failed to resolve conflicts over government spending and economic recovery, SCEPA economists both edited and contributed to an upcoming journal publication that critiques the mainstream acceptance of austerity policies.
“Austerity: Failed Economics But Persistent Policy,” is the November 1st issue of Social Research: An International Quarterly, a publication produced by The New School’s Center for Public Scholarship. The volume includes thirteen essays by leading economists, including Teresa Ghilarducci (co-editor), Robert Pollin, Rick McGahey (co-editor), and Willi Semmler, offering tools to escape austerity’s ill-advised vision and concrete policies to create economic growth and prosperity for all people, rather than just a wealthy few.
The volume describes austerity policies both here and abroad, how implementation has restricted economic growth, and why government officials continue to support these policies in spite of their poor track record. Specifically, authors argue that austerity policies hamper economic recovery, but remain popular among elites as a tool to lower labor costs and taxes while increasing profits. A real path to economic recovery and long-term fiscal health requires refocusing the debate from how to eliminate debt to how to eliminate mass unemployment.
Alternative policy proposals include a federal loan guarantee program for small businesses (Pollin), creation of a permanent federal government job guarantee program (Hamilton), and an expansion of Social Security to stabilize the economy and bolster the bargaining power of labor (Ghilarducci).
On April 17, 2012, SCEPA organized an event to discuss, "What the U.S. Should Learn From Austerity's Fallout in Europe and Latin America?"
Policymakers around the world have embraced austerity measures as the solution to the continuing economic malaise. Yet, the evidence of recent experience does not support this prescription. To encourage a broader discussion for the United States' future budgetary decisions, New School economists offer a different vision to create stability and growth.
Specifically, they review the theoretical foundations of austerity economics and the experiences of austerity and intervention in the European Union and South America. The event includes a discussion of the practicality of the pursuit of austerity policies in the United States and an analysis of the assumptions made by supporting politicians and policymakers.
Panelists and Presentations:"Spend Now, Cut Later: Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth"
Richard McGahey, Professor of Professional Practice, Public Policy and Economics, Urban Policy Program, New School for Public Engagement
"The North Can Learn from the South"
Michael Cohen, Professor of International Affairs and Director, Graduate Program in International Affairs, New School for Public Engagement
"Labor Market, Labor Institutions and Social Protection in Latin America"
Roxana Maurizio, Researcher-Professor, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento and CONICET, Argentina, and visiting CONICET Fellow at GPIA.
"Madmen in Authority and the Scientific Foundations of Austerity Policies"
William Milberg, Professor of Economics and Chair, Department of Economics, New School for Social Research
Moderator: Teresa Ghilarducci, Professor of Economics, New School for Social Research
This was the second in a series of SCEPA discussion's regarding the political power of austerity in the United States' response to the recession. The first event, "Do Budget Cuts Lead to Growth?," was held on December 13, 2011.
Michael Cohen, director of The New School's graduate program in international affairs, discusses how Argentina's successful response to the global economic recession of 2008 was not to slash the budget to reduce debt, but to invest in their economy. He presents an alternative to U.S. policy makers who are intensely focused on a path of austerity and shows that austerity is not the only path. The graph below is discussed in the video and exemplifies how targeted stimulus spending can be very effective.
This discussion follows Cohen's presentation at a SCEPA panel discussion on austerity in politics and economics held in late 2011, "Do Budget Cuts Lead to Growth." SCEPA will be holding a second panel discussion on this theme on April 17, 2012. The event will focus on "What the US Should Learn From Austerity’s Fallout in Europe and Latin America."
by Jeff Madrick, SCEPA Senior Fellow
It is rare that I highly recommend a piece by Samuel Brittan, an intelligent and thoughtful, but often conservative, veteran Financial Times columnist. His column on February 10, 2012, entitled "Why the World Economy is Still Spluttering Away," is worth a look. He lays out in effortless brevity nine approaches being recommended to deal with the overhang of savings in the world, a glut led by the Chinese, and to many the source of our slow growth. To many of us, a glut is a misnomer, it is really a lack of demand. Brittan is weighed down by some free-market ideological baggage of his own, but he is typically an unstubborn pragmatist. He lists the approaches, almost all of which he thinks are wrong-headed, with the exception of demand stimulus. Most of these approaches are making matters worse, some much worse.
On December 13, 2011, SCEPA hosted a panel of New School economists to discuss the deep divide among economists around questions of austerity and to analyze policy responses outside the U.S. The event featured a lively discussion between panelists and audience members of how draconian budget cuts came to be the dominant policy prescription, why so many economists and policymakers support the illogical contention that cutting public sector jobs and spending will spur employment and consumption, and alternatives to the dominant economic voices advocating austerity as a cure for slow growth.
The presentations included:
Richard McGahey, Professor of Professional Practice, Public Policy and Economics, Urban Policy Program, Milano School: "Congressional Supercommittees and the End of Berlusconi: the US and Europe"
Michael Cohen, Professor of International Affairs and Director, Graduate Program in International Affairs, Milano School: "Do Budget Cuts Lead to Growth? The Experience of Latin America"
by Jeff Madrick, SCEPA Senior Fellow
The current public discourse over cutting the federal budget is not about economics, but politics. Nothing is so striking as the fact that those seriously disturbed by a rising budget deficit and a growing debt-to-GDP level have so little to say about raising taxes—or if they do, it is with little conviction.
To the contrary, most of the officially sanctioned plans include tax cuts as a major component. How can this be? Surely, the great advocates of reducing budget deficits, such as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, should be highly visible advocates of tax increases. If they are not—and they are not—they should justify their position.
The main exception is the refreshing budget recently released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a truly enlightened effort to raise taxes judiciously, reform healthcare, and increase public investment.
by Christian Proaño, Assistant Professor of Economics, and Laura de Carvalho, SCEPA Research Assistant
It is undeniable that the U.S. sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio should be reduced from its current level of nearly 95% over the medium-run. However, an overly hasty reversal of the U.S. fiscal stance based primarily on government spending cuts could be counterproductive given the fragile situation of the U.S. economy. In short, the main priority of the Obama Administration should be the consolidation of the nascent economic recovery.
There are two main arguments for a sharp reduction in government spending to restore fiscal sustainability, private investment, and economic growth...
According to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the many high-level reports investigating the nation's budget omit one necessary analysis: how deficit reduction proposals will affect the nation's most economically vulnerable populations. To address this gap, the CBC formed its own debt commission to focus on the recession and the impact of deficit reduction proposals on communities of color and the nation at large.
SCEPA's Darrick Hamilton, an economist and professor at Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy, was invited to testify at the first-ever CBC Commission on the Budget Deficit, Economic Crisis, and Wealth Creation on January 28, 2011.
Hamilton's work focuses on the causes, consequences and remedies of racial and ethnic inequality in economic and health outcomes, which includes an examination of the intersection of identity, racism, colorism, and socioeconomic outcomes. He has published articles on disparities in wealth, homeownership, health and labor market outcomes.
by Joelle Saad-Lessler, SCEPA Economist/Statistician
On Sunday Jan 9, 2011, I attended a panel discussion at the ASSA meetings in Denver, Colorado on the budget deficit. The session was chaired by Gregory Mankiw, and the participants were Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Douglas Elmendorf, Alan Auerbach, and Donald Marron. The speakers highlighted the difficulties involved in reducing the deficit, and the importance of tackling this issue sooner, rather than later. The panelists also commented on the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission. Namely, they all agreed that the commission failed to deal with the biggest driver of rising budget deficits – health care costs. The reason the Bowles-Simpson commission chose to tackle Social Security was because the problems of Social Security are relatively tractable. It is a program where policy makers have access to various dials and levers they can fiddle with to get a definitive impact. However, with health care, there are no clear dials to turn or levers to push. In other words, health care costs continue to defy efforts to contain them.