The Smartest Economist In America Explains What Deficits Really Mean

In early October one of the brightest economists in the country, Stephanie Kelton-- who had served as the Democrats’ chief economist on the Senate Budget Committee and as Bernie’s chief economics adviser during his presidential campaign-- penned an especially instructive OpEd for the NY Times, How We Think About the Deficit Is Mostly Wrong. At the time, it helped open the eyes of dozens of members of Congress and congressional staffers. It needs to be more widely distributed since American have been schooled their whole lives to not understand public deficits. We are constantly told to think of deficits the same way we think of personal debt. There’s a big difference.

Kelton’s OpEd was written about 3 months before the Trump-Ryan Tax Scam passed. She pointed out that the preliminary 9-page framework “achieved a rare feat of bipartisan agreement in Washington-- worry from the left and the right about the plan’s potential to increase the deficit. Chuck Schumer warned that the plan would deepen the deficit by $5 trillion to $7 trillion. Bob Corker said, “If I think it adds one penny to the deficit, I’m not going to vote for it.” Schumer was wrong and Corker was easily bought off. Kelton is no fan of this monstrosity, but not for Schumer’s hypocritical reasoning.

Are the proposed tax cuts a huge giveaway to the rich? Most definitely. Will they, as advertised, create a booming economy with benefits that trickle down to everyone else? I don’t think so. Mr. Trump’s plan will widen the country’s already dangerous wealth and income gaps, and because the gains go mostly to those at the very top, the tax cuts won’t do much to promote broad-based consumer spending or overall job growth.

That’s enough to reject the plan. But it would be unwise to oppose tax cuts, or any other federal legislation, simply because they add to the deficit.

Why? Because bigger deficits wouldn’t wreck the nation’s finances. Unfortunately, budgetary effects are the sun around which everything revolves in Washington. Should we invest a trillion dollars in our crumbling infrastructure, offer Medicare for All or pass the biggest tax cut in the country’s history?

Propose any of these, and the first question on everyone’s lips will be, “How are you going to pay for it?” The reason is simple: Lawmakers are obsessed with avoiding an increase in the deficit.

The impulse is so strong that it’s almost Pavlovian. It’s also holding us back. Politicians of both parties should stop using the deficit as a guide to public policy. Instead, they should be advancing legislation aimed at raising living standards and delivering the public investments in education, technology and infrastructure that are critical for long-term prosperity.

Right now, anything ambitious requires a score from the Congressional Budget Office. A “bad” score-- one that adds to projected budget deficits-- can easily doom good legislation because lawmakers are told that their math doesn’t add up. And that’s a problem.

Because, actually, the math always adds up. To see why, we have to look beyond the government’s balance sheet. Think of it this way. Government spending adds new money to the economy, and taxes take some of that money out again. It’s a constant churning of pluses and minuses, and their minuses become our pluses.

When the government spends more than it gets in taxes, a “deficit” is recorded on the government’s books. But that’s only half the story. A little double-entry bookkeeping paints the rest of the picture. Suppose the government spends $100 into the economy but collects just $90 in taxes, leaving behind an extra $10 for someone to hold. That extra $10 gets recorded as a surplus on someone else’s books. That means that the government’s -$10 is always matched by +$10 in some other part of the economy. There is no mismatch and no problem with things adding up. Balance sheets must balance, after all. The government’s deficit is always mirrored by an equivalent surplus in another part of the economy.

The problem is that policy makers are looking at this picture with one eye shut. They see the budget deficit, but they’re missing the matching surplus on the other side. And since many Americans are missing it, too, they end up applauding efforts to balance the budget, even though it would mean erasing the surplus in the private sector.

And because there is so much misunderstanding, Americans are vulnerable to nationalist scare tactics that warn of the perils of relying on foreigners to pay our bills. The truth is, there’s no reason to worry about China (or any other entity) refusing to finance our deficits. In fact, we should think of the government’s spending as self-financing since it pays its bills by sending new money into the economy.

When there’s a deficit, some of that new money can be traded in for a government bond. What’s often missed in the public debate is the fact that the money to buy the bond comes from the deficit spending itself.

What isn’t missed is the fact that the government pays interest on those bonds. Lawmakers are obsessed with this line item in the budget, as if it’s akin to a cable bill that keeps taking a bigger and bigger bite out of your household budget. It isn’t. Unlike a household, the government doesn’t have to trim other parts of its budget to make ends meet. Congress can always create more room in the budget by adding rows or widening the columns to put more resources into education, infrastructure, defense and so on. It is purely a political decision.

Of course, there are real limits to what can be done. No country can commit to large-scale infrastructure investment unless it has the available labor, machinery, concrete and steel. Trying to spend too much will cause an inflation problem. The trick is to adjust the budget to make efficient use of the people, factories and raw materials we have.

But all of this goes unrecognized on Capitol Hill, where the very words “debt” and “deficit” have been weaponized for political ends. They serve as body armor to politicians who would deny resources to struggling communities or demand cuts to popular programs.

Perhaps no one is more skilled in the dark art of deficit deception than Representative Paul Ryan, the House speaker. He has described the budget outlook as a “fiscal train wreck,” and he has demanded cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare in the name of protecting future generations from a “crushing burden of debt.” His language is poll-tested and inflammatory by design. It’s intended to create a sense of urgency to move the budget into balance, where, we are told, the math of federal spending will finally “add up.”

In a more rational world, lawmakers would abandon the crude C.B.O. scoring model and recognize that the risk of overspending is inflation, not bankruptcy. They would avoid fruitless battles over the debt ceiling, and they would acknowledge that the deficit itself could be deployed as a potent weapon in the fights against inequality, poverty and economic stagnation.

Deficit Talk Is a Trap. Will Democrats Fall Into It?

Government can spend money on the many, on the few, or on no one (by running a budget surplus). Which is the better choice?

by Gaius Publius

A budget surplus on the government side is a budget deficit on the economy's side.

–A fact you'll rarely hear spoken on big-donor-owned media

Just a few simple points about the recent tax bill here, but points critical to understanding what will unfold in the coming months and years.

1. As they did in the 1980s, Republicans are laying a "deficit trap" for Democrats. As they did before, they're blowing up the budget, then using deficit scares to force Democrats to "be responsible" about cutting social programs — "because deficits matter."

2. Big Republican donors want to see social programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — cut to the bone. (Big Democratic donors want the same thing, by the way. It's why Obama's many Grand Bargain attempts didn't cost him a dime in big donor campaign contributions. But Republican are in charge now, so the attack is coming from them, and quite an attack it is.)

In the 1980s Republicans ran up the deficit, then forced Democrats, via the Greenspan Commission's Social Security "fix," to raise taxes on the middle class to unnecessarily over-fund the Social Security Trust Fund. This converted SS from a mainly pay-as-you-go system that increased revenues as needed via adjustments to the salary cap, to a pay-in-advance system, the excess money from which was then loaned back to the government to appear to offset large deficits.

Notice the use of deficit fear in the push for cuts to social programs.

Today, Republicans are expanding the deficit again with their big "tax reform" plan — a giveaway to the donor class of both parties — and are already starting to use deficit fear to argue for cuts in what they call "entitlements" — Medicare, Medicaid, and eventually Social Security, even though Social Security is self-funded.

Notice the use of deficit fear in the push for cuts to social programs.

To the extent that Democrats are willing to accept the obligation to "be responsible" — under an entirely big-donor definition of "responsibility" — those cuts will be agree to. (Big donors think it's irresponsible to give money to anyone but themselves.)

3. The reality — Deficits aren't dangerous at all until there's a big spike in inflation, which is nowhere near happening and won't be near happening for a generation, after which global climate chaos will make all economics discussions moot.

4. The reality — Government spending is good. It's the way government puts money into the economy, making it possible for you and me to buy things.

So ask yourself: Do you want your government to shrink the money supply for no good reason, year after year after year, by running budget surpluses, or to grow the amount of money in the private sector, making more available for use by people like ... you?

A budget surplus on the government side is a budget deficit on the economy's side. Do you want the government to be taking money out of the economy each year, or putting money into it?

5. The reality — Everyone in DC knows these realities. That's why both parties increase deficits when they want to spend on something they want, like war, and claim to fear deficits only when they don't want to spend on something you want, like affordable health care, or free colleges. You know — to buy you nice things.

Consider: The trillions spent on this giveaway to the already-rich could have been given to college students in debt, or people still underwater in their mortgages since the Wall Street-created crash of 2008. What would be the effect of that reallocation of money? People who are struggling would spend it and grow the economy.

What's the effect of giving money to the already-rich? They buy another chateau in France, or bid on the next Van Gogh that turns up at Sothebys. Or give it to their tax lawyers to send to the Bahamas.

6. The question for you — Which of these three options would you rather the government choose:

1. Spend money on the already-rich and none on you and your needs?
    
2. Spend money on you and your needs and ignore the pleas of the already-rich?
    
3. Hoard as much money as possible in a vault and spend the least possible on anything?

The first is a plan for the few, disguised as the current big donor "tax" proposal.

The second is a plan for the many, a truly progressive, FDR-style economic policy.

The third is what Democrats will be asked to do after the already-rich have gotten their pile.

This is a trap. But there's a way out. You can have nice things. All you have to do is convince your neighborhood Democratic Party office holder to give them to you.

Update: Here's the above "what is money?" explanation in easy-to-digest (and share) video form:

Thanks to Twitter friend Alan Parker for the link. Enjoy.

GP