You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #44: When the Starved Beast Bites Back: GOP are trying to create a fiscal crisis they may not survive [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
44.  When the Starved Beast Bites Back: GOP are trying to create a fiscal crisis they may not survive


Ever since George W. Bush massively cut taxes back in 2001, squandering much of the $5.6 trillion, ten-year surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton, liberals have assumed that the fiscal game was rigged. Conservatives had been explicit about their starve-the-beast strategythe practice of creating large deficits through tax cuts in order to force future spending cuts. By playing along, the thinking went, Democrats would only further enable irresponsible behaviora bit like negotiating with terrorists. Why kill yourself balancing the budget, as Bill Clinton did, if the next Republican is just going to slash taxes again?

The fear of conservative high jinks persists to this day, which is one reason liberals have responded coolly to President Obamas deficit-cutting commission. In fact, many suspect the right is up to something even more sinistera doubling down on starve-the-beast, as Paul Krugman put it recently. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasnt enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state, Krugman wrote. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe.

Krugman is almost certainly onto something. I suspect, as he does, that Republicans believe precipitating a fiscal crisis will force Democrats to roll back entitlement spending (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), which would be both politically unpopular and the realization of the rights dearest policy fantasy. Its an altogether brilliant, if diabolical, plan. Except for one minor flaw: Theres a good chance it could vaporize the GOP.

The thing to keep in mind about economic crises is that parties who solve them tend to survive and even prosper over the long-term, even if they sometimes suffer short-term pain. Conversely, parties who fail to solve them tend to face political calamity. The case of Democrats and Republicans during the Great Depression is the most familiar example, but hardly the only one. In the last decade-and-a-half, persistent economic crises have sent ruling cliques and parties into the wilderness in Indonesia, Argentina, and Turkey. Even in Japan, which effectively had a one-party monopoly since the 1950s, the recurring economic problems of recent years have given the opposition DPJ a chance to govern. The failure of Democrats in the United States and Labour in Britain to address the economic sclerosis of the 1970s helped lay the groundwork for the conservative ascendance of the 1980s.

So lets say Republicans keep forcing the country toward the fiscal crisis some of them are quietly rooting for: They refuse to sign off on any package of tax increases and spending cuts while theyre out of power, and they insist on cutting taxes when theyre in power. At some point, investors in U.S. bonds will presumably decide theyre unlikely to be repaidthat the U.S. is either headed toward default or runaway inflation. At that point, interest rates would spike and wed be in for a deep recession.

Now, crises being unpredictable phenomena, lets assume the day of reckoning is just as likely to come during a Democratic administration as a Republican administration. What then? Well, if the bomb goes off under a Democratic president, I suspect the crisis would get solved. The Democratic base doesnt exactly love the idea of cutting entitlement spendingThe New York Times recently reported that the mere whiff of Social Security benefit cuts had spawned organized progressive opposition, including a well-funded group called Social Security Works. But the antipathy isnt strong enough, nor is the left powerful enough, to force Democratic politicians to take the option off the table.

Indeed, many Democratic moderates, like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, have openly mused about the possibility of Social Security benefit cuts. (A handful of these Democratic deficit hawksincluding Bill Clinton, Bob Rubin, and Peter Orszagwill be gathering at the Peterson Institute in late April to chew over fiscal fixes.) For that matter, the health care bill Congress just passed includes hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare. So far as I can tell, no Democrat is at risk of being primaried for supporting it.

Likewise, no one likes to raise taxes, especially no one who depends on moderate voters to get elected. But Democrats have found that raising taxes is hardly political death. Bill Clinton raised taxes as part of his 1993 fiscal package and still cruised to re-election in 1996. Yes, the 1994 midterms werent exactly an advertisement for the political benefits of tax increases. (Though that years Democratic route is way over-determined, and I suspect the tax-hikes ranked behind half-a-dozen other causes.) But the point is that a Democrat can both raise taxes as president and live to tell about it.

On the other hand, what if a Republican is president when the fiscal crisis strikes? To be blunt, I think the economic situation would be nearly hopeless. Since 1992, when, according to conservative lore, George H.W. Bushs broken no-new-taxes pledge cost him re-election, basically no national Republican has dared contemplate the possibility of tax increases, much less vote for them. And you can delete the basically if youre talking about the last several years. The partys anti-tax jihadis are so influential theres simply no futureor, more precisely, no funding sourcefor anyone who defies them.

Strait-jacketed by his or her base, a Republican president facing a fiscal crisis would have to rein in the deficit entirely through spending cuts. But that would be even less doable than raising taxes. In 2005, George W. Bushs presidency effectively ran aground over the cuts he proposed to Social Security. The Gingrich revolution hit a wall a decade earlier over proposed cuts in Medicare. In both cases, the cuts under discussion were far smaller than anything a Republican president would have to embrace if tax increases were a no-go. Long story short: Democrats have enough flexibility with their base, and enough credibility with the political center, to respond to a crisis. The GOP has neither.

And then theres the really bad news for the GOP: My assumption that a fiscal crisis is just as likely to strike a Democratic as a Republican administration is almost certainly wrong, for some of the same structural reasons I describe above. Because moderates and fiscal hawks enjoy significant influence within the partyparticularly at the elite levelmost Democratic administrations are going make marginal progress on the deficit. Obama is a case in point. Despite his domestic policy ambitions, the recent health care reform modestly pares back the deficit in its first decade, and makes potentially significant inroads in its second decade. Bond traders are likely to reward such moves even if they dont solve the countrys deepest fiscal problems. At the very least, the bond markets arent likely to melt down over them.

But Republican administrations cant even make this incremental progress because the pressure on them to cut taxes is too great, and because they have no political cover to cut spending. Worse, the next Republican wont have the one advantage George W. Bush enjoyed, which was an enormous surplus to play with. Which means a future Republicans tax cuts will turn a pretty lousy deficit picture into a dire one. And that, in turn, is very likely to trigger a crisis. After all, the history of such episodes is that once you add a spark to the kindling, youre very quickly engulfed by flames. Thats because of the relentlessly self-fulfilling dynamics at work: a certain fraction of bondholders panics and starts selling, which raises interest rates and lowers bond prices, thereby terrifying a broader group of bondholders, who then join the sell-off and on and on until youre Argentina.

Of course, we cant be sure about the political fallout. Times changeif nothing else, the news cycle moves a lot faster today than it did in 1970, to say nothing about 1930. Maybe the Republicans would recover after a few years out of power. On the other hand, being the party thats associated forever more with Americas own third-world style debt crisis cant exactly be good for the brand.

So, yes, like Krugman, Im concerned that the Republican Party really might cast us into the abyss as part of some spectacularly misguided political strategy. But the one thing Im emphatically not worried about is that it might somehow help the GOP.

Noam Scheiber is a senior editor of The New Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC