Make America the 1990s Again
Salem Radio Network Now Has a One-Two Punch Against Liberal America in the...
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles Felt 'Blindsided' by Vanity Fair Article
Yes, Progressives Really Did This on the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party
Who Is Mustapha Kourbach? And Why Is Brown University Scrubbing His Entire Existence...
What John Fetterman Said to Chris Cuomo Is Going to Trigger Another Dem...
Patriots Rally Around Target Employee Harassed by Leftist Karen
'Avner's Is Closed': Jewish Bagel Shop Shutters Doors Thanks to Ongoing Threats, Antisemit...
Keir Starmer Says Violence Against Women and Girls a 'National Emergency' (Guess What...
When Process Fails Justice
A $600 Billion Gift to Wall Street, Paid for by the Public
Okay, the Jews Leave…and Then?
Another Year, Another $2 Trillion in Debt
Texas News Vlogger Asks SCOTUS to Decide Whether Criminalizing Journalism Is 'Obviously Un...
The Hidden Public Safety Engine That Doesn’t Cost Taxpayers a Dime
OPINION

A Contradiction in Keynesian Fiscal Policy

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

There’s an internal contradiction in the way that Keynesian-oriented economists and policymakers address the federal budget situation. I’ve noticed it over and over. A passage in a Washington Post op-ed today by Mohamed El-Erian of Pimco captures it perfectly:

Advertisement

[T]he U.S. fiscal situation requires a carefully designed and well-timed overhaul to make government finances more efficient and fairer—among other things, combining immediate stimulus with a credible set of medium-term tax and entitlement reforms and a sustainable effort to reduce the deficit over time.

El-Erian seems to want more deficit-fueled “stimulus” now, combined with a “credible” plan that would reduce the deficit later on. We hear similar things from administration economists and centrist and liberal budget experts all the time.



Yet how can a Keynesian administration or Keynesians in Congress ever make a “credible” medium- or long-term commitment to deficit reduction? As soon as the next recession hits, they will demand ripping up any previous deficit-reduction deal so that they can stimulate aggregate demand some more.

To Keynesians, the short run is always more important than the long run, so it’s impossible for them to have a “credible” long-run commitment to deficit reduction. Even today, prominent Keynesian economists are demanding more “stimulus,” but the economy is not in recession and the budget deficit (which is “stimulus” to Keynesians) is already over $1 trillion.

Advertisement

What happens if the economy slips into recession in 2013 or 2014? The Keynesians would surely break any budget deal and push for a $2 trillion deficit.

Everybody knows that federal policymakers usually break prior deals on discretionary budget caps and agreed-to entitlement cuts. The dominance of Keynesian-minded policymakers and advisers in Washington these days further reduces the believability of any long-term budget deal that policymakers may come up with.

Thus, the best way for policymakers to be truly “credible” on deficit reduction is to start cutting spending right now. Then cut spending more next year, and chop it further the year after that, and then keep on going.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement