Matt Yglesias gets this exactly right, I think:
[I]ncumbent members of congress need to get their heads out of the sand and recognize that they’re likely to be kicked out of office by angry mobs if this [a double-digit unemployment rate through the end of next year] comes to pass. A lot of politicians and political operatives in DC are very impressed by polling that shows people concerned about the budget deficit. I think it would be really politically insane for people to take that too literally. If congress makes the deficit even bigger in a way that helps spur recovery, then come election day people will notice the recovery and be happy. If, by contrast, the labor market is still a disaster then people will be pissed off. It’s true that they might say they’re pissed off at the deficit, but the underlying source of anger is the objective bad conditions.
The only thing I'd add is that when people look out and see both an abysmal labor market and a big deficit, it's probably doubly frustrating: The government isn't doing anything to help the average voter find a job (or keep one) and it's piling on debt in the process--must be lining the pockets of special interests or something. But, as Matt says, the source of the anger isn't the deficit; it's the labor market. The deficit only adds insult to injury, and it does you no good to deal with the insult without treating the injury.
Conversely, if you're able to fix the labor market, then I suspect people with think the deficit is basically worth it.
Print
COMMENTS (4)
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Most voters generally care about deficits when the economy is hobbled and they assume that said defecits are the cause, or at least one of the causes, of the hobbled economy. If the economy is growing, concern about deficits goes back to its usual suspects among the David Broderites, bank economists and Northeastern Republican Senators. Our elected officials only need to recall how little the growing deficits of the 1980s or the 2000s harmed incumbent Republican adminstrations so long as overall economic conditions remained good.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Most voters generally care about deficits when the economy is hobbled and they assume that said defecits are the cause, or at least one of the causes, of the hobbled economy. If the economy is growing, concern about deficits goes back to its usual suspects among the David Broderites, bank economists and Northeastern Republican Senators. Our elected officials only need to recall how little the growing deficits of the 1980s or the 2000s harmed incumbent Republican adminstrations so long as overall economic conditions remained good.
Yep. This is what Galston, et al. don't get. Galston's White House -- Clinton's -- didn't have Obama's economic problems. Big problems require solutions, and Democrats will be rewarded if they deliver solutions and punished if they don't. It's that simple. Deficit concern is not only misguided, but, as Matt, Noam, and others have been pointing out, very likely shallow. Sure, people get nervous. But if it all turns out well, that nervousness becomes ancient history. So, make it turn out well!
Yep. This is what Galston, et al. don't get. Galston's White House -- Clinton's -- didn't have Obama's economic problems. Big problems require solutions, and Democrats will be rewarded if they deliver solutions and punished if they don't. It's that simple. Deficit concern is not only misguided, but, as Matt, Noam, and others have been pointing out, very likely shallow. Sure, people get nervous. But if it all turns out well, that nervousness becomes ancient history. So, make it turn out well!
I don't know, Noam, what's your own experience been?
Seriously, though, members of Congress don't have their heads buried in the sand. They have them stuffed up the ass on Wall Street.
Well, the most powerful members.
Here's what I'm figuring. Unemployment is now at nearly 10%. You know, the "official" rate.
And what have working men and women done about it? How about this: not a fucking thing other then bitch and moan from their recliners. But, sure, they might eventually get "pissed off" someday.
But: If the country can somehow learn to accept 10% as the new "normal" unemployment rate, what will that mean in the fight to control inflation?
Enough said?
This is the nuts and bolts of the class ... view full comment
I don't know, Noam, what's your own experience been?
Seriously, though, members of Congress don't have their heads buried in the sand. They have them stuffed up the ass on Wall Street.
Well, the most powerful members.
Here's what I'm figuring. Unemployment is now at nearly 10%. You know, the "official" rate.
And what have working men and women done about it? How about this: not a fucking thing other then bitch and moan from their recliners. But, sure, they might eventually get "pissed off" someday.
But: If the country can somehow learn to accept 10% as the new "normal" unemployment rate, what will that mean in the fight to control inflation?
Enough said?
This is the nuts and bolts of the class struggle. How long will the working class [and today even the middle class] Reagan Democrats [in and out of Kansas] endure having their nuts in a vice before bolting out of those recliners?
And who will get them when they land----labor or BeckWorld?
george walton
George, for someone who is so exercised about the class struggle and how our elected leaders are doing nothing about it, you seem to spend a lot of time at the computer keyboard rather than rallying the masses out in the streets.
George, for someone who is so exercised about the class struggle and how our elected leaders are doing nothing about it, you seem to spend a lot of time at the computer keyboard rather than rallying the masses out in the streets.