I Forgot About The Balanced-Budget Multiplier

A view simple concept–if you expand government spending and taxation by the same amount, then there is an equivalent increase in national income. Hence, there is more income, but not more national debt.  Great!

I wrote about the concept of the balanced-budget multiplier and of raising taxes and government expenditure by the same amount, dollar for dollar. These ideas were first put on the national stage in 1943 by Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate. He argued that such a policy would be one-for-one expansionary: each dollar spent is a dollar of new national income. As long as interest rates are near zero — as they were then and are now — there should be no “crowding out” of private expenditures by government ones.

This is an expansionary change in fiscal policy that won’t require additional increases in the national debt. We should start a dialogue right now about taking such action, before the damage of protracted unemployment worsens.

via Tax and Spend, but Keep Your Balance – Economic View – NYTimes.com.

Unemployment is Bad and Not Improving

Thanks to Paul Krugman, this graph shows that jobs are going nowhere.  To cut government spending now is crazy.

Middle Class Can’t Afford More Taxes

Good quick summary of the destruction of the wealth and income of the middle class.

 Wonkette Learns About the Balance Sheet Recession.

More On Debt And Taxes

The Republican got a good deal–take it says the Economist.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

via America’s debt: Shame on them | The Economist.