Ryan Shrugged
In its story about today’s ghastly jobs report, the New York Times noted that local governments last month cut 28,000 jobs, and have cut 446,000 in all since September 2008. These governments did so to meet budgetary requirements that were not met (except in a few places) by higher taxes on the wealthy.
Republicans in Washington are now demanding cuts of as much as $2 trillion over the next decade to meet national budgetary requirements. Cuts of this magnitude will not be lessened, they make clear, by increased taxes on the rich, on trustafarians, or on Wall Street.
Consider now. If state and local governments cut 446,000 jobs in less than three years by reducing their spending in lieu of any tax increases, will far, far greater federal cuts over 10 years not take an even greater toll on the job market? As another possible guide here, you might look at what austerity cuts have done to employment in Spain, Greece and Ireland.
Or…you might totally ignore the obvious and clearly demonstrated conclusions about employment to be gleaned from the real world, and instead consult your copy of “Atlas Shrugged” to see another possible outcome. While doing do, be sure to make the sign of the dollar as you giggle your way down the rabbit hole.
More from this writer at http://blog.wallstreetpoet.com
11 Responses to “Ryan Shrugged”
Wow Michael, it’s almost as if you don’t know the difference between a cut and a reduction in the rate of growth.
$2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years from the President’s baseline. That would imply a reduction of about 4.5% from the projected $45 trillion in spending.
Let’s just say we cut 4.5% from each year’s budget. In that case, the budget in 2021 would be $5.44 trillion as opposed to the 2011 projection of $3.46 trillion or a growth rate over 10 years of 4.63%.
Now is it your contention that only allowing the budget to grow at 4.63% as opposed to the President’s preference of 5.11% per year is going to lead to massive layoffs?
I’m just curious how your thinking goes here.
It seems there are private individuals, not just bureaucrats and politicians, who misuse the word “cut” to refer to a reduction in growth from what was sought or wanted.
Meanwhile, why the anguish over government (societal overhead) jobs? Even some in the Obama administration are claiming credit for, or are boasting about, private sector jobs. (It would be no surprise to hear Jay Carney clam credit on behalf of the President for private sector jobs during any of his news conferences, for example.) Maybe there’s something to that anguish about government jobs and calling a reduction in growth of government a “cut.”
I have to say that while the tension between the purpose of government programs vs. reducing the tax burden on citizens is a real one, the idea that we shouldn’t cut the budget just to keep people in government employed isn’t. Giving someone a government job just so they don’t end up on welfare is little better than just handing out money to people if they will stop looking for jobs.
Great title Michael. The Ryan types will never get it though, for the simple reason they don’t want to.
Attaboy JS. Way to add value.
Well said JSpencer! The comment following yours is a perfect example of your point well made.
Wow,
SteveK ignoring substance in favor of a snarky comment. Who would have ever thought it?
“Wow.” after “Attaboy JS. Way to add value.” SinCH plays wounded and worried about “substance” and “snarky comments.”
Gosh SinCH, you’re becoming oh so clever. “Who would have ever thought.“
Hey SteveK,
Try the top of the thread. Feel free to answer the question I posed to Michael ; )
“Hey” SinCH,
My original comment was to JSpencer, it was about his comment and snarky response you made to what he said.
My second comment was to point out how you seem to think if the snark comes from others it’s bad but when it comes from you it’s ‘clever.’
“Feel free to” respond to the observation I made in my second comment… or not.
Nice.
I was only snarky because of the lack of substance (as usual) from you and from JS.
Never said it was bad just that it was substance free. If you’ve offered some substance, I’m willing to let the snark go, but if snark is all you have…