GOP Obsession With Austerity Is to Blame for Sluggish Economic Recovery
New analysis provides opportunity to challenge austerity policies 'directly, unambiguously, and fearlessly'
Fiscal austerity in the wake of the Great Recession--imposed by Republicans on the federal, state, and local levels--is responsible for the sluggish pace of economic recovery since 2009, states a new paper that undercuts conservative attempts to pin the blame on President Barack Obama.
"By far the biggest drag on growth throughout the recovery from the Great Recession has been the fiscal policy forced upon us by Republican lawmakers in Congress and austerity-minded state legislatures and governors," wrote Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which put out the analysis on Thursday.
Because the "ability of conventional monetary policy to spur recovery following the Great Recession was more limited than in any other post-war recovery," Bivens explained, increases in government spending and federal aid to states were necessary to help working Americans following the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.
"Had the Obama administration made such a powerful case for why austerity was hampering growth, it could have educated the public and potentially helped build support for more sensible policy the next time the United States faces a recession."
--Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute
"Given the degree of damage inflicted by the Great Recession and the restricted ability of monetary policy to aid recovery, historically expansionary fiscal policy was required to return the U.S. economy to full health," said Bivens, who is EPI's research and policy director. "But this government spending not only failed to rise fast enough to spur a rapid recovery, it outright contracted, and this policy choice fully explains why the economy is only partially recovered from the Great Recession a full seven years after its official end."
From GOP spending cuts to the refusal of states to accept "free fiscal stimulus from the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act," Republican lawmakers "have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record," he said.
(In fact, even the stimulus measures that were enacted were criticized at the time as too small to make a real difference.)
As the Guardian notes, "[t]he report comes as the Republican party once again calls for the reining in of government spending and reductions in the deficit."
But, while it's clear that "Republicans remain steadfast in their opposition to government spending--even for government jobs like teaching, firefighting, and emergency management," Campaign for America's Future blogger Richard Eskow notes that "a lot of Democrats have bought into the myth, too."
Indeed, he wrote on Friday, "[t]here are strong hints of austerity-oriented thinking in Hillary Clinton's rhetoric," and
Austerity thinking was highlighted at last month's Democratic National Convention when Gene Sperling, a senior economic advisor to former presidents Clinton and Obama, was featured in a humor-oriented anti-Trump video produced by "Funny or Die." Whether or not hilarity ensues must remain a matter of personal opinion, but the video clearly relies on austerity economics--specifically, an exaggerated fear of deficits--to scare viewers.
Even Obama, Bivens argues in the EPI paper, "could have made a louder and more consistent case that the slow recovery had concrete, identifiable roots in decisions made by Congress."
"Had the Obama administration made such a powerful case for why austerity was hampering growth," Bivens said, "it could have educated the public and potentially helped build support for more sensible policy the next time the United States faces a recession."
Eskow agreed:
Democrats have not directly challenged Republicans on government's proper role in the economy. Too often, they have tried to co-opt the rhetoric (and sometimes the policies) of austerity instead.
Republicans, on the other hand, offer a clearly articulated and internally coherent (if utterly fallacious) economic perspective. Democrats can also offer a coherent perspective, too--one with the added advantage of having been proven by experience. That perspective can make life better for millions of people.
"This is the economic debate this country needs," he said. "But we won't get it until someone challenges austerity economics and the conservative philosophy behind it--directly, unambiguously, and fearlessly."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Fiscal austerity in the wake of the Great Recession--imposed by Republicans on the federal, state, and local levels--is responsible for the sluggish pace of economic recovery since 2009, states a new paper that undercuts conservative attempts to pin the blame on President Barack Obama.
"By far the biggest drag on growth throughout the recovery from the Great Recession has been the fiscal policy forced upon us by Republican lawmakers in Congress and austerity-minded state legislatures and governors," wrote Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which put out the analysis on Thursday.
Because the "ability of conventional monetary policy to spur recovery following the Great Recession was more limited than in any other post-war recovery," Bivens explained, increases in government spending and federal aid to states were necessary to help working Americans following the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.
"Had the Obama administration made such a powerful case for why austerity was hampering growth, it could have educated the public and potentially helped build support for more sensible policy the next time the United States faces a recession."
--Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute
"Given the degree of damage inflicted by the Great Recession and the restricted ability of monetary policy to aid recovery, historically expansionary fiscal policy was required to return the U.S. economy to full health," said Bivens, who is EPI's research and policy director. "But this government spending not only failed to rise fast enough to spur a rapid recovery, it outright contracted, and this policy choice fully explains why the economy is only partially recovered from the Great Recession a full seven years after its official end."
From GOP spending cuts to the refusal of states to accept "free fiscal stimulus from the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act," Republican lawmakers "have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record," he said.
(In fact, even the stimulus measures that were enacted were criticized at the time as too small to make a real difference.)
As the Guardian notes, "[t]he report comes as the Republican party once again calls for the reining in of government spending and reductions in the deficit."
But, while it's clear that "Republicans remain steadfast in their opposition to government spending--even for government jobs like teaching, firefighting, and emergency management," Campaign for America's Future blogger Richard Eskow notes that "a lot of Democrats have bought into the myth, too."
Indeed, he wrote on Friday, "[t]here are strong hints of austerity-oriented thinking in Hillary Clinton's rhetoric," and
Austerity thinking was highlighted at last month's Democratic National Convention when Gene Sperling, a senior economic advisor to former presidents Clinton and Obama, was featured in a humor-oriented anti-Trump video produced by "Funny or Die." Whether or not hilarity ensues must remain a matter of personal opinion, but the video clearly relies on austerity economics--specifically, an exaggerated fear of deficits--to scare viewers.
Even Obama, Bivens argues in the EPI paper, "could have made a louder and more consistent case that the slow recovery had concrete, identifiable roots in decisions made by Congress."
"Had the Obama administration made such a powerful case for why austerity was hampering growth," Bivens said, "it could have educated the public and potentially helped build support for more sensible policy the next time the United States faces a recession."
Eskow agreed:
Democrats have not directly challenged Republicans on government's proper role in the economy. Too often, they have tried to co-opt the rhetoric (and sometimes the policies) of austerity instead.
Republicans, on the other hand, offer a clearly articulated and internally coherent (if utterly fallacious) economic perspective. Democrats can also offer a coherent perspective, too--one with the added advantage of having been proven by experience. That perspective can make life better for millions of people.
"This is the economic debate this country needs," he said. "But we won't get it until someone challenges austerity economics and the conservative philosophy behind it--directly, unambiguously, and fearlessly."
Fiscal austerity in the wake of the Great Recession--imposed by Republicans on the federal, state, and local levels--is responsible for the sluggish pace of economic recovery since 2009, states a new paper that undercuts conservative attempts to pin the blame on President Barack Obama.
"By far the biggest drag on growth throughout the recovery from the Great Recession has been the fiscal policy forced upon us by Republican lawmakers in Congress and austerity-minded state legislatures and governors," wrote Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which put out the analysis on Thursday.
Because the "ability of conventional monetary policy to spur recovery following the Great Recession was more limited than in any other post-war recovery," Bivens explained, increases in government spending and federal aid to states were necessary to help working Americans following the recession that began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.
"Had the Obama administration made such a powerful case for why austerity was hampering growth, it could have educated the public and potentially helped build support for more sensible policy the next time the United States faces a recession."
--Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute
"Given the degree of damage inflicted by the Great Recession and the restricted ability of monetary policy to aid recovery, historically expansionary fiscal policy was required to return the U.S. economy to full health," said Bivens, who is EPI's research and policy director. "But this government spending not only failed to rise fast enough to spur a rapid recovery, it outright contracted, and this policy choice fully explains why the economy is only partially recovered from the Great Recession a full seven years after its official end."
From GOP spending cuts to the refusal of states to accept "free fiscal stimulus from the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act," Republican lawmakers "have embraced and enforced fiscal austerity, and the result has been the most discouraging recovery on record," he said.
(In fact, even the stimulus measures that were enacted were criticized at the time as too small to make a real difference.)
As the Guardian notes, "[t]he report comes as the Republican party once again calls for the reining in of government spending and reductions in the deficit."
But, while it's clear that "Republicans remain steadfast in their opposition to government spending--even for government jobs like teaching, firefighting, and emergency management," Campaign for America's Future blogger Richard Eskow notes that "a lot of Democrats have bought into the myth, too."
Indeed, he wrote on Friday, "[t]here are strong hints of austerity-oriented thinking in Hillary Clinton's rhetoric," and
Austerity thinking was highlighted at last month's Democratic National Convention when Gene Sperling, a senior economic advisor to former presidents Clinton and Obama, was featured in a humor-oriented anti-Trump video produced by "Funny or Die." Whether or not hilarity ensues must remain a matter of personal opinion, but the video clearly relies on austerity economics--specifically, an exaggerated fear of deficits--to scare viewers.
Even Obama, Bivens argues in the EPI paper, "could have made a louder and more consistent case that the slow recovery had concrete, identifiable roots in decisions made by Congress."
"Had the Obama administration made such a powerful case for why austerity was hampering growth," Bivens said, "it could have educated the public and potentially helped build support for more sensible policy the next time the United States faces a recession."
Eskow agreed:
Democrats have not directly challenged Republicans on government's proper role in the economy. Too often, they have tried to co-opt the rhetoric (and sometimes the policies) of austerity instead.
Republicans, on the other hand, offer a clearly articulated and internally coherent (if utterly fallacious) economic perspective. Democrats can also offer a coherent perspective, too--one with the added advantage of having been proven by experience. That perspective can make life better for millions of people.
"This is the economic debate this country needs," he said. "But we won't get it until someone challenges austerity economics and the conservative philosophy behind it--directly, unambiguously, and fearlessly."