in a succinct but powerful column in today's Washington Post. He begins simply enough:
Economic austerity is a dangerous, self-defeating intellectual fad. Perhaps I should say that’s what it was, given Sunday’s election results in Europe. Perhaps I should also say good riddance.
Of course, as we all know, given that Paul Ryan's is the driving mind behind Republican economic policies right now, we cannot as yet say "good riddance." Then again, Robinson with his gift for language would probably include Ryan as a prime example of what he calls "addled ideologues who control the Republican part" who will not learn from Sunday's results, even as he hopes Democrats were paying attention.
Robinson reviews, and places in context, the result of voting in France's presidential election, local elections in Schleswig-Holstein, and of course the Parliamentary elections in Greece. Of these, the last is perhaps a somewhat different context, given that the Greek welfare state was clearly out of balance with the nation's economic fortunes, and some adjustment was clearly necessary at the start of the crisis. This is an important lesson, which Robinson acknowledges It is the two paragraphs that follow this that are the heart of the column, and I will begin below the fold with those words.
But another clear lesson is that austerity has to be seen as a means, not an end. The goal is to recover from the massive blow inflicted by the global financial meltdown and return to prosperity. This may involve a measure of austerity — but definitely requires considerable economic growth, which should be policymakers’ first priority.
The reason is simple: If you can get the economy growing again, all other aspects of the crisis become more manageable. Debt and deficits shrink as a percentage of national output. Unemployment declines, as does the need for social spending.
Most economists, perhaps excluding those who have a theology that focuses on deficits and the financial sector, would agree on the primary importance of growth in a situation such as this. Further, if one listens to the political rhetoric from Romney and others there is a basic recognition that the American people want jobs, so they are trying to coat the bitter pill of austerity in the lubricating words of claims that their approach will create more jobs than what we have been seeing.
And yet, one major drag on economic recovery has been the ongoing loss of government jobs, especially in state and local governments. That is a loss of revenue to governments, not merely from income taxes on those jobs, but of greater importance from sales taxes on the spending we have lost from those families, as well as income and sales taxes from the jobs and business we have lost as a result of losing that spending.
One can, as the likes of Paul Krugman have done, argue that the stimulus was took weak, although the administration might argue that they got out of the Congress what they believed was possible. One should, as many have done (including me), argue that with interest rates so low now is the time for the Federal government to increase borrowing in order to pump more money into the economy and thereby (a) help states who cannot run deficits to maintain government jobs, and (b) pump more money into the economy through government spending.
There are two lessons evident from Sunday's voting. Both derive from the fact that the austerity approach is faiing badly, as one can see from the UK slipping back into recession. The first is economic - austerity does not work to resolve the economic crisis. The second, perhaps of greater importance for many, is that people across Europe are recognizing this, and when given the opportunity will vote accordingly.
Robinson summarizes this in his final paragraph:
Mitt Romney and the GOP subscribe to the pro-austerity view. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, even if it happens to be wrong. I sincerely wish them all the electoral success their ideological allies are having across the Atlantic.
So do I, not merely because I favor the Democrats on so many other policies, but because our nation cannot afford the damage that will be done should we mistakenly follow the path of austerity.
Romney and the Republicans claim Obama wants to turn us into Europe. That's Rovian in its formulation, because their insistence on austerity would do to us what the insistence of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy have done to Europe, which is to deepen and worsen the economic distress.
At least the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere provided an expensive in unnessary access to an airport. The austerity Bridge to Nowhere takes us not into a positive 21st century, but back into the worst aspects of times like the Gilded Age in this nation, or the rise of Fascism in Europe. If you think the last is exaggeration, remember that a Nazi party just gained seats in the Greek Parliament, and it was economic distress that helped bring Hitler to power in 1933.
Robinson's column is very much on point.
Read it.
Share it.
Especially the succinct summary in those two paragraphs, which I will repeat as an ending:
But another clear lesson is that austerity has to be seen as a means, not an end. The goal is to recover from the massive blow inflicted by the global financial meltdown and return to prosperity. This may involve a measure of austerity — but definitely requires considerable economic growth, which should be policymakers’ first priority.
The reason is simple: If you can get the economy growing again, all other aspects of the crisis become more manageable. Debt and deficits shrink as a percentage of national output. Unemployment declines, as does the need for social spending.
Peace.