phantom surplus?

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Fri Jan 28 12:25:37 PST 2000


Keeping in mind that when he says "surplus," he really means about half of the actual surplus (i.e., net of Social Security), I would say yes, but with a few caveats.

The process of not adhering to the caps or to a freeze will use up a good bit of political initiative that might otherwise diminish the remaining surplus.

The projected reward to farmers and health care providers might be high.

The projections are likely to be revised upward again, since they always presume an imminent downturn that need not occur.

Like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and other anti-debt liberals (ahem), Reischauer is trying to make the surplus disappear.

We're still in a pre-keynesian economic framework, storing nuts for the winter when we trade them for edgeworth boxes filled w/ apples.

The point of fiscal policy is to maximize employment, redistribute income, and promote public investment. The point of debt-paydown is to reject all these goals. Joe Minarik, top OMB economist, calls it "having a party."

Laissez le bon temps roulez. mbs

[Max, is this right?]

New York Times - January 28, 2000

The Phantom Surplus By ROBERT D. REISCHAUER

WASHINGTON -- The Congressional Budget Office's new projections have whetted the appetite of many a lawmaker who feels starved after a decade of fiscal dieting. According to the budget office's estimates, the surplus could be as large as $1.9 trillion over the next decade.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list