A second is that you run as big a deficit as you need to get to full employment.
I won't rehash why balanced budgets are bad. Robert Eisner has already done a good job on that.
I do agree the left is disinclined to tell people that if they want more services, they should pay more taxes and will be better off for it. There is too much dependence on the mistaken notion that you can gouge the rich for all the money the public sector needs.
mbs
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of Luke Weiger Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:34 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Tuff Lib'rul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Dawson -PSU" <mdawson at pdx.edu>
> Back when liberalism still stood on the podium, balanced budgets used to
be
> the right's main attack against progressive social programs. Back when
the
> New Deal was not a shamed distant memory, liberals used to argue
(correctly)
> that some kinds of deficit spending pay themselves off. Pairing the
> "balanced budgets" fetish with charges of "big spending" is running to the
> right of Bush.
All this I know and was not trying to contest. I was just trying to point out that of course there's a liberal case for balanced budgets: they're generally a good thing. Moreover, I think liberals ought to run on a platform calling for fairer taxes (i.e. the rich ought to pay a lot more than they do). Letting conservatives equate tax fairness with rate flatness has been one of the lib-left's biggest failings.
-- Luke
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk