Krugman/Yglesias: If a deficit falls in the forest … (Must read: A very important observation)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Shorter Krugman: The fact that people say they are worried about the deficit does not mean that there is a political benefit to low-deficit policies. Voters don't know what the deficit is or how it came to be... it's just an abstract attitude. On the other hand, voters want a good economy and services for real. Despite their ostensible concern over the deficit, voters actually vote for increased services and a better economy. Reducing the deficit is thankless because voters will not note it and not believe it.

If things go bad for Dems going forward it will be because we have spent too little, not because we have spent too much.

If a deficit falls in the forest…

Matt Yglesias makes a good point:

A lot of politicians and political operatives in DC are very impressed by polling that shows people concerned about the budget deficit. I think it would be really politically insane for people to take that too literally. If congress makes the deficit even bigger in a way that helps spur recovery, then come election day people will notice the recovery and be happy. If, by contrast, the labor market is still a disaster then people will be pissed off. It’s true that they might say they’re pissed off at the deficit, but the underlying source of anger is the objective bad conditions.

But the political argument against focusing on the deficit is even stronger than he realizes — because there are very good odds that even if Obama exhibited iron fiscal discipline, voters wouldn’t notice. There’s a remarkable, depressing paper by Achen and Bartels that includes an analysis of voter views of the deficit in 1996 — by which time the huge deficit that Bill Clinton inherited had been drastically reduced. Here’s what voters thought they knew:



Yep: after one of the biggest moves toward budget balance in history, a majority of Republicans, and a plurality of all voters, believed that deficits had increased. Not to put too fine a point on it: if Obama succeeded in reducing the deficit, would Fox News or the Washington Times report it?

The truth is that the truth about budgets plays almost no role in real politics. Right now, Meg Whitman is campaigning for Governor of California on the claim that state spending has exploded over the last decade — when the fact is that it has fallen drastically in real per capita terms. Will she pay a price for this? Probably not. So if I were a politician, I’d focus on providing real improvements in peoples’ lives, rather than seeking deficit reductions the public won’t even hear about.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/if-a-deficit-falls-in-the-forest/

[Zenlitened]

1. "...providing real improvements in peoples’ lives..."

Yep. Do that, and the rest will follow.

Too many DC pols -- and inbred, sycophantic "journalist" who cover them -- just don't want to understand this simple fact.

Legislative accomplishments that improve the lives of We The People... that's the STARTING point. Or should be.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. The problem, as I see it, is for many opposed to all things Dem/Obama (progress, ie),

what many of them see as improvements to their lives is around support of their belief system - to the extreme, stopping an abortion or harming someone involved with it is far more important to those particular ideologues than being able to buy the family medicine, putting food on their table, etc.

At least that is how far gone I see many on the right....so with so many people so unhinged (and getting all of their thoughts from Faux), they wouldn't know "real improvement for the public" - or at least find value of it - if it hit them in the head.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Very true, but they seldom decide elections

Most elections are decided by folks in the middle who vote their circumstances in a fairly non-idealogical way.

The people whose real issue is that they feel their world is slipping away into a threatening multi-ethnic tech-oriented future are going to always be there, registering their 28%.

[Festivito]

4. People confuse and do not understand debt and deficit.

They know we owe (that's debt), but when asked if the deficit went down(it did), they know we owe, so in their confusion of the terms they are liable to say anything. The report is unfair in this respect.

The media will be unfair. Regardless of the prudence of spending and taxing, the media will rail against Democrats.

Thus it does not matter. Dems might just as well spend, since, if they do not spend like fishes, they will be blamed for having done so anyway.

NONE OF THIS MATTERS, people have become more real. They certainly do not trust Republicans, and they trust the media less than before.

They'll agree to spend money to make money.

[girl gone mad]

5. "deficits don't matter"

hmmmm... where have I heard that one before?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. A singularly glib, stupid comment. Thanks for sharing!

:hi:

In case any readers don't know what the thoughtless snark above is supposed to mean... from Reagan to Cheney there is a long line of Republicans justifying tax cuts for the rich by dismissing the importance of deficits with a theory that "deficits don't matter." Ironically, they have done so while simultaneously ginning up tea-bag style deficit anxiety because the public associates deficits with Democrats in flat denail of the facts. (In modern times Republicans have accounted for the vast bulk of deficits and debt.)

If Paul Krugman and Matt Yglesias were writing in defense of kleptocracy as opposed to reducing unemployment and providing healthcare and stimulating a moribund consumer sector it would be a really clever comment.

But as it stands it is a fairly typical "snark is easier than thinking" sort of comment of the type that all too often typifies DU discourse. Draw some crude equivalency to something malign and consider it a rebuttal, as opposed to a meaningless tangent.

[Stevepol]

7. I don't think Repubs are the least concerned about deficits.

For them it's just another wedge issue, but in this case one that never grows old.

Once they get in power, they couldn't care less how much they spend in behalf of the rich or of whatever war they start in order to look macho and patriotic, no matter how idiotic the war is or how much it hurts the US in every conceivable way.

Then, as soon as a Dem is elected, they're back to their deficits mantra, trying like hell to keep the government from spending any money at all to help the poor or the unfortunate or the sick.