This listing includes a distinguished bunch — including Jamie Galbraith. Ultimately, despite the intellectual weight and prestige of this group, their pleas will go unheard — the Administration has spent the past two years ignoring the same people who railed against the defeat of regulation on the banks, and spoke openly during the past decade regarding the dangers of true regulation upon the financial services industry; the dangers of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy; and the dangers of spending federal tax dollars on two wars — one unwinnable (Afghanistan) and one based upon a lie (Iraq). Instead, the Administration recruited the same guys, such as Geithner and Summers who helped get us into our present mess in the first place, and continues to adhere to the same old, tired neo-liberal line.
Economists for Peace and Security has issued the following statement on current budget debates, pointing out that the entire premise is false and that giving in to the demands to cut the deficit imperils fragile recovery. James K. Galbraith, Ken Arrow, Andrew Brimmer, and Robert J. Gordon are among the notable signatories.
FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE RECOVERY
A Statement by Directors, Trustees and Fellows of Economists for Peace and Security
Annandale-on-Hudson, New York – February 28, 2011 – The budget adopted by the House of Representatives on February 19, 2011 does not make economic sense and is likely to do more harm than good. First, the rationale for the measure is based on a false premise. Secondly, the budget cuts being proposed will impede and may end the recovery. If the recovery fails, unemployment will increase and the financial crisis could re-emerge.
The premise that the US government is broke is false. The US government has never defaulted and will not default on any of its financial obligations. Deficit spending is normal for a great industrial nation with a managed currency, and it has been our normal economic condition throughout the past century. History proves, and sensible economic theory confirms, that in recessions, increased federal spending — not balancing the budget — is the tried and true way to return to a path of sustained growth and high employment.
Eliminating waste in government spending is desirable. But that is not what the House proposes; indeed the House budget failed to address the largest waste in federal government, namely in the military, and the House failed to remove our most egregious subsidies, such as to oil companies. To adopt a policy of deep budget cuts at this stage of recovery is to surrender to irrational fears in the service of a political, not an economic, agenda.
As economists, as citizens, and as long-time critics of waste in government, we call on the Senate to reject the House proposal and to craft an alternative that places first priority on sustaining economic recovery and on dealing with the country’s true economic and social problems, which include unemployment, home foreclosures, the fiscal crisis of states and cities, our infrastructure needs, energy security and climate change.
Clark Abt, Brandeis University and Cambridge College
Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate
Marshall Auerback, Madison Street Partners
Barbara Bergmann, American University and University of Maryland
Linda Bilmes, Harvard University
Stanley Black, University of North Carolina
Andrew F. Brimmer, Brimmer & Co.
Kate Cell, Principal, Kate Cell Consulting
Lloyd Jeff Dumas, The University of Texas at Arlington
Gary Dymski, University of California, Riverside
James K. Galbraith, The University of Texas at Austin
David Gold, The New School
Robert J. Gordon, Northwestern University
Michael Intriligator, UCLA
Richard F. Kaufman, Bethesda Research Institute
Ann Markusen, University of Minnesota
Richard Parker, Harvard University
Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, The Levy Institute of Bard College
Gustav Ranis, Yale University
Lucy Law Webster, Center for War/Peace Studies, New York