The Austerity Drag

The U.S. economy added 243,000 jobs in January, far surpassing analysts’ expectations of around 155,000 jobs for the month.  As a result, the unemployment rate also unexpectedly ticked down to 8.3 percent for January.

The private sector added 257,000 jobs in January, while public-sector employment dipped another 14,000.

And that last part is important, because it begins to reveal the truly destructive nature of austerity.

Amid the wrong-headed drive to shrink the size of federal, state, and local governments (government employees make up one-sixth of the workforce), private sector job gains have been partially thwarted by the losses of government jobs.

With the release of the jobs data each month, the ever-insightful Steve Benen – who joined The Maddow Blog this week – republishes his two charts showing job losses and gains for each month since the beginning of the Great Recession.

The first chart shows the overall jobs picture, while the second shows the jobs picture for the private sector alone.  My shameless rip-off adaptation of these charts is below. As with Steve’s charts, the red columns show monthly job losses under George W. Bush, while the blue columns show monthly job totals under Barack Obama:


The second chart shows that the private sector has been adding jobs for each of the past 23 months.


Also worth noting: there are more total private-sector jobs today (110.4 million) than in February 2009 (110.3 million), just days after Barack Obama took office.

But I always wanted to see a chart which showed us what was happening in the public sector.

So I took matters into my own hands.  Here’s my own homemade chart showing jobs totals in the public sector since the beginning of the Great Recession:


As I plotted the data, I began to understand why Steve might not show the public-sector data each month: The one-time massive hiring bump (and susequent wind-down) surrounding the 2010 Census dwarfed all of the other changes in the chart, obscuring the other month-to-month changes.

As a result, the chart provided little insight into the fundamentals of public-sector jobs.

Fortunately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published a press package which isolated hiring for the 2010 Census.  This allowed me to disentangle the one-time effects of the Census from the underlying fundamentals of public sector jobs.

The result is this chart showing monthly job totals in the public sector, excluding the volatile Census hiring data:


In many ways, this public sector chart is the inverse of the private sector one.

At the very moment when the private sector began to recover, at the very moment the economy needed to be firing on all cylinders, at the very moment the government should have leveraged negative real interest rates* to invest in jobs and infrastructure, one-sixth of the economy was (and continues to be) stuck in reverse.

And as austerity economics kicked in, the losses in the public-sector have only deepened, creating significant drag on the economic recovery.

Since Barack Obama took office three years ago, the public sector has shed some 603,000 jobs – averaging roughly 17,000 job losses per month.  (Compare that to the 840,000 public-sector jobs added during George W. Bush’s second term – an 18,000 per month clip.)

Without these public-sector job losses over the past three years, the unemployment rate would stand at 7.9% today instead of 8.3%.

While some might celebrate the wholesale destruction of government jobs, I don’t.

Public sector employees are vital to our economy and to my business.  Many of my customers are teachers, first responders, court personnel, and a wide array of other local and federal government employees. Public employees create better roads and safer neighborhoods and smarter students, all of which benefits my business.

The destruction of public sector jobs negatively affects my business and our economy.  As public sector employees lose their jobs, I lose business.  And the wider economy suffers, as well.

Austerity just doesn’t work.


* A bit of explanation here on “negative real interest rates”: instead of expecting a positive return on government bond investm0ents, investors are now willingly paying to have the federal government hold their money for 5, 7, and 10 years. In essence, investors from around the world will pay us to invest in our jobs and infrastructure – which would, in turn, pay even greater dividends to our economy as we emerge from recession.

The American Idea

My wife and I are one-percenters.

We have amassed a small fortune – built over some 20 years of climbing our respective corporate ladders, saving very aggressively, and making some favorable investments.

We worked very hard to build our wealth.

But we are also incredibly lucky.

We were both winners of what Warren Buffett has dubbed “the uterine lottery”: through no effort on our part, we were both born into safe, stable, American, loving family environments where hard work and academic success were built-in expectations.  We were granted this huge headstart in life and had no part in earning it.

That early headstart only snowballed as it helped us accumulate advantage upon advantage in our early lives.

We benefitted greatly from our society’s investments in all sorts of public goods, public works, and public innovations.

More bluntly, because of our unearned headstarts, we benefitted disproportionately as we often extracted more value and more opportunity from these public goods than did our less-advantaged peers.

In our youth, we both got into honors-level courses at great public schools.  We both had great professors at our public universities, where we both received advanced degrees.

In our professional lives, we continued our disproportionate wins, taking greater advantage of public investments in roads, airports, research, computers, the Internet, housing, and police and fire protection.

As a business owner, I continue to receive disproportionate share of the benefits from the public investments which deliver customers and vehicles and qualified employees into my shop.

My wealth is – in great part – the result of decades of personal hard work, constant learning and creativity, and deep thought.

But my wealth is also the product of decades of unearned advantage which allowed me to receive an undeserved greater share of our society’s prosperity.

For my disproportionate bounty, I owe a disproportionate debt.


This “disproportionate debt” is the basis of the American system of progressive taxation – the reason that those with higher incomes and greater wealth pay taxes at higher rates.  The wealthy owe more to the nation which co-produced their wealth.

As President Obama’s jobs proposals and the Occupy Wall Street protests have gained favor among independents and an increasing proportion of Republicans, the national conversation has begun to focus on the responsibility of the wealthy in creating, perpetuating, and resolving our current economic woes.

In polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans support greater public investments in infrastructure, education, and public safety in order to create jobs.  And they support raising historically-low taxes on the wealthiest Americans to do it.

And yet, an increasingly-prominent conceit of conservative ideology holds that every person is merely the product of their own singular efforts, and that those with success owe nothing (or owe very little) to the society which made their success possible.

Purveyors of this ideology live in a kind of denial – conveniently ignoring the significant roles of simple luck, coupled with public investments in infrastructure, education, and research, in improving their own lives and in enabling the lives of the wealthy. They contend that the wealthy pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and everyone else should as well.

After Warren Buffett – history’s most successful investor – argued in August that the very wealthy have a duty to pay more in taxes, Harvey Golub – former Chairman and CEO of American Express and former Chairman of AIG – expressed the “bootstraps” mentality in his opening to an indignant Wall Street Journal screed [emphasis added]:

Over the years, I have paid a significant portion of my income to the various federal, state and local jurisdictions in which I have lived, and I deeply resent that President Obama has decided that I don’t need all the money I’ve not paid in taxes over the years, or that I should leave less for my children and grandchildren and give more to him to spend as he thinks fit. I also resent that Warren Buffett and others who have created massive wealth for themselves think I’m “coddled” because they believe they should pay more in taxes. I certainly don’t feel “coddled” because these various governments have not imposed a higher income tax. After all, I did earn it.

The corollary to Golub’s “I earned it” meme is that poverty and joblessness are presented less as a result of unfortunate circumstance than they are as a reflection of moral failings on the part of the poor or unemployed.

When asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests, for instance, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain told the Wall Street Journal [emphasis added]:

“Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!”

At a book signing in Florida one day later, Cain added that the OWS protesters were un-American and anti-capitalist for protesting against Wall Street banks because “they’re the ones who create jobs” – despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  At a Republican debate a couple of weeks later, Cain was asked if he stood by his remarks, and his affirmation garnered the night’s biggest applause from the partisan crowd.

Paul RyanBut perhaps no one in today’s politics defends the rights of the wealthy quite like Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan, who requires his staff to read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for its policy insights, is the chair of the House’s Budget Committee.

Ryan is well known – and mystifyingly well-regarded as a “serious thinker” – for his attempts to use the budget process to accelerate social inequality.  Ryan’s 2011 budget plan, dubbed The Path to Prosperity, was an audacious reverse-Robin-Hood attempt to slash safety nets for the most vulnerable even as it it further slashed taxes for the already-wealthy.

With the President’s jobs agenda and the Wall Street protests gaining popularity, and the national conversation now squarely focused on jobs and inequality, Republicans have been losing control of the political narrative they dominated during this summer’s debt crisis.

In a much-anticipated speech, “Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy, and the Politics of Division”, delivered to the conservative Heritage Foundation last week, Ryan attempted to recast that narrative with an ideological agenda nearly worthy of an Ayn Rand protagonist.

In that speech, Ryan outlined the American Idea as defined by the “principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense”.

After chastising the President for promoting his jobs initiatives while “sowing social unrest and class resentment,” Ryan laid out the contours of his new narrative.

The central problem of economic justice in America doesn’t revolve around a wealthy class which isn’t doing its part, Ryan asserted, but around a social welfare system which inhibits economic opportunity and economic mobility.  Ryan contends that progressives don’t understand this because they confuse “equality of opportunity” with “equality of outcome” [emphasis added]:

These actions starkly highlight the difference between the two parties that lies at the heart of the matter: Whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that, and towards an insistence on equality of outcome.

If you believe in the former, you follow the American Idea that justice is done when we level the playing field at the starting line, and rewards are proportionate to merit and effort.

If you believe in the latter kind of equality, you think most differences in wealth and rewards are matters of luck or exploitation, and that few really deserve what they have.

That’s the moral basis of class warfare – a false morality that confuses fairness with redistribution, and promotes class envy instead of social mobility.

There are a couple of major problems with Ryan’s new “equality of opportunity” narrative.

First, the playing field is never level at the starting line. Unmerited inequalities exist, and they often grow exponentially over time.

Ryan would have us believe, for instance, that a child born some forty years ago with dark skin to an impoverished single mother in, say, inner-city Detroit had all of the same advantages and opportunities afforded to a child born some forty years ago into a stable, upper-middle-class white family in, say, Janesville, Wisconsin.

The circumstances of the starting line matter.  And it is all-too-convenient for those given headstarts to pretend they don’t.

Second, economic justice doesn’t stop at the starting line.  We must also assure that the race is run fairly.

Running the race fairly isn’t about insuring “equality of outcome”, as Ryan contends.  Most participants will not “win” the economic race. But it is about making certain – through establishment and enforcement of the rules – that participants do not cheat or exploit one another. It is about making certain that we flatten very real hurdles of race, gender, and income (to name just a few).

And asking the wealthy to pay disproportionately into the system which helped provide their disproportionate prosperity isn’t “redistribution” – it is merely the repayment of a disproportionate debt. It is fairness.


I’m sure that Harvey Golub, Herman Cain, and Paul Ryan all worked incredibly hard to achieve their successes.  But somewhere along the way, as they deified their individual efforts and accomplishments, they forgot – if they ever recognized in the first place – the enormous and undeniable roles that luck and public welfare played in their successes.

In a town hall two weeks ago, for example, Ryan told a student that the Pell Grant program (federal assistance for lower- and middle-class students) was “unsustainable”, and Ryan noted that he worked three jobs to pay off his student loans.  Good for him.

But Ryan also leveraged his public school and public university education to get his start in Washington.  And while he promoted his private sector student loan as some sort of ideal, Ryan failed to mention that he also used his father’s Social Security death benefits to help pay for college. He went on to a taxpayer-supported career in Washington, including the last 13 years as an employee of the very government he regularly demonizes.

With no trace of apparent humility for their remarkable good fortune (nor apparent blush for their remarkable hypocrisy and greed), these successful men promote the mythology of the completely self-made success.

But no one with wealth got that wealth solely on the basis of their own virtues.  On their paths to success, each got help – sometimes deserved, often not.  To ignore the help we have received is to ignore our obligations to one another.  Worse, it betrays an unfortunate ungratitude.

The wealthy and successful extract greater value (and wealth and success) from our public goods, and thus owe a greater debt to the communities which contributed to their successes.


Paul Ryan is right, but inadequate: the American Idea does revolve around rewarding individual merit, effort, and ingenuity. But that isn’t all.  That isn’t nearly enough.

The American Idea also revolves around our ability to work together to do and build great things. Our civic commitments to greatness – especially in times of crisis – mark our national identity and our national success every bit as much as (maybe even more than) our individuality does.

Many of our nation’s greatest accomplishments – Social Security, Interstate highways, successes in World Wars I and II, the Civil Rights Act, National Parks, and even the free enterprise system itself – are built upon a foundation of mutual cooperation and mutual sacrifice.

The American Idea is simply not the either-or cartoon presented by Paul Ryan.

We are a great nation because of our individual efforts, of which we are justifiably proud.  And we are a great nation because of our mutual commitment to one another, of which we are profoundly humbled.  We must ensure both to build upon our greatness.

That is an American Idea worth saving.


One final note: I find it increasingly difficult to tolerate condescending, one-sided lectures on the virtues of individual effort and private enterprise (and on the evils of “redistribution”) when they come from political mercenaries who have financed their professional careers with public money.

And, yes, I’m looking at you, Paul Ryan.

Confessions of a Job Creator

I’m a job creator.  And job creators are important.

At least that’s what we’ve been hearing from Republicans lately.

House Speaker John Boehner cited “job creators” and “job creation” 26 times in a speech about the economy last week.

And in that speech, the Speaker invoked us job creators to attack the Republicans’ Unholy Trinity: taxes, regulation, and government spending:

Private-sector job creators of all sizes have been pummeled by decisions made in Washington.

They’ve been slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that is always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating.

To hear Boehner’s version of events, the government stands as the sole obstacle to us job creators as we valiantly attempt to create more jobs.

Indeed, the entire Republican establishment keeps talking about the special role we job creators play in our fragile economic recovery.

In their “House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators” – a 10-page, large-type tome [PDF link] about the same length as this blog post – the House Republican leadership repeatedly promise to slash the Unholy Trinity of tax, regulation, and spending.  On Sunday talk shows, more of the same.

If only we job creators paid less money in taxes, Republicans say, we would hire more.

If only we were free from government regulation, we would hire more.

If only we were less concerned about government spending, we would hire more.

As much as I appreciate Republicans’ apparent concern – their willingness to dump money in my pocket, their longing for my freedom to pollute with abandon, their eagerness to drive the nation to the edge of default to keep government spending in check – here’s the thing:

Their efforts won’t help me create a single job.

Not one.

In fact, Republican attacks on taxes, regulation, and spending do quite the opposite, because Republicans are thoroughly wrong on the mechanics of hiring.

I don’t hire because I have extra jingle in my pocket.  I don’t hire because I can avoid complying with some regulation or tax.  I don’t hire because the government is spending less.  I hire because there’s more work to do.

No responsible businessperson is going to hire simply because they have extra money lying around or because they can dump motor oil in the sewer. As generous as I might be, I won’t hire out of charity.

Entrepreneurs hire because they have work to do, and a new employee can help them get that work done.  They hire to help meet demand. And demand is fueled by customers who have money to spend.

And that’s the fallacy of the Republican job creator mythos: Job creators don’t “create” jobs.  Our customers do.

And the evidence proves the Republican fallacy. Taxes are at historic lows [PDF link]. Corporate profits are at record highs. Government spending has collapsed.  These are the very conditions under which, according to Republicans, we job creators should be creating jobs.

But we aren’t.

Despite these supposedly wonderful conditions for job creators, one in six Americans remain unemployed or underemployed. Income and household wealth has stagnated for over a decade. Instead of hiring in this environment, corporations are hoarding record stockpiles of cash in the face of weak demand.

No demand, no jobs.

That’s not to say that we entrepreneurs – let’s just drop the “job creator” garbage – are powerless.  We can foster conditions which promote growth (the right business model, the right service, the right people); but we need customers with a willingness to spend to make our businesses grow and to create an environment where hiring is possible and profitable for us.

Bottom line: Give me money, and I’ll sock it away in the bank.  Give me customers, and I’ll give you jobs.


On Compromise

Last night, Congress passed the $900 billion tax compromise reached between President Obama and Republican leaders.

In the end, progressives and conservatives alike lambasted the deal.  And that might be a very good thing.

I’m no fan of the bonus tax cuts for the wealthy that Obama conceded to congressional Republicans; Despite Republican claims, those cuts fail to create significant job growth.

Lost in much of the analysis over what Obama conceded, however, is just how many bigger concessions he won back from Republican leaders, as Ezra Klein points out with this chart:

Tax Cut Compromise Proportions

Unproductive and unneeded tax cuts for the wealthy make up only one-eighth of the compromise. The other seven-eighths of the deal are much more stimulative to our economy and to job production.

In essence, this tax deal is a second “stimulus” which is much-needed at this stage of our fragile economic recovery.


During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, representatives of each state teetered on the knife’s edge between walking away from the proposed Constitution for what they might have to give up, and giving up important principles (and power) in order to gain something better, stronger, and more resilient.

While the present compromise is not nearly as momentous, it does remind me of what Benjamin Franklin – then 82 years old – said when addressing that convention in September, which galvanized the representatives into agreement:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said “I don’t know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that’s always in the right – Il n’y a que moi qui a toujours raison.”

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. (…) I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.


Progressives hate what was conceded in this deal.  So do conservatives.  And everyone should be concerned over how much this deal grows our national debt.

Both sides wanted their leaders to stick to core principles – no matter the cost.  But that’s demogoguery, not democracy.  It isn’t how our country works.  It isn’t how our country was formed.

“Compromise” has become a foul word in this political season.

But it is the very heart of a functioning democracy.

A Small Business Perspective on Jobs and Tax Cuts


In late July, one of our technicians left our award-winning auto repair shop to return to his hometown.  He has been our only employee to leave since I bought the business over two years ago.

His departure raised a question for us that a lot of small businesses have faced in this economy: Do we accept the risks of hiring a new employee to replace him?

The answer, I think, is instructive for many of the economic and political issues facing our country.


Impatient voters punished Democrats two weeks ago for not giving enough focus to our nation’s sputtering economy after the near-implosion of 2008.

With our nation’s unemployment rate hovering just under 10% (and ‘real’ unemployment much higher), voters sent a clear signal that they want government to focus on creating jobs and growth.

According to the Small Business Administration [PDF Link], small businesses like ours make up 99.7% of employer firms, and account for two-thirds of new job creation.

Both Republicans and Democrats have reiterated the importance of getting small businesses hiring to get our country’s economy moving again.


This week, congress reassembles in the wake of the elections to consider extending temporary tax cuts  implemented under the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003.

Republicans want to extend the entirety of the Bush tax cuts, which would add $5 trillion to the national deficit over the next ten years, and vastly expanded the national debt over the past decade.

Democrats want to extend the tax cuts as well, but would let them expire for the highest-income households which make over $250,000 per year.  The Democratic plan would cost almost $700 billion less than the Republican plan over the next ten years.

Republican leaders claim that giving tax breaks to top earners is critical to generating the new jobs that the economy needs to recover.

Unfortunately, they’re wrong.


Just how would the Republican proposal affect small business jobs? A hypothetical example from my industry might help us get to an answer.

A very healthy auto shop might have annual sales of $1,000,000 – an amount which would put it well into the top 5% of shops nationwide.  If that shop is exceptionally well-run, it might see net profits of 30%, or $300,000.

For those few shop owners in such a fortunate situation, what are the implications of extending the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000?  Under the Republican plan, that shop owner would save an incremental $1,500 in taxes over the Democratic tax cut plan.

As a small business owner, I’d happily take the $1,500.  But such a small amount would give me zero incentive to undertake the much greater expense – and risk – of hiring a new employee.

So while extending the Bush tax cuts would certainly line my pockets, they would do little to encourage me to create jobs in my small business.


Some observers might contend, as incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan did on CNBC yesterday, that most job growth comes from larger “small” businesses and that my example above isn’t really that relevant to job creation.

So let’s pretend, for a moment, that our hypothetical business is actually 10 times as large as the example above: It has annual sales of $10,000,000, and its owners see profits of $3,000,000 per year.

Under the Republican plan, that business owner would save an additional $125,000 in taxes over the Democratic tax cut plan.  Now, this seems like an amount which might let a business hire a couple of additional employees.

But while the tax savings might be enough to hire additional employees, it provides little actual incentive to use that newfound money to hire in an uncertain economic environment.

A tax windfall fails to meet a prudent business owner’s criteria for making a hiring decision. Business owners don’t hire because we have extra money laying around. We don’t hire out of charity. We hire when there is more work to do.

Again, I’d happily take the $125,000.  But I’d also know that a drop of just 1% in my sales – a fairly likely risk in our current economy – would wipe out my tax savings.  If I were that business owner, I’d stash my cash as a hedge against an uncertain economy.  Net effect: no new jobs created.

The criteria for hiring is scalable: Whether a business has $1 million, $10 million, or $100 million in sales, the decision to hire is based on needing employees to meet demand – not on having spare cash supplied by tax cuts.


In my shop, the economic slowdown – coupled with a nearby street closing for almost a year – contributed to a sales decline of over fifteen percent from our record 2008 levels.  The declines would have been worse if not for our solid reputation, our increased community involvement, and our vigorous marketing.

In fact, our business has more customers than ever before; It’s just that each one is investing far less in their cars.  We see a lot more folks putting off needed maintenance and hoping that their cars won’t break down.

And as I look at replacing the technician who left in July, this drop in sales has been my primary consideration.

An extra $1,500 from tax cuts wouldn’t induce me to hire a new technician.  Neither, frankly, would an extra $125,000.

I’ll hire when our core business is better – when there is more work to do – and not just when I have a convenient pile of cash.

And to make our business better, we need more customers with more money – and more willingness to spend.


To encourage small business hiring, policymakers need to encourage spending.  In particular, they need to encourage the kind of spending which reverberates through the economy as that money is spent and respent in the form of wages, further buying, more wages, and – ultimately – hiring.

This respending feedback loop is key to creating enough demand that businesses like mine will start to hire again.  It is key to driving our nation’s self-sustained economic growth.

The fatal flaw of tax cuts for the wealthy is that the cuts don’t foster respending at a scale which drives significant hiring.  As seen in my examples above, a large chunk of each dollar given out in tax cuts to the wealthy is stowed away in savings – thereby stunting the benefits to the economy.

Mark Zandi, Moody’s Chief Economist, has found the same phenomenon in his research (Full PDF Here).

Tax cuts to the rich don’t yield as much overall economic benefit because the wealthy don’t need to (and won’t) spend that money, thus diminishing the virtuous feedback loop.


Government spending which goes to those in need – the poor, the unemployed, state governments – does get respent (often out of necessity) and the feedback loop is much, much stronger than with tax cuts.


If I’m looking at my bank account, the tax cuts seem like a fantastic idea. More money for me!

But if I’m looking at my business, my employees, their families, and my community – I want the government to focus on assisting those in need.  I want the government to encourage buying (especially from small, local businesses).  That’s what will help my business for the long term. That’s what will – ultimately – encourage me to hire.

Lose the tax cuts.  Give me customers instead.

When markets don’t work

Michael Lewis and David Einhorn have written the best summary I’ve seen of why the recent financial meltdown happened, in an amazing editorial in the New York Times.  Their very long, very well-done article (Part I and Part II) details both how regulation failed and how it is integral to smoothly functioning markets.

Einhorn is one of the real heroes of this meltdown.  As a brilliant and wrongly-maligned hedge fund manager, he was one of the first and most articulate critics who chronicled the outright fraud, misconduct, willful ignorance, and inbred conspiracy perpetrated by financial companies (like Allied Capital and Lehman Brothers), bond insurers (AMBAC and MBIA), ratings agencies (S&P and Moody’s), and government regulators (SEC, Treasury, and the Fed).

This meltdown (and the hundreds of billions we’re throwing at it) are the results of an unfettered, unregulated, so-called “free” market.  Einhorn and Lewis demonstrate why regulation is necessary to a healthy, functioning marketplace.