The US Tea Party has a simple fiscal message: The US is broke. This is factually incorrect — US government securities remain one of the safest investments in the world — but the claim serves the purpose of dramatizing the US federal budget and creating a great deal of hysteria about the US’ current debt levels. This then produces the fervent belief that government spending must be cut radically, and now.
There are legitimate fiscal issues that demand serious discussion, including how to control growth in healthcare spending and how best to structure tax reform. However, the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party cares more about small government than anything else: Its members insist, above all, that federal tax revenues never be permitted to exceed 18 percent of GDP. Their historical antecedent is the US’ anti-revenue Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, not the original anti-British, pro-representation Boston Tea Party in 1773.
Most importantly, their tactics have proven massively destructive of wealth in the US. Since the prolonged showdown over the budget began earlier this year, the stock market has lost about 20 percent of its value (roughly US$10 trillion). In effect, the Tea Party is working hard to reduce publicly funded social benefits — including pensions and Medicare — even as its methods dramatically reduce the value of private wealth now and in the future.
Part of the Tea Party’s founding myth, of course, is that smaller government will lead to faster growth and greater prosperity for all. Never mind that the eye-popping growth projections in US Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan, for example, are utterly implausible; these projections matter politically, because, without them, the full sting of Ryan’s proposed Medicare cuts would be readily apparent.
Standard & Poor’s (S&P) has received some justified criticism for the analysis behind its recent decision to downgrade US government debt; after all, there was little economic news that could explain the move’s timing. However, S&P’s assessment of the political situation is on target: By creating a dysfunctional paralysis at the heart of government, the Tea Party has shown that it is willing to impose dramatic costs on the broader economy and to ensure significantly slower growth.
Confrontation and brinkmanship have become the new watchwords of US politics, even when the US government’s legal ability to pay its debts is on the line, owing to the Tea Party’s ideological rigidity. And the tone of political debate, not surprisingly, has become much nastier.
By signing a pledge not to raise taxes, Tea Party representatives have credibly committed themselves not to acquiesce in any middle-of-the-road compromise. If they break this pledge, presumably they will face defeat in the next round of Republican primaries. So, while a budget deal would technically be easy to achieve, it looks politically impossible in the near term.
Indeed, while the US Congress and the Republican Party have become less popular during this year, support for the Tea Party has remained remarkably constant, at about 30 percent of the population. Its tactics thus appear politically sustainable, at least through next year’s elections.
Perhaps the most damaging outcome of these tactics is to take counter-cyclical fiscal policy off the table completely. Regardless of what happens to the global economy in the weeks and months ahead, it is inconceivable that any kind of meaningful fiscal stimulus would get through the US House of Representatives.
It remains to be seen whether the US Federal Reserve will also feel constrained by the political mood on Capitol Hill. Clearly, influential Tea Party supporters would strongly resist any attempt now by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to find unorthodox ways to run a more expansionary monetary policy.
As for protecting the financial system against disaster, the current majority on the House’s Financial Services Committee is clear — they favor use of the bankruptcy system when megabanks get into serious trouble. If the eurozone crisis continues to spiral out of control, the US should expect to see Lehman or near-Lehman-type collapses among exposed financial institutions.
The irony of the Tea Party revolt, of course, is that it undermines the private sector more than it reins in “big government.” The S&P downgrade resulted in a “flight to quality,” meaning that investors bought US government debt — thus increasing its price and lowering the rate that the federal government pays to borrow.
It was the value of the stock market that fell sharply — which makes sense, given that counter-cyclical policy is now severely constrained. The government part of the credit system has been strengthened, relatively speaking, by developments during the past few months. It is the private sector — where investment and entrepreneurial activity are needed to generate growth and employment — that has taken a beating.
Unless and until the US private sector recovers, investment and job creation will continue to stagnate. However, today’s atmosphere of fear and aggressive budget tactics are combining to undermine private-sector confidence and spending power.
As Jonathan Swift said in 1727: “Party is the madness of many, for the gain of the few.”
Simon Johnson is a former chief economist of the IMF, a professor at MIT Sloan and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95