Our blog yesterday noted that the debate over stimulus versus deficit reduction is much more nuanced than is often portrayed. Although these positions are sometimes characterized as directly opposing, there is often a lot of overlap. We described the difference as more about emphasis rather than direction.
A recent op-ed from Joe Scarborough in Politico has brought back attention to the stimulus vs. deficit reduction debate.
In the past few weeks, we have made the case for putting debt on a downward path as a percent of GDP as a goal for the next round of deficit reduction. This is in contrast to those who have advocated stabilizing the debt over ten years with $1.4 or $1.5 trillion of additional savings and, much more worryingly, those who believe that serious deficit reduction can wait for another ten years.
Our recent blog "Putting the Debt on a Downward Path" emphasizes how changes in economic projections can affect the budget for better or for worse.
Yesterday, President Obama suggested we need about $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction on top of what has been enacted so far, a claim which matches a recent analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing $1.4 trillion as sufficient to stabilize the debt. As we gear up for another round of
After a tense few days, or weeks for that matter, lawmakers have enacted a fiscal cliff package -- the American Taxpayer Relief Act. With budget negotiations likely laying low for a few days, we turn our attention to where the deal leaves the budget. We previously analyzed the budgetary effect of each provision of the deal relative to both current law and current policy. In this blog, we will go into more detail on what the budget will look like after the deal.
The Government Accountability Office has updated its long-term budget outlook, showing once again that our budget deficit needs to seriously be addressed on both the revenue and the spending side. The problem is too big to not put everything on the table.