It is well-established (and makes a good deal of sense) that some short term pain may well be worth it, if the "short term pain" leads to a "long term gain." Presumably, this might the idea underlying our current president's recent announcement that "a recession may be worth it." Let's examine that premise.
As it turns out, many economists don't agree that the policy changes being made by our president are going to have any longer-term payoff. What they see is "short term pain" leading to "long term pain." Click that link in the first paragraph and read what New York Times reporter Ben Casselman has to say on this topic (paywall policies permitting, of course).
I found the most revealing part of Casselman's article to come right near the end:
Who bears the costs?The 2017 tax cuts disproportionately benefited higher-income households, according to most independent analyses. Medicaid cuts would overwhelmingly hurt low- and moderate-income families, as would cuts to other government services. Tariffs likewise tend to be hardest on poorer households, which spend more of their income on food, clothes and other imported goods.
The short-term pain created by the administration’s policies, in other words, could fall hardest on low-income Americans — many of whom voted for Mr. Trump in hopes of improving their economic situation.
“It’s really hard to see how the Trump voters come out ahead,” Ms. Clausing, the former Treasury official, said. “Prices are going to be higher, disruptions are going to be higher and the safety net is going to get cut."
Even some defenders of Mr. Trump’s policies, such as Mr. Cass, say cutting benefits to pay for tax cuts runs counter to the administration’s stated goal of restoring the middle class (emphasis added).
Just to highlight the obvious, the adminstration's "stated" goal is not its "real" goal.
The "real" goal is to benefit the billionaires, and to hell with the rest of us.
That make it clear?
Foundation of Freedom
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!