Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

An agenda for the next OMB director

Andrew Samwick writes:

I am less concerned about who will succeed outgoing OMB Director Peter Orszag than what the new budget director will do. We face an unusually high unemployment rate of 9.7 percent and ridiculously low interest rates, even out to 30 years. Cheap credit and idle resources present a great opportunity to borrow and spend, particularly for things we know we need.

I have long been a fan of countercyclical government investment. In January 2008, I proposed a better way to deal with downturns and a budget that plans for the future as a means of substantially increasing our infrastructure investment at the most opportune times in the business cycle. At the time, I was trying to push back against calls for "timely, targeted, and temporary" measures that would widen the deficit without building anything of lasting value. While that phrase has fallen out of fashion, the sorts of policies being discussed -- like the patchwork of relief programs that died in the Senate last week -- are the same old stuff. It is a sign of how poorly our system of governance works that we cannot even plan for something that we have been enduring for two and a half years.

From one of those proposals:

The federal government has a critical role in maintaining and developing public infrastructure, whether in transportation, telecommunications or energy transmission projects. A sensible capital budget would include a prioritized list of projects that need attention. Some would be slated for this year, some for 2009 and so on, over the useful lives of the projects. When economic growth falters, the government would be in a position to move some of the projects from later years into the present year.

This approach to counter-cyclical fiscal policy has several advantages. Perhaps most obvious is that it forces the government to establish priorities for capital projects. It reduces overall expenditures by doing more of the work in times of economic slack, when costs are lower. It also abides by pay-go rules, since projects moved up to 2008 need not be done in 2009. With a little forethought, short-term economic concerns and long-term budget goals need not be in conflict.

I still think this is a good idea.

By Ezra Klein  |  June 22, 2010; 4:21 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What Peter Orszag accomplished -- and what he failed to do
Next: Research Desk responds: Do conservative states get more federal money?


Sounds like it's about time for budgetmeisters to dust off the old fashioned idea of separating the federal budget into operating and capital budgets to differentiate 'bad' deficits (operating budget deficits) and not-so-bad 'deficits' (capital expenditures).

Posted by: tuber | June 22, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

--"Cheap credit and idle resources present a great opportunity to borrow and spend, particularly for things we know we need."--

Do socialists ever encounter circumstances that don't present an allegedly great opportunity to borrow and spend?

They're constantly expanding programs and spending everything they can get of other people's money when times are good, and then screaming bloody murder for more when the chips are down.

We've already borrowed more than we are likely to be able to pay back, and there is no spending end in sight. In fact, the government has so insinuated itself into the economy that it can't back itself out, good times or bad. But that's the house of cards that stupid socialism has insisted on building.

And the propagandists go "Do do Dooo do do Do Dooooooooo".

Posted by: msoja | June 22, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Senate Bill No 2,749 proposed a countercyclical infrastructure policy. In 1921:

Posted by: chrismealy | June 23, 2010 3:21 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company