The world is in the grip of a debate between fiscal austerity and fiscal stimulus.  Opponents of austerity worry about contractionary effects on the economy.  Opponents of stimulus worry about indebtedness and moral hazard.

Is austerity good or bad?   It is as foolish to debate this proposition as it would be to debate whether it is better for a driver to turn left or right.   It depends where the car is on the road. Sometimes left is appropriate, sometimes right.  When an economy is in a boom, the government should run a surplus; other times, when in recession, it should run a deficit.    

True, it is hard for politicians to get the timing of countercyclical fiscal policy exactly right.  This is the reason, more than any other, why Keynesian policy lost its luster.  “Fine-tuning” it was called.  Sometimes the fiscal stimulus would kick in after the recession was already over.   

But this is no reason to follow a pro-cyclical fiscal policy.  A procyclical fiscal policy piles on the spending and tax cuts on top of booms, but reduces spending and raises taxes in response to downturns.  Budgetary profligacy during expansion; austerity in recessions.  Procyclical fiscal policy is destabilizing, because it worsens the dangers of overheating, inflation, and asset bubbles during the booms and exacerbates the losses in output and employment during the recessions.  In other words, a procyclical fiscal policy magnifies the severity of the business cycle.

Yet many politicians in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the eurozone seem to live by procyclicality. They argue against fiscal discipline when the economy is strong, only to become deficit hawks when the economy is weak.  Exactly backwards.

            Consider the positions taken over the last three decades by some American politicians. 

First cycle:    During a recessionary period, President Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign and in his 1981 Inaugural Address urged immediate action to reduce the national debt “beginning today.”  (Recession: austerity.)    But in 1988, as the economy approached the peak of the business cycle, candidate George H.W. Bush was unconcerned about budget deficits, even though the national debt was rapidly approaching three times the level it had been when Reagan had given his speeches.   “Read my lips, no new taxes,” Bush famously said.  (Boom: profligacy.)

Second cycle:  Predictably, the first President Bush and the Congress finally summoned the political will to raise taxes and rein in spending growth at precisely the wrong moment, that is, just as the US was entering another recession in 1990.   (Recession: austerity.)  Although the timing of the legislation was poor, the action was courageous.    The Pay as You Go Rule and other reforms switched government finances back onto a path that eventually was to eliminate the deficits by the end of the decade.   

But three years later — and even though the most robust recovery in American history had begun — every Republican congressman voted against Clinton’s 1993 legislation to continue Bush’s spending caps, PAYGO, and tax increases.  Nor did they change their minds in response to the subsequent success of the policy.   Even after seven years of strong growth, with unemployment at the peak of the business cycle dipping below 4% for the first time since the 1960s, George W. Bush based his 2000 campaign on a platform of large long-term tax cuts. (Boom: profligacy.)

Third cycle:  Even after the Bush fiscal expansion had turned the inherited record budget surpluses into record deficits, the Administration went for a 2^nd round of tax cuts in 2003, and continued a rate of growth of spending that was triple the rate under Clinton (both national security and domestic spending).  Vice President Richard Cheney said “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”   These policies were maintained for five more years, as another $ four trillion was added to the national debt.  (Boom: profligacy.)  

Predictably, when the worst recession since the Great Depression hit in 2007-09, politicians felt constrained from an adequate fiscal response due to the big deficits and debts the government had already been running. Republicans suddenly re-discovered the evil of budget deficits and decided that retrenchment was urgent.  They opposed Obama’s initial fiscal stimulus in February 2009, even though GDP growth and employment were much worse than they had been when Reagan and Bush had launched their tax cuts and spending increases.  (Recession: austerity.)   Subsequently, with a new majority in the House, they succeeded in blocking further efforts by Obama when the stimulus ran out in 2011.  The government spending cutbacks of the last two years are the most important reason, in my view, why the economic recovery which began in June 2009 subsequently stalled in 2011.

Three cycles.   Three generations of politicians who favored expansionary fiscal policies during a boom and then decided after a recession had hit that budget deficits were bad after all.  (See the graph below.)

This is not to say that the procyclicalist politicians have always succeeded in getting their policies adopted.   Clinton had a strong enough congressional majority in August 1993 that he was able to pass his budget balancing legislation (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) — even though every Republican in Congress voted “no” at a time when the economy was expanding.  Similarly, Obama had a strong enough majority in January 2009 that he was able to pass some initial fiscal stimulus (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), without a single Republican vote, at a time when the economy was in freefall.  But too often the countercyclicalists are overpowered by the procyclicalists.

            Trying to turn left or right at precisely the wrong points in the road is a worse record than one would get by switching policies randomly.  To explain this perverse pattern, let us switch metaphors in mid-stream.   It is the old problem of needing to fix the hole in the roof when the sun is shining, rather than waiting for a storm to realize that it is necessary.  When the economy is booming, there is no political support for painful spending cuts or tax increases.  After all, everything seems fine; why make a change?   Then when the deluge comes, sinners suddenly see the evils of their ways and proclaim the necessity of reforming.  Of course it is very difficult to fix the roof in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Procyclical Politicians:  Support for fiscal contraction (down-arrows) and fiscal expansion (up-arrows) 

 (Click here for larger version) (more…)

In the 1955 movie Rebel Without a Cause, James Dean and a teenage rival race two cars to the edge of a cliff in a game of chicken.  Both intend to jump out at the last moment.  But the other guy miscalculates, and goes over the cliff with the car.

This is the game that is being played out in Washington this month over the debt ceiling.  The chance is at least 1/4 that the result will be similarly disastrous.    

It is amazing that the financial markets continue to view the standoff with equanimity.   Interest rates on US treasury bonds remain very low, 3% at the ten-year maturity.   Evidently it is still considered a sign of sophistication to say “This is just politics as usual.  They will come to an agreement in the end.”  Probably they will.  But maybe not.   (I’d put a ½ probability on an agreement that raises the debt limit, but just muddles through in terms of the genuine long term fiscal problem.  That leaves at most a ¼ probability of a genuine long-term solution of the sort that President Obama apparently proposed last week - described as worth $4 trillion over ten years.)

My advice to investors is to shift immediately out of US treasuries and into high-rated corporate bonds.  If the worst happens, you will probably save yourself from a big capital loss within the next month.  If not, there is no harm done.

The game is not symmetric.  The Republicans are the ones who are miscalculating.   Evidently they are confident of prevailing:  they rejected the President’s offer, even though he was willing to cut entitlement programs.

The situation is complicated because there are a number of different people crammed into the Republican car.    There is one guy who is obsessed with the theory that, come August 3, the federal government could retain its top credit rating if it continued to service its debt by ceasing payment on its other bills.  But this would mean failing to honor legal obligations that have already been incurred (paying suppliers for paper clips that have already been bought, paying soldiers their wages for last month’s service, sending social security recipients their checks, etc.).  This is like observing that the cliff is not a 90 degree drop-off, but only 110 degrees.   It doesn’t matter: the car would still go crashing into the ocean far below.   The government’s credit would still be downgraded and global investors would still demand higher interest rates to hold US treasuries, probably on a long-term basis. 

There are other guys (and gals) in the car who are even more delusional.   They are dead set on a policy of immediately eliminating the budget deficit (e.g., those opposed to raising the debt ceiling no matter what, or those campaigning for a balanced budget amendment), and doing it primarily by cutting nondefense discretionary spending.  This is literally impossible, arithmetically.  But they honestly don’t know this.   It is as if they were insisting that the car can fly.   Sometimes it can be a good bargaining position to adopt a very extreme position.  But if you are demanding that the car flies, you are not going to get your way no matter how determined you are. 

It seems likely that the man in the driver’s seat - House Speaker John Boehner - does realize that his fellow passengers don’t have the facts quite right.   But there is also a game of chicken going on within the Republican car.  The crazies have said they will oppose in the next Republican primary election any congressman who votes to raise the debt ceiling or to raise tax revenues.   (Yes, they think they would support someone who would eliminate the budget deficit primarily by cutting non-defense discretionary spending; but remember, this is arithmetically impossible.)   The guy who is riding shot-gun in the car - the one who believes the car can fly — is trying to put his foot on top of Boehner’s on the accelerator pedal.   

It seems to me that Boehner, too, is miscalculating.  Given that the car can’t fly, the crazy guy is probably going to oppose him in the primaries no matter what he does.   So I don’t see what his plan is.   But whatever it is, he has made it clear that he doesn’t plan to agree to any increase in tax revenues.   

As a result the Republican leadership is in the remarkable situation of refusing to agree to Obama’s offer to solve the problem so long as the solution includes raising tax revenue, even if it is via such measures as ending distortionary subsidies for ethanol, oil companies, and corporate jets.

If I had to guess:   The financial markets will wake up just before August 3.   US bond prices will finally fall.  The market reaction will shock the Republican leadership into action.  (Precedents include the delayed congressional passage of the unpopular TARP legislation in the fall of 2008 and the delayed passage of an unpopular IMF quota increase 10 years earlier.)   They will finally make the small but necessary concessions on tax revenues.   But by then it might be too late.

Evidently the four-word slogan “No Taxation Without Representation” is too complicated to fit on some people’s bumper stickers.  They have chopped off the last two words.  They don’t want taxation period.

The “Tea Partiers” revere the Constitution. But some might lack the knowledge of early American history that they claim.  In honor of George Washington’s birthday, February 22, I would like to recall a bit of that history.

The Boston Tea Party is not in fact the most appropriate historical precedent for the grass roots protests that have received so much attention over the last year.  The famous slogan motivating the patriots in Boston Harbor in 1773 was “No Taxation Without Representation.”  But democratic representation was achieved with the American Revolution. The Whisky Rebellion of 1794 is a much closer parallel for today’s protestors.   Or the earlier Shays’ Rebellion of 1787, the episode of anarchy to which many Americans reacted by seeking a federal constitution.    The pitchfork-carriers in these rebellions were protesting against taxation with representation.   They did not want to pay the taxes necessary to fund the government services they enjoyed — which at that time meant servicing the debt from the Revolutionary War. (Sound familiar?)  President George Washington, not the rebels, was defending the Constitution against its first severe test, when he personally put down the Whiskey Rebellion with force.   

Incidently, the rebels had no appreciation of good public finance theory either, needless to say.  Theory urges taxing a beverage the excessive consumption of which imposes high costs on others.  Whiskey, rather than tea. President Washington, and his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, probably understood that principle.  Today, it means taxing fossil fuels more (and payrolls less).

During much of the last decade, U.S. fiscal policy has been procyclical, that is, destabilizing.   We wasted the opportunity of the 2003-07 expansion by running large budget deficits.   As a result, in 2010, Washington now feels constrained by inherited debts to withdraw fiscal stimulus at a time when unemployment is still high.   Fiscal policy in the UK and other European countries has been even more destabilizing over the last decade.  Governments decide to expand when the economy is strong and then contract when it is weak, thereby exacerbating the business cycle.    

Meanwhile, some emerging market and developing countries have learned how to run countercyclical fiscal policy - saving in the boom and easing in the recession - during the same decade that we advanced countries have forgotten how to.    

The frenetic debate at any moment for or against “fiscal conservatism” is artificial.  It is not the right answer always to shrink any more than it is the right answer always to expand.  Americans should take a perspective longer than the annual budget cycle or the bi-annual electoral cycle, let alone the daily news cycle.   When the United States was able to take advantage of the long 1992-2000 boom to eliminate its budget deficit, the key legislation had been enacted in 1990 and 1993.   Similarly, the big deficits of the last ten years were created by the legislation of 2001 and 2003.   Bringing back far-sighted fiscal policy would mean taking steps today to lock in long-term progress toward fiscal responsibility (such as enacting social security reform) but at the same time extending last year’s short-term fiscal stimulus so long as the economy is still weak.

It might help to have ways to insulate fiscal policy from some of the wilder vagaries of politics.    I came away from a conference in Chile recently, impressed anew by that country’s accomplishments.  It has achieved countercyclical fiscal policy over the last ten years by means of some innovative institutions.   Chile has a rule that targets the structural budget balance.  In other words, it can only run a deficit to the extent that GDP and the price of copper are below their long-run trends.  But a structural budget rule is not enough in itself.   Who is to say which deficits are structural and which are temporary?  Chile’s key innovation ten years ago was to vest responsibility for determining the long-run trends in GDP and copper prices in two panels of independent experts.   Why does this matter?   One reason that politicians spend too much in booms is that they convince themselves that deficits are temporary even when they are really structural.  Officials in the US and Europe made overly-optimistic forecasts of future growth rates and tax revenues during the 2001-07 expansion.  Research shows that this is a systematic pattern.  The biased forecasts contributed to unaffordable tax cuts and accelerated spending, which in turn spelled excessive deficits and debts.  Today we are living with the consequences of this procyclicality.

Perhaps we should look South, in order to re-learn how to run countercyclical budgets. 

[For comments, go to SeekingAlpha.]

President Obama proposes allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire next year — as they are scheduled to do if nothing is changed — for those earning more than $250,000, but changing the law so as to extend the tax cuts for those earning less than that amount.   Republican politicians are opposing the proposal.    I don’t understand what they are thinking.  Their position doesn’t make sense to me, regardless whether they are thinking about short-term stimulus, long-term fiscal conservatism, good economics, or even pure politics.   

Start with the pure politics.   What is the end-game?   Are congressional Republicans prepared to block the Obama proposal extending the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 and to let them expire as in the original legislation proposed by President Bush and passed by the Congress in 2001-03?   More than 95 % of Americans make less than $250,000.   Their taxes will go up on January 1 as a direct result if Republicans block the Obama proposal.  How are they going to explain their position to the voters when the current law takes effect?    Will it be: “To address budget deficits we need to let taxes go up on most Americans”?   That doesn’t sound like them.   Or: “Minimizing taxes for the rich is so important that we are willing to let taxes go up on everyone else”?     When it comes down to the wire, surely they would have to back down.  So why aren’t they thinking ahead?  

The same goes for the estate tax, which under the original Bush legislation is scheduled in January 2011 to bounce back from oblivion (beneficiaries of any rich people who die in 2010 don’t have to pay a dime of tax) to the old system of taxing estates worth over a million dollars at 45%.  The White House proposal is to exempt in future years all estates under $ 3 ½ million, $7 million for couples, and to tax only the largest estates.  If the Republicans are going to continue to oppose Obama, how are they going to explain this to the electorate?   That the only benefits that matter are those for the tiny minority of super-rich?

Now let’s move to economics.  If you were going after stimulus because the recovery is still weak, and if you believed that only tax cuts created stimulus, the priority should be in other areas like extending the Making Work Pay provisions for low-income workers, which are also set to expire.   This proposition holds regardless whether
(i) your idea of stimulus is Keynesian demand expansion (the lower-income workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume), OR even if
(ii) your idea of stimulus is purely enhanced incentives to work.  (Lower income workers face overall effective marginal tax rates that are often higher than the rich face, when one factors in payroll taxes, etc.)    Alec Phillips of GS US Global ECS Research points out that the amount of revenue (and stimulus) that is at stake in the expiration of Making Work Pay is greater than in the expiration of tax cuts for those over $250,000, and yet the latter question is getting all the attention and the former question is getting no attention.

Fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax is another sensible policy that qualifies as a tax cut relative to existing legislation, and should be part of any fiscal package.

If we want to achieve short-term fiscal stimulus from the viewpoint of good economics, then we should realize that well-chosen spending programs give far more bang-for-the-buck than most tax cuts.   (”Bang for the buck” means a high ratio of short-term fiscal stimulus to long-term damage to the national debt.  It’s the opposite of how the Bush fiscal program was designed in 2001-03.)    Examples of well-chosen spending programs include aid to the states (which Republican congressmen have been voting down) so that the hard-pressed states don’t have to lay off firemen, policemen, bus drivers, teachers and road workers.     Examples of tax cuts with much less bang for the buck include not just those for the rich (e.g., the abolition of the estate tax), but even garden-variety income tax cuts, because they are partly saved.    Don’t take my word for it.   Martin Feldstein (whose work on taxes and incentives led to the supply side revolution, and who was the Chairman of Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers) argues that almost all of the income tax cut that was passed n response to the recession in 2008 was saved by households rather than spent, and predictably so, and that government spending would bring more short-term stimulus.

Of course good economics would mean not just short-term fiscal stimulus, but equal emphasis on measures to bring the budget deficit under control in the long run.   The best proposals are the least popular, as so often.   Fixing social security would be a huge step toward long-term fiscal responsibility, without endangering the current recovery.   A good package would combine all these measures. 

Friday marks 200 days in office for President Obama.   “How has he done?” asks Fortune.

The first thing to say is that Barack Obama took over the presidency at an extremely difficult time. A variety of analogies suggest themselves: He is Harry Houdini who has been thrown in the river, in a straitjacket, with chains wrapped around him. Or he has taken over as the captain of a ship with a rotting hull, while the ship is under attack in a hurricane. To capture the state of the economy, perhaps the best metaphor is that Obama took over as pilot of an airplane in the middle of a steep dive. For a president precedent, he is Lincoln, who takes office as the South secedes. Or he is Roosevelt, who takes office at the depth of the Great Depression.

In any case, in light of the difficult circumstances, I think Obama has done amazingly well.

The financial markets were in free-fall six months ago. Bank spreads were at historic highs (a good indicator of just how outside-the-box this financial crisis was). GDP contracted at an annual rate of about 6 % in the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of this year.

Since then, the airplane has begun to level off. Those bank spreads are down to more normal levels. GDP declined at an annual rate of “only” 1% according to last Friday’s advance estimate; if I had to guess, we will see a bottom in the second half of the year and could see some positive growth. I give a lot of credit to the fiscal stimulus, to the monetary stimulus, and to the financial repair measures, as messy as those inevitably were.

At the time our new president took office in January, there was a danger that this could be not only the worst of the post-war recessions, but as bad as Japan in the 1990s. I think we have now avoided that. We have learned from mistakes in the past, particularly the mistakes of the Depression – those made by the Federal Reserve, Hoover, and also Roosevelt. Obama has the advantage of the lessons of the 1930s to learn from.   But he has the disadvantage of having inherited an exploding path of debt (unnecessarily incurred by this predecessor).    The debt is the rotting hull of the ship of state.

Regarding February’s stimulus package, some commentators said it was too small, some said it was too large.  In truth, it was both.   It was too small by itself to return us to full employment, to knock out the recession.   In order to bring us back to full employment, we would  need a boost to spending several times as big.  And yet, at the same time, it was too large to guarantee that we avoid losing the confidence of our international creditors.   If they stop buying our bonds, US long-term interest rates could rise sharply.   (China — the largest holder of US Treasuiy securities — has already begun to ask questions about the value of US debt.)     But the Administration struck an appropriate balance between these two competing concerns. 

People are angry about the big bonuses that are still being paid to those in the financial sector who got us into this problem. Entirely understandable. But don’t forget that, from the beginning, the goal was to prevent a depression in the general economy. That has been accomplished. You don’t punish someone who has been smoking in bed by allowing the resultant fire to burn down the block. The Administration and the Fed always admitted freely that helping some undeserving financiers would be an undesirable but necessary side effect of the rescue plan. And do you remember all the pundits who warned that the rescue could not work unless the banks were temporarily nationalized? Or all the cynics who dismissed claims that the Treasury would recoup a share of the budget costs as firms like Goldman Sachs repaid their loans with interest?

In my view, overall, Obama has gotten far more things right than wrong. He has bravely proposed things that most sensible economists — whether Republican or Democrat — have long favored. Proposing is not always the same as enacting; there is the matter of Congress. But he has tried to get them passed, and has tried to do it in a bipartisan way.  (That bipartisanship constraint is one of the Houdini chains.)

Washington has always been stymied by the political constraints of what can pass Congress.  Often presidents figure that special interest groups will block sensible reforms, so why waste political capital trying? But an example, which I find extremely encouraging, including symbolically, is that (with the help of Defense Secretary Robert Gates), Obama proposed to end spending on the F22 fighter. The F22 is probably the most egregious example in the defense budget of spending on hugely expensive weapons systems that the Pentagon doesn’t want because they are not useful for today’s national security needs. To my surprise, Obama actually prevailed  on this.

I can also name two areas where he proposed very sensible legislation that a heavy majority of economists of both parties would support, and yet where he has lost in Congress (at least so far). One is cutting agricultural subsidies to agribusiness and rich farmers. Another is auctioning off most of the greenhouse gas emission permits in any plan like the Waxman-Markey Bill, rather than giving them away to industry.  (Obama’s proposal was to use the proceeds of the auctions to reduce the marginal tax rate on low-income workers, to “Make Work Pay,” which would have been an excellent use of the funds.)

But the fact that he is trying, and that he is winning some of the battles, is important.  He is willing to fight the fight, while yet compromising when politically necessary. It is tremendously important that the public take notice of these details. There are always particular interest groups that stand to lose from any given reform such as farm supports,  military procurement or emission permit auctions; if the general public pays no attention to the details and does not support the President on them, it means special interests will triumph over the general good as so often in the past.

If I had to find one mistake that the White House has made, the initial economic forecasts were too optimistic, at least with respect to the unemployment rate. It was an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless… not just with respect to the economics: politically, Obama would have been better to recognize the severity of the recession from day one.

Regarding the health plan, we as yet have no idea what the outcome will be. The big questions, of course, are how to reduce costs and how to pay for getting everybody insured. Instead of proposing an income surcharge on the wealthy, I would have preferred eliminating non-taxability of employer-provided health benefits— that’s what McCain was for in the campaign, and most economists as well. The non-taxability could have been retained for workers in lower income brackets if the White House felt this was essential.  At the least, Senator Kerry’s astute version, which is aimed at curbing the effective taxpayer subsidy in the cases of the most egregiously expensive health care insurers, should be politically saleable.   You can call Obama’s failure, so far, to move in this direction a second mistake. But, since Fortune asked my opinion of how much the President has done right versus wrong, I put the score at 98 to 2. 

[Any readers wishing to comment on this post are encouraged to go to Seeking Alpha.]