When the deficit's "under control", will the Conservatives be able to resist deficit-funded tax cuts?

There's no reason why they should even try.

Matt Yglesias asks what could be an existential question for conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic:

This is the question for John Boehner and Paul Ryan whenever they do unveil their balanced-budget plan: Why not make taxes lower instead of balancing the budget? The budget will, presumably, cut spending down to a level that conservatives think is appropriate. Say that sums up to 18 percent of GDP. Well if you're spending 18 percent of GDP and 18 percent of GDP is the right amount to spend, then why is it better to raise 18 percent of GDP in taxes rather than raise 16 percent and borrow the rest?

For the time being, in Britain and America, rhetoric about "getting the deficit under control" and about "shrinking the size of the state" are pointing in the same direction. Both are reasons for the massive spending cuts which the Conservatives and Republicans have attempted to enact.

Most of the attacks on the false connection between those two arguments have been focused on the "shrinking the state" part of the equation. That is, questions like "if we're trying to reduce the deficit, why aren't we raising taxes on the rich/on bankers/on financial transactions" are appropriate for exposing the drive for deficit reduction as a sham, driven largely by ideology.

But what if, instead, we accept — hypothetically — that the size of the state had to be shrunk. Eventually, spending would be "under control", whatever that means for them, and the choice would become whether taxes ought to be at the same level. Why, all things considered, would it be bad if they weren't? Yglesias asks:

Is it because a 2 percent of GDP budget deficit would be inflationary? Is it because an inflation-targeting central bank faced with a 2 percent of GDP budget deficit would be forced to peg short-term interest rates at a high level? What's the problem, exactly, that the budget balancing solves once we've stipulated that spending has been cut to an appropriate level?

Of course, in the political world, we would be unlikely to get such a clear answer to that question. Rhetoric about a "maxed-out credit card", "paying off the country's mortgage" or "unsustainable budget deficits" — where "sustainable" is never defined — dodges the fact that the macroeconomics of small persistent budget deficits in a country which controls its own currency are relatively settled: it's fine. And chances are that if the Conservatives do manage to get the deficit down, and cling on to power through 2015, then they will do the obvious thing, and enact deficit-funded tax cuts.

But getting a straight answer to that question from the economically minded people who call for swingeing spending cuts now would be interesting indeed.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images/Carl Court
Show Hide image

Nigel Farage: welcoming refugees will lead to "migrant tide" of jihadists

Ukip's leader Nigel Farage claims that housing refugees will allow Isis to smuggle in "jihadists".

Nigel Farage has warned that granting sanctuary to refugees could result in Britain being influenced by Isis. 

In remarks that were immediately condemned online, the Ukip leader said "When ISIS say they will flood the migrant tide with 500,000 of their own jihadists, we'd better listen", before saying that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, had done something "very dangerous" in attempting to host refugees, saying that she was "compounding the pull factors" that lead migrants to attempt the treacherous Mediterranean crossing.

Farage, who has four children, said that as a father, he was "horrified" by the photographs of small children drowned on a European beach, but said housing more refugees would simply make the problem worse. 

The Ukip leader, who failed for the fifth successive occassion to be elected as an MP in May, said he welcomed the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn victory, describing it as a "good result". Corbyn is more sceptical about the European Union than his rivals for the Labour leadership, which Farage believes will provide the nascent Out campaign with a boost. 

 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.