Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

To Cut Government, US Must Shift Focus

Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

To Cut Government, US Must Shift Focus

Article excerpt

THE United States should shift the focus of economic policy.

Of course, the macroeconomic tools of monetary and fiscal policy are important. Tax changes, shifts in the level of government expenditures, and alterations in the pace of monetary expansion can help achieve an appropriate economic environment. But there is another group of policy instruments that can make macro policies work better. Ultimately, they are more powerful in their effect on economic performance.

This other category consists of "microeconomic" mechanisms that focus on the competitive marketplace and the role of individual enterprises, investors, managers, and workers. In responding to public dissatisfaction with government, political leaders should deal with these microeconomic considerations in fashioning budget cuts, tax reforms, and overhauling regulation. It is not just a matter of reducing the level of the budget. This is the time to root out those outlays that make for a less-productive economy.

Eliminating subsidies is a good example of economically desirable budget cuts. I would start with subsidies to business. These include assistance to the maritime industry, defense conversion programs, and a host of credit subsidies. We should then turn to the biggest subsidy, which is to the agriculture sector.

We also shouldn't overlook the Labor Department. An attractive candidate for the budgetary ax is the Davis-Bacon Act, which artificially pushes up the cost of the nation's infrastructure.

The conventional budget strategy of searching for marginal reductions bureau by bureau will not suffice. The serious budget cutter must question the existence of entire programs and agencies, using tools such as benefit/cost analysis.

Consider the food stamp program. Supporters of the program object to including such "income in kind" when measuring the number of people in poverty. They argue that the stamps aren't worth their face value in cash. One scholarly proponent suggests that, if such items are included in measuring poverty, they should be discounted by 20 percent or even 40 percent. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.