The Limits of Compromise by Eugene Robinson explains in yet another way what is at stake in the debt ceiling/deficit/debt crisis.  In the following excerpt, first he explains one situation where compromise made the rescue of the economy much less effective, and then he relates this to the current situation.

A classic example is the attempt to restart the economy following the worst downturn since the Great Depression. When Obama took office, the crisis was acute; consumers and businesses were shell-shocked, and there was real danger of a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Any follower of British economist John Maynard Keynes—and Obama was being advised by dedicated Keynesians—had to recommend a very large pulse of government spending.

In the spirit of compromise, however, one-third of the stimulus package put forth by the White House consisted of tax cuts—which a Keynesian would say are much less stimulative than direct government spending. History will note that this nod toward bipartisanship did not inoculate the stimulus from constant criticism by Republicans, despite their eternal love for tax cuts. However, it likely diminished the effectiveness of the stimulus, thus giving Republicans ammunition for their claim that it didn’t work.

We are at a similar juncture right now. Conservatives and progressives should be able to agree that the long-term national debt of $14.3 trillion is a serious problem. Effective solutions, however, do not lend themselves to meet-in-the-middle compromise.

He closes with the explanation of the headline:

Progressives who say no—who acknowledge that we must reduce the debt but in ways that do not kill economic growth or gut entitlements—are being partisan for the best possible reason: Much is subject to compromise, but not our future as a great nation.

I like the way Robinson has boiled the issue down to some essentials.  I’ll only mention some of my quibbles to set the record straight.  He probably couldn’t have squeezed this in and had as effective a column as he did.

He mentions that Obama was advised by dedicated Keynesians.  He fails to mention that he was also advised by dedicated anti-Keynesians.  Having not studied economics himself, how was he to decide which side to trust?  Apparently he put more faith in the anti-Keynesians much to the detriment of the economy.

Robinson mentions ways to reduce the debt.

There are basically two ways to reduce the debt as a percentage of GDP: Cut government spending or make the economy grow. The problem is that doing more of one means doing less of the other.

I wish he had stated the second way as  “raise government revenues.”  Making the economy grow is actually only one of the ways to make the revenues rise.  Another way to raise government revenues is to get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  Such a step would also help grow the economy and more specifically employment rates.

With all the propaganda the Republicans are spewing about the Bush tax cuts, probably many people still believe that getting rid of these tax cuts would actually be a job killer.   So the believers of the big lie might not connect Robinson’s call for growing the economy with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. He could have put in a plug for this Big Truth to counter the Republicans big lie, but that might have taken him off his main point.