That's a moral blow to you.
Last week Tuesday started with a little note. Just at 8:30 am the Bureau of Labor Statistics told us that inflation was still rampant: the August interest rate was 8.3% higher than last year. Once again, the Biden administration appears to have lost control of the script. stocks fall. The Liberals fled.
But it was already 10. At that point, the Census Bureau told us that unlike other health emergencies that have claimed millions of lives, disrupted global supply chains, and wreaked havoc on job markets around the world, the U.S. was capable of more to make cuts. Poverty, which accounts for government benefits, rose from 9.2 percent last year to 7.8 percent in 2020.
Ironically, US aid deserves plenty of credit for the $2 trillion budget package President Biden is pushing through Congress to defy critics who say it will increase inflation. As planned, the extended tax allowance for children alone lifted more than 5 million people out of poverty. Tax incentive payments have lifted almost 9 million people above the poverty line.
That's not all. Extended unemployment insurance also helps. And the growing demand for bailouts is helping to keep the most vulnerable finances afloat. According to Census data, after-tax household incomes increased slightly for Americans without a college degree.
However, I understand: there is no inevitable trade-off between inflation and poverty reduction. Child poverty can be reduced without reducing inflation. In fact, the cost of extending the child tax credit is only about $100 billion, a figure that doesn't do much to curb inflation. Even if it were bigger, it would use higher taxes and avoid injecting more money into the economy.
But if you think for a moment about the policies shaping fiscal and redistributive policies in the country, the focus shifts to the deals the Biden administration faces.
Look at the poverty. According to the Modern Poverty Index published in 2009 as an additional measure of poverty, the drop in poverty between 2019 and 2021 is greater than in the previous decade. And this has pushed millions of Americans into poverty, despite the dangers that Covid-19 poses to us.
Because the political system reacted to the emergency with a fiscal aid package that was anti-American in scope and breadth. Passing America's Biden stands atop the Trump administration's multibillion-dollar package of tax reforms, each of which is unprecedented in American politics, at least since the Great Recession.
Remember how President Obama's advisers were nervous after the housing crisis 15 years ago? They argue that while a declaration of emergency would threaten the lives of millions of Americans, US policy would support no more than $1 trillion in government emergency spending.
Covid has changed this policy. Perhaps the seemingly global threat of the coronavirus has created a sense of "there, but by the grace of God I'm gone". Anyway, after a multi-trillion-dollar boost in the last year of Trump's presidency, it's unlikely that Biden's advisers will be crazy enough to abandon Obama-era advice and plan billboards instead.
This may not be the right time in the business cycle to pump those extra trillions of dollars into the economy. But opportunities must be seized when they present themselves. Judging from American political history, the alternative seems to be pushing several million more Americans into poverty.
This isn't the end of the story. Inflation has become a key economic issue in US policy discussions ahead of the midterm elections, leaving Democrats in the dark about good economic governance.
Critics argue that Biden's fiscal policy will not raise living standards in the long run because inflation eats up temporary gains. Whether they want money or not, they say, untargeted spending like universal checks makes it harder for Americans to achieve other important economic and political goals. For example, can the US bailout be considered successful if it undermines all progressive political goals and pits Congress against the Republicans?
However, the criticism fails to address the importance of political opportunity. Critics of Biden's actions must grapple with their own uncomfortable questions: If not now, then when? "Politics will be easy, believe me" is not a good answer.
There are better ways to redistribute. Washington opted for austerity amid the Great Recession that followed the housing crash, when interest rates were so low that any government investment could turn into profits. Then, when inflation started to rise, he decided to spend as much money as he could afford. Perhaps American policy could be more intelligently adapted to the business cycle.
Justin Wolpers of the University of Michigan argues that automatic stabilizers — help that comes when the economy slows and ends when things get better — can help us better understand American redistribution. This would be a marked improvement over the current practice of promoting reconciliation assistance, as nothing else will happen.
However, automatic stabilizers require some kind of political consensus, which we have not yet achieved. In his absence, the Biden administration must seize every opportunity that presents itself.
More from Bloomberg:
• Nobody knows how long inflation will last: Niall Ferguson
• Good but bad inflation: Jonathan Levine.
• Fed news needs updating: Notepad
This column does not reflect the views of the publishers or of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Eduardo Porter is a columnist for the Bloomberg Opinion, covering Latin America, US economic policy and immigration. He is the author of American Poison: How Racism Has Broken Our Covenant and The Value of Everything: Finding a Way to Think About What Things Are Worth.
For more similar stories, visit bloomberg.com/opinion.