The Washington Post's obsession with the deficit thoroughly contaminates and confuses its economic and budget reporting. The obsession showed its ugly head yet again in a front page news story. The article notes that President-elect Obama's health care plan is likely to carry an upfront price tag of $65 billion a year, even though it is projected to save money in the long-run. The article reports that Obama had originally planned to pay for this cost by raising taxes on the wealthy in 2009, but he now is planning to put off the tax increase until 2011 because of the recession. The article then tells readers "That could sour some deficit hawks on the idea. 'It's going to be very problematic to me unless they can tell me how it's going to be paid for,' said Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leading centrist Democrat." Okay, perhaps Mr. Nelson hasn't noticed, but we are in a severe recession. As a result, the overwhelming majority of economists want to see the government stimulate the economy by running large deficits. That means that we want spending that is not paid for. Of course in 2011, when hopefully the economy will be back on track, we will be collecting the taxes that Obama had wanted to cover the cost of his health care plan. In that sense the plan will be paid for in the period in which we want it to be paid for. It is possible that Mr. Nelson doesn't understand basic economics and how stimulus works, which should have been pointed out in the article, since he is clearly an important figure among centrist Democrats. However, the Post article makes it appear as though Mr. Nelson's objections make sense. This is not true. If someone supports a large stimulus, then the fact the first years of a health care reform plan are not paid for, should be a non-issue.
--Dean Baker
