Las
luces se apagan en todo EE.UU., literalmente. Colorado
Springs ocupó los titulares de los diarios con su
desesperado intento por ahorrar dinero apagando un tercio de
las luces de sus calles, pero cosas similares están pasando
o están siendo pensadas en todo el país, desde Filadelfia
a Fresno.
Mientras
tanto, un país que antes deslumbraba al mundo, ahora está
en proceso de despavimentarse: en una serie de estados, los
gobiernos locales están rompiendo rutas que ya no pueden
mantener. Y un país que antes valoraba la educación –que
se contaba entre los primeros que ofrecían enseñanza básica
a todos– ahora está haciendo recortes. Se despiden
profesores; se anulan programas; en Hawai, el año lectivo
está siendo drásticamente acortado.
Y
todas las señales apuntan a más recortes en el futuro.
Nos
dicen que no tenemos alternativa, que las funciones
estatales básicas –servicios esenciales que se brindaron
por generaciones– ya no se pueden pagar. Y es cierto que
los gobiernos locales y estatales, castigados por la recesión,
no tienen efectivo. Pero no les faltaría tanto efectivo si
sus políticos estuvieran dispuestos a considerar por lo
menos algunos aumentos impositivos.
Y
al gobierno nacional, que puede vender bonos a largo plazo
protegidos de la inflación a una tasa de interés de sólo
1,04%, no le falta efectivo en absoluto. Podría y debería
ofrecer ayuda a los gobiernos locales, para proteger el
futuro de nuestra infraestructura y a nuestros hijos. Pero
Washington está dando sólo un goteo de ayuda, e incluso a
regañadientes. Debemos dar prioridad a reducir el déficit,
dicen los republicanos y los demócratas
"centristas".
Y
acto seguido declaran que debemos conservar los recortes
fiscales a los muy ricos, a un costo presupuestario de US$
700.000 millones en la próxima década.
Efectivamente,
una gran parte de nuestra clase política está mostrando
sus prioridades: ante la alternativa de pedir al 2% más
rico de los estadounidenses que vuelvan a pagar las tasas
fiscales que pagaron durante el boom de la era Clinton, o
permitir que los cimientos del país se desmoronen eligen
esto último.
Es
una elección desastrosa tanto a corto como a largo plazo. A
corto plazo, estos recortes estatales y locales son un obstáculo
importante para la economía, que perpetúa destructivamente
el desempleo alto.
Es
crucial tener en mente al gobierno estatal y local cuando se
oye despotricar a la gente en contra del gasto público
descontrolado del presidente Obama. Sí, el gobierno federal
está gastando más, aunque no tanto como podría creerse.
Pero los gobiernos estatales y locales están haciendo
recortes.
¿Y
el futuro de la economía? Todo lo que sabemos sobre
crecimiento económico dice que una población bien educada
y una infraestructura de alto nivel son cruciales. Los países
emergentes están realizando enormes esfuerzos para mejorar
sus rutas, sus puertos y sus escuelas. Pero en EE.UU.
estamos yendo para atrás.
(*)
Premio Nóbel de Economía.
America Goes Dark
The lights are going out all over America – literally.
Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate
attempt to save money by turning off a third of its
streetlights, but similar things are either happening or
being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to
Fresno.
Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with
its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie
Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the
process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local
governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford
to maintain, and returning them to gravel.
And a nation that once prized education – that was
among the first to provide basic schooling to all its
children – is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid
off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year
itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point
to even more cuts ahead.
We're told that we have no choice, that basic
government functions – essential services that have been
provided for generations – are no longer affordable. And
it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the
recession, are cash–strapped. But they wouldn't be quite
as cash–strapped if their politicians were willing to
consider at least some tax increases.
And the federal government, which can sell inflation–protected
long–term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent,
isn't cash–strapped at all. It could and should be
offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of
our infrastructure and our children.
But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and
even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the
deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats.
And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we
must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget
cost of $700 billion over the next decade.
In effect, a large part of our political class is
showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the
richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying
the tax rates they paid during the Clinton–era boom, or
allowing the nation's foundations to crumble – literally
in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education
– they're choosing the latter.
It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the
long run.
In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a
major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high
unemployment.
It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind
when you hear people ranting about runaway government
spending under President Obama. Yes, the federal government
is spending more, although not as much as you might think.
But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you
add them together, it turns out that the only big spending
increases have been in safety–net programs like
unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to
the severity of the slump.
That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you
look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any
stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off,
while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going
into reverse.
But isn't keeping taxes for the affluent low also a
form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a
schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment;
when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good
chance that most of that money will just sit idle.
And what about the economy's future? Everything we know
about economic growth says that a well–educated population
and high–quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging
nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads,
their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going
backward.
How did we get to this point? It's the logical
consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric,
rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar
collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the
public sector can't do anything right.
The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in
terms of opposition to waste and fraud – to checks sent to
welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of
bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were
myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and
fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has
reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the
firing line: services that everyone except the very rich
need, services that government must provide or nobody will,
like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling
for the public as a whole.
So the end result of the long campaign against
government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn.
America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere.