As for what Clinton 'did,' as opposed to who he did, the biggest factors seems to have been the dot com bubble and household debt stimulating demand. Obviously there were other ways AD could have been boosted, but Clinton wasn't interested in them. Blinder's book sez the 1993 budget deal was not huge in effect. Pollin has this one by the short hairs, methinks.
Balancing the budget by taxing the top 1-2% isn't a bad long-term strategy. It reduces the social power of the rich, while running debts can increase it: "You want me to roll over your debt? Well, I've got a list of policies I think you should follow...." It has almost no depressive effect on AD either
My bias these days is that a commitment to maximum employment, through fiscal policy and/or work hour reduction, is the sine qua non of U.S. social-democracy, progressive politics, or anything more radical than that.
I agree with you, but how to get there? If deficit spending were the key, wouldn't Japan be at full employment? If you have a constant deficit (as % of GDP), you're not getting any fresh fiscal kick, so wouldn't you need ever-increasing deficits? Why not focus on the good things public spending can do (infrastructure, health insurance, child care) and the people it can put to work doing them, and for those who remain unemployed, an active labor market policy?
Doug
