Does no jobs mean no deficit reduction?

The poor jobs report means effective stimulus should come sooner rather than later

  • close
    President Barack Obama gestures after delivering a statement in the White House Rose Garden where in he urged Congress to pass a federal highway bill. Obama's leadership is key to reducing the deficit.
    Evan Vucci/AP/File
    View Caption
  • About video ads
    View Caption

Nope. Simplest reason why not: the deficit reduction we’re talking about is over the next ten years. The extra or at least more effective stimulus we’re talking about better come sooner.

Many of the same policies that contribute to the adverse longer-term fiscal outlook provide very little offsetting benefit to the near term. Getting our longer-term act together would give global investors, right now, more confidence in the security of Treasury bonds and help keep the cost of borrowing–for stimulus right now–low. So it seems the so-called “super committee” has no reason to shy away from its task of (another $1.5 trillion over ten years in) deficit reduction. There’s lots of opportunity for them to become “superheroes” in conquering both the near-term and the longer-term challenges facing our economy. And President Obama could encourage them by offering his own leadership on this issue–and let’s hope we hear some of that on Thursday. As “super” as they might be or might become, they can’t do it without his help.

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.