I like Stiglitz's arguments on the deficit and debt. But, politics sucks!

Do I worry a lot about the growing trillions of dollars of debt?  Of course, yes.  Do I worry even more about the unemployment levels?  Yes, dammit.

Is there a way to address both?

Joseph Stiglitz says, ahem, yes, we can!  I like the points he makes, in explaining why he refused to sign off on the bipolar bipartisan group of former chairmen and chairwomen of the Council of Economic Advisers' letter "that stresses the importance of deficit reduction and urges the use of the Bowles Simpson Deficit Commission’s recommendations as the basis for compromise":

In my report, I outline the low-hanging fruit that could easily exceed the $4 trillion dollar target set by the Bowles-Simpson Commission. For example: (a) The Cold War ended more than two decades ago, but we continue to spend tens of billions on weapons that don’t work against enemies that don’t exist. Fruitless wars have not increased our security and our military’s credibility. Rather, they have undermined both.

We could have more security with less spending. The commission recognized this — but didn’t go far enough. Congress and the Obama administration have not gone far enough either.

(b) The health care reform bill did little to eliminate the trillion-dollar giveaway to the drug companies, resulting from restrictions on the ability of government (the largest buyer of drugs) to negotiate prices. In contrast to every other government in the world. While much more can, and should, be done to control health care costs, this little change would make a big difference.

Eliminating corporate welfare, both that hidden in our tax systems and in the hidden give-aways of our country’s natural resources to oil and gas and mining companies; eliminating the unjustifiable and harmful tax breaks for speculators and companies that keep their money out of the country, and taxing activities that generate large negative externalities—whether the environmental pollution that threatens our health and our children’s future, or the financial transactions that brought out country and the world to the brink of ruin—could all easily generate trillions of dollars in revenues. At the same time, they could also create a fairer society, a cleaner environment, and a more stable economy.

Deficit reduction is important. But it is a means to an end — not an end in itself. We need to think about what kind of economy, and what kind of society, we want to create; and how tax and expenditure programs can help achieve those goals.

Greg Mankiw, who was Bush's CEA Chair, differs. 

I am not sure whether one even needs to get into the content of their disagreement, or whether we can merely use the proxy qualifiers: Stiglitz headed the CEA during Clinton's presidency, and Mankiw had the job when "W" was the president.  I suppose it would be news if those two had advocated contrary positions.  Which makes me wonder then where the science of economic calculations is, and where the politics begin!

BTW, did you catch this news item about GE--the country's largest corporation--having paid no income taxes, thanks to all the gazillion tax loopholes that its army of accountants and lawyers exploit, after those loopholes were created thanks to the gazillion lobbyists? 

At a tax symposium in 2007, a G.E. tax official said the department’s “mission statement” consisted of 19 rules and urged employees to divide their time evenly between ensuring compliance with the law and “looking to exploit opportunities to reduce tax.”
Transforming the most creative strategies of the tax team into law is another extensive operation. G.E. spends heavily on lobbying: more than $200 million over the last decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Records filed with election officials show a significant portion of that money was devoted to tax legislation.

 Ah, good ol' US of A.