There are two things growth can do to a policy agenda:
1.) Change your policy agenda to be more growth-oriented.
2.) Say growth with will reduce the fiscal cost of your policy, which is either not true or dramatically overstated.
Budget wonks are hostile since 90%+ of lawmakers talking about growth do #2.
Re: Growth and fiscal policy.
I agree with all my favorite budget nerds that it is foolish to count on growth to solve America’s fiscal problems.
But from where I sit, a lot of institutional progressives underrate economic growth. When Democrats debate BAAJA they are largely weighing emissions goals vs conservation goals and not talking about growth impacts. The Hewlett Foundation’s economy and society program adopted grantmaking strategy on the explicit premise that policymakers had been overrating economic growth. Immigration gets discussed largely as a humanitarian issue without consideration of growth impacts. Even my beloved YIMBY movement operates largely within a “is it good for low-end affordability” social justice paradigm.
Relative to that status quo, I think it would be good for progressive institutions to be more cognizant of the fact that incremental improvements in economic growth have progressive implications because they make the existing safety net more sustainable and somewhat ameliorate the need to dedicate all new marginal revenue to sustaining existing programs.
This is not an alternative to being serious about first-order fiscal issues, but I do think it is an underrated lens on a wide range of regulatory questions.