For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
John Hawkins Vs. Robert Reich On The Stimulus. I Was Right And He Was Wrong Then — And Now.
Written By : John Hawkins

When Barack Obama was originally pushing his ginormous stimulus bill, like many conservatives, I pointed out that it wasn’t going to work.

Among other things, I noted history has shown that stimulus bills of this sort don’t get the economy moving, I pointed out that there wasn’t even that much Keynesian stimulus in the bill  —  and it didn’t escape my notice that a significant portion of the spending was backloaded. In other words, we were going to spend as much money as “FDR’s New Deal AND the war in Vietnam combined” for a stimulus bill that wouldn’t actually stimulate the economy.

That was my position. Now for reasons that will soon become obvious, let’s look at some of the things that Robert Reich, Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, was saying about the same time. Of course, he supported it.

As the buyer of last resort, the federal government must respond if that cycle is to be reversed. In my judgment, this will require a stimulus of about 6 and a half percent of gross domestic product, or a total of some $900 billion, spread over two years. That’s my estimate for the shortfall in private demand. But the federal government should stand ready to spend larger sums if necessary to get the economy back on track toward full capacity. The danger is not that the government will do too much; the danger is that it will do too little, too late.

Without such action, I estimate that another 3 million jobs will be lost in 2009, unemployment will rise to 10 percent of the workforce by the end of this year, and under-employment – including people working part-time who would rather be working full time, and those too discouraged even to look for work – will reach 15 percent. Without federal action, next year could be even worse.

As we now know, the unemployment rate hit 10.2% and underemployment was still at 19.1% in May of this year. In other words, things turned out even more poorly than Reich’s “worst case scenario” predicted it would get WITHOUT the stimulus.

Of course, the response to this is always: Well, it must have been even more terrible than we thought and had we not done it, things would be even worse now. Except the people saying that are the same ones who made the wrong call on the stimulus in the first place while the people who disagree are the ones who correctly predicted the stimulus wouldn’t work.

Anyway, now Reich is back demanding more stimulus and complaining about all of us horrible people who actually want the government to show some fiscal restraint after the biggest orgy of wasteful spending in the history of Planet Earth:

We’re falling into a double-dip recession.

…The only reason the economy isn’t in a double-dip recession already is because of three temporary boosts: the federal stimulus (of which 75 percent has been spent), near-zero interest rates (which can’t continue much longer without igniting speculative bubbles), and replacements (consumers have had to replace worn-out cars and appliances, and businesses had to replace worn-down inventories). Oh, and, yes, all those Census workers (who will be out on their ears in a month or so).

But all these boosts will end soon. Then we’re in the dip.

Retail sales are already down.

So what’s the answer? In the short term, more stimulus — especially extended unemployment benefits and aid to state and local governments that are whacking schools and social services because they can’t run deficits.

But the deficit crazies in the Senate, who can’t seem to differentiate between short-term stimulus (necessary) and long-term debt (bad) last week shot it down.

In the longer term, we need a new New Deal that will bolster America’s floundering middle class. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and extend it up through the middle class. Finance that extension through higher marginal income taxes on the wealthy, who have never had it so good.

If government stimulus were the answer, our economy would be roaring right now, Japan’s economy wouldn’t have been mired in a 20 year slump, and Greece would be the world’s most prosperous nation.

Moreover, you often hear liberals say “long-term debt (bad),” as Reich does, but then they oppose any and all attempts to tackle the debt. For example, look at Reich’s prescription for the future: More government spending, increase the percentage of people not paying any income tax — which is at 47% already — and pile even more of the tax burden on the rich.

That’s INSANE.

The whole idea that we can have a massive welfare state funded by a tiny percentage of the population is completely unworkable. If you killed the goose that laid the golden eggs and took every LAST DIME of people making more than  $75,000, it would only add up to 4 trillion dollars — which sounds like a lot until you remember that the National Debt just cracked 13 trillion dollars.

We simply can’t afford to keep throwing good money after bad on more big government programs that simply don’t work. We also can’t afford to keep relentlessly persecuting the most successful Americans to pay for it. The very fact that so much of American society ISN’T WILLING to pay a fair value in taxes for the government services they receive tells you that it’s not worth it. Putting those people trillions more in debt for more non-functional government programs isn’t the answer to our economic problems.

1
  • kingofsiam

    Everyone knows when you're losing, the best thing to do is double down.

    Riech: “Double or nothing!”

    Sound strategy right there.

  • UFKA_Smithwick

    To me this all seems very obvious: if high taxes, permanent debt, and massive government influence over the economy worked the way they are saying it does ***the US, Europe and Canada would not be in this mess***.

    We've tried this road, the europeans have gone even further down that path and it hasn't led to sustained growth and prosperity. It has led them to the verge of economic collapse (over the edge for some countries).

  • Darin

    How about letting taxpayers KEEP those taxes for some period of time? You could still call it stimulous, but instead of the government deciding who gets the money, the individual decides. The cost of doing this just for individual federal income taxes for 1 year would be the “cost” of the stimulous. Note this does not change other taxes (business, property, state, etc.).

    I can see 2 reasons why this would never happen.

    1. It would clearly show Americans exactly how much of their earnings are taken in taxes. Right now most never see it because the deductions are done automatically. Once people see an extra $300 or so a month, the light bulb will turn on and they will demand action.

    2. It would take government out of the control loop. The whole purpuse of the first stimulous was to pay back certain groups (unions, etc.). Any perceived benefit was third or fourth on the list.

  • Mr. EMT

    Everything you suggested opposes what obamao wants to stimulate.
    Only slobbering moronic mental retards try to claim obamao was trying to stimulate economic and social growth.

    “I'm going to spend shit tons, literally shit tonssssss, of your money on absolutely nothing you can really use or even need… and this is going to help you. Trust me, I'm a politician and I'm here to help.”

  • baoxian

    I could have maybe been in favor of the bailouts…*if* it was deemed necessary to preclude a global economic meltdown (which I still believe was total BS) by somebody smart enough to pay their taxes, and *if* the banks were forced to write down consumer's debt equal to the amount of money they received from the government instead of it being given as a gift.

    Porkulus was just the single largest waste of wealth in world history.

  • Christopher_Taylor

    It gets worse, a lot worse. you know why we aren't seeing inflation yet, despite the value of the dollar plunging as the federal government cranks out more and more dollars of no worth?

    Because when the TARP and stimulus funds get to a bank, the US government is paying them to keep it there. Samizdata has a great article on how this works and what is happening. Read it please:

    http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2010/06/…

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

    I don't know if any of you have actually seen what's in the stimulus bill. I have to warn you. It's ugly, real ugly.

    What's in the Stimulus Bill – A breakdown

    3.6% went to shovel ready projects. The rest went to welfare.

  • Hotspur1

    Funny. No libs have commented on this yet. They seem to stick to threads where they can easily toss out ad hominems like “stupid” and “racist”.

  • Toastrider

    Probably also because none of them grasp economics and finance very well.

  • Fiza

    Have you looked at the 10 yr treasuries interest rates yet? Why are the smart investors of the world snapping up those lousy interest rate securities and driving up the price of the securities, genious?

  • King Homer

    Because they are stupid and racist?

  • King Homer

    Oh come on! this is the most brilliantest monetary policy since Clinton's sleight of had to keep Medicare and Social Security unfunded deficits out of sight so he could claim a bogus 239 Trillion dollar surplus that Bush squandered in two months after entering office.

    He must have bought booze with all that money. He obviously didn't give it to blacks in NOLA or have the levies properly repaired. I know! he spent it on a hurricane/tornado generating machine and gave the keys to Cheney. Get it, keys… Cheney? the resident libs will love that one. That's their mentality. Or lack of mental capacity. Just kidding, yanking chains and rattling cages…. they love it cause it gives them something to stew about all day until I can raise their blood pressure again. OGABE! hahahaha chew on that! Mulatto! HAHAHAHA SUCK IT UP. Oh sorry, being a little irrational here. /liberal

  • The left is right

    We libs realize that there's no point in commenting on the host while he is busy kneecapping the president and blowing hot air out his ass, such as with this article. John and the rest of you live in an alternate reality, where you don't need an education or travel, you already know the answers.

    Well you think you do, but you're like children who ignore problems caused by your philosophies while you blame everything on someone else.

    John, the stimulus saved this country, but it wasn't big enough. We are paying less in interest on a larger debt than we paid in the 1990s on less debt.

    You are a fool with a blog John. Thanks the the cheap laughs.

  • bthewolf

    Projection, the only liberal thought!

  • Christopher_Taylor

    Remember: debt is only bad when Republicans are in charge. Overspending is only bad when Republicans are in charge. Failure is only bad if its a Republican failure. Democrat failure just means it wasn't leftist enough.

  • Tom

    Where is the DISLIKE button??

  • http://www.fakemsm.com FakeMSM News

    If the Republicans were currently in power, you'd currently see articles like this from the mainstream media:

    http://www.fakemsm.com/2010/06/national-debt.html

Advertisement
Featured Video

Debbie Spend-it-now is selling America’s future to the Chinese

php developer india
Previous Features

Ads

Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins
An Interview With Ron Paul
The RWN Real-Estate Sale
RWN\'s Favorite Tony Robbins Quotes
Stop Apologizing for Being an American
The Amway Experience
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Advertisement
User Info