Economic Stimulus Harder than Obama Thought
(c) Walt Handelsman
First economic stimulus was supposed to help with employment. What could a second economic stimulus package do better?
While murmured calls for a new stimulus package have not quite transformed into a movement, the din is loud enough that the White House has issued multiple responses that basically amount to "no, not yet."
But Americans are stumbling through a job market that is overwhelmed with supply, stripped of security, and skimmed of hours and benefits, and the unemployment rate has already climbed much higher than officials had forecast.
So, the real question is, what could a second Obama administration stimulus do that the first one couldn't?
To answer that, it's necessary to know how the first $787 billion package has disappointed.
An overly optimistic forecast: The goal of the first Obama stimulus was job preservation and creation, through instruments such as infrastructure spending and expanded jobless benefits.
In a report the administration used to make its case for the stimulus, White House economists forecast unemployment rates cresting at 8 and 9 percent -- with and without the stimulus package, respectively. But they included a brief endnote: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11 percent in the absence of action."
Today, everyone knows they would have done better to have used the most pessimistic forecasts in their calculations.
The unemployment rate has hit 9.5 percent with the stimulus, and employers are still cutting jobs. Vice President Joe Biden has said the administration "misread how bad the economy was."
Where the first Obama stimulus package went wrong
While the successes or failures of the first stimulus package may never be objectively measurable, critics charge that it has parceled out money too slowly and included projects of debatable merit when it comes to job creation.
Harvard University economist and former Reagan adviser Martin Feldstein maintains that the money could have done more.
"In the first stimulus, only about 25 percent was government spending," Feldstein says.
"The other 75 percent [was] transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts, or transfers to government. These had much less impact on GDP. If the nearly $800 billion dollars had been spent effectively, it would have done much more."
Economist Paul Krugman has long insisted the first Obama economic stimulus was simply not large enough to compensate for the drop in gross domestic product.
Dean Baker, codirector of the liberal Center for Economic Policy Research, shares that view. "I think the big problem was size," Baker says. "I don't doubt for a moment we'd be in a worse situation [without it] . . . but the order of magnitude just wasn't there."
What another economic stimulus package could look like:
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is chairman of the National Governors Association, told Congress last week that he would like to see a second stimulus devoted entirely to infrastructure. "It's what produces jobs and produces orders for factories, American factories," Rendell said. Obama economic adviser Laura Tyson has also said a new stimulus would be best focused on infrastructure.
Others would pack projects into a second package that were dropped from the first. But Baker is skeptical that a package of the previous stimulus's leftovers would be particularly effective.
Instead, he suggests immediate relief to strapped state and local governments and more creative moves, such as subsidies to lower the cost of mass-transit rides, which would increase use of public transportation and put cash in the hands of riders, who tend to be disproportionately lower-income (and more likely to spend their relief immediately). Also, a tax credit for employers who give paid time off to existing employees might help beef up hiring, as employers increase their payrolls to compensate for employees working fewer hours.
The downside of a second economic stimulus package
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts a $1.85 trillion deficit for the fiscal year -- a figure that gives many economists (and Americans) pause.
Feldstein says he is not in favor of a second stimulus because it would boost the national debt, increasing the burden on taxpayers and possibly pushing long-term interest rates higher.
Higher interest rates would constrain business expansion and economic growth -- not exactly the goal of a stimulus. Paul Krugman, for his part, is suspect of the position that a second stimulus would create a real debt problem for the country. "Does anyone really think that, say, another $500 billion in borrowing would be the straw that breaks the camel's back?" he says.
The most obvious argument against a second stimulus is the fact that the vast bulk of the $787 billion stimulus has still not been spent.
For example, as of Thursday morning, the Agency for International Development had $5.3 million available and about $400,000 paid out so far.
The Department of Energy had $7.9 billion available and less than $300 million paid out.
The Department of Transportation had about $21 billion available and a bit less than $700 million paid out.
Stimulus spending is expected to speed up over the summer. And infrastructure spending was never expected to be an immediate job creator because "shovel-ready" projects are rare; it takes time for most projects to ramp up.
President Obama insists it's premature to talk about another stimulus, and there seems a case to be made for some patience.
Accurately Counting Stimulus Jobs Proving Tough
As Americans become more skeptical of the administration's promise that the stimulus package will create or save 3.5 million jobs, there's an added frustration: Even if the $787 billion act is successful in creating work, Americans may never know. That's because counting the jobs involves estimating what would have happened without legislation, a slippery task even if the economy weren't so volatile.
Why June Jobs Report Is So Depressing
The brutal truth about the
Unemployment Reaches 9.5 Percent, Highest in 26 Years
The Labor Department's job report this morning may not be surprising, but it's still disappointing: The unemployment rate rose in June to 9.5 percent, making it the worst in 26 years. The rise, from 9.4 percent in May, is slight. However, it keeps the economy on track to hit a 10 percent unemployment level by the end of the year, as analysts have predicted.
Making Sense of 'Cash for Clunkers'
With new-car sales slumping, automotive companies have been looking for ways to get consumers back into showrooms. Washington checked one item off car companies' wish list when it passed the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009 -- commonly known as 'Cash for Clunkers' ...
Nine Reasons the Economy is Not Getting Better
Mortimer B. Zuckerman
We are now looking at unemployment numbers that undermine any confidence that we might be nearing the bottom of the recession. The appropriate metaphor is not the green shoots of new growth. A better image is to look at the true total of jobless people as a prudent navigator looks at an iceberg
Why No One Can Guess When Recovery will Occur
Paul A. Samuelson
Federal Reserve Chairmen Ben Bernanke glimpses a possible recovery by year end. He is a cautious scholar, backed by the best forecasters in the world at the Federal Reserve Board.
I would be a rash fool to quarrel with this quasi-optimistic view that by year end some stability will occur. You and I should hope that there will indeed be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel ahead. ...
A few days after writing about how the United States is not heading towards socialism, Joseph Stiglitz suggests that might not be true about the rest of the world. Stiglitz argues that the lesson many Third World nations might take from the financial crisis is that capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
Not Going to Be Economic Depression
Global Economic Viewpoint
Last week at the Milken Global Conference, three Noble Laureates in Economics sat down to discuss the global recession -- Gary Becker (Nobel Prize, 1992), Roger Myerson (Nobel Prize, 2007) and Myron Scholes (Nobel Prize 1997).
All three agreed that this is not going to be a depression and that the free-market economy is fundamentally healthy.
The Complex Case of Complexity
by Alvin and Heidi Toffler
In an important recent speech, months after the current financial crisis began, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, placed partial blame for the catastrophe on "the sharp increase in the complexity of the financial products offered to consumers." Unfortunately, his description of the problem comes late and underestimates its importance. ...
Why are Bankers Still Being Treated as Beltway Royalty
by Arianna Huffington
President Obama said that he's been "sobered by the fact that change in Washington comes slow" and "humbled by the fact that the presidency is extraordinarily powerful, but we are just part of a much broader tapestry of American life and there are a lot of different power centers." Well, one of those different power centers -- the entrenched special interests that continue to call so many shots on Capitol Hill -- is the main reason change in D.C. comes so slow. But despite all that I know about the reform-killing power unleashed by the nexus of lobbying, campaign cash and legislation, I have been flabbergasted by the amount of behind-the-scenes influence recently being wielded by the banking lobby.
Recent Commentary on the Economic & Financial Crisis
- Some Good News About Banking
- Obama Economic Team's Flawed Cosmology
- Larry Summers: Brilliant Mind, Toxic Ideas
- Tim Geithner, CNBC & The Second Coming of Known Unknowns
- Could America Suffer Japan's 'Lost Decades'
- The Global Economy: Worse & Worser
- Today's Global Economic Debacle: The Japan Fallacy
- Financial Outrages Past, Present & Future
- Even the US can Manage Itself into Economic Irrelevance
(C) 2009 PAUL A. SAMUELSON; (TM) TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.