The compromises necessary to pass the recovery bill in the Senate damaged it in several ways. The overall size of the package was reduced, evidently for the cosmetic purpose of keeping the top-line number below $800 billion. And funds urgently needed to stabilize state and local governments and for construction were cut back, along with the credit against the payroll tax – evidently to make room for a rollback of the alternative minimum tax, a step with a strong political constituency but a weak economic rationale.
In my local paper Thursday morning, I read of $20 million that will be cut from our city budget next year, including a day labor center, public library hours, and overtime for the police force. Cuts like that – and in many places they are far deeper than here – are going on everywhere, and the bill as passed will help but it will not stop them. Contrary to Grover Norquist’s comment in this space, police, libraries and day labor are part of the productive economy, as much as anything else.
It is difficult to know what the so-called moderate Senators were thinking. Do they have special insight into this crisis? Do they have their own forecasters, with deep understanding and good track records in these matters? Do they have their own models? Do they have, in other words, any ground for believing that less than $800 billion, spread over two years, will be enough to bring the economy back? If so, they weren’t saying so, so far as I could tell.
We have a bill. In the most likely case, it will slow the collapse but not stop or reverse it. And it will come into effect alongside a bank rescue plan that stands very little chance of reviving the credit markets. So we have one part of a recovery plan that is helpful but probably insufficient, and another part that most likely will not work at all. The prospects for an early exit from the slump are therefore not encouraging, just yet.
What is to be done? On the fiscal front, for the moment, nothing more. There seems to be no alternative now to waiting for events. Notwithstanding job losses at half a million a month for three months — almost the workforce of the state of Maine, three times over — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins seem to need better evidence than they’ve seen so far. In four to six months, if job losses don’t reverse, the country will demand more action.
If that’s correct, the gaps and hesitations in this recovery bill should be the first things we repair. To wit:
– make aid to states and localities flexible and open-ended. The goal should be to stop all cuts in public services and layoffs of staff. States and localities should be offered a simple deal: no service cuts and no changes in tax rates. In exchange, the federal government will cover the gap in their revenue for the duration. Alternatively, the federal government could simply offer general revenue sharing on a per capita basis.
– establish and fund a full-fledged National Infrastructure Fund with the capacity to finance and to coordinate public investment projects on an ongoing basis. Congress would therefore largely delegate decisions over the type of local capital investment, including school construction which was cut from the Senate bill for no defensible reason.
– increase Social Security benefits across the board. The purchasing power of the elderly as a group is now gravely eroded by the collapse of stock market values, and the policymaking community needs to realize that the grand experiment in funding retirements via the stock market is ending. For the future we will need more Social Security, not less. And that means that the historic political link between Social Security benefits and the revenues from the payroll tax should be suspended.
– declare a full payroll tax holiday for the duration of the crisis. A holiday has advantages over the credit scheme, as it can be implemented at once for all workers and employers. The holiday could be made subject to a trigger, so that when the economy does begin to recover rapidly, part of the tax can be restored.
– pursue the foreclosure moratorium just announced, establishing the equivalent of a Home Owners Loan Corporation to deal with troubled mortgages, via renegotiation or conversion to rentals. This can be done, largely, through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve Board, but it will require sufficient staff to inspect and supervise mortgages at the retail level. Apart from this, and the ongoing nationalization of commercial paper markets, there isn’t much more to expect from the Federal Reserve at this point.
It would be useful for friends of these ideas, in Congress and in the public interest community, to establish working groups to build support for them during the months ahead, if and as the crisis deepens.
Meanwhile, the most urgent need is for the Treasury department to re-examine the basic premise of its plans for the banking system. Present plans provide unjustifiable guarantees for bad assets, bank shareholders and the incumbent management, at huge taxpayer expense, with no prospect that normal credit relationships will be restored. So long as this is the case, the scale of taxpayer losses and the necessary scale of the next fiscal recovery plan will grow and grow.
(A version of this post previously appeared on NJO)
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Good Morning Prof. Galbraith.
This is so cogent and sane and productive. Where are the vocal groups to make it happen? We need to sign up and enlist more. Thank you.
There are at least three additional tools the Obama Administration might use to provide additional stimulus and help address the crisis.
1. Amend the proposed FY 2010 President’s Budget Request to provide increased funding to those Federal program that did not receive the level of support that was intended in the ARRA. Yes, it will be up to the House and Senate to translate those into legislation, but if COS Emmanuel and Speaker Pelosi can work together, and Harry Reid isn’t coopted into complicity, you can get additional funds for useful projects. In a similar vein, the Administration should direct the Agencies to develop FY 2011 budget requests to provide stimulus.
2. Propose real tax reform, restoring progressive taxation and simplifying both the individual and corporate tax codes so revenue projection is significantly simpler than it currently is.
3. Real campaign finance reform would gut the power of the lobbies, particularly the insurance and finance industries.
My $0.02 to the conversation.
Thanks for dropping by, Prof. Galbraith. Let me see if I can help in comprehending this:
I think they were putting the politics ahead of the economics. It’s easier to play political games to look “fiscally responsible” than to actually do what you suggest to be good stewards of this nation’s economic future. It’s easier to whine about nonexistent “pork” than to propose real ideas for real stimulus and not offend the corporate power players that control so much of Congress.
Good afternoon, Prof Galbraith. Thank you for posting this.
There was a comment made by a Republican Congressman early last week that he was relying upon the opinions of economists at the Heritage Foundation as a basis for his opposition to the stimulus bill. I’ve also read that others are relying upon economists at AEI. I have yet to see any of these economists in the media. If these opinions are so relevant why do we not see their writings or their appearances on the bobblehead shows?
The one element that frightens me most about this whole scenario is the grave need for Congress and the populace to work together. I haven’t seen any hopeful signs yet. How can so many those in government who signed an oath to work for the greater good keep pretending to be blind and helpless, yet above the fray? Have they no brains, as well as no hearts? I am particularly stunned at how Republicans can fight every effort at relief from the country’s dire financial situation, and yet squeal in the cameras about others refusing to act in a bipartisan way. Discouraging isn’t even close to strong enough a term for such people. Unconscionable? Utterly cutting their noses of despite their faces? Insane? Irresponsible? Criminal?
“declare a full payroll tax holiday for the duration of the crisis.”
Um. Given that that’s what funds SocSec and Medicare, you’re advocating borrowing to replace that mechanism? And since you advocate increasing SocSec in the paragraph immediately above that one that would mean borrowing more. I don’t mind that part, but I’m afraid it’s not politically feasible.
Btw, thanks for mentioning a good idea for Social Security. My dad retired a while back, after he was injured on the job at the pharmaceutical factory. He’s now dependent on Social Security, along with a couple small pension checks, to survive. I can assure you from first-hand knowledge that people like my dad would benefit immensely with an increase in SS benefits.
preview = friend. of = off. fwiw
Perhaps we can revise the $97K ceiling for payroll taxes into a $200K or $250K floor? I just don’t see why we continue to allow the ultrarich to get away with paying little to no taxes in this country.
Very true. My mother’s annuities supplement her Social Security and pension benefits. They’ve declined almost 30% in the last year.
Yes — see my comment about progressive taxation at 3.
$800 billion and Norquist is harping about ACORN? Maybe he’s also worried Bill Ayers will benefit from the recovery bill, too. How could anyone take him seriously. But, God help us, they do.
And maybe a little devaluation. After Russia’s collapse in 1998 and the hardship it brought, the collapse of the ruble had the effect of reviving and encouraging domestic manufacturing. Initially, there was capital flight, but people also were encouraged to buy local. This was really the first time Russia had seen anything like a return of small and medium-sized firms for nearly a century (NEP notwithstanding).
I know the dollar is a global reserve currency, but if you want “Buy American” to help local businesses without overt protectionism, devaluation makes imports more expensive and exports cheaper.
That’s one approach that I wouldn’t argue with. I seem to remember that being a suggestion Obama made during the campaign.
No, because the only thing that they all(dems and rethugs) have in the front of their minds at all times is….Being REELECTED. That is what governs our congress. If it does not contribute to being reelected, they are not voting for it.
Almost everyone in congress is an economic illiterate.
Re the rethugs vote. As authoritarians they will always follow the whim of the leader and since right now there appears to be no political person who jumps out, Rush Limbough has become the defacto leader and since he wants Obama to fail, so do the Authoritarian Leader-Followers in congress
Thank you for coming by Prof. Galbraith.
It is my opinion that this stimulous may cause a relatively momentary blip on the downward slide. Scabs on the entire economy and system have been and are being pulled off. The Wall Street mentality is contrary to what the country needs. Ultimately what will be the only way out is to reduce the work week and raise incomes.
This sort of occurrence is truly disturbing. We’re seeing all generations hammered, the old and feeble, the young and dependent, and all those in the middle who have had their jobs snatched away through no fault of their own.
My economic training consists basically of balancing my checkbook. How, pray tell, do the ultra rich skate free? I understand some have been snagged here or there in a scam or several, but where are the others hiding their loot so they can glide so smugly among us peons and never miss a trip to the spa?
Something smells rotten. Truly. Our tv screen is in jeopardy every time those smug faces come to the cameras to blame all ills on “that other guy.” So, we hunker down, gather up our garden seed saved from last year’s crop, and feel fortunate to have a working fireplace.
Come on over, puppies. The door’s unlocked. We have nothing we wouldn’t share. We bleeding-heart libruls must not be right in the head…
the stimulus package started out with something for the long-term unemployed but by the end, it had cut most of that out.
gone were:
COBRA subsidies for anyone who lost a job before sept. 2008;
extending unemployment insurance benefits to the end of 2009 for everyone, insted of letting UI run out for those who filed at the beginning of the recession in the first half of 2008;
COBRA rights–ability to buy into and maintain your healthcare–for anyone over 55 or those who had worked at the business for 10+ years.
Yes, it’s about time that progressive taxation make a comeback! It wasn’t that long ago that the top income bracket was taxed at a rate of 70%. Now perhaps we don’t need a complete reversion to 1980 tax law, but it would help if we put an end to the failed “Reagan-Bush-o-nomics” and enact fairer tax laws.
No.
I have been struck by how little Obama, his economic team, the Congress, and the media have done either to educate themselves or the public about the crisis we are in. Aside from a few liberal economists and some of us around here, there has been no attempt to explain and fix the parameters of debate: why is spending now better than tax cuts; how many jobs need to be created and how much would it cost to do that; how to value crap assets and the link to bank insolvency; what could be done through bank nationalization; why the stimulus is a stopgap and why a plan is needed for what happens after it; what are some of the components of a comprehensive plan to address the problems in the real and paper economies?
I would note that the one word Galbraith does not use in this post and should is depression. This says what the stakes are. Our political, economic, and media classes are all in denial. They continue to do too little too late. They all act as if this is business as usual, just a little worse than usual. Yet in their disconnect it barely registers the trillions the Fed has already thrown away on this mess. So at the same time, they want to be “fiscally responsible” they are allowing huge outflows of capital with no real oversight. It’s nuts.
I agree with some of Galbraith’s suggestions and not others, but it is all rather academic right now. As he says, things will have to get considerably worse before any meaningful action is taken. What he does not say is that we are already on the edge of a depression, and so for us to wait until things get a lot worse means that nothing serious will be done until we are actually in depression.
Banks, including those taking TARP money, are increasing Credit Card interest past the current userous rates and fees and onerous Terms and Conditions in place prior to TARP. I find it interesting neither MSM, economics nor many blogs discussing the problem affecting so many today.
Thank you, Professor Galbraith for posting your thoughts here.
They are much appreciated.
And one (audaciously) hopes that they may be heeded.
my credit cards–which I have held for 20 years–now have a 20% rate, if you dont pay all by due date.
I am going to ask a seemingly obvious question here…. How are we going to pay for all this? Between what Bush did and gigantic ’stimulus’ bill for Obama, our money is going to further erode in value. The things you are proposing to repair this will cost even more. Do we just continue to print until hyper-inflation kicks in?
I was talking to a economist buddy who proposed inflating the dollar until we can pay down the debt to manageable levels. Even this seems insane as this will no doubt affect our ‘bond rating’. Seems to me that we should endure some hardship now and go without, rather than continue to spend way beyond our means.
Prof. Galbraith – Social Security should become the future 401k. Increase the ceiling immediately.
I’m rather concerned about the notion of using the private sector to buy the toxic assets. What is there to prevent this happening in the Geithner plan?
“Vulture Fund” Company Seeks $40 Million Payment from Zambia on $4 Million Debt
http://www.democracynow.org/20…..40_million
Take a look back at what the economy was like during this period (IE Carter). Also take a look at the revenue generated when taxes were reduced both under Reagan and Bush 2. Every time tax revenues went up considerably, but unfortunately spending did as well.
Supposedly the FED has issued new rules regarding rates and how they can be raised etc but the new rules don’t take effect until 2010 so that the banks have time to adjust their
businesstheft models. So the country has to jump immediately to save the banks but the banks have over a year to stop their thievery.This is but a one/tenth down-payment for what will be needed overall.. Congress will have to revisit this every year for at least the next eight years.
“establish and fund a full-fledged National Infrastructure Fund with the capacity to finance and to coordinate public investment projects on an ongoing basis. Congress would therefore largely delegate decisions over the type of local capital investment, including school construction which was cut from the Senate bill for no defensible reason.”
What do you think of the idea of creating one or more government-owned national development banks to provide financing/underwriting for public-private infrastructure initiatives, possibly carved out of the restructued carcasses of one or more of the failed money center banks?
Here’s a link to the AEI economic bench.
http://www.aei.org/scholars/ta…..t_list.asp
Student body right, on two, on two…. Ready, hike!
This may come as a surprise but even Milton Friedman was forced to admit that the ‘revenue increase” due to the cutting of taxes did not match the lost revenues from the taxes cut, that at best the tax cut would bring in roughly 25% of the lost revenues.
I commend you, Professor Gailbraith, for your insightful recommendations. I don’t know how you handle the emotional aspect of suffering the fools of the Senate. I can only wish [edited by moderator to remove reference to violence].
In a deflationary spiral, this is untrue. You also have to take into account that the dollar remains a safe haven. So as bad as our situation is many others consider theirs worse. The real problem with inflation and devaluation is not now but later when we start coming out of this. Then how we come out of it will determine the extent of the problem.
But if you are drowning now, there is no later.
Regrettably, Prof. Galbraith did not stick around to discuss his previous post, and it seems today like he has left us to chat among ourselves. I wish he would find time for our comments, because I hope the dialog would be mutually beneficial. In any case, he wrote:
My guess is that their “special insight” is a version of Milton Friedman’s laissez-faire Monetarism, filtered through Ronald Reagan’s administration that has been a rallying cry of Republicans since Reagan. Unfortunately, this “special insight” has mostly been reduced to bumper-sticker slogans, with not a whole lot of thinking involved. I would like to know what Prof. Galbraith thinks of this assessment, because I value his insights.
Bob in HI
And one of the other assertions of the “tax cut” people is that by some magical power of the markets, substitutes for government services would be created by “the market” through the increased rate of savings and investments and the opportunity for profit.
Ask Californians how that’s worked out for them.
I’m curious. Have you, as we, also noticed that bills are sent out much closer to the due date than in the past. We could end up paying interest on card debt for the 1st time in our lives, simply if we chose to take a week-long trip at the “wrong time”. Angry? Oh yeah!! They seem desperate to force debt on people.
Except, of course, that taxes were increased under Reagan and “Read my lips” Bush.
I would be willing to pay 45% tax if retirement, universal medical, education, infrastructure, social services, etc. would be part of the returns. We would not have to worry about student loans, medical bills, old-age, etc.
One should see taxation as an investment in an equitable society. From what I have seen the most prosperous times overall are when the ratio between highest and lowest paid is small. It’s important to maintain a large and prosperous middle-class.
Stripped out were funds for school construction, libraries, and Labor Force stations….. to me that sounds like “keep ‘em dumb, docile and unemployed” – more easily handled that way.
It’s plain to me that congresscritters do not listen to their constituents. They take orders from their campaign contributors who enable them to get re-elected.
Yes. I’d go as high as 50%.
This is the social contract that most of the rest of the developed world has agreed to. Both the UK and the United States went backward from this during the 1980s and 90s with Reagan, Bush, Clinton (oh yes), Thatcher, Major and Blair. Real politics and policy debate was subverted by PR.
What this doesn’t allow is unfettered spending on defense, and it requires careful governance and management of all resources. You’re not going to create huge piles of wealth with this model — but at the same time, it’s a much more prudent way to provide for sustainable development that is shared equitably.
Ask anyone who has been poisoned by peanuts how well it worked for them.
Too right, and if it wasn’t sad and tragic, it would be funny.
Actually dear moderator, your edit is a better statement than the poetic one I posted
The Obama programme is a work in progress, as it inevitably had to be. The problem is that the economy is imploding faster than they act — too many leaks in the dike and too few fingers. I’ve been pessimistic about the downturn since August, and what I’ve seen so far only increases it. GM and Chrysler will likely be in Title 11 by May Day, if not April Fool’s. The malls are going down, and so are a lot of the hotel-condo investments.
One huge difference between the coming Depression and the 1930s that people haven’t pointed out is that in the 1930s 30 percent and more of the population still lived on farms, and probably 2/3 had some experience of supplying at least some of their own food. That’s lost. Our food supply system is based on our credit system, and on the ability of people to pay for what they eat. If the unemployment rate breaks 12 percent, we will see isolated incidents of starvation.
I think in the end Obama will have to ressurrect the WPA, in the teeth of what is sure to be incredibly fierce Republican opposition.
We are deflating or adjusting, wouldn’t necessary say we are in a spiral. Americans have been living beyond their means for quite some time, it just so happens that the housing crash added a new element to an otherwise normal recession. Although I do agree with you about the dollar being a safe haven for now. But that will also come to a end if we continue to print the way we do.
No, we print it until the threat of hyper-deflation recedes. Learn some economic history.
Knut, quit watching the news, we are not even close to where things were during the Carter Administration, much less the great depression. When we get there, then start worrying about the 2nd great depression.
If this administration (and the previous) take a step back and look at the entire economy, there are indicators starting to show that the recession has bottomed out. If the recession did start in late 2007, then we are more than likely already on the up-side. The things we are doing now are probably going to cause it to lengthen over the long run.
Very well-said, thank you!
So when the deflation is over, then we get to contend with getting the money out of the system….that’s stability. You may want to review your economic history on how difficult this is to do.
Professor Galbraith,
Thank you for coming by. I was especially interested in your comment:
It would be great to have you expand your thoughts on this. I did a series of Oxdown diaries on the National Infrastructure Bank and would be interested in your perspectives.
What is key to their mentality is not that they “knew” they were right, but that they “believed” they were. Belief trumps knowledge in America today.
I say the $100 billion they cut out becomes the first down payment on universal healthcare. The rest is taken out of the hides of the well-to-do who have so damaged this country. When you move $ trillions to save bankers and banks, $100 billion or so for healthcare looks like chump-change.
The way I see the tax issue is that it’s likely a government’s size is a big more rigid than economic activity. Thus, if you had a government that requires 10 units and the economy produces 11 units, then you’re going to have to have a very high tax rate. However, if your economy grows to 100 units and government only grows to say 12 units, then you’re down from 90%+ to only 12%. Our economy has grown quickly for a long time and if we have a system which doesn’t require government to grow as quickly, then we can drop the tax rate and still be fine.
Thinking a tax cut will increase revenues is all fine and dandy, but what if your intent isn’t to increase revenues? What if you intend a tax cut to actually decrease revenues?
The question now is how much government do we need, and the answer seems to be ‘more for a while’.
I agree with this. I am not sure I understand the part about the tax rates. The governor of CT is cutting back services that have been cut back throughout the years (e.g. mental health,) plus other essential stuff like children’s health services (Husky). But she’s not going to tax anyone who makes over $200,000 and seems pretty proud of that. I’d like to know how many other governors are doing the same. Seems California is screwed as well. In fact it would be nice if we all had a thread reporting on proposed cuts in our states and the effect that the stimulus package was supposed to have and how much money our respective governors counted on that they didn’t get. I see nothing comprehensive like that in the media, state by state.
And there’s nothing moderate about Joe Lieberman, Collins et al. Lieberman screwed his own home state.
Professor Galbraith,
For the 21st century Home Owners’ Loan Corp, how do you recommend dealing on a wholesale basis with getting recalcitrant service agents or recalcitrant CDO Trustees to sell the mortgage at a substantial discount to face value? The refusal of those administering the CDO’s to settle mortgages (e.g., for fear of being sued by one of the dozens or hundreds of investors who own a piece of the security that includes that mortgage) has apparently been a major obstacle to achieving any substantial progress on the foreclosure crisis through voluntary work-out programs.
What is your view of federal legislation that would compel the administrators of mortgages that have been securitized to settle them/sell them cheaply enough for the new HOLC to be able to purchase/refinance the millions of mortgages that we read will be subject to foreclosure in the next few years if no effective steps are taken?