Spending our way out
People are in some hard times, and congressional Democrats at President-elect Obama’s urging are putting forward a $825 billion stimulus plan that will provide $550 billion in deficit spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. When House Republican Leader John Boehner saw the plan yesterday, he reacted: “Oh my God.”
Many Republicans are wondering how Congress got to this point, where the federal deficit is already at $1.2 trillion, and they are on track to outspend the Great Depression’s New Deal.
Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation poses his 10 questions about the stimulus on National Review.
President-elect Obama claims that spending approximately $800 billion will create 3.675 million new jobs. That comes to $217,000 per job. This doesn’t sound like a very good value, especially with the national average salary around $40,000. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just mail each of these workers a $40,000 check?
The U.S. Treasury won’t just print $825 billion either.
Congress doesn’t have a vault of money waiting to be distributed: Every dollar lawmakers “inject” into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from American investors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it’s borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly. How does borrowing $800 billion from one group of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?
Then some lessons from history:
During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending — and unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. More recently, Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 “stimulus” bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world) — and their economy remained stagnant. Why do lawmakers believe the same failed approach will succeed for the U.S. today?
One confusing aspect of this deficit spending is that free market economists like Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke started the snowball rolling. And President Bush helped them push the snowball along. Republicans are trying to regroup what they have left of fiscal conservatism – whether it’s a valid policy for these hard times or not.













Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top32 Comments to “Spending our way out”
“…free market economists like Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke”?!
These men are Kenyesians, Emily! Whence this “free market economist” nonsense?
Ron Paul. Peter Schiff. Lew Rockwell. Ludwig von Mises. Henry Hazlitt. Murray Rothbard.
Now there is a list of free market economists.
You might read some of what they’ve written.
Report comment to moderator
Hey at least we are getting a guy that knows the tax system now!!
Oh wait…
Anyway, aside from the short jab this morning, remind me to kick paulson and bernake in the shins for being just a big a bag of balogna as the this new adminstration is going to be when it comes to spending.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a good starting place …
“Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics & Bastiat’s Broken Windows” by Lew Rockwell
Report comment to moderator
Emily,
Your last paragraph clearly points to the political difficulty that opponents of such a “stimulus” package face, aside from being mainly in the minority party: a Republican administration started it.
My response would be something along the lines of: “That doesn’t mean that we have to continue the stupidity!”
I’d like to see someone at least try to repeal the “stimulus” from last October. That wouldn’t undo the damage already done, but it would/could at least stop it from continuing. [Of course, I am not referring to the business cycle damage that would have happened anyway, but to the harm introduced by the government's intervention.]
If they really wanted to see the free market work, and real money actually invested in the economy, they would eliminate/suspend the capital gains tax. That would open a door that is blocking lots of water from flowing downstream.
Report comment to moderator
“”… just a[s] big a bag of balogna as the this new adminstration is going to be when it comes to spending.”
To quote The Who:
“Meet the new boss … same as the old boss.”
Report comment to moderator
“How does borrowing $800 billion from one group of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?”
It DOESN’T.
You only create real wealth by creating goods and selling them. You can’t borrow your way out of debt. That’s the whole problem to begin with.
If we had any savings to speak of, we could pay back our personal and corporate debt with that. But we don’t. So we hope the Government will print money and give it to the market sector we’re in…
BUT, if the government doesn’t get the credit “market” going again by fixing the “troubled assets” then we won’t be able to borrow money to get those wealth creating mechanisms going again.
The puzzling thing to me is why these idiots in congress haven’t stayed the course and fixed the troubled assets FIRST. Finally Bernanke is going back to that idea…
Report comment to moderator
“If they really wanted to see the free market work, and real money actually invested in the economy, they would eliminate/suspend the capital gains tax. That would open a door that is blocking lots of water from flowing downstream.”
Not really. You still have to fix the foundation. The foundation was the housing market. Fix the foreclosures, stop the bleeding, and then repeal the CG tax. No one will invest until the bleeding has stopped. The more they avoid that, the more they dump money elsewhere, the deeper we will go down the rabbit hole.
Which is why 40,000 dollars to 3.6 mil future foreclosures would be a much better way to spend 800 billion rather than simply forking money over to the banks.
I believe the expected future foreclosures is between 8 to 10 million more before this recession is over.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s an excerpt from a article written by a Fidelity exec:
Report comment to moderator
“Your last paragraph clearly points to the political difficulty that opponents of such a “stimulus” package face, aside from being mainly in the minority party: a Republican administration started it.”
And a Democratic Congress approved it. So what?
Report comment to moderator
MIM, I agree with you. A political difficulty should not necessarily hinder a determined opposition. But it is a difficulty.
Report comment to moderator
The way out of this was to reduce corporate and individual income taxes, remove the capital gains and state taxes entirely, the US government backstopping the losses of the financial institutions past some reasonable level after allowing the worst to go bankrupt, removing the insane mark to market rule for CMD’s, set up a market to trade collateralized mortgage debt and their associated credit default swaps, set the 20 to one rule back in place for financial institution debt ratios and reinstall the up tic rule for shoring the markets.
What is going on now is the destruction of the wealth of rich individuals in this country, the socialist government is stealing and nationalizing the assets and businesses of these individuals claiming the world is ending, massive wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor after the rich have already suffered staggering financial losses as they always do in an economic downturn and putting trillion of dollars of national debt on the backs of the rich who pay the majority of taxes and debt.
The result is that the rich who are no longer so, have and will continue to pull in their horns by laying off their employees adn downsizing their businesses to reflect the real economy, (only the rich have employees including government ones).
Only whack jobs think the government can spend its way out of an economic downturn by buying things they cannot afford by borrowing massive amounts of money they cannot pay back, when this economic crisis was caused by people who borrowed money they could not pay back to buy things they could not afford. These elected socialists are insane and the root cause of the problem. These are the people who put you $12 trillion in debt and still counting, into a terrible recession, destroyed the value of your home, took away your job and now want to put on their chain gang building a thousand bridges to nowhere where you will forever be nothing more than their slave. Obama isn’t your messiah. He is your master now so get used to it.
Report comment to moderator
#1 Frank in Spokane,
Bravo for your kindly correction. You gotta remember that most working journalists out there have scant training in economics or statistics. Or some other big time newsworthy subjects too, it would appear. We need Louis Ruckeyser today. And badly so I might add. I rely a lot on Larry Kudlow.
Emily’s misidentification/mislabeling of the eoncomic theorists brought to mind a goof that got past the then-editor of the Daily Texan at Austin,Tx in the mid90s. There was an otherwise well-written story describing preventive cancer screening for women. Among the list of cancers which the center would be able to early detect/prevent in women? Cancer of the prostate!
Report comment to moderator
How does borrowing $800 billion from one group of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?
This reminded me of Robert Barro’s paper Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?
The gist of the argument, IIRC, is that bondholders seem to act as if they are, but they should realize that those bonds will be repaid by future tax claims against their income, so it’s a net wash, at least to the extent that taxpayers and bondholders are overlapping groups.
Report comment to moderator
sorry not remve state taxes but estate taxes instead.
Report comment to moderator
Should we just be throwing money at the problem without dealing with the root causes to begin with?
And does it make sense to throw money without anyone standing by noting where it is being thrown?
Can we get some adults involved here, instead of teenagers?
Are there any adults left in the federal government–you know, people who live within their means and know the value of a dollar relative to actual work?
My kids will be enslaved by this debt for the rest of their lives. I’m really bothered by that fact. And it makes me really angry that none of our leaders seem to care.
And why doesn’t anyone discuss surety? All these foreclosures–surely according to the laws of the state of California, you’re still on the hook for the money you lost. I haven’t seen anything written about that. And in our state, surety is anything other than the original mortgage.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
Not necessarily. Your children will only have to pay off this debt if they actually pay taxes. 50% of Americans pay virtually not taxes at all today so your kids have a 50% chance of never having to pay off a dime of this debt. You can guess which 50% vote for socialists.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
Also, When you default on a mortgage the lender in effect gives you a gift of the difference for what they eventually sell it for and the amount you owed on the loan. But the IRS wants you to pay taxes on that gift even though you did not actually get any money and it was your debt that was forgiven as a gift. If you are in the 20% tax bracket you would pay 20% of the gift amount in taxes to the Fed government. The Dems are trying to change the tax laws right now so that no taxes will be due from defaulted mortgages or the mortgage scawflaws who caused this problem by not being able to pay back their loan amount or running away from it.
Most of these people voted for socialists you know and they want to get paid back for their vote by having their tax debt removed too. Ex post facto foreclosure tax laws may keep these socialist elected officials from being able to give their little piggies this freebie though.
Report comment to moderator
Help, Mr Wizard!
Is it time to bury the idea that we are a capitalistic economy and just admit the socialists/communists won the Cold War? $800 billion? $1.2 trillion? Where are the brains of these politicians?
Report comment to moderator
“That comes to $217,000 per job.”
Not bad considering $300.00 hammers.
This is whole infrastructure plan so typically Democrat bureaucrat stupid because the jobs created won’t generate any real product with any residual value, the bulk of the revenue will be filtered off the top by those politically connected—read Democrats—who either broker or finally receive the contracts leaving only scraps for the actual workers and the financial stimulus will last only as long as the projects exists. Of course with cost overruns, redesign, and new regulations demanding change it’s possible the taxpayer will be paying for these jobs in-perpetuity.
Report comment to moderator
#1 – I think everyone would agree that Paulson and Bernanke are Keynesian now that they’ve advocated interventionist policy. But before the bailout bonanza began, they considered themselves free market advocates, at least by a general definition.
Report comment to moderator
It’s $850 billion. Saw it on Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
Emily,
My question to you at (1) was not rhetorical — I’d appreciate an answer.
Once again, you wrote:
And once again, I ask:
On what basis do you identify Paulson and Bernanke as “free market economists”?
Report comment to moderator
Emily,
I’m sorry, I somehow missed your post at (20) immediately above.
That said, genuine free-makret (a.k.a. “Austrian”) economists gave Ben Bernanke the nickname “Helicopter Ben” long before he became Fed Chairman because of his stated view that, since inflation is sometimes desired by government, he would not hesitate to (figuratively) drop money from helicopters to infuse the economy with liquidity.
I can’t speak about Paulson, as I knew nothing about him before September 2008 — and know next-to-nothing about him now, save that he’s a Keynesian.
But anybody who (before the bailout mania of the last few months)thought that Bernanke was a free-marketer simply wasn’t paying attention.
Report comment to moderator
Congress doesn’t have a vault of money waiting to be distributed: Every dollar lawmakers “inject” into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from American investors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it’s borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly.
How naive and just plain wrong.
First with respect to foreign investments there is nothing close to a one-to-one relationship between those foreigners making investments in the US Treasury instruments and those who are buying our goods.
Similarly, US citizens with cash or liquid assets have lots of choices. Including investing THEIR money overseas.
Perhaps even more importantly these bailout moneys are not being GIVEN they are being LOANED or used to BUY equity interests in the companies. Assuming the companies do survive, and the bailout funds are properly secured, the Treasury (us) will get their money back with interest or gains.
Finally the infrastructure investments make a lot of sense. Where I live, we had a huge surge in construction for 5 years. Those guys are out of luck and out of work right now. I know a quite a few of them, including a couple of small contractors. Re-training takes a lot of time. Business is obviously too scared to invest. So the government is last best employer or last resort, just as it is the last best lender of last resort.
Report comment to moderator
Assuming they survive? That’s a pretty big asumption.
Considering all these businesses had no problem investing in the past, what makes them all of a sudden “scared”???? They are sitting in their offices trying to figure out how to do invest using taxpayer money rather than their own.
If you want to take on fear, you’d better convince the American people that it’s time to buy. If anyone is scared, it’s them.
Report comment to moderator
Keynes was right, Friedman was wrong.
Unfortunately, politicians only like a portion of Keynes, that is, deficit spending and tax cuts in hard times but not the spending cutbacks and tax hikes in good times. Both are needed to smooth over the boom and bust cycles of capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
#36 HRW
“Keynes was right, Friedman was wrong.”
I think you are wrong. Politicians shouldn’t spend borrowed money.
Since this is a christian blog, maybe we ought to go back to what God said about kings and their taking money.
Report comment to moderator
Politicians shouldn’t spend borrowed money.
You may have something there — without borrowed money war would be impossible for politicians to wage. However, debt allows both household and national economies an ability to maneveur around the inconsistencies of the market place. Call it an economic tool which is available to persons, business and should also be available to the gov’t
Report comment to moderator
War is never preferable, but sometimes it has to be fought. But someone who didn’t experience 9-11 in his homeland can afford to disrespect America.
Report comment to moderator
The libertarian (and many conservatives) idea of the U.S. government standing by and doing nothing while the country crashes and burns and people suffer and even die is a nonviable option.
I’m always amazed at how cavalier people are – until it hits them personally. I guarantee you that if they were hungry, out of work because there are no jobs to be had at any price, lost their home, or were sick and dying, they’d be signing a different tune.
And why shouldn’t the government respond to the people? In America, does our government not operate by the consent of the people? If we the people want our government to respond to things like unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, and deprivation and suffering, do we not have that right? Do we not live in a representative democracy?
And it’s funny to watch these people complain about the government borrowing money from the comfort of their home that they’re making a mortgage payment on for 20-30 years.
I don’t know what the answer is, but doing nothing is not an option.
Report comment to moderator
What does gov’t borrowing and the ability to wage war have to do with 9/11? Without the war on Iraq, the invasion and regime change in Afghanistan undertaken by NATO could’ve been accomplished with a small raise in taxes. The preemptive war in Iraq and the subsequent fiscal mismanagement of reconstruction may have been prevented by undertaking the idea that politicians not be allowed to borrow money. Or are you still trying to make that since proven false connection between Saddam and 9/11?
Report comment to moderator
Words of wisdom from Jay Leno:
“Barack Obama says he wants to bring a sense of accountability to Washington. I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you bring some accountants to Washington, okay? Tell us where the hell our $750 billion went!” –Jay Leno
“Speaking of that, the new Treasury secretary nominee, Timothy Geithner, has come up with a plan to lower taxes … DON’T PAY THEM!” –Jay Leno
“In a last-minute complication to what looked like an otherwise smooth path to confirmation, Timothy Geithner, President-elect Obama’s nominee for the secretary of Treasury admitted that from 2001 to 2004 he failed to pay $34,000 in Federal tax. Fortunately for him, this is not his field of expertise. You know, he’s just nominee for Secretary of the Treasury!” –Jay Leno
“A Democratic spokesman called the issue today ‘an honest mistake.’ How come, in Washington, the only time anyone is honest is when they make a mistake?
Well, you ever notice this? Whenever politicians don’t pay their taxes, ‘Oh, it’s an honest mistake.’ Huh? You know what they call it when you and I don’t pay our taxes? ‘Exhibit A for the prosecution.’” –Jay Leno
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!