facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Stimulus debate continues



Published: Thu, February 20, 2014 @ 12:00 a.m.

WASHINGTON

The treatment helped. The patient is recovering. The doctor is still being accused of malpractice.

That, in a nutshell, is the story of the $800 billion stimulus package President Obama signed five years ago, the centerpiece of a code-blue effort to defibrillate the cratering economy.

Rarely in the annals of U.S. public policy has there been a greater disconnect between the real-world effect of legislation and its political-world perception.

Substantively, the stimulus was a success. Politically, it was a disaster. A month after the law’s passage, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 56 percent support. Three years later, that number had dropped to 37 percent.

Consider what happened on Monday, the official fifth anniversary. President Obama golfed in California and the White House figured it would wait until Wednesday to celebrate the moment. Republicans didn’t wait.

‘It clearly failed’

“A classic case of big promises and big spending with little results,” House Speaker John Boehner proclaimed. “A tragedy to lament,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote for Reuters. “It clearly failed,” thundered Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.

It took until midday for the White House to respond, with a blog post by Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. The stimulus, he argued, “had a substantial positive impact on the economy, helped to avert a second Great Depression, and made targeted investments that will pay dividends long after the Act has fully phased out.”

This lingering debate merits revisiting, both to assess the Republican clamor over the law and, perhaps more important, to consider why it tanked so spectacularly in the public mind, and the implications of that misperception when the next recession arrives.

Substance first. The stimulus represented a classic, and sensible, Keynesian response to recession, one that had been historically endorsed by both parties. As Time’s Michael Grunwald noted, in January 2009 a group of House Republicans, including now Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, voted for a $715 billion bill nearly as sweeping.

The stimulus wasn’t perfect, but its chief flaws were dictated by political realities. Nearly a third was devoted to tax cuts, which are less stimulative than measures such as unemployment benefits because less is immediately spent. If anything, given the depth of the crisis, the measure should have been bigger.

Likewise, the stimulus alone didn’t right the economy — credit here goes to the Federal Reserve, the TARP program and the auto industry bailout — but it helped. The White House calculation that the law saved or created 1.6 million jobs a year for four years comports with estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. Without stimulus spending, more than 5 million additional people would have slipped into poverty in 2010, at the height of the law’s impact.

A harder question is whether the fiscal bump was worth the huge price tag. Because the spending was temporary, the White House notes, the stimulus added less than 0.1 percent of gross domestic product to the long-term fiscal gap.

Economic growth

Even that calculation “may overstate the true cost,” the White House argues, because direct gains in economic growth cover a quarter of the cost. More of the cost could be recouped in long-term growth generated by the nearly $300 billion in infrastructure, health care, worker training and other spending.

So what went wrong — and what does this mean for the future? Part of the negativity reflects the self-inflicted wound of the White House’s mistaken projection that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. When the rate rose to 9.5 percent, the White House was tagged with the burden of a broken promise, notwithstanding the accuracy of its argument that the depth of the crisis was greater than anticipated.

Part reflects the sheer breadth of the law. Much like health care, it had so many moving parts — tax cuts! electronic health records! — few people could remember what it did, no less assess how much worse matters might have been without it. Meanwhile, the Republican attack was straightforward: the economy hasn’t recovered, hence the law failed.

Washington Post Writers Group


Comments

1ytownsteelman(631 comments)posted 9 months ago

The law did fail. Too little overall funding went to true construction projects, and much that did went to unionized construction firms that had a lower unemployment rate anyways. The stimulus should have funded more projects and awarded them to smaller union and nonunion firms. Instead, those people who already had enough net worth to sustain the recession were rewarded, while those who were hurting got nothing.

The stimulus also did not roll back any regulations, which would have cost nothing but would have had a true stimulative effect.

Suggest removal:

2redeye1(4621 comments)posted 9 months ago

If anyone thinks that the stimulus worked just check the shoddy job that was done on the repaving job of I- 680. There are more patches now then on my grandma's quilt. It was the biggest waste of OUR tax money . All the cash for clunkers did was raise the prices for used auto parts. They both SUCKED thanks to OBAMMY !!

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes