issue: Economy

Wingnut Watch: The Power of Wingnut World

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Republicans and IdeologyIf you really want to understand the psychology and the power of Wingnut World, the Palmetto Freedom Forum event in South Carolina on Labor Day was a real eye-opener.

Set up by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Iowa Rep. Steve King, and social ultraconservative Robert George of Princeton University, the event was designed to remove the “soundbite” and horse-race mentality of conventional candidate debates, and present 2012 GOP presidentials with the opportunity and the challenge of making major statements of “first principles” before a murder board of ideological inquisitors.

The event was spoiled a bit by Rick Perry’s last-minute cancellation to go home to look over the shoulders of professional emergency managers and first responders dealing with the recent rash of Texas wildfires. Even if you give Perry full credit for doing the right thing, it’s clear he benefitted by avoiding a probable grilling from inquisitor Steve King over immigration policy (King asked other candidates not only about illegal immigration but about appropriate levels of legal immigration). And actually, it’s doubtful Perry would have done that well under questioning from Robert George about the constitutional issues involved in abortion policy, since the Texan has flip-flopped on the subject quite recently.

The other candidates (for a full video, go here) performed pretty much as demanded. They all bellied up to the bar of “constitutional conservatism,” the belief that right-wing policy prescriptions are the only way to remain faithful to the fundamental design of the Republic. Everyone vibrated at the idea of “American exceptionalism,” the notion that this country is not only exempt from any concept of universal norms of behavior and cooperation, but is divinely appointed to keep alive laissez-faire capitalism and conservative Christianity as models for the rest of the world.

Even though Perry was absent, Steve King dutifully quizzed the candidates not only on how they would deal with illegal immigrants, but whether they agreed with him that it was time to cut back on legal immigration as well (Herman Cain was the only—perhaps naïve—protester against that proposition).

The sheer zaniness of the event was probably best evidenced by Robert George’s extended interaction with several candidates over their willingness to engage in a constitutional confrontation with the U.S. Supreme Court in the event that Congress passed legislation seeking to outlaw or significantly restrict abortion. Bachmann and Gingrich eagerly agreed with George’s suggestion that a Republican president should fight to deny federal courts jurisdiction over abortion policy; Mitt Romney allowed as how he would not go quite that far.

But George also backed Michele Bachmann into a corner by getting her to admit she had no specific basis for her repeated argument that a state-imposed personal health care purchasing mandate—i.e., what Mitt Romney had helped create in Massachusetts—violated the U.S. Constitution.

For observers of the hyper-conservative mutation of the GOP over the last few years, the most startling development in Columbia was probably Mitt Romney’s agreement with his inquisitors that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be privatized and the Community Reinvestment Act repealed. This series of steps reflects the wingnut belief that federal efforts to increase homeownership by poor and minority families caused the housing and financial meltdowns of 2008. He didn’t start babbling about ACORN or William Ayers or the president’s birth certificate, or engage in a Santelli-style rant about “losers” and “parasites” stealing from virtuous rich people. But the fact that a sober character like Romney is buying into Tea Party conspiracy theories is not a good sign.

The presidential candidates will get together again Wednesday night in a more conventional setting and format: the Ronald Reagan presidential library in California. It appears Perry will show up this time, having pretty firmly established himself as the front-runner in the race (the latest token is a poll showing him leading among Republicans in Nevada, a state thought to be totally in the bag for Mitt Romney). The venue may discourage sharp elbows given the certainty that someone will invoke Reagan’s so-called “Eleventh Commandment” against personal attacks between Republicans. But Ron Paul has already taken the initiative to go negative on Perry with a broadcast TV ad, timed to coincide with (and perhaps air during) the debate, comparing Paul’s 1980 endorsement of Reagan with the Texan’s endorsement of Al Gore in 1988 (when he was still a Democrat and Gore was considered a moderate and defense hawk). It will be interesting to see if Michele Bachmann or one of the lesser candidates picks up the opportunity that Steve King missed in South Carolina to grill Perry on his immigration stance. The one certainty tonight is that everyone will kneel at the altar of St. Ronald, and it’s doubtful anyone will recall that he signed two tax increases as president, sought to negotiate nuclear disarmament with the Soviets, and cut a deal with Tip O’Neill to avoid cuts in Social Security—that RINO!

Photo credit: outtacontext

Why America Needs a New Deal for Labor and Business

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Just before Labor Day, PPI’s President Will Marshall had an opinion piece in The Atlantic, in which he proposed reorienting the relationship of organized labor. Rather than adversaries, they should be partners. Here’s an excerpt:

President Obama is cobbling together a new jobs package for September, but it won’t be enough to revive the economy. Instead of offering another grab-bag of micro-initiatives, the administration needs to embrace a different model for growth that stimulates production rather than consumption, saving rather than borrowing and exports rather than imports.

This strategy emphasizes investment in the nation’s physical, human and knowledge capital–infrastructure, skilled workers and new technology. That’s a better way to raise U.S. wages and living standards than a new jolt of fiscal stimulus.

Getting consumers spending again will boost demand, but much of it will leak overseas via rising imports, stimulating foreign rather than U.S. production. In a world awash with cheap labor, where technology gaps are narrowing rapidly, a wealthy society like ours can thrive only by speeding the pace of economic innovation and capturing its value in jobs that stay in America.

The shift from a consumer-oriented to a producer-centered society won’t happen without a new partnership between labor and business–and a shift in outlook among workers themselves. Organized or not, U.S. workers should think of themselves first and foremost as producers rather than consumers. They have a compelling interest in keeping the companies they work for competitive, and in supporting a new economic policy framework that enables investment, entrepreneurship and domestic production. This reality points to new relations between workers and companies, and new political alliances.

A GRAND BARGAIN FOR LABOR

In the post-war compact of the 1950s and 1960s, workers offered loyalty and labor offered peace to companies in return for stable jobs with decent pay and benefits. But the deal between labor and capital changed as globalization took hold. Workers gave up job security; in return, they got low consumer prices and access to easy credit. Despite access to cheap foreign goods, however, real incomes fell for most households, as real wages dropped and job growth in most parts of the private sector virtually disappeared. Easy credit was used to fund consumption rather than investment in human capital.

Now, at a time when America’s economic preeminence cannot be taken for granted, the interests of workers are converging with those of companies, foreign and domestic, that want to invest in the U.S. economy. In a new compact for competitiveness, workers would pay more attention to innovation, workplace flexibility and productivity gains. Companies would invest more in upgrading workers’ skills, help them balance the pressures of work and family, and pay them middle class wages and benefits.

Two unions are pointing the way toward such a bargain: the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Read the rest by clicking here to find out how. Read Marshall’s full policy briefing on the subject by clicking here.

Obama Needs New Growth Story

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

President ObamaThe White House this week is dribbling out new details about Obama’s forthcoming jobs package. Liberals already are complaining that the president is thinking too small, while conservatives dismiss his ideas as just more “stimulus” in drag.

Neither critique gets to the heart of the problem. The U.S. economy is enduring an investment and job drought that began well before the Great Recession hit late in 2007. The public is strikingly pessimistic about the nation’s economic prospects and has lost confidence in the conventional remedies pushed by both parties.

More than a batch of new programs, Americans need a new story about how to regain our economic dynamism. We need a fundamentally new model for economic growth, and the president’s kit-bag of new micro-initiatives doesn’t add up to one.

His proposals mostly seem sensible, but absent a new vision for dealing with the economy’s structural problems, they give off a whiff of spaghetti-against-the-wall desperation. The administration is hoping that something, anything will move the needle on job creation and get unemployment trending down.

Here, according to various media accounts, is what the White House job package is likely to include:

  • A $5,000 tax credit for hew hires.
  • A five percent reduction in payroll taxes on any net increase in wages.
  • $50 billion in new spending on infrastructure.
  • An overhaul of patent laws to encourage faster innovation.
  • A new mortgage refinancing scheme to help “underwater” homeowners avoid foreclosures that are depressing housing prices.

Liberals have a point in arguing that these initiatives are unlikely to have more than a marginal impact on jobs and economic growth. The tax credit and payroll tax reduction will likely expand employment, but they also will reward companies for hiring workers they would have hired in any case. Michael Greenstone, former chief economist for the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates the tax credit will create 900,000 additional jobs at a cost of $30 billion. The United States must create 21 million new jobs over the next decade to return to full employment.

Modernizing America’s antiquated infrastructure is essential, even if the immediate job gains are likely to be modest. While it’s conceivable that $50 billion could leverage large-scale private investment in new infrastructure, there’s a catch: The administration does not envision funneling that money into a truly independent infrastructure bank. That’s likely to scare off private investors, who need assurances that big capital projects will be chosen on economic rather than political grounds.

The real problem, however, isn’t that Obama isn’t spending enough. It’s that this spray of programmatic buckshot won’t deal with structural impediments to economic innovation and growth. As PPI has argued, U.S. policy makers need a new model of economic growth centered on production, not consumption; on saving and investing, not borrowing; and on exports, not imports.

Obama needs to fit his specific initiatives within the broader story of an American economic comeback sparked by a shift from debt-fueled consumption to domestic production. This narrative should explain how overconsumption—by both U.S. households and governments—helped to create the job slowdown, wage stagnation, financial bubbles and exploding debts that have plagued our economy since 2000. It would connect America’s twin economic imperatives: creating jobs and controlling the national debt. It would say: If we don’t curb the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending (mostly for health care consumption), we will squeeze out strategic public investments the nation’s physical, human and knowledge capital—infrastructure, skilled workers, and new technology.

But a “producer society” narrative doesn’t just reinforce progressive demands for more strategic public investment. It also lends weight to conservative calls for policies that create a climate more conducive to innovation, entrepreneurship, and business creation. In fact, it will take a new fusion of liberal and conservative economic prescriptions to get America moving again.

Key elements of such a fusion include a sweeping overhaul of personal and corporate taxes, a light-handed approach to regulating companies that invest heavily in innovation, stronger constraints on Medicare and Medicaid spending, new investments in technical education to supply workers for advanced manufacturing, and the transformation of our archaic K-12 school system by choice and digital learning. And, as I’ve written elsewhere, it also requires a new partnership between U.S. workers and those companies that are investing in creating jobs in the United States.

President Obama’s ideas for spurring job growth are fine as far as they go, but they don’t go nearly far enough. He needs to offer the country a new story of economic success, that once again makes America a dynamo of production and middle class job creation.

Photo credit: OFA

A Negative Sign for Investment and Job Growth

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

There’s a good rule of thumb–you get what you reward.

Here’s a summary of current U.S. policy towards big corporations: Invest in the U.S., create jobs, and get sued by the government.

You would think that during a business investment drought, any company that puts big money into the U.S. would be patted on the back. But no…

AT&T is the company which is putting the most money into the U.S.—almost $20 billion in capital spending in 2010. AT&T is also planning to bring back call center jobs from overseas. AT&T is also getting sued by the Justice Department to block the merger with T-Mobile.

Frankly, this sends a signal to U.S. companies that getting out of the reach of government regulators by going overseas is the right strategy.

Crossposted from Innovation and Growth.

Should America Pork Out?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On his show last week, Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball recommended that the president “pork out.” Remember those pet infrastructure projects Republicans sacrificed at the altar of declared fiscal discipline? Matthews wants the president to serve up a feast of pork as a temporary jobs plan.

The basic premise of the Matthews’ plan is that the president packages–in one bill–all of the pet projects that were requested over the past two years by Congress but failed to become law. Discarding the projects that are wasteful or don’t create jobs, the president sends the bill to Congress testing where the GOP’s allegiance lies: with the nation’s 25 million unemployed or the political gain of depressing the economy.

Can a serving of pork really pass Congress and create jobs?

Possibly. Much of the pork spending is basically targeted infrastructure spending. Bipartisan support for earmarks has been historically pervasive, and remains widespread today despite a House enforced moratorium. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-Tenn.) threatened to shutdown the Senate over $50,000 toward deepening the Charleston harbor, and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) sneaked a $700 million bridge overhaul past the earmark ban by not listing the actual cost of the bridge in the bill.

Quick calculations state that if every $1 billion of federal spending spent creates 11,000 job-years and the jobs are temporary, one year long, then allocating $10 billion would create roughly 110,000 gross jobs. Funds could be weighted to ensure the states with the highest unemployment rates receive the most money.

Furthermore the current state of the economy is a rare moment of slack in the inherent tension that exists between federal spending and private investment. Worries that earmark spending muscles out the private businesses are exemplified in a Harvard study that found earmarking by certain Congressman can lead to a 15 percent decrease in that districts’ private sector spending — a worrisome proposition. Except, right now corporations are not spending and instead are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Federal spending repercussions are lessened because there is little private spending to crowd out.

To preempt deficit hawks, the plan should be part of a long-term deficit reduction package or paired with back-loaded spending cuts to be revenue neutral. An ideal deficit reduction plan would include a much-needed boost to the job market through targeted short-term infrastructure spending supported by former IMF chief economist Ken Rogoff while reducing the deficit over the long term. While a national infrastructure bank would be idyllic, political realities make pork a workable substitute for targeted infrastructure spending.

A good bully pulpit speech could help extinguish any other political opposition. The specificity and detailed local impact of the pork makes the plan a powerful political cudgel.

Envision the president trotting out to the Rose Garden bill in hand, declaring, “The economy is hurting, but I have a jobs plan right here that’ll create over 100,000 jobs right now at a time when 9.1 percent of Americans are out of work. It won’t add one dime to the deficit but it will pay for a wastewater treatment plant in Nevada where the state unemployment rate is 12.9 percent. Yet your representative, Dean Heller, won’t support it. It won’t add one dime to the deficit, but it will pay for a college in Florida where the state unemployment rate is 10. 7 percent. Yet your representative, John Mica, won’t support it.”

Rinse and repeat that speech for three days, and it’s hard not to expect a few Republican defections. Standing tall for spending cuts is fun and games until your district gets hurt. Even if for some reason the plan doesn’t pass, the tenor of Washington will finally be attuned to what the people want and need – jobs.

Photo Credit: Kejonbro

 

 

Policy Brief: Labor and the Producer Society

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Our country is struggling to find a way out of overlapping economic crises. One is cyclical: an agonizingly slow, jobless recovery from a recession made worse by a financial crash. The other crisis is structural. Our economy suffers from a dearth of capital investment and innovation, mismatches between workers’ skills and available jobs, and unsustainable budget and trade deficits.

Even before the recession struck late in 2007, the Great American job machine was sputtering. According to a recent report by the McKinsey Global Institute, “Between 2000 and 2007, the United States posted a weaker record of job creation than during any decade since the Great Depression.” Not only are good jobs vanishing, wages have been falling for all but the top U.S. earners.

One explanation for America’s ebbing dynamism is a long pause in innovation. Since 2000, technological advances have stalled, outside of the dynamic communications industry. In particular, tighter regulation—for good or for bad—appears to be slowing innovation in the healthcare sector.

Research from the Kauffman Foundation also points to a loss of entrepreneurial verve. The number of business start ups, which Kauffman says generate most of U.S. net job growth, has plummeted by about a quarter since 2006.

If there’s a bright spot in the U.S. economy, it’s the recovery of corporate profits and stock prices since 2009. Yet these developments also highlight a stark inequity: Returns on capital are up, but returns on labor are down.

The U.S. economy seems to have arrived at an inflection point. As the Obama administration puzzles over how to rekindle growth, one thing should be clear: There can be no going back to the old economic model of debt-fueled consumption, where U.S. households borrowed to maintain their living standards, aided and abetted by government deficits.

Read the entire policy brief.

The Consumption Economy Is Dying-Let it Die

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With the stock market plunging, we’ve heard plenty of warnings that a “pullback” in consumer spending could trigger another recession. Let me suggest an alternative. The last thing this economy needs is more debt-fueled consumer spending which mainly creates jobs overseas. Instead, we should be focused on boosting investment in physical, human, and knowledge capital.

Now, who am I to be dissing the American consumer? Don’t I know that consumer spending “accounts for 70% of economic activity,” as many economic reporters have written in recent weeks? (Indeed, if I have to read that number in another story, I might be forced to go all Office Space on a piece of expensive consumer electronics.)

It’s true that consumer spending creates economic activity. But it’s not true that all that economic activity is in the United States. Many of the consumer goods we buy are imported. If you buy a shirt or television, you are stimulating manufacturing jobs in China, or perhaps Mexico. You aren’t doing as much to stimulate jobs at home.

This is true across the economy, but a helpful example is the clothing, or apparel, industry. Since the fourth quarter of 2007, clothing purchases by consumers have increased by about 5% in real terms, according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Over roughly the same period, shipments from U.S. apparel factories fell by 31% in real terms, while apparel jobs fell by 26%. The winner: Factories in China and elsewhere making clothes for the U.S. market.

It’s not just clothes, of course. In many stores, it’s getting harder and harder to even find products that say “Made in the U.S.A.” That’s one reason why much of the economic stimulus escaped out the back door in the form of imports.

Now, this doesn’t mean imports are evil. When we buy goods from overseas, we generate some jobs in retail and wholesale. If you buy a shirt for cheaper than it would otherwise be if we made it here, you have more money left over to buy other things, like health care.

But the big problem with consumer spending is that if you buy a product made outside the U.S., it doesn’t encourage domestic investment. And that’s what we really need. In the past, a dollar spent on a shirt would start a virtuous circle, as the clothing factory expanded, adding more workers and buying new sewing machines. That investment in new machines, in turn, would create more business for the sewing machine company, who would then hire more workers who would need new shirts.

Today, the cycle is happening overseas. We have a genuine investment shortfall in the U.S., where both business and government are way below historical norms for spending on equipment, buildings, software, and infrastructure.

Consider this: Personal consumption in real terms is 11% below its long-term trend, based on the 1997-2007 period. That sounds bad enough. But nondefense government investment is 17% below its long term trend, as state and local governments cut back. And counting all private sector enterprises, nonnresidential investment is a stunning 25% below its long-term trend.

nonresidential investment.png

These figures are devastating for our economic future, both short and long-term. Low investment means fewer jobs and weaker productivity growth. The longer the investment shortfall lasts, the more damage it does. However, we’re not going to close the shortfall by encouraging debt-financed consumer spending. Instead, we need to redirect resources to productive investment.

Here’s a couple of examples of what we can do. First, I like to see the Obama administration publicly identify and applaud “investment heroes”: the top companies who are investing domestically in either physical capital or knowledge capital (R&D, design, and other forms of intellectual investment). The bully pulpit of the president can be a wonderful tool, if it directed toward the right cause, and this would send a signal of the importance of investment.

Second, Obama should come out in favor of countercyclical regulatory policy. We should accelerate the regulatory approval process during periods of economic weakness to boost corporate investment, just as countercyclical monetary and fiscal policy have been used to stimulate consumer spending. This is a message that has to be sent from the top to encourage regulators to consider the effects of their action on the economy.
The potential list of policies to boost investment goes on and on, including targeted infrastructure spending, as I described in my previous Atlantic piece, and perhaps a rationalization of the corporate tax code.

But what’s important is that none of these policies is about boosting consumer spending. If we want Americans to prosper, we need consumer spending to become less important to the economy, not more. In the end, we need a production economy, not a consumption economy.

The piece was originally written for the Atlantic.

Photo credit: Grace

Where Americans Can Cut Back

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Dollar billWhere can Americans cut back if the economy slips back into recession again? After all the talk about the “new frugality” and the deepest recession in 75 years, it might seem like households have tightened their belts as much as possible.

Surprisingly, however, the economic figures show several key areas where Americans have actually increased consumption compared to 2006, the year when housing prices peaked. Judge for yourself whether we can cut back more or not. (Note: all consumption changes are measured in inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars, comparing the 2nd quarter of 2011 with the second quarter of 2006)

1. Clothing — Consumption: + 8.9% since 2006

Despite the economic weakness, Americans spent on clothing at an almost $350 billon annual rate in the second quarter of 2011. Nothing seems to stop the waves of inexpensive shirts, dresses, and coats coming from overseas. Clothing imports from China, especially, are up 37 percent since 2006, and Americans are snapping them up. Perhaps we could buy a a few less t-shirts with funny sayings on them?

2. Personal care products — Consumption: +14.4% since 2006

We like to look our best, even in a recession. Perfume, makeup, shampoo, shaving cream and razors, body gels–Americans spend about $100 billion a year on these personal care items. Not only that, we’re spending more on imported cosmetics, which are up 26 percent since 2006. Are all those goos and gels really necessary?

3. Televisions — Consumption: +287.4% since 2006

No, that’s not a misprint. The government adjusts for the size of the television, among other things, and the average size screen has soared since 2006. If we don’t adjust for size and other variables, Americans are spending 12.7% more on televisions today compared to 2006. Total personal consumption outlays on televisions, according to the BEA: About $40 billion, pretty much all imported. Do you really need an even bigger TV?

4. Alcoholic Beverages (off-premises) — Consumption: +10.7% since 2006

Perhaps it’s not surprising that Americans need an extra drink these days. Still, the total home spending on alcoholic beverages is about $110 billion, at annual rates, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A few less glasses might put a few extra dollars in the pocket.

Remember, all these figures apply to Americans in the aggregate. Those people who have been out of work for months or years don’t have room to cut back at all.

And remember–when journalists write that “consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity,” they are completely wrong. What the U.S. economy needs is more production, not more consumption–and in a globalized economy, the two are not synonymous at all. And that, my friends, will be the subject of tomorrow’s post.

Photo credit: iChaz.

Stimulus for Entrepreneurs

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The debt-ceiling stalemate is distracting policymakers’ attention from what should be their number one economic priority: putting Americans back to work. Big jolts of conventional stimulus, through public spending or tax cuts, are off the table for now, but Washington could try a different tack — stimulating entrepreneurship.

So says economist Robert Litan of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, who unveiled last week a creative menu of proposals for rebooting America’s entrepreneurial spirit. These ideas have been incorporated into the Startup Act, a bipartisan proposal endorsed by an unlikely pair of political bedfellows, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

Litan’s offering came on the heels of a new Kauffman study that shows why Congress should be thinking about ways to spur entrepreneurship. Startup job growth, which Kauffman says is the main engine behind net job growth in the United States, has been slowly declining. This drop began before the Great Recession. What’s more, the survival rate of new firms is declining, along with the number of jobs created on average by new startups.

No one seems to know why start-ups have been losing momentum. But Litan, also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that public policy can be a catalyst for new business creation, just as it can also put obstacles in the way of entrepreneurs. The Startup bill’s provisions fall in four main baskets: selective immigration reform, easier access to capitol, streamlining the commercialization of new ideas, and resetting the regulatory burden on businesses.

Immigration reform: The bill advocates green cards for any foreign student that completes a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) degree at a U.S university and more easily available visas for non-American future entrepreneurs. Litan specifically suggested targeting talented individuals currently working in America on 6-year H-1 visas, a demographic that starts new firms at a higher rate than the rest of the workforce, as an easy starting point for reform.

Financing startups: At a time when credit is tight, the bill would generate capital to finance new startups from two sources: tax breaks and easier access to public markets. It proposes a capital gains exemption for long-term investments (those held over five years) in startups with a market value of less than $50 million. To give more startups a fighting chance to survive, the bill also would exempt them from the corporate income tax for the first five years. In addition, the act suggests would allow shareholders of startups under $1 billion in market value to decide whether or not to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, arguing that the cost of compliance for startups far outweighed any benefits compliance could provide.

Patent Reform: The bill also endorsed recent patent reform passed by both the House and Senate designed to make the process more efficient. Under this approach, smaller startups would be allowed to pay less for a priority patent review.

Regulatory Reset: Finally the plan calls for regulatory reform as well as data collection on individual states – ranking them on how well they create a favorable climate for startups. It would require a cost-benefit analysis for all proposed rules and subject them to automatic, 10-year sunset requirements. State rankings would provide states with the motivation to decrease their regulatory burden and attract more new business.

At a recent forum, Litan noted that the government seems to be out of fiscal policy bullets to jolt the economy back to life. By creating a climate more conducive to the birth and survival of new firms, however, the U.S. could spur job creation at a relatively modest cost that won’t break the bank.

Photo Credit: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Wingnut Watch: Jim DeMint’s Filibuster, T-Paw and Bachmann’s Catfight.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Like most politically active Americans, the residents of Wingnut World are heavily focused on the debt limit negotiations. Unlike many politically active Americans, hard-core conservatives by and large are just fine with a failure to reach any agreement. In some cases, it’s because they don’t buy the idea that failure to raise the debt limit will cause a default on federal government obligations. The “Full Faith and Credit Act”, introduced some time back by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Club for Growth) and backed by most Tea Party groups, is designed to bolster that case by directing the Treasury to pay creditors, the armed services, and Social Security recipients first if the debt limit is reached (this approach, of dubious legality, would virtually guarantee a major shutdown of unprotected federal programs).

Then there are those conservatives who don’t necessarily dispute that a debt limit increase is necessary to avoid a default, or that a default would produce economic havoc, but nonetheless argue that cutting federal spending, taxes and debt is more important (economically and morally) in the long run. Thus, they are adamantly opposed to any deal that doesn’t meet the politically impossible “Cut, Cap and Balance” template. This is the official position of the 183 conservative organizations, including those that have signed onto the “Cut, Cap and Balance” Pledge, along with nine presidential candidates (ten if you count likely candidate Rick Perry), 12 senators and 39 House Members. There is no deal anywhere in the works that these folks can support without subjecting themselves to charges of hypocrisy and betrayal. And the senators among them—including wingnut Big Dog Jim DeMint—have regularly threatened a filibuster against any deal they don’t like, which would produce highly dangerous delays even if it is not backed by sufficient votes to thwart the majority.

Outside this circle of solemn oaths to wreck the national economy if it’s necessary to pursue their ideological agenda, conservatives vary in what they might consider acceptable, with some focused on the precise extent of the concessions that might be wrung from the administration and congressional Democrats, and some standing with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in making political point-scoring against the administration the top priority. Virtually no conservatives have conceded the possibility of a deal including revenue measures that aren’t pared with tax rate cuts. And on top of everything else, profound institutional rivalries between House and Senate Republicans that have already become a problem in coordinating GOP strategy will make expeditious final action difficult. It’s going to be a very long week.

Meanwhile, on the presidential campaign trail, the rivalry between those Minnesota twins, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, has been heating up. T-Paw has recently taken several shots at Bachmann’s record in Congress—and lack of executive experience—along with making what looked to be a thinly veiled reference to her medical condition as a possible problem (he later flatly stated he had never seen Bachmann suffer from any incapacity in fulfilling her duties). Bachmann fired back harshly with a denunciation of Pawlenty’s earlier positions on health reform, climate change, and TARP, suggesting he had a lot in common with Barack Obama.

The knife-fight reflects the fact that Pawlenty is fighting for his political life in Iowa, and can ill afford to lose badly to Bachmann at the August 13 Iowa GOP Straw Poll. But both Minnesotans are increasingly laboring under the tall shadow of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is reportedly 99% sure to announce a candidacy next month. Already in the double-digits in national and some state polls (a statute that poor T-Paw has yet to reach after months of campaigning), Perry probably benefitted from the decision of the Iowa GOP to keep him off the Straw Poll ballot, which means he doesn’t have to rush his announcement and won’t suffer from a poor showing in Ames. But Perry also courted controversy on the Right the other day by expressing indifference to New York’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage on states’ rights grounds:

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

This comment immediately attracted criticism from Christian Right leaders, including Gary Bauer and Iowa kingmaker Bob Vander Plaats, who don’t think their “marriage is between a man and a woman” stance is a matter of state preference any more than individual preference. Perry’s stance, and the casual attitude he conveyed in talking about it, could give Bachmann fresh traction in her struggle to compete with the Texan for Christian Right support.

America’s Coming Infrastructure Crash

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

When President Obama took office in January 2009, he promised that ” to lay a new foundation for growth….we will build the roads and bridges.” And in his 2011 State of the Union address, he promised to “put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges.”

But as all attention is focused on the debt ceiling battle, here’s what’s happening on the infrastructure front. Highway, street, and bridge construction jobs through the first five months of 2011 are running 18% below 2007 levels, and the stimulus money is fading. House Republicans are proposing to cut future federal infrastructure funding by roughly one-third. And any defaults among state and local governments would raise borrowing costs for infrastructure bonds across the country and in some cases make the bonds unsellable.

In short, a difficult infrastructure situation is about to turn worse. The U.S. seems likely heading for an infrastructure crash that will terribly damage both our prospects and those of our children.

But in the spirit of making lemonade from lemons, budget austerity may offer an opportunity to rethink our priorities and consider our vision for the future of infrastructure. The big question is: Do we want to build roads, bridges, harbors and airports to support the current consumption- and import-oriented economy? Or should we focus infrastructure spending to encourage the shift to a more sustainable production- and export- oriented economy?

The shift from a consumption economy to a production economy is probably the most important–and most difficult–task that the U.S. faces. The clearest sign of the problem is the apparently intractable trade deficit. Over the past ten years, the country has run up a cumulative deficit of $5.7 trillion with the rest of the world, and there’s no sign of that reversing any time soon. To put it a slightly different way, the U.S. imports almost as much goods ($1.9 trillion in 2010) as the country produces (value-added of $2.2 trillion in manufacturing, mining, and agriculture).

Both Democrats and Republicans agree that one way out of this dilemma is to increase exports. But with resources scarce, that means tough choices for infrastructure spending. For example, consider our spending on ports. The Port of New Orleans is a major shipping point for our agriculture exports. Meanwhile the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with many more loaded inbound containers (imports) than outbound containers (exports), are running a significant trade deficit. Should we devote more resources to beefing up the Port of New Orleans, or to improving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach?

Or think about road and bridge construction. Should we spend scarce resources on improving road links to a regional shopping mall? Or should we place top priority on infrastructure improvements that might entice foreign firms to locate manufacturing facilities in the U.S.? These are tough questions to answer. I know which way I lean–towards production rather than consumption–but there are good arguments on both sides. What’s more, there are a couple of other big wild cards. For example, the retirement of the baby boomers will change infrastructure needs, as more and more people will want to be located in inexpensive areas near hospitals.

The other big concern is defense surge capacity. If the U.S. were engaged in a major global war, heaven forbid, the country would need an efficient transportation system (there’s a reason why the construction of interstate highway system was originally justified on defense grounds). A major war would require that the U.S. beef up its manufacturing very quickly, and we wouldn’t want to have to divert manpower to rebuild our transportation infrastructure at the same time. A good infrastructure base is an insurance policy against future events.

What Washington needs is a coherent strategy for infrastructure that goes beyond “shovel-ready.” We need to shift project selection and investment decisions away from a politically-driven process to one that fits our overall economic aims as a country.

Treating infrastructure spending as an essential part of a shift towards a production-oriented economy may provide the right framework for good decisions that can get support from both Democrats and Republicans.

The piece was originally written for the Atlantic and can be found here.

Mandel will be a regular contributor to the Atlantic in the future, stay tuned for his most recent posts.

Photo Credit: Salim Virji

Misinterpreting Data: How the WSJ Got the Wireless Jobs Story Wrong

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On July 17 the online edition of the WSJ published a widely-cited story entitled Wireless Jobs Evaporate Even As Industry Expands. The main point of the story (my emphasis):

In May, on the heels of a record year for industry revenue, employment at U.S. wireless carriers hit a 12-year low of 166,600, according to U.S. Labor Department figures released earlier this month. That’s about 20,000 fewer jobs than when the recession ended in June 2009 and 2,000 fewer than a year ago. While the industry’s revenue has grown 28% since 2006, when wireless employment peaked at 207,000 workers, its mostly nonunion work force has shrunk about 20%.”

In addition, the Journal digs further into the official data and claims that:

The number of customer-service workers at wireless carriers dropped to 33,580 last year from 55,930 in 2007, according to the Labor Department

Seems like a pretty straightforward story, doesn’t it? The Journal is quoting directly from authoritative BLS data to demonstrate that the wireless industry has been losing jobs, despite the mobile boom. The big picture message: Innovation does not equal job growth.

Unfortunately, the reporters and editors at the WSJ fell into the same trap that has ensnared many other journalists, policymakers, and even economists. They looked at the label on a piece of official economic data, and assumed that they understood it. But as we saw during the financial crisis and subsequently, government economic data can all too easily be misinterpreted.

In this case, the article was based on the Journal’s analysis of jobs in the “wireless telecommunications carrier industry,” as defined by the BLS. However, despite the name of the data series, it turns out that:

  • The BLS definition of the “wireless” industry does not include company-owned retail stores or stand-alone company-owned call-centers.
  • The customer service numbers cited do not include company-owned retail stores or stand-alone company-owned call centers.
  • The 2007 occupational data in telecom cited in the story cannot be compared with later years, because the telecom industry classifications in the occupational data were substantially redone in 2008.

As a result:

  • The data cited in the WSJ article completely misses the growth of jobs at company-owned retail stores (see Metro PCS chart below)
  • The data cited in the WSJ article potentially misses call center job growth such as the expansion of Verizon’s Nashville call center (see example below)
  • The phrase “employment at U.S. wireless carriers hit a 12-year low” simply cannot be supported by the available data. Data from the industry trade association (CTIA), which shows wireless employment up 36% since 2000, is much more plausible (see chart below).
In my view, the WSJ article is a classic case of misinterpreting official statistics.

Before getting into the details, why am I taking the time and trouble to disassemble this particular article? Historically innovation and job creation have been closely linked, as I have argued in multiple papers and articles. With Washington now fighting tooth and nail over the budget, it’s very important for policymakers to understand that successful innovation creates jobs, not the opposite.

Second, journalists, policymakers, and economists need to understand how easily government statistics can be misinterpreted. For example, the statisticians at the BLS have reported huge U.S. productivity gains over the past decade, including the years following the financial crisis–a fact that has been duly repeated by journalists and applauded by economists. However, in a recent paper, Sue Houseman of the Upjohn Institute and I argued that these reported U.S. productivity gains could be interpreted, in part, as an increase in the efficiency of global supply chains. It matters enormously for jobs and wages whether productivity increases are coming from more efficient domestic operations, or more efficient offshoring.

Or consider consumer spending. Journalists regularly report that ”consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity.” (see, for example, this recent Associated Press story that ran on the New York Times website). However this number, calculated by dividing consumer spending into GDP, is pernicious nonsense. Nonsense, because consumer spending includes a big chunk of imports, which does not correspond to economic activity in the U.S. Pernicious, because it perpetuates the fallacy that the U.S. cannot recover without gains in consumer spending (see my blog post on the subject here).

Details

Now let me turn to the details of the WSJ’s mistake, or if you’d like, misintepretation. The WSJ analyzed BLS jobs data for the “wireless telecommunications carrier industry”, (with the NAICS ID 5172). That data looks pretty bleak (if you want to download the data for yourself, instructions are at the end of this post).

However, the WSJ apparentlydid not realize that the BLS collects industry employment by establishment, not by company. The BLS defines an establishment in this wa:y

An establishment is an economic unit, such as a farm, mine, factory, or store, that produces goods or provides services. It is typically at a single physical location and engaged in one, or predominantly one, type of economic activity for which a single industrial classification may be applied.

Whenever possible, the BLS assigns each establishment to an industry, and counts all the employment at that establishment at part of that industry.

Viewed from this perspective, a single wireless carrier, such as Verizon Wireless or Metro PCS, will typically include several different types of establishments, each of which will be assigned to a different industry.

  • Wireless operations are in NAICS 5172 (“Wireless telecommunications carriers”)
  • Company-owned call centers are in NAICS 56142 (“telephone call centers”)
  • Company-owned retail stores are in retail trade, probably NAICS 443112 (“Radio, TV and electronics stores”)
  • Mobile tower and base construction could be in NAICS 23713 (“Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction”)
There might even be more different types of establishments in the wireless industry…it’s hard to tell.

This has several implications. First, retail expansion by wireless providers is counted in the retail trade industry, not the BLS “Wireless Industry” numbers that the WSJ used. This is true even if the store is carrier-operated.

For example, the tremendous expansions of retail stores by Metro PCS in recent years, with added jobs, did not show up in the WSJ data (for a related example, employees at Apple stores are counted in the retail industry, not the computer industry).

Second, to the degree that wireless carriers are expanding stand-alone call centers, those additional jobs are not being picked up by the WSJ data. We don’t know exactly how many there are, but we do know that overall national employment at telephone call centers have been rising, surprisingly enough. It’s likely that the expansion of the wireless industry is a factor in that rise in call center employment.

We also know that at least some wireless telecom companies have been hiring at their call centers. For example, it took the work of five minutes to find this example of Verizon hiring workers for a call center outside of Nashville. Here’s an excerpt from the July 1, 2011 story in the Nashville Post:

Verizon Wireless has announced via Facebook and Twitter that it will expand its Sanctuary Park Center of Excellence Loyalty Retention Center by opening an office in Franklin. The company plans to add some 300 jobs in the Franklin area over the next 18 months.

“We’re excited about this expansion for several reasons. It allows us to continue to provide customers with the high quality of service they expect from Verizon Wireless,” said James Nelson, associate director of customer service. “It’s also great to be a source for new job opportunities – especially in this economy.”

Further, the company said, “Many of the thousands of calls handled by LRC representatives each month are from customers requesting to discontinue service. It is their responsibility to convert as many of those disconnect requests into satisfied customers.”

The company ran its first training sessions in May and plans to begin taking calls at the center starting July 5.

I didn’t research this example any further. But it looks like these new call center jobs are not counted in the BLS data that the WSJ was using.

Finally, those customer service figures that the Journal made such a big deal about. Let me repeat the quote from the Journal story.

The number of customer-service workers at wireless carriers dropped to 33,580 last year from 55,930 in 2007, according to the Labor Department

Actually, that sentence is not correct as it stands. The WSJ is citing occupational data pertaining to the “wireless” industry as defined by the BLS (NAICS 5172). By definition, the WSJ’s figure for customer-service workers excludes company-owned stand-alone call centers (like the previous example for Verizon Wireless). As a result, the figures cited by the Journal are absolutely useless for determining whether wireless carriers are hiring or firing customer-service workers.

Just to add insult to injury, there’s a subtle twist that no reporter could be expected to know. Buried deep in the documentation, the BLS explains that:

In 2008, the OES survey switched to the 2007 NAICS classification system from the 2002 NAICS. The most significant revisions were in the Information Sector, particularly within the Telecommunications area.

The implication is that telecom occupational data from 2007 simply cannot be compared to later years (I believe that the BLS would agree with that, if asked).

What’s the bottom line here? Let me show you again the chart of the jobs in the BLS “wireless industry” (the data the WSJ used), and compare it to the survey of wireless industry employment done by CTIA, the wireless industry association.

The industry association figures-rose by 46% from 2000 until 2008, before dipping by 7% from 2008 to 2010. By contrast, the BLS “wireless” data, which does not include call centers, retail stores, and tower construction, rose by only 8% from 2000 to 2008. Now, honestly, in the middle of a wireless boom of historic proportions, which figure do you think is more likely to reflect “employment at wireless carriers”, the phrase used in the WSJ story?

Now, that brings me to my final ethical question: Does the Journal have an obligation to run a retraction or a corrective story? The article did not slander or libel anyone, and the reporter used the government statistics in good faith. However, because the statistics did not mean what the Journal thought they meant, the story is filled with statements which leave readers with the wrong impression. The typical reader would read the story and naturally conclude that the phrase “ employment at U.S. wireless carriers hit a 12-year low” referred to the number of workers who receive paychecks from Verizon Wireless, Metro PCS, the wireless part of AT&T, and the like. But as we have seen, that phrase is based on government figures that only reflect a portion of wireless carrier employment.

More importantly, the story’s big picture conclusion–that innovation does not equal job growth–is not supported by the statistics. In this era of distrust of the press, should publications make an effort to clarify the record if their original story is faulty?

 

 

Coda: How to Get the Government Data that the WSJ used

 

Go to https://www.bls.gov/data/#employment

Click on “Employment, Hours, and Earnings – National, Multiscreen data search”

Check ‘Not seasonally adjusted’, and click on ‘next form’

Scroll to ‘information’, and click on ‘next form’

Click on ‘all employees, and click on ‘next form’

Scroll to “wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite)”, and click on ‘next form’

Click on ‘retrieve data’

The data for customer service representatives in the wireless industry in 2007 can be found at

https://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/naics4_517200.htm#b41-0000

 

This piece is cross-posted from Michael Mandel’s blog “Mandel on Innovation and Growth“.

Gas vs. Gasoline

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

America has a serious oil deficit. We consume almost three times as much oil as we produce. As a result, we send more than $250 billion a year offshore (mostly to our enemies and other bad guys) to import oil so we can keep our trains, planes, and automobiles running.

On the other hand, America now has a huge surplus of natural gas, enough to last us for 100 years or more. If we replaced the oil we import with domestic gas, we could end our energy dependence and stop enriching U.S. adversaries. But rather than convert from oil to gas, plans are afoot to export the gas!

The economics of importing oil and exporting gas make no sense. We currently pay about $100 to import a barrel of oil. We are exporting natural gas at a price that has the energy equivalence of about $25 a barrel. That’s right, we are buying energy as oil for $100, selling the same amount of energy as gas for $25.

Buying high and selling low – this is what passes for national energy policy today. Our leaders should be embarrassed.

In addition to the economics, the strategic implications of converting from oil to gas are huge.

About two-thirds of the oil we use is for transportation. Converting our transportation fleet to natural gas would almost eliminate the need to import oil. Our trade deficit would be cut in half, petro-despots would be deprived of their largest revenue source, and our economy would get a $250 billion shot in the arm – every year.

So why aren’t we doing it? Converting gasoline and diesel engines to gas is relatively easy and very safe. The challenge is the infrastructure – a national network of filling stations that need to be in place before people will convert their cars and trucks to gas. Building that infrastructure requires such a huge effort and coordination among so many actors that it is unlikely that the private sector can or will make the switch by itself. Among other things, investors will worry that OPEC will defensively collapse the price of oil as they did in the ’70s. Given these market realities, the only way this switch can possibly happen will be if the government steps up to catalyze and help underwrite the effort. 150 years ago the government made a similar commitment to enable the trans-continental railroad – which ushered in America’s great industrial expansion. Converting to natural gas could bring about a similar economic boom.

Installing the required new fueling infrastructure for gas-propelled vehicles would be a tremendous generator of new jobs. There are few other investments the nation could make with as large a payoff across so many areas of national concern.

For those interested in the math:

One barrel of oil = about 5.6 million BTU. One Mcf of natural gas = about 1.02 million BTU. (The actual energy content varies slightly depending on the grade of the oil or gas. These are industry averages.)

Energy equivalence: The BTUs in 1 bbl. oil = The BTUs in 5.6 Mcf natural gas.

1 bbl oil costs $96.75 and the same amount of energy in gas costs $25.59 (5.6Mcf x $4.57),

The energy cost ratio between oil and gas is roughly 4 ($100/$25).

That means we’re paying 4 times as much for an oil BTU as we get when we sell a gas BTU.

It also means that once we have completed the conversion, operating on gas instead of gasoline will reduce our transportation energy costs by almost 75 percent.

Photo Credit: Arimoore

Welcome Back, Gang of Six

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Not a moment too soon, the Gang of Six has resurfaced in the U.S. Senate, breathing new life into hopes for a bipartisan “grand bargain” on deficit reduction.

Even if Eric Cantor were abducted by aliens, there’s no way that Congress could pass the Gang’s elaborate plan to solve the debt crisis before Aug. 2. But the Gang’s resurgence, with growing support from GOP Senators, adds to mounting public pressure on House Republicans to end their self-isolating intransigence on taxes.

Several weeks ago, the Gang looked moribund after a key member, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) went on walkabout. To their immense credit, however, Gang leaders Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) persevered, got Coburn back in the fold, and unveiled their new plan before 46 Republican and Democratic Senators this week. President Obama, who has stood strangely aloof from the Gang’s efforts to find common ground, pronounced the new package “consistent” with his views.

The new blueprint, like the original, is based on the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission plan. It envisions two steps: First, an immediate, $500 billion “down payment” on deficit reduction; followed by more comprehensive reform. Altogether, the Gang calls for $3.7 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade. That’s about what budget experts say is necessary to first stabilize, then start shrinking, the national debt.

Another Gang leader, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-Mont.), said today there is talk on Capitol Hill of using the $500 billion cut to win a short-term extension of the debt limit. That could give lawmakers more time to hammer out a permanent solution to the fiscal crisis that includes both increased tax revenues and entitlement reform.

The Gang’s revised plan proposes deep cuts in Medicare and other health spending, while – sorry Rep. Ryan — apparently maintaining the structure of Medicare and Medicaid. It would achieve about $1 trillion in savings by capping domestic spending, including defense, over the next decade. These cuts are way beyond cosmetic.

The new plan also embraces the fiscal commission’s key proposal on tax reform. It would raise around $1 trillion over the next decade by closing tax loopholes, using the savings both to dramatically lower income and corporate tax rates, and reduce the deficit. Spared are tax credits for low-wage workers and families with children. More affluent taxpayers will welcome the Gang’s call to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The fiscal commission achieved a political breakthrough when Republicans Senators embraced tax reform, and some Democrats agreed to cut Social Security benefits for affluent retirees and raise the retirement age. Here the new blueprint disappoints. Basically it punts to the Senate Finance Committee, which is charged with drafting a plan to assure Social Security’s solvency over the next 75 years. The Gang also says efforts to reform Social Security should only take place “on a separate track – any savings from the programs must go toward solvency.” This may placate liberals, but could alienate conservatives who suspect Democrats aren’t really serious about entitlement reform.

The big question, of course, is whether the Gang’s plan could ever get through the House. For starters, it violates the Tea Party’s Prime Imperative — that revenues can be raised for no other purpose than cutting tax rates. Moreover, Ezra Klein reports that it also appears to assume the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. If House Republicans won’t yield on taxes, don’t expect House liberals to deal on entitlement reform.

Still, a lot depends on how the debt limit battle plays out. New polls show voters are more likely to see Republicans as standing in the way of compromise than Obama and the Democrats. If things get really ugly – if the federal government can’t pay salaries or mail benefit checks on Aug. 3 – such suspicions could quickly turn into a furious backlash.

In any case, the Gang’s initiative illuminates a growing rift between House and Senate Republicans, both on taxes and negotiating tactics. By saying, in effect, “Hell no” to balanced proposals to cut deficits, House Republicans are forfeiting a rare opportunity to get Democrats to swallow huge, multi-trillion-dollar cuts in federal spending. Apparently, real conservatives prefer big government to tax hikes.

On the other side, progressives aren’t likely to get a better offer than the one Warner and company are offering. No one knows this better than President Obama, who’s been beating his head against the wall of GOP recalcitrance for weeks. And that’s why, once the debt limit is raised, he ought to throw in with the Gang of Six.

Photo Credit: TalkMediaNews

Wingnut Watch: Cut, Cap, Balance, Perry.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s a High Noon moment in Wingnut World, as conservatives do everything possible to sabotage a deal to increase the debt limit even as their congressional leaders negotiate behind the scenes to make a deal possible. Yesterday’s near-party-line vote in the House passing the “Cut, Cap, Balance Act” represented a particularly vivid demonstration of conservative inflexibility and its grip on the GOP. CCB would write directly into the U.S. Constitution the Right’s current contention that fiscal problems are always and invariably the result of excessive spending, and that a fixed, ideal ratio between spending and GDP can be deduced and legislated forever.

But extreme as the CCB exercise appeared in terms of all precedent, from the perspective of many conservative activists it was a bit of a wimpy compromise. CCB suggests, after all, there is a circumstance—an insanely remote circumstance, to be sure—under which a debt limit increase would be appropriate. That’s offensive to those who earlier staked out a “just say no” position Indeed, two of the nine votes cast by House Republicans against the CCB bill were from presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. Bachmann had just, earlier this week, become the ninth candidate (everyone in the race other than heresiarch Jon Huntsman) to sign the Cut-Cap-Balance Pledge, after adding a proviso that she wouldn’t support a debt limit increase until such time as the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is repealed.

With CCB going nowhere in the Senate, Wingnuts now have at least a few days to fulminate against, and then to oppose, any actual debt limit deal. Their public rationales for obstructionism vary: Many conservatives are default denialists, who claim there are actually no significant economic consequences to a failed debt limit increase because the feds will figure out some way to pay creditors until something can be worked out. Others are what might be called bullies-and-bluffers, who are convinced (like some of their brethren on the Left) that the president and congressional Democrats will always and invariably surrender in any negotiations on any subject, making the maximum hard line the appropriate GOP starting point. And still others profess to believe that excessive federal spending—and/or the continued existence of entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—is the real threat to the economy and indeed to human liberty, making some short-term global economic collapse a small price to pay for a return to the lost Eden of the Coolidge Administration.

If, of course, a deal is struck and somehow can be maneuvered through Congress with just enough Republican votes to obtain a majority, we’ll see a whole new cycle of recriminations against this fresh “betrayal” by “RINOs”, complete with threats of primary challenges and maybe even third parties. That any such deal will almost certainly involve unprecedented Democratic concessions on spending, bipartisan “cover” for unpopular changes in entitlements, and abandonment of longstanding Democratic demands for higher taxes on the wealthy, won’t cut much ice on the Right.

As the countdown to default continues in Washington, two very different countdowns are underway on the presidential campaign trail: the countdown to the first real contest of the cycle, the August 13 Iowa GOP Straw Poll, and the countdown to Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s decision on whether to join the race.

Michele Bachmann continues to be the favorite to win the Straw Poll; she’s using her hard-line position on the debt limit to maximum advantage in Iowa, making it the subject of her first statewide TV ad (entitled “Courage”). But she’s now undergoing the first real rough patch of intense media scrutiny and personal questions, some undoubtedly inspired by her opponents. At present, the chattering classes are buzzing over anonymous claims that she is frequently incapacitated by migraine headaches and/or treatment for that condition.

Meanwhile, speculation mounts that Perry will soon jump in (though it’s no more definitive than earlier claims that Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels were minutes away from candidacy). The implications of a Perry run depend on how you see his appeal. Some observers appear to think that the combination of his fundraising prowess, his Tea Party connections, and the “story” of Texas’ economic success, is simply unbeatable. The Hill’s Christian Heinze, for example, who is following the race full-time, appears to think Perry would almost immediately create a one-on-one battle for the nomination with Mitt Romney as Tea Partiers abandoned Bachmann and Cain for the pretty-boy Texan. But as Heinze himself notes, some New Hampshire Tea Folk, however, are raising questions about Perry’s chronic resistance to anti-immigration laws and rhetoric (a smart stance in Texas, but not necessarily elsewhere) and his staunch support for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. And Texans do not quite seem to share the national conservative belief they are living in an economic paradise engineered by Perry’s determination to give corporate executives absolutely everything they want.

If Perry does run—before or after his August 6 prayer-a-thon event in Houston that is certain to raise some questions about his relationship with the theocratic wing of conservative evangelicalism—he will face an immediate strategic decision about whether to plunge into the Iowa Caucus campaign full-bore (it’s already a bit late for a Straw Poll bid by Perry, though the Iowa GOP could put him on the ballot for the event), or instead lay a trap in South Carolina for whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire (say, Bachmann and Romney). A complicating factor for a Dixiefied strategy by Perry is that wingnut kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint has successfully convinced most Palmetto State pols and donors to hold off on any candidate endorsements or financial commitments until after Labor Day, apparently to increase his own leverage over the field. Leave it to virulently anti-union South Carolina Republicans to make Labor Day a signpost for keeping rightward ideological pressure on their party and its presidential field.

Photo credit: Bonzo McGrue

What Would Reagan Do?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Guess who said this:

“The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar.”

President Obama? Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner? No, Ronald Reagan, in a 1983 letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker. And yet GOP Sen. Jim DeMint called Geithner a “Chicken Little” for issuing an almost identical warning against undermining America’s global creditworthiness.

The Republicans have come a long way since Ronald Reagan occupied the Oval Office – and it’s mostly been downhill.

Winning no prizes for statesmanship is House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who argues that it’s more important to prevent the government from raising a penny more in tax revenue than to prevent it from going bankrupt and defaulting on its debts. He says Republicans are making a major concession to Obama just by considering his request to raise the debt ceiling.

The Gipper must be rolling in his grave. Unlike Cantor, he didn’t worry that doing his public duty might be construed as a favor to his political opponents. Reagan was no fan of higher taxes either, but he manned up and raised them when that became necessary to corral federal deficits and restore fiscal responsibility.

What would Reagan do today? The best way to answer that is to look at what he actually did do as president.

First, Reagan pushed through the giant 1981 tax cut that marked America’s first misbegotten experiment with supply side economics. Whatever stimulative effect it may have had was soon overwhelmed by Fed Chairman Paul Volker’s decision to raise interest rates to wring inflation out of the economy. America suffered a harrowing recession in 1982, and federal deficits exploded.

Reagan urged the nation to “stay the course,” but on taxes he changed course. In 1982, when unemployment stood at 10.1 percent, he signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which increased taxes by around one percent of GDP. Irate conservatives blamed the baleful influence of Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. A young GOP backbencher and bombthrower, Newt Gingrich, famously called Dole “the tax collector of the welfare state.”

That was something of a bad rap, however, since Reagan ended up raising taxes a total of 11 times during his presidency. Unlike today’s Republicans, he believed fiscal discipline was more important than supply side theories and he understood that compromise is crucial to advancing national interests. In his second term, Reagan embraced a Democratic proposal to broaden the tax base by closing loopholes, and use the savings to bring rates down. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 simplified the tax code by drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets.

Reagan’s determination to not let deficits get too far out of hand continued under his successor. President George H.W. Bush even broke his “read my lips” pledge in 1990, pushing a deficit reduction package that cut spending by $324 billion and raised revenues by $159 billion over five years. Many conservatives were apoplectic, but Bush’s brave move helped put America on track toward the budget surpluses that President Bill Clinton achieved in the late 1990s.

Tea Party Republicans reject that legacy – even though it led to the balanced budget they are now loudly demanding. As conservative NYT columnist David Brooks wrote recently, that’s a radical departure from the party’s tradition of fiscal rectitude as well as the political give and take that makes democratic politics work.

It’s also repudiation of Reagan, the man conservatives love to venerate and name airports after but, as it turns out, honor in the breach when it comes to protecting the full faith and credit of the United States.

Photo Credit: Brett Tatman