Last week, House Democrats released an $825 billion economic recovery package, which consists of $550 billion in government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. The provisions in the plan were marked up by various congressional committees this week, with the goal of passing a full stimulus package sometime in mid-February. Though they voiced some support when President Obama initially laid out his vision for a stimulus plan, conservatives balked upon seeing the bill that emerged from the House. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made his opposition known by simply saying "Oh. My. God." Conservatives have coalesced around "alternative" stimulus proposals like one crafted by the Republican Study Committee (RSC). But in their opposition, conservatives have propagated several myths about the stimulus and its potential effect on the economy. Here are the three most prominent conservative stimulus myths, and why they amount to nothing more than hot air.
MYTH 1 -- SPENDING IS NOT STIMULATIVE: In response to the stimulus plan, conservatives on the House Budget Committee released a report stating that the proposal "pours taxpayers' money" into projects, "many of which may be worthy in themselves, but have little to do with 'stimulating' the economy." Harvard professor Robert Barro derided the plan as "voodoo economics," while right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin claimed that it will "at most be useless." However, an analysis by Moody's Economy.com found that government spending results in more significant "bang for the buck." For every dollar invested in specific types of spending, the boost in real GDP is more than $1.30. The most benefit comes from extending unemployment benefits ($1.64) and increasing food stamps ($1.73), but strong returns result from infrastructure investment ($1.59) and aid to state and local governments ($1.36), as well. Furthermore, Moody's also noted, "A well-timed, targeted, and temporary stimulus could in fact cost the Treasury less in the long run, since a debilitating recession would severely undermine tax revenues and prompt more government spending for longer." Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's and former adviser to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign, released his analysis of the House plan on Wednesday, and concluded that it would "provide a vital boost to the flagging economy," without which full employment would not return until 2014.
MYTH 2 -- STIMULUS WON'T CREATE JOBS: Last week, Boehner claimed, "When it comes to slow-moving government spending programs, it's clear that it doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen." Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said that "even if consumption were to bump up, it would not lead businesses to expand and to add jobs." However, as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explained, "The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation's roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools." It stands to reason that investing in infrastructure is going to lead to job creation, as someone needs to be hired to actually complete the various projects. By investing $100 billion in clean energy infrastructure alone, the Center for American Progress (CAP) has estimated that 2 million jobs can be created in the next two years. Aid to states through bolstering Medicaid also "generates business and gets people into jobs," as a recent report by Families USA showed: "The new dollars pass from one person to another in successive rounds of spending, generating additional business activity, jobs, and wages that would not otherwise be produced." Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Christina Romer and Vice President Biden aide Jared Bernstein, meanwhile -- by using the "1% of GDP equals 1 million jobs rule of thumb" -- estimated that a stimulus plan will create or save three million jobs. According to their calculations, "30% of the jobs created will be in construction and manufacturing," while "the other two significant sectors that are disproportionately represented in job creation are retail trade and leisure and hospitality."
MYTH 3 -- PERMANENT TAX CUTS ARE THE BEST STIMULUS: The only stimulus idea that conservatives are wholeheartedly supporting is permanent tax cuts. At a hearing before the RSC, Romney, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist all claimed that the stimulus should include permanent corporate tax cuts, while Barro claimed that fully "eliminating the federal corporate income tax would be brilliant." But CAP'sWill Straw explained, "The track record for such steps is poor in general, but they are particularly ill-suited for a recessionary period. After all, the reason that businesses and individuals are not investing at the moment has little to do with the taxes they may pay in the future and everything to do with a fear of losing money because there is no demand in the economy." The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, proposed an "alternative" to the House stimulus: "permanent tax reductions such as the ones Congress passed in 2003." "Tax cuts like those have a proven track record of encouraging economic growth," wrote Heritage. But this is simply the same supply-side approach adopted by the Bush administration, and the evidence that it helps economic growth is "weak at best." An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund shows that every $10 billion spent on this kind of cut would create or save just 10,000 jobs, "versus nearly 60,000 jobs which could be created or saved by extending unemployment benefits and food stamps or investing directly in energy, transportation and education infrastructure." Furthermore, permanent measures will exacerbate the long-term debt much more than temporary measures will.
~ The Progress Report




Comments: 39
He likes to say it "Bayner" but we know it's really BONER.
The Democratic side of the first two objections are ideas that I myself have proposed on Gather several times. I still think the Obama plan leans too heavily toward business. If we want a stimulis we have to get that money into the hands of the consumer.
The Republicans still want to give tax cuts to the very rich. Taxes need to be back up to where they were under Reagan and Clinton. The economy was better although the rich paid more taxes--but they weren't suffering.
This paranoia about increasing taxes is ridiculous. California is bankrupt because of a promise never to raise taxes and we will end up bailing them out.
As a country, we pay far less in taxes than other countries and we get much less as well. I'd rather pay more taxes and have universal healthcare. My husband and I now pay thousands to get a plan with a $5,000 deductible.
Hmm, this might be the first time someone has campaigned on a tax increase and then offered a tax cut instead once elected. Haha, I guess he doesn't understand that you're supposed to do it the other way around. :P
always read your posts because not only do I always agree but I learn something too - this was a 10!
The whole premise is based on whether the government spending your money generates more than you do. That is the part you and those who support such spending forget or neglect to address. This money has to come from somewhere. In this likely case it will come from deficit spending and borrowing (with attendant interest). That money will come largely off bond sales foreign and domestic. Domestic borrowing takes away expansion money for industry/business and its very hard to quantify what that would have produced in the private sector.
Of course tax cuts will be blamed for exacerbating the debt. Even though you get revenue increases, no administration has cut spending in conjunction with it. Cutting or freezing spending is the clue and this administration like its predecessors have no plan to do so other than vague promises for the future...
Anyway, most Repubs will not resist this as they will fight for their share of the pork. Just further proving how little the majority of the two parties really differ anymore. Neither of them care about the future, just the next election.
There's no shortage of money available for investment in the private sector. Business is firing people. They are downsizing. They aren't looking to increase capacity. Heck, people were basically paying the government to hold their money for them (buying T-Bills at zero interest, and then even trading those T-bills for negative interest in the bond market!)
But when business does get back to expanding and perhaps even overheating the economy and causing inflation, then I would be right there with you recommending that the government start paying off the bills (the debt) and delaying non-essential spending projects. Though I'd allow for tax increases at that time as well, if needed, but assume you wouldn't be on board with that.
Labor is expensive and business cannot cut wages so it cuts jobs. The tiny Obama tax credit for job creation is a feel good joke. What the business community needs is an idea just what else besides spending like madmen Congress and this president are going to do. They know more regulation (labor/EPA/energy etc) is coming, they know labor is going to get more expensive, they know taxes of various sorts going to increase, and they know the consumers are digging in for a long hide. California's called for CAFE standards alone will likely kill one or more of the Big 3 without even more subsidies and tariffs. People are putting money in zero interest Treasuries because they are afraid, not because they have much confidence in the US government right now. The Eurozone is worse and so is much of the rest of the world. They don't have the depth of economic base we do and that means they will (for awhile) buy enough of our notes to float this current plan to spend ourselves out of a problem.
We are on the same sheet of music on the necessity of paying down the debt but I think we'd disagree on how critical it is to start now instead of delaying. Interest on the date is huge and going to get far worse soon. But you are right about how we'd disagree on taxes, I'm of the less is plenty school.
I think the problems are more concrete than uncertainty about the government. It's actual pocketbook issues. Businesses cut jobs based on real falling sales/demand with rightful expectation that it won't pick up again tomorrow. Expectations about government has little to do with it.
And nationalization or investment into banks has nothing to do with the government thinking it can better manage the banks. Rather, it's mainly a stability thing inject liquidity to avoid financial lockup which would cause unnecessary (inefficient) destruction to the economy. We'd love to let the banks perish if it didn't have a larger systemic implication. But in light of that, these other options are really the only feasible options. Plus this isn't free money. The government has bought stakes in these banks, not donated money. And it's likely in the end that the government will end up with a net return on that investment (not counting the economic damage that was avoided).
I've read that tax credits for job creation were quite successful in the past, as least in terms of a cost-benefit relationship. You don't pay the tax credit if jobs aren't created. Only if it works do you pay for it. So it's a low risk incentive, and is just one of many solutions to help the economic situation.
And again, this has nothing to do with expectations towards government, whether it's towards regulation, taxes, labor costs. That's totally unfounded. And CAFE standards will do little or nothing to harm auto companies unless you think it would cause their consumers to stop buying cars for some reason. I'm not sure what you think would happen exactly.
People are buying treasury securities because they fear their money will be lost in other investments, and the treasury securities are probably the least risky place to invest.
Just one thing, those jobs were not sold, they were given away!
Those who would tell you otherwise are being very disingenious as the debt continues to accrue and must some day be paid!
The GOP is engaged in a massive redistribution of wealth favoring the wealthiest. In these tough times, they want to give more tax cuts starting with the middle class (which is good in normal times) and going up to the top 1% earners. Those folks don't need any tax cuts.
MYTH #3 is one those lies that if you repeat long enough you, the lie teller, will end up believing. I am for permanent tax cuts. I don't want to pay less than I do, right now and would like everyone to pay less. When we are not engaged in two wars and face a trillion dollar plus deficit, let's talk.
That is a tax cut. What did that accomplish? Exactly.
Why is Obama talking to these douchebags?
Building roads, schools and hospitals in Iraq = patriotism
Building roads, schools and hospitals in America = socialism
It reminds me of the classic schoolyard mentality of "We lost to you so we're gonna do everything we can to block you from getting what you want (even if it would benefit us too!)!"
**** ever work for a poor person? no. you havent. Taxing the rich will cause the companies they own to move to other countries, causing no health benefits (contract work) and any profits they make can be sent overseas as a "consultation fee". Taxing the rich is a horrible idea.
Stimulus Package - things that got added in with YOUR money:
4 billion for anti smoking and anti obesity
357 billion for National Institute of Standards (look this one up - its a killer)
50 Million for new TSA Uniforms (whats wrong with the ones we have?)
1.1 billion to create the federal coordinating council for comparative effectiveness
50 million for habitat restoration of San Francisco Bay
Lets just slide all that money that is suppose to be a "stimulus": meaning going into the economy, which it is not. Lets focus on the simple facts.
1500 page document, spending 780 BILLION tax payer dollars.
The senate passed it in 12 hrs. That equates to (im odd, i know but i had to figure it out)
650 words per minute for 12 hours just to read it. The Senate DIDNT read it, Didnt discuss it, and just passed it because the House did. Where are the checks and balances?
This is their JOB to read the bills before going into law. They are suppose to watch our backs for pork being added in... see above amounts.
Here is the kicker:
WASHINGTON (SR) - Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.
"No, I don't think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill]," Lautenberg told CNSNews.com. "We're all pretty busy - I know I need to wash my car this afternoon."
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), President Barack Obama's successor in the Senate, seemed baffled by the thought of actually reading the entire bill.
"I think it's about a zillion pages," Burris said before laughing lightly. "And someone said there's no pictures - forget that."
Nice... GOOD JOB GUYS...
What morons,
~M
~M