New Deal

Shovels are so 1933

This is a crucial point.  With the fiscal stimulus legislation, Democrats want to create manufacturing and construction jobs - an attempt to recreate the New Deal.  But America is no longer a manufacturing economy.  America is an Information Economy.  Dragging us back to 1930's-era shovel projects is not economic progress.  It is nostalgia. - Jon Henke

A few days ago, Matt Dabrowski asked:

If Obama's stimulus plan doesn't give jobs to the white-collar, educated people who need them, can the stimulus possibly work?Let's leave aside for the moment whether or not the nation needs these projects (which I believe we do), or whether we support them (which I do as well). Will these infrastructure projects even work?

The answer is "No, they won't".

The Wall Street Journal says that "many Americans have been out of work for months and are resorting to lower-wage or part-time jobs to make ends meet." But infrastructure construction jobs are skill positions--the era of digging ditches with shovels is long gone. It's not a matter of handing out shovels to millions of laborers who have been locked out of their factories or whose farms have failed. That's not how things are built these days. And after decades of changing the shape of the American workforce, it is finally time to admit that the shape of the workforce has changed.

This is not 1933, and the old New Deal simply can't be enacted in today's America.

Anybody who wants to address ways to lower unemployment needs to consider this point made by the Economist

The New Deal was introduced into a world of giant organisations—of big businesses and big trade unions that were capable of striking deals with big government. But today’s economy is much more fluid. America’s most successful companies are entrepreneurial outfits like Apple and Google, which thrive on flexibility; even giant companies such as General Electric are breaking themselves up into entrepreneurial divisions. More Americans own their own companies (15%) than belong to trade unions (12%).

Please re-read that last sentence again before advocating any government-works plans to address today's unemployment.

Obama Stimulus Will Fall Flat; GOP Must Stand Up and Fight

President-elect Barack Obama has laid out a plan to “create or save” three million jobs during his first two years in office. His plan is to increase government spending, deficit be damned, by at least $775 billion dollars over that same period. While the projects he plans to invest in are things that we Americans can all use, the stimulus plan will be a flop. Here’s how I got here:

Let’s start with the money. Obama plans to increase government spending without any increases in taxes, so that negates his use of PAYGO budgeting. At the same time, the total amount of money per job that he creates or saves will come out to more than $258,333 per job. There are business executives who don’t even make this money for their job, yet Obama, who has never held a private sector job in his lifetime figures the cost of a job to “create or save” at more than one quarter of a million dollars.

Any reasonable businessperson, like myself, will tell you that if it cost that much money to save a job, we would rather sooner terminate the job immediately. The problem here is that Obama and the other people in government have no real concept of what it costs to run a business, generally speaking. The purpose of a business is not to make customers happy or to employ as many people as possible. The end goal of a business is maximizing their profits and making their shareholders money. Those who do not live by that mantra of making money for the company and stockholders quickly go out of business.

The two things that the average person on the street does not realize are how much one billion is and how much one trillion is.  For the concept of one billion dollars, imagine that on the day of the birth of Jesus Christ you were given one billion dollars and had to spend $1,000 each day onward while gaining no interest, you would be still be spending money for at least the next 700 years.  By comparison, one trillion dollars is one thousand times one billion.

Second, according to the CIA Factbook, the current Gross Domestic Product (GDP, or the total value of all goods and services produced inside the borders of the United States) currently sits at $14.334 trillion. In other words the stimulus is only 5.4 percent of GDP. From here, that percentage goes down fast.

In the Highway Spending Bill that Congress recently passed, less than 26 percent of that money was spent within the first fiscal year. If this holds true, it then means that a value of less than one-and-a-half percent of the nation’s GDP will be infused in to the economy within the first fiscal year of the stimulus bill’s existence. For an economy that will be going in to a deep recession throughout 2009, this does not bode well for Obama.

The end result is an increase in inflation thanks to the increase of the deficit to a level that will approach or exceed two trillion dollars this fiscal year and a slow-to-respond stimulus bill that will actually, when implemented, cause the death of many jobs.

However, that is only half the story about Obama’s economic plans for America. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to get Obama to sign the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which is Orwellian by name, but will cause considerable damage when implemented and enforced. Barring a miraculous filibuster by the Republicans in the Senate, America’s workforce will become unionized and small businesses will close their doors.

What’s more is that the unions will get the ultimate payback from the Democrats they helped get elected. Their membership and union dues received will increase which will give the unions considerable influence in American politics and with their membership. Also, the union bosses will be able to oversee how each of its members votes in a union election, bringing to an end the secret ballot. If the Senate Republicans cannot stop this bill, small businesses in the United States will either have to shell out more of their money to meet the demands of the unions or they will close their doors, or both.

If this comes in to play, the projections for an unemployment rate of nine percent will look good to Americans because the unemployment rate in the USA will be higher than at any time since Ronald Reagan’s first term following the horrific economic policies of Jimmy Carter. The only difference is that Reagan was able to lower the unemployment rate from its peak in December 1982 of 10.8 percent to 8.3 percent in December 1983 and ultimately to 7.2 percent the very month he won a 49-state landslide win against Walter Mondale. By contrast, Obama won his election with an inflation rate of 1.07 percent and an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent in November 2008.

Finally, research from economists at UCLA determined that the Great Depression lasted seven years longer because of the New Deal. Obama wants to implement the New New Deal almost from the moment he takes office. Considering that the double-digit unemployment rates did not end until 1943, this means that had the New Deal not been implemented by President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Depression would have ended in 1936 leading to an easy reelection.

The reality is that Obama doesn’t have the luxuries that FDR had when he was President, yet he wants to take us back to the past with an economic policy that exacerbated and extended this long economic slump. If this plan flops (and it will), just like FDR, Obama will come back with a sequel of New New Deal II which will be used as a means to “save” his job during a time of economic distress.

If the Republicans are able to do anything, it will be to vote against the stimulus package and to attempt to block the EFCA. Should this happen, they will have the ability to say that these things are prolonging the economic crisis and that they fought it all the way. If not, they will be on the same side of the line as Obama and the Democrats in 2010 and again in 2012 which could pave the way for two terms of economic agony.

It’s almost crunch time and the Republicans need to fight the expansion of big government early and often, then turn around and use it as a means to defeat Obama and Obamaism when given the opportunities to do so in 2010 and 2012. If not, they will become a permanent minority party with previous successful Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan as distant memories of what was once great about America, but never will be again.

It’s time for the GOP to be ready to fight Barack Obama when he’s wrong (like on these matters) and Obamaism. 

Are Progressives Out of Ideas?

One of the main reasons bandied about for the GOP's decline is its lack of ideas. According to this re-telling, conservative think tanks once kept the idea pipeline freshly stocked, and it was this intellectual revival that underpinned GOP victories in 1980 and 1994.

The fact that this argument gets made internally shows that conservatives care more about ideas even when they (supposedly) don't have any than Democrats do when they are ascendant and (supposedly) chock full of them.

Witness my daily e-mail from the Center for American Progress: The New New Deal.

We are now engaged in a full-on debate over the return of nearly eight decades old economic policy, with George Will and Tyler Cowen weighing in on one side of the new New Deal debate and Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, and OpenLeft arguing on the other.

But no one is pointing out that having a debate over the New Deal in 2008, much less recreating it, is patently absurd. The New Deal began 76 years ago. The New Deal is about as relevant today as the economic policies of John Quincy Adams were at the turn of the 20th century or Reconstruction was in the post-World War II period. Republicans should be mocking the fact that "change" apparently means 76-year-old economic dogma that first burst onto the scene a few years after the Talkies became all the rage. 

The age of liberalism's ideas should be at issue here. The agenda of the incoming Obama administration is looking remarkably similar to an unfinished to-do list from the time Democrats last had complete control of the government 16 years ago: an economic stimulus (albeit one 30 times as profligate), national health care, and gays in the military.

Don't they have any new ideas?

Democrats have made an electoral killing off the idea that Republican ideas are old. One of their major memes in the last election was that John McCain was too old and couldn't use a Blackberry. So it is ironic that their new, young, and fresh! President is directly modeling his agenda off that tried during a decade-long prolonged depression older than the man he defeated.

Progressive Republicans v. Reactionary Democrats

When Americans voted for "hope" and "change" I doubt many thought they were voting for a trip down memory lane. But in recent days it's abundantly clear the Obama administration is simply going to be an employment agency for Clinton alumni and in economic policy, seeks to turn the clock back almost 80 years.

Time magazine advocates a "New New Deal"  http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1856381_1856380,00.html?xid=newsletter-daily  for the new President.

Republicans should judiciously---but vocally--oppose the effort.

Michael Barone outlines in specifics what was wrong with the first New Deal. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obamas_new_new_deal_no_better.html. The bottom line is that while massive government spending and regulation may have arrested the slide in the economy, they did nothing to build a foundation for long term private sector economy growth.

The bigger problem with a "new New Deal" is the concept of the New Deal made sense for a 1930's economy and society. FDR's America was comprised mostly of laborers and farmers, and had comparatively little trade with foreign nations.  Credit and demand had dried up, and abject poverty was manifest.

Trying to force a command economy on a 21st Century skilled wired workforce in the age of globalization would be like trying to play an MP3 file on a Vitrola. Americans have become accustomed to making their own breaks, and are unlikely to stand aside and wait for the slow moving hand of government to make them for them.   Even the definition of an economic nuclear winter circa 2009 doesn;t seem all that dire http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/11/16/depression_2009_what_would_it_look_like/?page=full; in fact, it sounds a lot like middle class life in the late 1970's.......home cooked meals, relatives living upstairs, and watchng lots of TV.

The new President says that right now "we should'nt worry about the deficit" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOl_Qn1.A4Dw&refer=worldwide 

For Wicca's sake, with the huge Democrat majority in Congress this makes as much sense as making Eliot Spitzer a sorority chaperone.  Every useless, self-serving special interest project known to mankind is going to be funded in 2009 and 2010.

And the Republican Party has best not put its fingerprints on any of it.

We should let the Democratic party fire up the DeLorean and go "Back to the Future" of runway deficit spending  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future

The Republican Party must focus on creating a new , fiscally responsible future based on sustainable budgets, incentives for businesses to grow here in America, an energy policy based on delivering reliable domestic energy to consumers; not appeasing theorists, and yes, building infrastructure based on long term domestic requirements, not wasting captital on short term political agendas.

The 2012 campaign may prove to be the "Battle of the Titans"  Let Barack Obama emulate Franklin Roosevelt. Now we get to fill the void of Ronald Reagan

Obama & the "New" New Deal

Crossposted at http://rockefellerconservative.blogspot.com/
 
President-elect Obama seems to be using the New Deal as a model for his economic recovery plan. If one takes an honest and historical look at the New Deal it should be clear that there were some parts of it that were successful- the huge investment in infrastructure projects- and parts that were utterly unsuccessful- the tax rate hikes on the wealthy. Hopefully the economic team surrounding Obama has read their history and will avoid repeating the mistakes of FDR.

There is plenty the government can legitamately spend money on to stimulate the economy. However, the emphasis simply needs to be on investment, not bail-outs. Instead of giving our money to GM to reward their poor business practices, we should invest in rebuilding our roads and bridges. Money could go to fund more teachers in poor performing districts specifically targeted towards math and science instruction- a clear investment in our future economic viability.

As for teaxes, some, particularly capital gains rates, should actually be lowered at this time to promote growth, while others should remain at their current rates. However, there is one area where a tax increase could realistically help. One interesting idea was put forth by Amity Shlaes of Bloomberg News:

"It is time to begin taxing –- if only by a few dollars -- the millions of lower earners who pay no tax or get money back. This largely symbolic step would allow citizens to reestablish their connection with the federal government.
Obama has a far better chance of pulling this off than any Republican would. He might package such a tax into a larger work program of community service.
It would be valuable as a form of insurance against overreaching government. In the 1970s and 1980s –- the time of the last tax revolution –- more citizens paid taxes, so more people appreciated the
Reagan rate cuts."

Good idea? I think it may be. Many conservatives are against the mandatory community service aspect of Obama's agenda, but they may be willing to swallow it, if, it is rolled into a buy-in of the tax system by millions who, as of now, put in nothing. It is this kind of centrist thinking- increased government investment to infuse the economy with cash for liberals, and a sharing of the tax burden and a lowering of the capital gains rate for the conservatives- that we will need in the coming months and years; lets hope our elected officials agree.

 Crossposted at http://rockefellerconservative.blogspot.com/

Syndicate content