Share

Why Obama Must Spend More

by: Joe Conason, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

photo
Economists at the Economic Policy Institute say that spending now will not only provide relief in the near term but improve America's economic prospects long into the future. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House / flickr)

    The latest signals from the White House suggest that President Obama now realizes he must do more - and quickly - to ease the economic suffering of working families. He knows that most Americans believe his administration and Congress have so far provided more help to major banks and Wall Street investment firms than to workers and small companies, as a survey released by pollster Peter Hart reported recently.

    If voters still feel the same way a year from now, the midterm consequences for the Democrats will be severe, and deservedly so. Yet that same poll, conducted for the Economic Policy Institute, showed that most Americans would support the only action that might relieve the lingering pain of recession: more and faster spending.

    The conventional viewpoint - repeated incessantly on talk radio, cable television and newspaper columns, as well by politicians of both parties - is that the country cannot afford to further increase the public deficit. According to those savants, the stimulus package passed last winter spent too much and achieved too little; the deficit and debt are just too high; and there is simply nothing more that can be done except to wait for jobs to return sometime next year - or the year after that, or maybe someday in the distant future.

    Among the respondents to the Hart poll, however, 53 percent named unemployment as the nation's most serious economic problem, with only 27 percent saying that the most serious problem is the federal budget deficit. The poll found that support for a continuing policy of public investment in job creation, energy independence and improved education is even more emphatic. Fully 73 percent believes that investment should be the first priority, and only 24 percent said that cutting government spending should take precedence.

    In short, public spending in bad times is good politics. But is it good policy?

    The same think tank that sponsored the Hart poll insists that the answer is yes. The economists at Economic Policy Institute say that spending now will not only provide relief in the near term but improve America's economic prospects long into the future, as well. Armed with copious data, they argue that the negative impact of substantial, prolonged unemployment is broad, deep and enduring - and that the issue of the deficit recedes when measured on that scale.

    The institute's study, released last week, shows how lost jobs and income are simply ruinous to families struggling to find their way into the middle class, because of the effect on children's educational progress.

    Meanwhile, diminished economic demand cuts investment, leading to reduced productive capacity that can hinder growth for years - and delay the introduction of new technology even as competitors abroad surpass us.

    Although the Obama stimulus package stopped the worst recession from turning into a global depression, the nation's working families and small businesses have gotten too little help so far. Even if Congress is not yet ready to pass a second stimulus, which will ultimately prove necessary, the president should propose other actions.

    Extending current unemployment, food stamp and health insurance benefits past the year's end is the first and most obvious step. The second is to extend federal assistance to first-time homebuyers and to families facing mortgage foreclosures and evictions.

    Beyond that, the president should employ conservative means to meet progressive ends. He should increase the Small Business Administration's lending programs by billions of dollars, redirect stimulus and bailout funds toward public services and demand a "payroll tax holiday" on the first $20,000 of income, as suggested by Robert Reich, the former labor secretary.

    All of those objectives could be achieved without passing a second stimulus bill. All of them would advance the public interest as well as the political interests of the president and his party. And none of them would be so easy for the Republicans to reject with their usual petulant "no."

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Share         

»


Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. Copyright 2009 creators.com

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

Extending unemployment

Extending unemployment benefits, health insurance and food stamp benefits won't cut it. We need jobs. If companies won't provide them, preferring to cut payrolls rather than hiring, then the government should step in and provide jobs, either by itself in WPA fashion or by giving money to states for job creation. It shouldn't be all done through increased debt, either. Tax every stock market trade to provide money for a jobs program. It is better to hire people than to give them "rocking chair" money.

I don't think Paul Craig

I don't think Paul Craig Roberts is going to agree with some of these ideas. Others won't agree to giving more money to the same "goons" that caused the problems in the first place. The SBA is a funnel for the chosen few, to graft from the Government. Let the SBA help everyone who wants to offer a bill of goods to the Guv'mint, we'll all score lucrative sole-source contracts. Is it naive to suggest profitability and unemployment are not good bedfellows?

Obama must NOT spend more.

Obama must NOT spend more. He must spend MORE INTELLIGENTLY than others have in our past.

Our problem isn't so much that we don't have the money to spend. Our problem is that we are persistently successful in placing into office people who will spend our money on making a small handful of rich people even more rich, rather than on things that the rest of us need.

Public spending in bad times

Public spending in bad times is good politics IF AND ONLY IF the treasury reasserts it's constitutional right and responsibility to issue the nation's money instead of borrowing it from the FED which is a PRIVATELY OWNED institution. And if the money is spent putting people back to work instead of rescuing banks, the "recession" would not last much longer. for more info see www.webofdebt.com

I still think that every

I still think that every registered voter should receive $100,000 from the government. Tax free of course! This money would have to be used for paying on your mortgage, buying a house, if one doesn't have mortgage or have to purchase a house then buy a car, take a trip and invest the rest, purchase a new energy saving appliance and s ave the rest, pay off student loans, re-educate yourself using the money. Lots of ways to spend the money and stimulate many portions of the economy. If one cannot do any of the above then consider donating it to someone who can use it! Or put it under the mattress away from the CEO's, banks and companies who already got millions. I have had enough of banks and CEO's getting millions and Joe Q Average has lost his job!!!!!!!! Create jobs like the WPA and let's pull this country along and back to where we once were!

"most Americans believe his

"most Americans believe his administration and Congress have so far provided more help to major banks and Wall Street investment firms than to workers and small companies" I WONDER WHY?

State governments are broke,

State governments are broke, furloughing employees, slashing programs and unable to pay contractors. Schools and other infrastructure are suffering and falling apart. Aren't states too big to fail?

Teddy Roosefelt is a

Teddy Roosefelt is a wonderful example of what to do in times like this. Not only did he creat jobs but also created Social Security. Teddy proposed a second Bill of Rights but died a year later and never put the new Bill of Rights in place. What did Teddy propose? Michale Moore knows, watch his new movie and find out.