White House Debates Fight On Economy

Yesterday the New York Times published White House Debates Fight On Economy.

"Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.

But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Even if the ideas cannot pass Congress, they say, the president would gain a campaign issue by pushing for them."

Here's the problem: "So far, most signs point to a continuation of the nonconfrontational approach — better to do something than nothing — that has defined this administration. Mr. Obama and his aides are skeptical that voters will reward bold proposals if those ideas do not pass Congress. It is their judgment that moderate voters want tangible results rather than speeches."

If no one is speaking up the progressive pro-stimulus side of the debate, which I (and "a wide range of economists") think is the only one that will get the economy moving, then it's just moving deck chairs. Small tangible results won't do anything (and haven't for the last 2.5 years). It's how you end up having to tout yourself with "it would have been worse if we weren't here".

"But Christina Romer, who stepped down last year as the chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said Mr. Obama should fight for short-term spending in combination with long-term deficit reduction. “Playing it safe is not going to cut it,” said Ms. Romer, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “Not proposing anything bold and not trying to do something to definitively deal with our problems would mean that we’re going to have another year and a half like the last year and a half — and then it’s awfully hard to get re-elected.”"

Not surprisingly the article got a lot of comments from the usual crowd, most with titles that read like The Onion.

CalculatedRisk wrote, White House Debates Doing Little or Nothing. "Tax incentives are the "bigger idea"? It sounds like the debate is between doing nothing and doing very little. If I arrived on the scene today - with a 9.1% unemployment rate and about 4.6 million homes with seriously delinquent mortgages or REO - I'd be arguing for an aggressive policy response. "

Paul Krugman wrote Little or Nothing. "And as for the political side, I guess I’m puzzled: you have an obstructionist GOP, and rather than point out that obstruction, you restrict yourself to calling for measures that this obstructionist opposition might actually accept. Doesn’t this mean that voters learn nothing about the extent to which the GOP is in fact blocking job creation?"

Mark Thoma wrote White House Debates Giving Up on Helping the Economy. "The administration hasn't figured out that it's supposed to lead -- that sometimes it's supposed to move public opinion instead of following it."

"The best thing the administration can do is abandon support for struggling households now so Obama can get reelected and reduce social insurance programs that help struggling households? The administration should put its effort into job creation and talk of little else (though mortgage relief is also high on the list). If Republicans go along, great, households need jobs. If not, it's up to the administration to make sure it's their loss."

Jared Bernstein says Herein Lies the Problem in the print edition of the article it said “It would be political folly to make the argument that government spending equals jobs.” "Far be it from me—I mean this—to advise the politicals as to what works. But I simply don’t believe it is “political folly” to tell the truth on this critically important point."

Mark Thoma followed up, "I don't expect that the administration would be successful if they do pursue job creation vigorously. Any job creation program that is likely to work and large enough to matter would almost surely be blocked by the other side. But I agree with those who argue there's value in the fight because it makes it absolutely clear whose side you are on, and that fighting to help the unemployed will do more for reelection chances than the milquetoast centrism that has characterized the administration recently. They are worried they will lose more votes than they gain if they fight for job creation, that they will be pegged as tax and spend liberals instead of defenders of the working class. But they seem oblivious to the dangers of being viewed as caring more about the interests of wealthy supporters driving the deficit reduction bandwagon than households who need their help."

bobswern (who I've never heard of) on DailyKos wrote Sunday’s NYT Lead: “White House Debates Fight on Economy”…Not.. "Is the actual strategy of our Party in 2012 going to be one where hope is held out that the Republicans will just scare the crap out of the public so much, voters will feel so compelled to stop them that they’ll rush to the polls to re-elect the President? You know, I never thought I’d say this—given that I’ve always found that a candidate running for re-election or election had to concisely provide reasons to the voter as to why they should cast their vote for them--but that strategy just might work…at least it would in a world where one is not tacitly demoralizing part of their base while attempting to underwhelm voters, in general; and, where their opposition is not spending a billion dollars to kick their ass."

Blue Texan (who I have read before) wrote on firedoglake White House Trying to Win Independents with Economic Policies That Do Nothing. "Memo to Jay Carney: putting forth half-assed, small beer proposals that you know will accomplish little because you think, cynically, that’s what “independents” want is a stunt. It’s the definition of a stunt. It’s also craven and cowardly when we’ve still got over 9% of the country unemployed. Also, “leadership” doesn’t mean trying to guess in advance what the Teabillies in the House will agree to, which by the way — is nothing. These people are absolutely pathetic."

Jame Hamsher wrote on firedoglake, It's Okay to be Scared Now. "So the two jobs plans under consideration are put on a show and score a “win” by paying off the Chamber, arming North Korea and offshoring 159,000 jobs with another NAFTA deal, or put on a show and pretend to care about passing legislation that will never happen. You know at some point people might get wise to the fact that Obama is the most powerful political figure in the world, and he does have options beyond being a corporate tool who lets his campaign manager rearrange the national lawn furniture."

"The White House does not seem to be able to conceive of actual governance as a viable option, and appear to be counting on the fact that Republicans are so crazy that if they don’t piss off elites they can cruise to victory in 2012 by flim-flamming the public with a series of PR stunts, even in the midst of soaring unemployment. After watching the Iowa Republican debate devolve into an argument over whether aborting innocent fetuses conceived in rape means victimizing them twice, I’m afraid they might well be right."