The Stimulus Race Against Time

Karen Hanretty pinpoints the reason President Obama and Congressional Democrats are rushing to get the stimulus bill passed.

President Obama is in a race against time.  Because you don’t build support over time.  You lose support. In other words, the longer it takes the conference committee to work out a final version of the bill (and we’re talking days, not weeks), the more time there is for the ugly details of this legislative beheamoth to be revealed.  It’s happening already, and the more the people know about how the sausage is being made, the less likely they are to want to want a serving.  [...]

Transparency is not in President Obama’s best interest right now.  Thus, the political urgency to get a bill on his desk he can sign.

As Patrick Ruffini has pointed before, "inevitable" "emergency"  legislation is "never more popular than on the day it is passed".  Current polling suggests the public does favor the stimulus legislation (CNN: 54-45; Pew 51-34; Gallup 59-33).   

However, those same polls carry a hint at the future.  55% said the bill spends too much (CNN).  Only 16% said government spending is the best way to stimulate the economy quickly (CBS). 

Remember:

  • Democrats win by focusing on the benefits.  "Look what we can do FOR you." 
  • Republicans win by focusing on the costs.  "Look what they're doing TO you."

The Democrats biggest advantage - the availability bias that focuses minds on the visible - will become their biggest problem.  When the recession is displaced in the public consciousness by announcements of massive, trillion dollar deficits, inevitable tax hikes and the forthcoming fiscal crisis, public opinion will change.  And so will the public priorities.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

when the worldwide depression ends

all hail the republicans??

whee.

[seriously, we're going to need to fix some DRASTIC shit after this one. Total economic evolution. the wheel will not revolve again]

Another incorrect meme: The Republicans Caused the "Depression"

It's time to call out the Democrats (including the President) who continually attempt to blame the Bush Administration and Republicans in general for the lovely global economic disaster in which we now find ourselves. Neither party has a leg to stand on in this matter, much less moral high ground, as we will see below:

Let me break this down for you:

  1. Community Reinvestment Act - Democrat Carter Administration - set up regulations for poor homebuyers to be recipients of mortgage loans with risks of default.
  2. Via Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, risky mortgage loans were guaranteed by the government.
  3. Community organizations such as ACORN lead protests in bank boardrooms and set the stage for additional lending to more at-risk lenders.
  4. Demand for homes rise, as do housing values.
  5. Banks and mortgage lenders engage in subprime mortage lending with ARMs, very little background checks including no tax returns or employment verification so that they can meet government lending quotas for poor homebuyers
  6. Brilliant geniuses such as Democrat Bob Rubin opposed regulation of derivatives and help drive opposition to Glass-Steagall which was introduced by another not-so-bright genius Republican Phil Gramm in 1999 Democrat Clinton Administration.
  7. The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act led by Robert Rubin and others of the CFR, has produced our current investment dilemma of the breakdown of the residential mortgage sector and created financialization -- a relatively new term used to discuss the emergence of a new form of capitalism in which financial markets dominate over the traditional industrial economy.
  8. Now banks can merge with insurance underwriters, and those who grant credit and invest credit can exist within the same corporation.  Risky home mortgages are bundled in exciting new financial "instruments" which can now be traded, swapped, hedged and leveraged
  9. Corporations (Enron comes to mind immediately) downgrade their debt - in fact Rubin begged the Treasury Department to convince bond trading agencies NOT to downgrade their debt specifically so they could be restructured, as Rubin had now become a bailout expert after helping solve the global financial crises of the 1990's.
  10. Through incredible mismanagement, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are exposed as no longer being able to guarantee mortgage loan defaults and are subsequently bailed out by the Republican Bush Administration. 
  11. The SEC is an overlawyered group of luddites with a total deficit of economic analysts and no IT system to track fraud (Tim Geithner testified they were receiving trade information such as Madoff's via handwritten notes, faxes and telephone calls).
  12. Welcome to Bailout Country courtesy of the Republican Bush Administration
  13. Welcome to Keynesian Spendthrift Country courtesy of the Democratic House and Senate with the blessing of President Obama

There's so much more, but I think of these steps as the basic gist of the transgressions which more or less led us here today.  This disaster was perpetrated by a long line of bipartisan stupidity, arrogance, greed and downright mismanagement by participants in both Democrat and Republican administrations.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was the foundation, that is the keystone, that provided for non-transparent financial manipulation and use of leverage to revolutionize the activities of investment beginning in 1999, to amass huge fortunes for the investment bankers who designed, marketed and oversaw the use of leveraged investments, and to generate awesomely speculative endeavors at hedge funds, which have gone unregulated by government oversight.  The SEC has been a technologically backward agency throughout every single administration, even Clinton's - who specifically fostered technology in the global markets.

Let's move on from this same old business-as-usual partisan meme, shall we?  And if you actually paid attention to history, you'd know that the one savior of economic crises brought about by Keynesian central planning failures are the free market principles and tax incentives espoused by libertarians and, yes, Republicans.  Obviously the markets need regulation,  but should still be as free as possible - and so should the taxpayers to invest as we choose, not as the government decides. 

less than a day for the SEC to bitch at me

when I made a bad trade. please, man, fuck off about the SEC. You OBVIOUSLY don't do your own trading.

Carter's community reinvestment act did jack shit to cause this mess. Talking about it IGNORES the problems -- rampant mortgage fraud, and a METRIC TON of speculative bullshit (erm, not real bull shit, you understand. that's a commodity).

The people MOST likely to default have been the speculators. NOT the people who have been taken advantage of using subprime shit.

I'm sorry, but when you start the whole thing out like that, you miss a lot of the problem. Unless you can tie NINJA and LIAR loans (the concept, mostly) to Carter, leave off about it!

 

None of what Fanny and Freddy did was guaranteed by the government -- am I wrong? They bundled mortgages together, and then sold them. Part of the problem was that people thought the loans were less risky than they were.

Most 90% of the subprime business was not to people eligible for the CRA. So please stop with the bullshit.

 

Stiglitz had a whole article in Vanity fair about this, and covers things with a more accurate eye.

The party didn't really get started until Bush basically appointed incompetent regulators -- clinton was a remarkably able administrator, so things didn't get out of control under his watch.

 

I'm not AT ALL saying that the Democrats are clean as snow, just that you're demonizing poor folks for bloody no reason

Not enough attention to that

You touched on a very important point:

They bundled mortgages together, and then sold them. Part of the problem was that people thought the loans were less risky than they were.

Those securities were then given favorable ratings.  Now, a AAA rating on a bond or security is questionable.  That's one big reason we have seen the outflow of foreign capital from our market.

Otherwise, what we see now would be a buyer's market.

But anyone interested in buying has seen the last guy just get stiffed, so they're more cautious now.  No buyer's market, but a buyer beware market. 

 

no, it's actually worse than that.

many of these bonds are expected to default -- and nobody knows which, because they've been bundled together! Hedge funds don't even know what they own, let alone what anyone else owns. Same thing with money markets -- so they flood the treasury bond markets, trying to get enough liquid equity so that they can pay anyoen who wants to cash out, without having to dip into illiquid (and sometimes insolvent) mortgage bundles.

If you want to put SOME blame on Freddy and Fanny, I don't blame you. But I'd put a lot more on Moody's and the other regulators. Plus hedge funds in general.

You miss the entire point

Which is that the Republicans alone are not to blame for the current economic crisis.  We can surely argue the finer points, on which I obtain more and more information daily such as this 2009 Outlook from Marc Farber:

...the monetary policies that have been pursued by the U.S. in particular over the last 10 years or so, they are actually responsible for the economic imbalances that we have experienced and that have now led to the financial crisis.  I give you just a very simple example: had LTCM not been bailed out in 1998, we wouldn't have the colossal leverage we have today because market participants would have been much more careful.  And so these bailouts have actually led to huge excesses and leverage  and excessive debt growth.  That brought about the crisis when debt growth slowed down. 

That would have been by far the better option, let Mexico go bankrupt in 1994, let LTCM go bankrupt in 1998, and certainly after 2001, not to cut interest rates as aggresively as they've done and then left them on the Fed fund rate at 1% until June 2004 when in fact the economic recovery in America began in November 2001.  So almost 3 years into an economic expansion the Fed fund rate is at 1%. And what people misunderstand is that in a system you have savers.  And when the savers don't get any interest on the bank deposits they go and do stupid things.  They invest in all kinds of speculative activities because it's actually the Fed that forces them to do that, because the interest rates are below the rates of inflation. 

Farber brings a very valid additional perspective to the table but the Mexico and LTCM bailouts occurred during the Clinton Administration and were executed by Rubin, Summers, and Geithner.  Naturally the behavior of the Fed since 2001 is certainly on Bush's watch, but the point still remains that this crisis was generated throughout both Democrat and Republican administrations. 

As far as what to do about it, I agree more with Nouriel Roubini and Axel Leijonhufvud than with Tim Geithner.  Leijonhufvud posted this opinion at VoxEU which Roubini has agreed with several times, most recently at Davos:

Sweden acted quickly and decisively to close insolvent banks, and to quarantine their bad assets into a special fund. Eventually, all the assets, good and bad, ended up in the private banking sector again. The stockholders in the failed banks lost all their equity while the loss to taxpayers of the bad assets was minimal in the end. The operation was necessary to the recovery but what actually got the economy out of a very sharp and deep recession was the 25-30% devaluation of the krona which produced a long period of strong export-led growth. Needless to say, the US is in no position to emulate this aspect of the Swedish success story.

Since the dollar is already devalued, I cede the point that we probably don't want to pursue that avenue further at this time.

see, I miss that point, because I'm not one of the ones

arguing that point. ;-) Larry Summers is an asshole, and he's winning out over Volkher, which is BAD NEWS.

Kudos on bringing up LTCM, you've certainly been doing your homework! I love Roubini, he's great.

Thanks for the tip on Sweden, I didn't realize about the exports.

You should really read Calculated Risk, if you don't already. They have insanely competent commenters there (Economists, CEOs of major corporations, folks from the Daily Show). Hell, half the stuff is over my head, and I still go there to read it anyway.

Calculated Risk

What a great site.  One of the most tragic events of 2008 was the loss of the prophetic, brilliant and adorable Doris "Tanta" Dungey, key contributor to the Calculated Risk blog.  My favorite Tanta phrases:

                           We're all subprime now

                     Putting lipstick on a subprime

and

                                Too big to slap!

And who can ever forget the intrepid Mortgage Pig Inside the Fed Meeting.

If you haven't yet been introduced to Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, here's the link.  Yet another area of common ground:  I also admire Stiglitz. 

If only I'd discovered how sexy economics was in 2006, I'd have paid of all my debt, bought gold, and would be sitting pretty right now, just in time for the dystopian apocalypse. 

Pfft

You should've bought palladium twenty years ago... seeing how high that rose from a friend of mine who was interested in investing made me cry...

buying gold? nah. silver's the man. likely to see accidental

squeezes in silver, as it's nobody's primary product, and the mines that do make it are dramatically reducing production. Also paying off non-credit card debt (or usurious mortgages) is a bad idea right now. IF we do get through this, you should expect massive inflation. And being wealth-negative makes a fantastic inflation hedge. [keep around some cash reserves. there will be buying opportunities on craigslist]

Tanta will be missed, as she is already missed. But this economy is killing everyone with worry.

Two Haikus, in case you missed Haiku friday:

 

When you must destroy Economy overnight Call Larry Summers

-Anonymous

aluminum hat resists corrosion from rain better than tin foil

-- Bill Gates

 

 

I must experience this thing called Haiku Friday

Because those haikus are effing hilarious (not to mention valid).  And of course the next time we experience a booming economy, assuming I should live so long, I'll be hoarding precious metals in my backyard bomb shelter.  Thx for the investment tips.

no problem! talk's cheap, money ain't.

They're doing haikus every time a bank fails, nowadays.

nova is writing much short stories about what happens in "the end times" for this phase of our economy. rings very true to life.

here's the link to haiku friday:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/bank-failure-haiku.html

 

I am hoping Volkher can overcome summers, but that outcome seems to dwindle the longer we wait.

Age and Treachery

Will usually beat youth and enthusiasm every time.  I wonder if Volcker is simply giving the arrogant Summers enough rope to hang himself with his own hubris, and allowing spendthrift Congress to hoist themselves up on their own petard.  If Pelosi and Reed are balking at taking strong medicine but Obama actually supports Volcker's policies, this costly mis-step will be required to get them out of Volcker's (and Obama's?) way once and for all.  By the time this fails, Americans may be screaming for Volcker's thrifty ways, standing athwart history yelling "STOP!".  I just hope the spendiing orgy fails quickly enough to save us in the long run.

You might find this interesting:

Mr.  Volcker should demand publicly that the administration adopt his policies that ended stagflation 30 years ago.  If it does not, he should resign and form a Shadow Open Market Committee to criticize Fed expansionist policies.  He should do this for the same reason that his actions put the U.S. economy through such trying times 30 years ago — because his loyalty is to America and the world and not to any individual or political party.  For all our sakes, I hope he does.  He saved the American economy once.  He can do it again.

 

 

Summers is the treacherous one.

The stimulus is not Summers baby -- the bad bank thing is summers baby.

Economics isn't Obama's field -- that's Constitutional Law (and race relations). But he's from Chicago, and they breed economists conservative there (and he's got a lot of behavioral economists too, which helps).

I do not think that the same solutions that ended stagflation are easily tuned to ending a probable deflationary spiral and the worldwide depression that has already begun. During a deflationary period, there may very well be no interest rate that could cause someone to invest -- it would remain against their interests, as the next day they could buy more than the previous day.

Who cares?

I can't help but think that people stuck on blaming today's crises on 30 years ago are a bit out of touch.

It's like that scene in that Airplane movie where the guy walks in and says, "Tell me everything that has happened."

The response was, "First, the earth cooled.  Then the dinosaurs became extinct....."

 

Sure, it was that darned old earth cooling that caused this crisis. 

Santayana, for one, would care

Somewhere between the time that the earth cooled and the time that man allegedly began to warm it up again, Goerge Santayana wrote:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience.

 

Well, then

Why didn't King Ronnie do something about it when He had the chance? 

He's dead, but we're not

We can all learn more about how all our cumulative government policies have brought us to this point so that we can respond with appropriate skepticism, rejection or support when current and future administrations commit the definition of insanity, which is doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results.  Or we can just be obstreperous. The former might be more effective than the latter.

Excuse me

But I believe that's alcoholics anonynous' definition of insanity, and not any legitimate psychologist.

Do you mean for me to understand that you accept AA's 12 Steps as a statement of conservative principle?

 

Einstien

That defintion comes from Albert Einstein, not AA.

The 12 Steps and their corresponding Principles

Since the definition of insanity was authored by Albert Einstein, but is often referred to in 12 step programs (not restricted to AA but including AA), let's say your assertion is fair enough and take a look at your syllogism:

Major Premise:  I referred to the AA Definition of Insanity

Minor Premise:  I practice conservative principles

Conclusion:  AA's 12 Steps are a statement of conservative principles

This appears to me to be a non sequitur, meaning that the Conclusion does not follow neatly from the Premises, so in answer to your question, umm...not so much.  

However, you do raise an inadvertently good point.  The 12 steps are quite a decent guide to living a life that's spiritual, self-examined, rigorously honest, accepts personal responsibility, admits mistakes promptly and corrects them, works in the interest of serving others and puts principles before personalities.  So while your conclusion may not follow from your premises, perhaps you've touched on an excellent model of bipartisan principles for both conservatives and liberals. Mad props ~ I like it. 

 

How's this?

Einstein was a physicist, not a psychologist.

No respsectable psychologist would cite the work of a physicist in any peer-reviewed publication.

That would be dumb.

You are no psychologist.

And if you were, then you would be a really dumb one.

 

this entire exchange is hillarious

thanks for the laugh.

This exchange...

... is insane. 

A point to ponder...

I absolutely agree with Mr. Henke regarding the rush to get the stimulus passed.

As a libertarian, I'm curious as to why many so Republicans are upset about the stimulus rush, but urged Patriot Act 1.0 through with the same speed and lack of transparency (or even reading the darned bill first).

anthrax on capital hill tends to do that to folks.

makes them a little anxious.

I continue to be concerned by the fact that the former president insisted that he kept any terrorist attacks off american soil after 9-11. If that WASN'T terrorism, why the hell would some governmental agency be targeting the democrats in congress?

Are You Serious?

The Patriot Act was passed because we needed to legally abolish the firewall between the FBI and CIA along with providing the same tools we use to track down drug trafficers for use against terrorists.

Besides saving lives, what else has the Patriot Act done wrong?

Hoist upon their own petard.

It seems that just about every other day now the Republicans complain about something where you can go into the record and find an exact parallel that they supported during Bush 43. It's laughable.

Jon Stewart got a good laugh when he said, "Apparently Republicans think that when a new administration takes over, C-SPAN goes back and erases all the video of the last administration."

YouTube is going to destroy the GOP three minutes at a time.

I agree...

....that Republicans are going to be doing an about-face in the upcoming years.   But if they do an about face, that implies that the Democrats have also done an about-face.

And that's sort of the point.  The transgressions have a lot less to do with whether somebody is Republican or Democrat and more to do with the structural incentives of the majority and minority.   It's a political problem, not a partisan problem.

we LOST. it's okay, shmuck.

worldwide depression has already started. global trade is off 45%, and only to get worse. (the last depression saw global trade down 60%, but that was from a lower proportion of goods and services)

Part right, part wrong

Definitely right about the lack of transparancy and speed.

Wrong debt. as an issue Reps can win on. Obama will win second term pretty easily just because minority and liberal likes him, and then he doesn't have to pay off accrued debt. He just needs to show a positive budget as Clinton did second term. Reps haven't had a positive budget since . . . . but Dems have.  Dems can look like conservatives. And the Obams team WILL not let people forget it unlike Gore who didn't seem to think that was an important selling point.

Clinton did it by slashing the military and being a bit lucky. Obama . . . maybe the same. I don't know. But if he does it in his 6th or seventh year, then it's not an issue for republicans.

can't slash the military right now.

the military has been positively burnt by bush, and needs to be regrown. but the brass is resilient (particularly the non-yes men, people who aren't ambitious shmucks named Clarke or Petraeus).

Positive budget would be fantastic if it happened. In 2018, we may still be in this depression...

What if......

I have another thought on why there is such a rush.

There is a report that retail sales shower an "unexpected" tick up.

Some estimates indicate that unemployment, why still bad and getting worse may be stabilizing.

What if there are indications that we are at the bottom.  Things will start to improve soon.  The administration will loose the fear needed to push through the garbage spending in this bill.  Plus, they need it passed fast so they can try to claim credit for any good news.

This may be the new “left wing conspiracy.”

http://federalistblogs.wordpress.com/

 

rofl. jack daniels and I say you can go to hell.

your reports and mine are at variance with each other. the contagion has already spread, and we are waiting for the backlash.

But by all means, INVEST! I'll be glad to take your money, same as anyone elses!

(if you are investing -- putting your MONEY where your mouth is. what are you investing in?)

not main reason, but . . .

I can't imagine them planning it that way, but it would be a heck of a nice coincidence for them.

ben bernanke and the federal reserve have the numbers

way the fuck ahead of whatever bullshit the bloke above you is quoting.

and TRUST ME, if the numbers were good, we'd be hearing about it. It would be unconscionable not to stop the panic at that point.

sadly, panic is the normal, healthy behavior right now, and is quite non-destructive on a personal scale.

I know someone getting divorced over cable. pfft. won't be the only one.

bullshit. and now with linkage!

http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2009/02/europe-gdp-drops.html

the destruction shall eat multitudes.

C'thulhu fhtagn!

you should find smarter reporters.

the smart people expected that tick up. it's called jan 1st, return day and gift card week.

Distorting polls

Jon Henke says he's an economic conservative who opposed Bush, not a Republican.  But he sure writes like a Republican.  Here he is pretending the polls show Americans opposing the stimulus.  He picks one number that seems in isolation to show that.  The overall polls that ask the simple question: "Do you support the stimulus package" show Americans support it by about 55/45.  The support is growing over time (not huge growth, but some). 

CBS Poll: Support for Stimulus Falls

Take the distortion argument to CBS, who wrote this:

Slightly more than half the country approves of President Obama's $800 billion-plus stimulus package, a new CBS News poll finds. But support for the bill has fallen 12 points since January, and nearly half of those surveyed do not believe it will shorten the recession. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed support the stimulus package, while 39 percent do not. An additional 10 percent don't know. Last month, 63 percent supported the package and just 24 percent opposed it. Americans believe the president is following through on his promise to establish greater bipartisanship in Washington: The public overwhelmingly thinks Obama is reaching out to Congressional Republicans, with 81 percent saying he is doing so. Americans do not believe that Congressional Democrats and Republicans are following suit, however: Only 49 percent believe that Congressional Democrats are striving for bipartisanship, and just 41 percent say Congressional Republicans are seeking bipartisanship. The different perceptions are reflected in the various parties' approval ratings: President Obama's approval rating stands at 62 percent, while the overall approval rating of Congress is 26 percent.

CNN reported that the USA Today and CBS numbers were identical.  Then there's the Rasmussen Poll:

Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week. For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Nuff said.

two polls do not a statistical sample make

Nate's certainly shown that by keeping everything calculated on his site.

just sayin'

Reading comprehension

Don't write things like this...

Here he is pretending the polls show Americans opposing the stimulus. 

....in response to a post in which I wrote "Current polling suggests the public does favor the stimulus legislation."