If nothing else, Mitt Romney seems dedicated to proving that repetition of a lie will make it true. On no point is Romney's tilting against the windmill of truth more comically pathetic than his long-ago debunked claim that President Obama "did not cause this recession, but he made it worse." After a tidal wave of fact-checkers demolished his mythology last summer, Romney on June 30 pretended, "I didn't say that things are worse" before reinstating the falsehood in his stump speech just days later. Now, Mitt has a new twist on his "Obama made it worse" fraud, declaring in light of the improving economic outlook that "It's getting better not because of him, it's in spite of him and what he's done."
Sadly for the myth-maker from Massachusetts, the numbers and the overwhelming consensus of economists - including John McCain's 2008 brain trust - demand Mitt Romney give credit where credit is due.
"The president is going to try and take responsibility for things getting better. You know, it's like the rooster taking responsibility for the sunrise. He didn't do it," Romney said. "In fact, what he did was make things harder for America to get going again."
But back on planet Earth where the force of gravity still applies and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Romney's slander shuold receive the ridicule it rightly deserves.
This summer, Time blasted Romney's accusation that "the recession is deeper because of our President," concluding "that Romney's claim has no credible basis" because "there's no credible economic data showing that Obama has inflamed our economic problems." As Greg Sargent noted on June 27, both the AP and the Washington Post's own fact-checker demolished Romney's talking point on the recession which the NBER declared over in June 2009. Confronted three days later by NBC producer Sue Kroll about the growing economy, modest job gains and surging stock market, Romney simply denied he ever made the charge:
"I didn't say that things are worse...What I said was that economy hasn't turned around."
Nevertheless, just four days later Romney marked Independence Day by returning to his lie. As the New York Times reported:
Speaking at the annual July Fourth parade here on Monday, Mr. Romney told a crowd of supporters and passersby, "the recession is deeper because of our president," adding, "it's seen an anemic recovery because of our president."
Mr. Romney made a similar assertion earlier when reporters had pressed him on the point near the parade staging grounds, after initially seeming to limit his commentary to the president's handling of the recovery, which he said, "has been slower and more painful,'' But then he went ahead and said it, that the president "made the recession worse."
As it turns out, it's not just the tidal wave of reporters and fact-checkers that washed away the mud Mitt Romney hurled at President Obama on the economy. A bevy of economists, including ones who worked for Romney endorser John McCain, long ago concluded that Barack Obama saved the U.S. economy from calamity.
On this the fourth Thanksgiving weekend since the start of the Bush recession, families across America are still struggling with persistently high unemployment, underwater mortgages and stagnant wages. But as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reminded us this week, Americans can be thankful for the 2009 stimulus. Despite Republican mythmaking that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) "created zero jobs," the CBO reported that the stimulus added up to 2.4 million jobs and boosted GDP by as much as 1.9 points in the past quarter. As it turns out, that conclusion confirms the consensus of most economists - including John McCain's 2008 brain trust- that President Obama's recovery program is continuing to deliver benefits for the American people.
From the beginning, the CBO has testified to the success of the largely concluded 2009 stimulus package in driving employment and economic growth. (That's one reason why Republicans like GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich want to abolish the agency.) Now, as The Hill reported Tuesday, the CBO has found that "President Obama's 2009 stimulus package continues to benefit the struggling economy":
The agency said the measure raised gross domestic product by between 0.3 and 1.9 percent in the third quarter of 2011, which ended Sept. 30. The Commerce Department said Tuesday that GDP in that quarter was only 2 percent total.
CBO said that the stimulus also lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 and 1.3 percentage points and increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million...
By CBO's numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011.
But to really gauge the success of the stimulus, it's worth taking a second look at just how dire the U.S. economic situation was when the Obama administration made its fateful prediction that unemployment would peak at 8 percent. As The Economist and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein detailed, in early 2009 the American economy was not only in much worse shape than anyone imagined; it was literally on the brink of collapse.
Writing in the New York Times, Catherine Rampell summed up the new U.S. GDP data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. "The American economy, "she wrote, "has finally reached the size it was before the recession began four years ago." But as Martin Sullivan explained in words and pictures (above):
Republicans constantly remind us that the Obama stimulus--the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--did not work. They voted against it. In the United Kingdom the government is led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. His government did not adopt stimulus. Instead it boldly enacted an economic program that cut spending and raised taxes. The chart below shows the results and compares it to the U.S. experience. After three and a half years, U.S. GDP is just about returning to the pre-recession peak. That's awful. But it's far better than the U.K. where GDP is still five percent ($750 billion in US terms) below its pre-recession peak.
If anything, Sullivan understates the divergent paths and performance of Team Obama in Washington and David Cameron's Tory "austerians" in London. As the data show, the 2008 economic calamity in the U.S. was more severe. As The Economist and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post documented, only months after the February 2009 passage of the stimulus did the White House and the American people learn than the U.S. economy actually contracted by a staggering 8.9 percent in the last quarter of 2008. Reviewing CBO data, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that without the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, U.S. GDP could have been up to 2.5 percent lower. By the third quarter of 2011, CBO estimated that ARRA saved up to 2.5 million jobs and reduced the unemployment rate by 1.3 percent. As former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi put it last year, federal intervention prevented "Depression 2.0."
To be sure, trillions in lost economic growth, persistently high unemployment and consumer spending stuck at 2006 levels are nothing to write home about. But British Prime Minister David Cameron would take U.S. economic performance in a heartbeat.
"The chief consequence of the conservatives' unrelenting faith in the badness of government," Thomas Franks wrote three years ago in The Wrecking Crew, "is bad government." But would happen if virtually every article of that faith were wrong or, much worse, a blatant lie? Then you'd have something that looks very much like the crisis over the soon-to-be breached U.S. debt ceiling. After all, despite the dire warnings of impending doom from economists, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street ratings agencies, GOP-friendly business groups and even some of their leaders, many Republicans would sooner see the United States default and its recovery destroyed than follow the dictates of either national interest or reason. And it's all because the Republican prime directive - political power at any cost - trumps the truth.
Arizona's Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Senate Republican, gave the game away in April when his office declared his slander of Planned Parenthood was "not intended to be a factual statement." So it is for just about every GOP talking point. Tax cuts don't "pay for themselves." The GOP job creators didn't create jobs after the Bush tax cuts, though they did when their taxes were higher. There are neither "death panels" nor a "government takeover of health care" in the Affordable Care Act which, despite Republican myth-making, actually reduces the national debt over the next decade. Barack Obama isn't a Muslim, but he was born in the United States. Public employees are not overpaid and vote fraud does not threaten American democracy. Global warming isn't "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." And we did not go to war in Iraq "because we were attacked."
Despicable and dangerous as these frauds are, they didn't threaten to destroy the American economy in a matter of days and with it, the global financial system.
On the same day last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Wall Street rating agencies joined the ever-louder chorus of voices warning Republicans that failure to raise the U.S. debt ceiling would result in "calamity." Those pleas followed a new analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center concluded that failure to boost the debt ceiling by the August drop-dead window would force the U.S. Treasury to immediately slash spending by 44%. As The Hill reported, "On an annualized basis, the cut in spending alone is a 10 percent cut in GDP, BPC scholar Jay Powell told reporters." The IMF similarly cautioned that "the debt ceiling should be raised as soon as possible to avoid damage to the economy and world financial markets." 235 economists - including six Nobel Prize winners - signed an open letter to Congressional leaders urging them to raise the ceiling, and to do so "without attaching drastic and potentially dangerous reductions in federal spending." Failure to do so, they warned, "could push the United States back into recession." So it came as no surprise when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner declared on Thursday, "We're running out of time" to avoid what Ezra Klein deemed the "catastrophic calculations" of default.
But Republicans don't need to take Geithner's word for it. They can heed the words of their party bosses.
In their few moments of candor, GOP leaders expressed agreement with Tim Geithner's assessment that default by the U.S. "would have a catastrophic economic impact that would be felt by every American." The specter of a global financial cataclysm has been described as resulting in "severe harm" (McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi), "financial collapse and calamity throughout the world" (Senator Lindsey Graham) and "you can't not raise the debt ceiling" (House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan). In January, even Speaker John Boehner acknowledged as much:
"That would be a financial disaster, not only for our country but for the worldwide economy. Remember, the American people on Election Day said, 'we want to cut spending and we want to create jobs.' And you can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt."
Boehner's head count doesn't begin to do justice to the Republican fiscal recklessness bordering on dementia.
For months, Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty led the default denier chorus. While Mitt Romney joined Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul in supporting the "Cut, Cap and Balance" Pledge which demands a balanced budget amendment and draconian spending cuts as conditions of raising the debt ceiling. This week, the House and Senate will vote on their respective versions of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which among other things would require supermajorities to raise taxes or breach a federal spending cap targeted at 18% of U.S. gross domestic product.
House Republicans voted to make the Ryan budget law. But the Ryan budget includes $6 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years, which means that to become law, the Ryan budget would require a substantial increase in the debt ceiling. But before the Republicans agree to increase the debt ceiling so that the budget they passed can become law, Republicans are demanding the passage of either a balanced budget amendment that would make the Ryan budget unconstitutional or a spending cap that the Ryan budget would, in certain years (and if you're using more realistic numbers, in all years), exceed.
Nevertheless, House Republicans, pressured by Tea Party zealots, have been digging in their heels. This week, Congressmen Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA) joined Bachmann in calling the Obama administration's warnings about the August 2 deadline lies. (Not to be outdone, Sarah Palin, who previously blasted "Timothy Geithner's false statements to the American people," tweeted "Obama lies, economy dies.") Georgia Rep. Paul Broun called for the debt ceiling to be lowered to $13 trillion, would necessitate immediately cutting roughly three-fourths of all federal spending. And while Arkansas Rep. Eric "Rick" Crawford announced that a default "wouldn't work for just a few days, that would work for a few years," his freshman colleague Mo Brooks (R-AL) insisted no debt ceiling increase, no problem. As the Washington Post reported:
"There should be no default on August 2," Brooks said. "In fact, our credit rating should be improved by not raising the debt ceiling."
That stands in contrast to a warning from Moody's. The rating agency said Wednesday that it might downgrade the U.S. government's top-notch credit rating, "given the rising possibility that the statutory debt limit will not be raised on a timely basis, leading to a default."
"The people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al Qaeda terrorists. Really. They're really putting our whole society at risk by threatening to round up 50 percent of the members of the Congress, who are loony, who would put our credit at risk."
I think it's a clear indication that the Republican reflexive obstructionism has reached absurd levels when even Chris Wallace calls you on your crap. All that pearl clutching over the deficit--something that mattered not a whit during the Bush years--now requires that Obama offset the costs of extending unemployment insurance but not for the Republican answer for all societal evils, tax cuts for the wealthy. Wrap your mind around that cognitive dissonance.
WALLACE: Congressman Pence, why is it that extending unemployment benefits has to be paid for according to Republicans but extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy which would cost $678 billion, that doesn’t have to be paid for?
PENCE: Well, let me…look, Republicans, me included, have supported numerous extensions of unemployment benefits. We’re anxious to do so again. But look….the deficit this year is a trillion dollars for the second year in a row and more. The American people have had it with runaway federal spending, deficits and debt and they want to begin to see the men and women in Washington DC begin to make the hard choices and prioritize spending. The other part of it too…
[crosstalk]
WALLACE: But you’re not answering the question. I can understand the argument: pay for the unemployment benefits. Why then not pay for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
Pence weasels out of it again. Because clearly, there are no justifications for this except craven political ones. He then argues that the tax cuts expand the economy, despite the fact that the expressed concern up to this point has been reducing the deficit.
Lowering taxes puts money in consumers' pockets quickly, but economists worry that with uncertainty running high, many households will choose to save rather than spend the money. While most economists would like to see the U.S. saving rate rise from its current low level of 1.2 percent, a sudden jump in savings would deepen the recession.
Many economists are pushing for targeted benefits such as food stamps or extending unemployment benefits. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, estimates that every dollar dedicated to increasing food stamps puts $1.73 into the economy. Increasing jobless insurance benefits typically gets a return of $1.64 per dollar. (here)
Obama also is expected to support tax cuts for businesses, which would raise corporate profits and may help the stock market. Unless the economy recovers quickly those tax reductions would probably do little to encourage companies to step up hiring and investment, Deutsche Bank economist Peter Hooper said.[..]
In congressional testimony last year, Zandi said tax cuts delivered the least bang for the buck, with a dollar's worth of temporary nonrefundable rebates worth $1.02 with a one-year lag. Permanent tax cuts yielded less than 50 cents of additional spending.
So by his own admission, Pence wants to do the least effective method of expanding the economy and add hundreds of billions to trillions to the deficit all the while gnashing and wailing about those irresponsible Democrats growing the deficit. Wow. Nice game if you can get it.
Isn't that great news? He also told George Stephanopoulos on This Week there will be "growth in the spring." (Just like Chauncy Gardiner in "Being There.")
But it isn't true. The recession isn't over until jobs increase, and that's not really happening. Summers is saying we "only" lost 11,000 jobs last month, and that's not exactly true. The numbers were brought down by a number of factors, including the large numbers of people who have given up and stopped looking for work.
Nonetheless, everyone agrees Larry Summers is a Very Serious Person, so I will take his word for it and just sit here, waiting for my pony.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Mr. Summers, let me begin with you, and let's start with just the overall economic situation right now, especially on jobs. We saw that drop in unemployment in November, but private economists predict that unemployment is likely to head back up. Mark Zandi sees it peaking at about 10.6 percent next year. Others say it could go up to 11 percent. Is that in line with your forecast?
SUMMERS: George, here is what I know. We were talking about depression, we were talking about the financial system collapsing. Today, everybody agrees that the recession is over, and the question is what the pace of the expansion is going to be. These things happen in stages. First, GDP goes up. That has happened. Then, hours that are worked by workers who already have jobs go up. That's starting to happen. Then employment goes up. We got very close to that this year, this month, with only 11,000 jobs lost. And then unemployment starts to come down. So these problems weren't made in a month or a year, and they are going to take a substantial time to solve. But what we can take satisfaction from is that we've walked back from the brink. And you know, forget what we say. Most professional forecasters are now looking for a return to job growth by spring.
Now, when job growth starts, more people are going to be looking for work, so it will take a little longer for the unemployment statistics to come down, but make no mistake, we were losing 700,000 a month when President Bush turned the economy over to President Obama. The number last month was 11,000.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pin you down on that, though. You believe the economy is actually going to be creating jobs in the spring.
SUMMERS: That is the judgment of most professional forecasters. That's right, George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So given that...
SUMMERS: If you look at the employment statistics, they will show employment growth. They were showing losing 700,000 a month. Last month, they showed losing 11,000 jobs. They will bounce from month to month, but I believe that, as do most professional forecasters, that by spring, employment growth will start to be turning positive.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So given that, we saw the president allowed some job creation ideas earlier this week. What is the upper limit on what he will sign into law in terms of new job creation measures early next year? $100 billion?
SUMMERS: The president is going to work with Congress to do what's necessary. George, it's a bit of a Washington thing to put this in terms of price tags. For example, the president is doing a whole set of things, working with other...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the American people want to...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not a Washington thing.
SUMMERS: To promote our exports. That doesn't have a -- that does not have a direct cost. But the president has talked about doing things for infrastructure. It doesn't cost anything to encourage banks, as the president will be doing, to meet their responsibilities and expand the flow of credit to small business.
We're in a very different -- we are in a very special kind of economic situation, and frankly, jobs have to be the top priority, and every bill is going to be a jobs bill going forward. We hope we can find common ground. We emphasize support for small businesses, repairing the nation's infrastructure. These ought to be things that everybody can agree on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me just pin you down, though, one more time on that. You did lay out a number of ideas that don't cost money, but extending unemployment costs money. Aid to states and local governments costs more money. Investing in infrastructure costs money. So what is the upper limit on what President Obama will sign?
SUMMERS: The president is going to do what's necessary to respond to this crisis. He's put a figure of $50 billion on the infrastructure support that he proposes. His proposals on unemployment insurance are primarily a continuation of the legislation that the Congress has already passed and that has been put in place. And he recognizes that when we take new steps, we have to do it in the context of a framework that is fiscally responsible. We can't just look in isolation at one measure. We've got to look at the $8 trillion in deficit over the next 10 years that the president inherited, and start making progress with respect to those deficits. That's what the president did in his budget. That's what the health care bill does with the most consequential set of health care reforms that have ever been put forward, and they are now on the brink of passage.
The chances that the decline of the U.S. dollar will turn into a rout that triggers a worldwide financial crisis are “one in four and rising,” a U.S. economist said Wednesday.
“I think there is a reasonable risk that there is some kind of brief global financial crisis,” Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Economy.com Inc. of West Chester, Pa., said in an interview in Toronto, after a presentation on the U.S. and world economic outlook. “How brief and how severe will depend on how global policy makers respond to it.”
The U.S. dollar has fallen about 15 per cent on a broad trade-weighted basis since peaking three years ago, driven by growing concern about the United States' massive and growing current account and trade deficits, and helping to push up the Canadian dollar, the euro and the yen in the process. If the decline remains orderly, Mr. Zandi expects the greenback to fall another 10 per cent or so over the next three years.
However, the stresses that could trigger a disorderly plunge are “evident and they're growing,” he said.
The key issue is the “increasingly unhealthy” ...More
Tim Rutten Column on Schiavo Case Constitutes Authoritative Catholic View Take Back the Times
Tim Rutten's column in Saturday's Calendar section, March 26, constitutes a useful, even admirable statement of authoritative Catholic views on the unfolding case of Theresa Maria Schiavo. In fact, Tim's religious-based view makes him an unusually valuable columnist for The Times and has for many years.Jim Hightower's Weblog
The chances that the decline of the U.S. dollar will turn into a rout that triggers a worldwide financial crisis are “one in four and rising,” a U.S. economist said Wednesday.
“I think there is a reasonable risk that there is some kind of brief global financial crisis,” Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Economy.com Inc. of West Chester, Pa., said in an interview in Toronto, after a presentation on the U.S. and world economic outlook. “How brief and how severe will depend on how global policy makers respond to it.”
The U.S. dollar has fallen about 15 per cent on a broad trade-weighted basis since peaking three years ago, driven by growing concern about the United States' massive and growing current account and trade deficits, and helping to push up the Canadian dollar, the euro and the yen in the process. If the decline remains orderly, Mr. Zandi expects the greenback to fall another 10 per cent or so over the next three years.
However, the stresses that could trigger a disorderly plunge are “evident and they're growing,” he said.
The key issue is the “increasingly unhealthy” ...More
