Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats' Stimulus Plan May Reach $700 Billion
WASHINGTON - Facing an increasingly ominous economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years.
Shoppers leave a discount shop in Aldershot in Hampshire. The government is expected to unveil plans to slash taxes and boost spending as it sets out a bold economic stimulus package designed to combat looming recession. (AFP/File/Carl de Souza) That amount, more than the nation has spent over the past six years in Iraq, would rival the sum Congress committed last month to rescuing the country's financial system. It would also be one of the biggest public spending programs aimed at jolting the economy since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
Hints of a hefty new spending program began emerging last week. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), an Obama adviser, and Harvard economist Lawrence H. Summers, whom Obama has chosen to lead his White House economic team, both raised the possibility of $700 billion in new spending. Yesterday, Obama adviser and former Clinton administration Labor secretary Robert Reich and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) also called for spending in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion.
Transition officials would not confirm that they are considering spending of that magnitude, but they made clear that economic conditions are dire, and suggested that Obama might be forced to delay his pledge to repeal President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
Last week, Goldman Sachs said it expects the economy to shrink even faster by the end of the year, at a 5 percent annualized rate. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 5.3 percent for the week; and the nation's largest bank, Citigroup, sought government assistance to avoid collapse.
While Obama has set a goal of creating or preserving 2.5 million jobs by 2011, his economic team -- whose members are scheduled to be formally introduced at a news conference today in Chicago -- have yet to decide how that would be accomplished or how much it would cost.
Still, Austan Goolsbee, a spokesman for Obama on economic issues who is in line to serve on the White House Council of Economic Advisers, yesterday acknowledged that Obama's jobs plan will cost substantially more than the $175 billion stimulus program he proposed during the campaign.
"This is as big of an economic crisis as we've faced in 75 years. And we've got to do something that's up to the task of confronting that," Goolsbee said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I don't know what the exact number is, but it's going to be a big number."
Republicans quickly criticized the idea of such a vast initiative, saying Congress should instead cut taxes to spur economic growth.
"Democrats can't seem to stop trying to outbid each other -- with the taxpayers' money," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "We're in tough economic times. Folks are hurting. But the American people know that more Washington spending isn't the answer."
With financial markets fluctuating wildly and unemployment rising, Democrats want to push a stimulus package through Congress in January and have it ready for Obama's signature when he takes office Jan. 20. Over the weekend, the president-elect announced that he had instructed his advisers to assemble a massive jobs program that also would make a "down payment" on much of his domestic agenda.
The plan would include new funding for public-works projects to repair the nation's crumbling infrastructure, as well as a fresh infusion of cash to promote green technology and alternative-energy sources. It also would include targeted tax cuts for working families, students, the elderly and job-creating businesses that Obama touted on the campaign trail.
It may not, however, include one of Obama's central promises: to repeal Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year. Speaking on ABC's "This Week," David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist, said the president-elect is weighing whether to let the cuts for the wealthy expire on Dec. 31, 2010, as provided in current law. Such a delay would permit Obama to avoid raising taxes during a recession.
"He's committed to getting middle-class tax relief in the pipeline quickly, and there's no doubt that we're going to have to make some hard decisions in order to pay for the things we need, whether it is through repeal of those tax cuts for the very wealthiest or whether we simply allow it to -- allow those cuts to expire in 2010," Axelrod said.
The projected cost of an economic stimulus package has been rising steadily as economic conditions have worsened. Economists who were calling a few months ago for $150 billion in government spending to offset flagging demand elsewhere in the economy are now pushing for $500 billion or more. Adding tax cuts to the package is expected to increase its cost to the Treasury by as much as $200 billion, Democrats said.
Even some conservative economists have endorsed the larger numbers.
Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, the former director of the National Bureau of Economic Research and an adviser to Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign, said he thinks the government should spend "a minimum of $300 billion a year for at least the next two years."
"The cumulative multi-year deficit would have to be about $700 billion or even more," Feldstein said in an e-mail yesterday.
Reich, speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," said the middle class is being squeezed by mountains of personal debt, plummeting home values and a vast tightening in available credit. As a result, he said, "there's not enough buying power in the economy," forcing the government to step in as "the spender of last resort."
In an interview, Schumer said the nation is on the brink of the same kind of deflationary spiral that pushed down prices, closed businesses and obliterated jobs during the Great Depression.
"The economy is in worse shape than people think," Schumer said. "The safest thing is to do anything you can to avoid deflation."
Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose aides have in recent weeks balked at suggestions that Democrats might spend as much as $300 billion, conceded yesterday on "Face the Nation" that the price of a stimulus package is likely to be "in the several hundred billion dollar category."
There are downsides to such a dramatic increase in government spending, especially at a time when the annual federal budget deficit already is spiraling toward $1 trillion -- about 7 percent of the gross domestic product -- a level not seen since the end of World War II. Increasing the deficit means increasing the national debt, which eventually will have to be repaid, with interest, to largely foreign creditors. It also means the nation will be even less prepared to cover the skyrocketing costs of Medicare and Social Security as the baby boomer generation retires.
Washington also could overshoot its target, sparking rampant inflation when the economy recovers. Or the money could be poorly directed and fail to efficiently stimulate the economy.
"The 1930s recession became the Great Depression because policymakers didn't take the necessary actions. Nobody wants to make that mistake this time around," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute who has been advising Democrats. "Is there a possibility that we could overshoot? Of course. But from what I've seen, the danger is not doing enough."
- Posted in



27 Comments so far
Show AllHonestly, it doesn't bother me even a little for "we the people" to spend money saving the economy. A huge however--however, if "we the people" buy the banks, the auto industry, et cetera, how come we the people don't end up owning the banks, the auto industry et cetera???????
Because that would be the wrong form of socialism. Evidently, in the "preferred" form the people can only own the finance and insurance companies, or the risk, not the manufacturers of wealth. Once the risk is over they'll take the insurance industry back.
"Republicans quickly criticized the idea of such a vast initiative, saying Congress should instead cut taxes to spur economic growth."
Yea really, if that worked we wouldn't be in this mess were in would we? It didn't work for Reagan/Bush Sr. and it hasn't worked for Bush Jr. Most of the time I think the republican leaders are mentally deficient.
Rickster
Ain't this the truth though Rickster!
But you are only partly right. The tax 'cuts' didn't work for guys like you and I, or for most people who actually have to work for a living, or for the small business sector, or for the poor who only manage to work occasionally....but they worked VERY well for the top 5% of income earners who increased their earnings by something like 20 times during the period starting with Reagan and ending today.
And now, they take our tax money (thank you very much) and they spend it on junkets at $1000 a night per room in resorts, and they spend it on mergers rather than on saving people's homes.
And I even know why, but that's a future post.
Hello Rickster
"Most of the time I think the republican leaders are mentally deficient."
True, but perhaps here is a more precise description: "All Republicans belong in mental institutions. The leaders for the criminally insane; the followers for the feeble minded."
And their slogan? "I upped my income, up yours."
Enjoy, Laurence of Berkeley
Our stoned and shitfaced president and member of MENSA (Spanish for "dumbhead") recently made another of his lucid and brilliant speeches about how he is a "free market kind of guy" except when facing an economic meltdown. Yet you can now hear what is left of his brother and sister Republicans in congress threatening Obama with the Spanish Inquisition for trying to help ordinary citizens by perhaps spending a few bucks to keep Americans out of bread lines. All these MoFo's should be hung from a sour apple tree and their bodies dumped unceremoniously on Sarah Palin's doorstep.
OK, now for why the MoFo's (as Mordachai so eloquently put it) scream foul every time someone who actually needs the money is slated to get it.
There are two main reasons:
1). This is not their political base and never has been. Nor is it their cash cow. The republicans are lucky in that their political base is very well-heeled and so not only will they vote, but they will give so much money and they even own the radio and TV stations which can run a 24x7 Republican Campaign ad all the time! Why the hell would you then want to actually give money to anyone else??
2). And this is the important social ill.
Have you ever seen the video's of the people who did NOT support the Democrats (I'm talking about the Republicans...not the progressives who couldn't stomach another centrist-lite candidate....)???
These people, almost always, are in their 40's or older and make the same arguments and they go something like this: I worked hard all my life. I paid my taxes. I got mine. These lazy and stupid poor people who didn't work a day in their lives are undeserving of my largess through the tax roles.
In short: The poor are all actually undeserving.
This is related to point 1.
This is the image we get every time the TV press wants to put a 'poor' person on the TV. They pick the most obnoxious, uneducated, fattest person they can find who has the most children by the most fathers (or mothers) and who cannot even speak a sentence as well as George W. Bush. They put this person on TV and let them hang all the poor by telling everyone else who is exhausted after working their 2nd job that such a person and by extension, all the poor, don't deserve one red cent!
Of course, it just doesn't occur to the huddled over-worked masses that maybe, just maybe, if they thought about it and agitated more and actually bothered to vote out anyone who pandered to the corporate interests that some of the tax largess WOULD come their way.
And it also never occurs to anyone over 50 that, in fact, when they were kids they benefited a GREAT DEAL from that largess...they all got Pell grants to go to school, they don't know these are largely gone. They got guaranteed student loans at extremely favorable terms and they even had the privilege of defaulting on them without severe credit consequences...no more. If they went into the military back when they were 18 they could count on a fully paid college education when they got out wherever they could be admitted. Or training in a technical school....no more.
And NO ONE is out there continually reminding THESE MoFo's just how much their parents and grandparents paid just so THEY could get these privileges and rights....
Its also Calvinism.
Believing that the chosen people are the ones who make money on earth. If you dont make money it must be because you arent chosen.
The word ungrateful should be used.
The ungrateful rich.
The ungrateful tax dodgers etc.
Ungrateful for the benefits they got from the social safety net.
The US(and to a certain extent Canada) have a frontier mentality.
All the religious psychotics moved to North America.
Naomi Klein's interview on Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/naomi_klein_on_the_bailout_profiteers
I thank you for the link.
Stimulus dynamics are not complex:
1) Unless the bulk of Obama's stimulus plan supports infrastructure (new and rehab.) projects it will do little good in the short run and no good in the long run, and
2) Unless single-payer medical insurance is implemented concurrent with the infrastructure stimulus, US manufacturing companies large and small will never recover.
How can we not consider taxing the rich far more? Has Obama been threatened?
Okay, ease up on those who make less than one million per year. Tax the hell out of the wealthiest of the wealthy who have profited immensely from a system rigged for increasing inequality of wealth for the past 30 years. Joe six-pack may find this okay.
These are the controlling forces of great wealth that have mandated the huge expansion of the military complex to simultaneously enrich themselves while protecting the “interests” of multinational corporations even to the point of waging false war.
How else can we pay for this recovery of predatory capitalism except for taxing those who have benifited most from corporate capitalist America.
Stephen V. Riley November 24th, 2008 2:27 pm
"How can we not consider taxing the rich far more?....Okay, ease up on those who make less than one million per year. Tax the hell out of the wealthiest of the wealthy who have profited immensely from a system rigged for increasing inequality of wealth for the past 30 years."
It is so obvious.
conference in Maputo, Mozambique calling for world attention to recognize small farmers - local production as solution to food soverignty crisis
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/letters/51604
Let me say again. You voted for the duelopoly, Democrats and Republicans. What are you bitching about? You knew or should have known what you were voting for.
Are you stupid or something?
I agree.
Ursa
I hate the power of the banks - you phone them to lower your interest that they Jack up to 29% because of a missed payment(discover). Then they agree to lower it to 22%. But when they fail they want you the goverment to bail them out with no strings attached . What elitest! Let them fail. They belong on the bottom of the ocean with the other scum sucking fish! I encourage everyone to stay away from thos plastic cards. There evil
Would you rather live through another great Depression? The Democrats are willing to do what's necessary to help our economy.
No I wouldn't like to live through another great depression. But Banks should have some accountability. They should not be given blank check to do as they please without any consequence so they can further squander (or is it rape and pillage) from the working class
"Would you rather live through another great Depression? The Democrats are willing to do what's necessary to help our economy." This is getting ridiculous, This is nothing like the great depression and just remember the same crooks that got us into this present mess are now going to still be in control. Nothing has changed except for the fact we are going deeper and deeper into debt.
You know why this is not like the great depression? No soup lines. Now there are only 30 million people on food stamps. What advancement we have made. Now people can eat and possibly pay for some health insurance. What a country.
The Bible has plenty of passages about ungodly moneylenders. Too bad every daily newscast and every newsapaper doesn't include a biblical quote about ungodly moneylenders.
Some have asked us to reveal the names of the banks that are borrowing, how much they are borrowing, what collateral they are posting,...We think that’s counterproductive.”
- Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Nov. 18, to the House Financial Services Committee when asked who the Fed lent over two trillion dollars to and what they secured as collateral.
Is Paulson colluding with GM's Management to Destroy their Unions?
From Mike Whitney at Counterpunch:
"GMAC Financial Services said Thursday it had applied to the U.S. Federal Reserve for bank holding company status, a step toward securing federal aid. The auto and home financing company said it had also submitted an application to the U.S. Treasury to participate in the Capital Purchase Program set up in the $700 billion financial firm bailout program known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
"As a bank holding company, GMAC would obtain increased flexibility and stability," the company said in a statement." (UPI)
So why would GMAC want to become a bank holding company if General Motors is headed for the chopping block? Could it be that the government is working out a secret deal with management to put the company through Chapter 11 (reorganization) just so it can crush the union and eliminate their pension and health care benefits in one fell swoop?
You bet. Car workers will be reduced to slave wages just like they are in sunny Alabama where sharecropping has moved indoors. And--no surprise--the Democrats are right on board with this labor-busting charade. The auto industry isn't going to be shut down. That's just more fear-mongering like the blather about martial law and WMD. Detroit is going to be transformed into a workers gulag; Siberia on Lake Michigan, which is why Paulson is withholding the $25 billion. It's plain old class warfare.
Full article "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet", Nov. 24 at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Well, it don't look good. Corzine hasn't been able to pull NJ out of the ditch and he squandered state pensions--while the CWA hounded him constantly about his bad investment decisions. Summers was one of the major architects of the policies that done brought us to the brink--and he is an obnoxious person as well, but Obama seems enamoured with him. You ever notice how they characterize these losers as "geniuses"? Meanwhile they must think we are fools not to see through Obama's latest groveling--pouring more of our money into Wall St coffers with no strings attached, and now cancelling the resumption of the tax burden on that same class that is benefitting - actually repeating the meme that raising taxes in bad economic times would be a hardship. Again--this is just more deception--presenting it as a tax hike on us all--when it is really the wealthy paying their fair share. They could at least contribute to their own bailouts.
Obama, almost immediately showed his hand and it is a disappointing one. The thing is--I have lost all respect I may have ever had for Obama. Pull out of Iraq, stay out of Afghanistan, stop funding Israel's fatherland and the economic picture would immediately brighten. It doesn't take a genuis.
ON NOT RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH DURING A RECESSION
"The [stimulus] plan...may not, however, include one of Obama's central promises: to repeal Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year...Obama's chief political strategist, said the president-elect is weighing whether to let the cuts for the wealthy expire...Such a delay would permit Obama to avoid raising taxes during a recession."
Makes perfect sense - wouldn't want added tax revenue to pay for the plan and stimulate broadbased spending by those hit hardest, vs. the jobs created by business class plane tickets and $500 haute cuisine dinners, now would we?
"It may not, however, include one of Obama's central promises: to repeal Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year."
In the first place, Lori Montgomery of The Washington Post, it's individuals earning more than $250,000 a year . . . not "families earning more than $250,000 a year." If I earn $250,000/year and my spouse earns $250,000/year, there would be no tax increase at all.
In the second place, the tax increase would only apply to income above $250,000/year. So, if I earn $250,000/year and my spouse earns $251,000/year, the higher tax rate would apply to only $1.
So, WHY wouldn't Obama repeal the Bush tax cut on such income? Individuals (not families) earning tens of millions and hundreds of millions a year can afford to pay their fair share, and the country needs it.
Someone asked earlier, "has Obama been threatened?" Yes he has been. The threat is seen right here in the Washington Post's story: repeal the tax cut for the rich, and we'll attack you and bury you with spin.