What a Second Stimulus Should - and Shouldn't - Look Like
Recounting the findings of a new study by the Keystone Research Center, the Denver Business Journal
reports that "the unemployment rate would approach 16 percent
nationally -- more than 6 percentage points higher than the current
jobless rate -- if not for the federal stimulus program." This comports
with data released earlier by the Congressional Budget Office and
Recounting the findings of a new study by the Keystone Research Center, the Denver Business Journal
reports that "the unemployment rate would approach 16 percent
nationally -- more than 6 percentage points higher than the current
jobless rate -- if not for the federal stimulus program." This comports
with data released earlier by the Congressional Budget Office and with the opinions of both liberal and ultra-conservative economists.
Such consensus should end the debate about whether or not Congress
should pass another stimulus bill. It should - the only debate should be
over the shape of that stimulus bill, and even that shouldn't be up for
debate, though, unfortunately, it most certainly is.
From both liberal and conservative economists - as well as from
history - we know that direct government spending on things like
infrastructure and education investment is a good way to prime the
economy in the short term and the long term. So is spending on stuff
like unemployment benefits and food stamps, which puts money into the
hands of those who will spend it immediately on necessities. And, of
course, we know from polls
that spending on such priorities is far more politically/electorally
popular than devoting more money to corporate tax cuts or to deficit
reduction.
We also know from the Bush era - and from 20th century history in general - that tax cuts are far less effective at spurring economic development than direct spending. That's why this Washington Post story is so troubling:
Under mounting pressure to intensify his focus on
the economy ahead of the midterm elections, President Obama will call
for a $100 billion business tax credit this week...The business proposal
- what one aide called a key part of a limited economic package - would
increase and permanently extend research and development tax credits
for businesses...
Sure, it's great that the president today is talking about spending $50 billion on infrastructure.
As evidenced by this very diary, I obviously support such new spending.
But when the paltry sum of $50 billion is put up against double that
amount in corporate tax cuts, it seems like the administration's
priorities are all screwed up. If the job-creating weakness of the first
stimulus bill was it's willingness to devote roughly 40 percent of its
funds to less-effective tax cuts and just 60 percent to
employment-boosting spending, then a similar weakness will even more
amplified in new stimulus proposals that, by the administration's
initial figures, may end up devoting double to tax cuts what it devotes
to infrastructure spending.
After all, there are two fundamental problems with the tax cuts
being proposed: 1) In general, tax cuts have not proven to be a very
good short- or long-term job creator or economic engine and 2) In
specific, as Citizens for Tax Justice has long reported,
the R&D tax credit has become something of a corporate boondoggle,
especially in light of the far more effective direct government spending
on R&D. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal
has lambasted this particular tax credit as blatant corporate welfare,
noting that, according to the Government Accountability Office, 70
percent of it goes not to small businesses in need, but to
already-wealthy multinational firms with receipts of $1 billion or more.
Think big drug companies, as just one example.
But maybe that's the unfortunate point. Maybe this is yet another
example of the administration looking first at how a policy can satisfy
Big Money, and then at the (alleged) residual benefits to average
American workers - rather than looking at it in the opposite way. If
that's the case, it's tragic - because the success of the first
stimulus's spending gives the administration strong ammunition to put
forward a far more progressive proposal, one that would be far more
politically popular for Democrats in advance of the 2010 election.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Recounting the findings of a new study by the Keystone Research Center, the Denver Business Journal
reports that "the unemployment rate would approach 16 percent
nationally -- more than 6 percentage points higher than the current
jobless rate -- if not for the federal stimulus program." This comports
with data released earlier by the Congressional Budget Office and with the opinions of both liberal and ultra-conservative economists.
Such consensus should end the debate about whether or not Congress
should pass another stimulus bill. It should - the only debate should be
over the shape of that stimulus bill, and even that shouldn't be up for
debate, though, unfortunately, it most certainly is.
From both liberal and conservative economists - as well as from
history - we know that direct government spending on things like
infrastructure and education investment is a good way to prime the
economy in the short term and the long term. So is spending on stuff
like unemployment benefits and food stamps, which puts money into the
hands of those who will spend it immediately on necessities. And, of
course, we know from polls
that spending on such priorities is far more politically/electorally
popular than devoting more money to corporate tax cuts or to deficit
reduction.
We also know from the Bush era - and from 20th century history in general - that tax cuts are far less effective at spurring economic development than direct spending. That's why this Washington Post story is so troubling:
Under mounting pressure to intensify his focus on
the economy ahead of the midterm elections, President Obama will call
for a $100 billion business tax credit this week...The business proposal
- what one aide called a key part of a limited economic package - would
increase and permanently extend research and development tax credits
for businesses...
Sure, it's great that the president today is talking about spending $50 billion on infrastructure.
As evidenced by this very diary, I obviously support such new spending.
But when the paltry sum of $50 billion is put up against double that
amount in corporate tax cuts, it seems like the administration's
priorities are all screwed up. If the job-creating weakness of the first
stimulus bill was it's willingness to devote roughly 40 percent of its
funds to less-effective tax cuts and just 60 percent to
employment-boosting spending, then a similar weakness will even more
amplified in new stimulus proposals that, by the administration's
initial figures, may end up devoting double to tax cuts what it devotes
to infrastructure spending.
After all, there are two fundamental problems with the tax cuts
being proposed: 1) In general, tax cuts have not proven to be a very
good short- or long-term job creator or economic engine and 2) In
specific, as Citizens for Tax Justice has long reported,
the R&D tax credit has become something of a corporate boondoggle,
especially in light of the far more effective direct government spending
on R&D. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal
has lambasted this particular tax credit as blatant corporate welfare,
noting that, according to the Government Accountability Office, 70
percent of it goes not to small businesses in need, but to
already-wealthy multinational firms with receipts of $1 billion or more.
Think big drug companies, as just one example.
But maybe that's the unfortunate point. Maybe this is yet another
example of the administration looking first at how a policy can satisfy
Big Money, and then at the (alleged) residual benefits to average
American workers - rather than looking at it in the opposite way. If
that's the case, it's tragic - because the success of the first
stimulus's spending gives the administration strong ammunition to put
forward a far more progressive proposal, one that would be far more
politically popular for Democrats in advance of the 2010 election.
Recounting the findings of a new study by the Keystone Research Center, the Denver Business Journal
reports that "the unemployment rate would approach 16 percent
nationally -- more than 6 percentage points higher than the current
jobless rate -- if not for the federal stimulus program." This comports
with data released earlier by the Congressional Budget Office and with the opinions of both liberal and ultra-conservative economists.
Such consensus should end the debate about whether or not Congress
should pass another stimulus bill. It should - the only debate should be
over the shape of that stimulus bill, and even that shouldn't be up for
debate, though, unfortunately, it most certainly is.
From both liberal and conservative economists - as well as from
history - we know that direct government spending on things like
infrastructure and education investment is a good way to prime the
economy in the short term and the long term. So is spending on stuff
like unemployment benefits and food stamps, which puts money into the
hands of those who will spend it immediately on necessities. And, of
course, we know from polls
that spending on such priorities is far more politically/electorally
popular than devoting more money to corporate tax cuts or to deficit
reduction.
We also know from the Bush era - and from 20th century history in general - that tax cuts are far less effective at spurring economic development than direct spending. That's why this Washington Post story is so troubling:
Under mounting pressure to intensify his focus on
the economy ahead of the midterm elections, President Obama will call
for a $100 billion business tax credit this week...The business proposal
- what one aide called a key part of a limited economic package - would
increase and permanently extend research and development tax credits
for businesses...
Sure, it's great that the president today is talking about spending $50 billion on infrastructure.
As evidenced by this very diary, I obviously support such new spending.
But when the paltry sum of $50 billion is put up against double that
amount in corporate tax cuts, it seems like the administration's
priorities are all screwed up. If the job-creating weakness of the first
stimulus bill was it's willingness to devote roughly 40 percent of its
funds to less-effective tax cuts and just 60 percent to
employment-boosting spending, then a similar weakness will even more
amplified in new stimulus proposals that, by the administration's
initial figures, may end up devoting double to tax cuts what it devotes
to infrastructure spending.
After all, there are two fundamental problems with the tax cuts
being proposed: 1) In general, tax cuts have not proven to be a very
good short- or long-term job creator or economic engine and 2) In
specific, as Citizens for Tax Justice has long reported,
the R&D tax credit has become something of a corporate boondoggle,
especially in light of the far more effective direct government spending
on R&D. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal
has lambasted this particular tax credit as blatant corporate welfare,
noting that, according to the Government Accountability Office, 70
percent of it goes not to small businesses in need, but to
already-wealthy multinational firms with receipts of $1 billion or more.
Think big drug companies, as just one example.
But maybe that's the unfortunate point. Maybe this is yet another
example of the administration looking first at how a policy can satisfy
Big Money, and then at the (alleged) residual benefits to average
American workers - rather than looking at it in the opposite way. If
that's the case, it's tragic - because the success of the first
stimulus's spending gives the administration strong ammunition to put
forward a far more progressive proposal, one that would be far more
politically popular for Democrats in advance of the 2010 election.