Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

The Economic Recovery Plan America Needs

By Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect. Posted February 15, 2008.


A "stimulus" package only works for ordinary, business-cycle downturns. But this is no ordinary recession.
Advertisement

UPDATE: The Senate late Thursday afternoon passed a stimulus bill that adds tax rebates for 20 million elderly people excluded from the House version, as well as 250,000 handicapped veterans. Senate Democrats failed by one vote to get a stronger bill, with extended unemployment benefits, more money for food stamps, and emergency energy assistance for the poor.

Basically, the Democrats played a potentially strong hand badly. They began with a package too small and too feeble, so when it came time to split the differences with the Republicans they were vulnerable to the usual salami tactics.

Senate Democrats and Republicans are currently debating whether to pass a stimulus bill that spends $158 billion (the Senate Democratic package) -- or the $145 billion passed by the House. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is currently one vote short of the 60 Senate votes that he needs. The battle is certainly worth waging, because it compels Senate Republicans to either vote for a slightly better bill written by Democrats, or to oppose added support for the elderly, veterans, food-stamp aid, energy assistance, and extended benefits for the unemployed.

But the sums in both bills are far too paltry, given the severe downturn that the nation's economy faces. In December, House Democrats began negotiations with the Bush White House, proposing an even smaller number -- about $90 billion -- than the administration wanted. After the administration indicated a desire for fast action, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the leadership rushed to compromise with Bush, trading away additional aid for food stamps and increased unemployment compensation in exchange for a cap in the package on tax relief for the wealthy.

The bill that passed the House weighs in at just 1 percent of the gross domestic product, in a year when joblessness is rising fast and Americans are projected to lose $2.2 trillion dollars of the value of their homes. You know you have settled for too little when you are criticized from the left by Max Baucus, perhaps the Senate's most Republican of Democrats.

Democrats are already saying that they plan to come back for "Stimulus II," and that package needs to be a lot more robust, both for political reasons and economic ones. Their initial posture signaled nothing so much as thinking small, at a moment when the economy's problems are immense and long-term.

After their accord with the White House, the Democrats got nice prime-time TV treatment with Bush, chumming it up with the hugely unpopular president who gave us this mess. When the eventual bill is signed, the Democrats would be wise to skip the signing ceremony and hold their own event, on the recovery program that the country really needs.

Why did the Democrats initially settle for so little, and what should they be promoting? Two senior Democratic legislators told me that they were pleasantly surprised when Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson reached out to them and indicated that Bush was serious about wanting legislation. The Democrats felt they needed to reciprocate. For the first time in memory, Bush actually negotiated in good faith, and split the difference with the Democrats. But there wasn't that much difference to split, since the Democrats' opening gambit was so feeble.

In part, their caution reflected the influence of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs who insisted on a very modest package as their price for coming along at all. Another lead weight on the Democrats' bargaining position was the widespread view that the stimulus should be "timely, targeted, and temporary," lest Bush use it for more permanent cuts in the revenue base. So instead of looking forward to November, or outward to what the country needs, Democrats looked backward to the big Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 -- whose extension was never seriously in the cards in any case.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economy, recession, republicans, democrats, stimulus package

Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect. He writes regularly for the magazine on political and economic issues. Bob has just completed a book, to be published in 2007, on the connection between political and economic inequality and systemic risks facing the economy. He is pursuing these issues as a distinguished senior fellow at Demos. Click here to read more about Kuttner.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Recovery Plan or Restructuring Plan ?
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 15, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recovery to what ? This country needs a complete restructuring not an enhanced recovery plan. Kutttner's ideas are well intentioned and will give some short term relief but in the medium and long run it is just more of the same.

And the reason is ever increasing energy prices. Wiithout ever more energy the whole system stagnates. Oil has quintupled, natural gas and coal have quadrupled in the last 8 years and the prices are still going up.

Even all the efficiencies brought about by technology are being overcome by energy prices for the producers. Consumers are being hit even harder.

The correlation between energy consumption and GDP growth is undeniable, that is, it is one to one. GDP growth means more and more goods to more places at more speed. This is about to come to an end and with it the ever increasing consumption that is necessary to expand our money supply through debt based fractional banking.

There are only three scenarios that can play out under these circumstances. Either we build an economy based on sustainability, or go into recession after recession each being deeper than the last, or the theft of resources to sustain fewer and fewer people with the current system. Theft? ... usually means war ...

The problem is nearly all economists believe in the growth model either through Supply Side stimulation or Keynesian demand side stimulation. These theories are based on the belief that higher prices mean more supply when in fact energy resources are finite and the world is facing absolute limits of energy supply at any price that will sustain the growth model the world now uses to operate.

The world cannot sustain unlimited growth and our current monetary system can only survive with unlimited growth. We need a new plan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Thoughts There
Posted by: Aimleft on Feb 15, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This costly "fix" to the problem will not work. It doesn't even come close to addressing the serious problems this country faces with the escalating cost of oil and everything else because of these rising costs. It doesn't address the profits being made by those in the oil business. It doesn't address the increasing discrepancies between the money that goes to the CEO's and the corporations compared to the average working person. And it is insulting that they think we will all run out with our measly $300 or $600 and hit Wal-Mart to buy video games and shiny new shoes to boost the economy they have worked so hard to destroy. I'm hoping to put my $$ into the bank, as long as I don't need it to pay for the gas it takes to get to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

China orgiastic from Uncle Sam's stimulus!
Posted by: xvictor on Feb 15, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A recent poll indicated that those recipients of fiat money checks will purchase flat panel TVs and Playstations. And the maker, China, gets the money. I guess Wal-Mart gets a nibble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enact strong usury laws for free economic stimulus.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Feb 15, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Usury laws would free up some of the consumer capital that is being sucked into banks' coffers, in confiscatory rates and profit-leading penalties. This rational step would be absolutely free to the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same old idealism same old hat
Posted by: ghost in the machine on Feb 15, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kuttner bases his argument on one premise ...a return to;

"We need to reclaim the managed form of capitalism that produced an economy of shared prosperity during the long postwar boom. That will require progressive taxation, re-regulation, and public outlay on a much larger scale. It will require a trade policy that serves the national interest rather than the corporate interest"

The only trouble with this is that was then and now is now . In truth there is never any going back . The conditions that gave birth tto the above was a war which smashed everything up and liberated production and consumption ..with America as victor leading the way .

The dynamic today is totally different . We live in a world of over production ,over consumption in first world countries and markets in third world countries that cant soak up the goods as they dont have the wages ( hence why we have their cheap goods .)A dollar that is in deficit and two powerhouses of production India and China that will eventually eclipse it.This is to say nothing of global warming which will impact our consumption culture in ways we a yet to experience . Also to say nothing of peak oil.

People like kuttner may have their heart in the right place ,but such harking back to the past is just a cop out . Intellectually this is his cry for HELP!!!!....COS he aint got a CLUE.

Idealism may have been benign in the recent post war years but now it becomes a very different and dangerous animal ...as it suggests it KNOWS the world ...but infact it doesn't. Its the equivalent of flying to jupiter on a course set by newtonian principles....and not getting there ..because light bends ( einstein) ...OOPs!

What needs to happen is that we need to grasp the severity of our(as in world) position We need to look at linking economies together and sharing production . We need to work towards a single world currency and we need to dispose of the "free market "as we know it .For it is the beast that is setting the cat amongst the pigeons and will if we let it, repeat history with TERRIBLE consequences.
Tomorrow is already assembling itself in 'the today', what is emerging now will be greater and dominant in the future.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't spend money you don't have
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Feb 15, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is still based on the premise that we can print money and spend it as Bush has done in the last 8 years. Not going to happen. At some point our creditors and sugar daddies, the Chinese and Saudis, have to throw in the towel and make us straighten out our economic house. They can't keep taking IOUs from us with nothing in return.

The next 4 years ain't going to be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ReformerRay
Posted by: ReformerRay on Feb 15, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kuttner is right that this is no ordinary recession. It is also very unlike the Depression of the 1930's. Our problem today is that excess liquidity was pumped into the financial system, leading to the current problems. Very different from the 1930's.

Sec. Paulson is correct when he says we are experiencing a "needed correction" in home prices. But he does not explain how this needed correction can be managed without taking down the entire economy.

The stimilus package Kuttner proposes should ONLY be accepted if it is accompanied by collecting an EQUAL amount of cash from the people who have been saved from paying income taxes by George Bush. I do not believe that transferring our current problems to the backs of our Grandchildren is the solution.

How about collecting more taxes from the very wealthy as the solution to our problem?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget the FOX subsidy
Posted by: zooeyhall on Feb 15, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like in ancient Rome where they threw bread to the masses to keep them pacified, this is just some crumbs from the oligarchy to placate the seething unrest.

Bread and circuses

Too bad they forgot about giving FOX some extra money also--need them to provide the "circus" part to keep the rabble distracted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

out of the box!!
Posted by: siamdave on Feb 15, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- good ideas, but missing the essential point - you can't solve old problems with new ideas. You need to get a better understanding of what is really happening, and that only happens once you get your head outside the box. They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New economic system to help recovery
Posted by: chseitz on Feb 15, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have two economic systems thaat interfere with each other. Learn about this and straighten it out and it will help with recovery. Read about it on my personal website at

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He omitted the important factor
Posted by: billwald on Feb 15, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pull the troops and everyone else out of Iraq and there will be an additional $12 billion a month to spend inside the country on the infrastructure. Put some of the troops to inspecting cargo ships and guarding the border.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One small step Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Smoke, mirrors, money, assets, and debts.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 15, 2008 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to a CNN poll, most of the people (54%) who get their Chinese welfare checks are going to use it to service their debt--credit cards most likely. Not stimulating anything there except temporarily bolstering U.S. banks' bottom line, at the expense of the federal (yours and mine) spending problem, colloquially known as "the deficit" by those who still pay attention to income/outflow.

That leaves 46% who will either save it (20% savers, no stimulating there) or spend it.

So, to you 26%'ers who are willing to send Korea your Chinese welfare money in exchange for 40" televisions with 3-year warranties: I say congratulations.

Korea appreciates your adept stimulation.

Now that we've thoroughly analyzed the impending situation*, can someone 'splain to me in plain language what borrowing billions of dollars from the Chinese to send me back my own damn money is going to do to help the U.S. economy?

*and we have not yet accounted for the "savers" who will save their May Chinese welfare dollars to gas up the hooptie/suv and drive across the country in June/July/August to visit gramps, then return broke to face 25% higher gas prices because of duh stimoolus.

The cynic in me points to our representatives--a reflection of our population--and assumes most of you can't do math at the 3rd grade level.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Stimulus" is not what's needed
Posted by: tommy_slothrop on Feb 15, 2008 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Stimulus" is "getting people back to the malls", in Robert B. Reich's words. "Stimulus" is increasing automobile sales. "Stimulus" is increasing "defense" spending that has nothing to do with defense. "Stimulus" is not what's needed.

What is needed is a way to provide people with the necessities of life without wasting resources producing crap that would be better unmade.

Europeans live better than we do while working 2 months a year less than we do and consuming fewer resources - far fewer. And they still consume too much. They drive too much, for one thing.

We need to start consuming less and working less. Our current economic system doesn't allow us to do this without leaving the people on the bottom of the income distribution hungry and homeless. This is the problem that needs to be addressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate Welfare in Disguise
Posted by: Kevin Carson on Feb 15, 2008 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kuttner's proposal for more federal spending on "infrastructure" amounts to doubling the same recipe that gave us the 20th century corporate economy. Subsidized infrastructure only promotes economic centralization; it makes long-distance distribution artificially cheap, and thus makes large corporations operating over large market areas artificially competitive against small-scale industry serving local markets.

The main function of the corporate state, since its origins over a century ago, has been to subsidize the operating costs of big business and protect big business from market competition.

We need to eliminate all the structural distortions in favor of economic centralization, all the subsidies to big business, and all forms of privilege in support of corporate power and the plutocracy.

We need an economy closer to something envisioned by Lewis Mumford and Ralph Borsodi, and not a steroidal version of corporate liberalism a la Galbraith and Chandler.

Here's my agenda:
1) Totally eliminate all corporate welfare spending and use the savings to raise the standard income tax deduction to at least $30,000.
2) Replace the Social Security payroll tax with a carbon tax.
3) Eliminate all corporate tax exemptions like depreciation allowances, the interest deduction on debt, and the R&D credit, and then lower the rate enough to be revenue neutral.
4) Fund the Interstate entirely with weight-distance tolls on trucks, and stop subsidizing local airport projects.
5) Repeal the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
6) Drastically increase severance fees, especially for extracting resources from federal land, and use the savings to offset an even higher personal income tax exemption.

In short, a geolibertarian agenda of taxing resource consumption and negative externalities rather than labor, and shrinking government by cutting welfare from the top down and taxes from the bottom up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do We Beat Stupidity by Investing?
Posted by: bluesmanjohnson on Feb 15, 2008 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with many of you posters (and have all along), that this stimulus is just corporate welfare. The idea of borrowing money from the Chineese, at interest, just so Americans can go buy more Chineese plastic crap, seems idiotic. Any good economist will tell you only to borrow money for items that appreciate.

What can those that are getting "stimulated" do to with this money to make the whole thing a failure. I know this sounds unpatriotic, but what is the best thing one can do to screw the government and make sure that nothing gets stimulated? Save it? Buy stock?

Though I won't receive any myself, I'm pissed about having to pay hundreds more in taxes (after interest) to give my neighbor $600 bucks. I'd rather just give him the $600 myself and save the interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Wacko Plan
Posted by: dayahka on Feb 16, 2008 3:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This plan is just plain old wacko. Not satisfied with an additional 165 billion debt, the writer wants a 400 billion loan from the Chinese, which would push the national debt well over $10 trillion. Add that to the nearly $10 trillion in asset deflation already lost in the early stages of the subprime and credit mess, and we're beginning to talk some real money here.

What needs to be done is something that no politician is going to be able to do, ever: Make it plain to Americans that this is now the best of times, they reached the apex of their spendthrift ways and it's downhill from now on. Their standards of living will decline, no more cars, no more suburbs, no more endless shopping. The entire country is bankrupt, and no fiscal or monetary stimulus or policy is going to change the reality that America is toast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seniors& the rebate
Posted by: macdon1 on Feb 16, 2008 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We seniors will, on average, immediately spend 92% of the rebate. Why?? Because a large number of us do not have enough money to pay for eyeglasses and dental care and other basic things we need. Here in California's central valley, which used to be a very low income area before the housing speculators got here and made a place to live unaffordable, the average income of a senior is just $900 per month. That is $10,800 per year.
So called "affordable" active senior communities requires an income of $23,500 to qualify for a $585 one bedroom apartment plus A-1 credit, so forget that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Feb 18, 2008 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The economic plan America needs is one that does not bankrupt its median and under income citizens, unlike the extremely regressive system we have now. In the 1950's the greatest economic growth in history occurred if I am not mistaken, when tax rates on upper income people were at their absolute highest in history. But the supply siders (and I think that they are rather disingenuously named) sold their koolaid to voters and we continue to reap the disastrous consequences.

There is a huge difference between someone who makes $30K paying 30% of his income in taxes and someone making $300K paying 30% of his income in taxes. That person making $30K would be lucky to save anything at all and he has no economic power, no way to invest in high yield funds where the entry price is $1 million in investment funds, etc....he does not get the breaks that banks give large investors....he does not get stock options, presumably....nor any other breaks that our "nanny state" has engineered for the top through sophistry, deception and poor economic judgment. Because the wealthy already have so many advantages (they can make money doing nothing but putting their funds into any instrument)...why would we want to give them any more economic help? This is not punitive -this is just common sense.

We have been corporatized and terrorized and ripped off by Wall Street...and this needs to stop.

We must stop rewarding wealth (because it is its own reward)...and we must reward work again to get back to a sane and fair economic policy.

Finally we should re-think work altogether and stand up to the Wall Street terrorists who base their idea of success on profits only. The workplace system is outdated...and is not favorable for families...when almost everyone works, we are still following the outdated 5-day, 40 hour workweek with 2 weeks of vacation, which was created no doubt with the idea of women working in the home to maintain it and the family activities - not for these times in which most cannot afford to have someone stay home. We need to follow the European model. Have you been to France...to Italy...? The most beautiful and contented people I have ever seen...obesity is rare, stress was not nearly as evident..but of course Wall Street doesn't want you to think we could do 8 weeks off here. But we could and we should...that and much more. I don't want to be enslaved for overpaid financiers, and I think most Americans have had enough of it, finally.

Lastly, less is more....we do not need to have any more of anything here in America except morals, compassion, affordable housing, attention to infrastructure, education for our children in how to avoid economic sophistry, bad tax policy, and avoiding the hucksters that sell us this garbage. Most importantly, we need to have pride in who we are rather than in what we have. Wall Street wants you to believe otherwise - you have the power to stop this kind of thinking. Don't be a mindless consumer - be an activist and a thinker. It will be a start on the long road back to fiscal and moral sanity for America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is the author a corporate paid hack?
Posted by: pinkfloydd on Feb 20, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because I cannot believe he is advocating the stimulus package in any way, shape, or form, much like I couldn't believe this ill-advised package was actually endorsed by Democrats. It just goes to show how much all of our political system is influenced by corporations.

For one, (and this is basic economics here), adding more worthless money to an already inflated society causes only one thing; increased inflation. Just ask the doomed Confederacy about what they were doing with all the money they printed up and distributed during the Civil War. Anyone can print money. But can you back it? At this point, the answer is a resounding no we cannot, but thanks for asking.

For two, how much money borrowed from China or printed up out of the blue elsewhere will it take for our elected leaders to realize it is a quagmire of unrivaled porportions? The only entity that supports more and more borrowing and printing is the Federal Reserve. Because every dollar printed for us by them is three dollars (or more) of paid interest in their pockets, not the US Government.

For three, it is good paying careers and jobs that actually stimulate any economy. Middle income families need to be able to sustain this false spending that this ridiculous package wil induce. Why can't we actually tax the big businesses that run this country and do away with the illegal and unconstitutional income tax that is now breaking any and every person who refuses to go years into debt to finance higher education?

Which leads to four, why the hell can't we do away with the crippling debt system altogether? The corrupt credit system is just modern day Jim Crow laws for the poor; why wouldn't you give a better percentage rating for someone making $30,000 or less? Of course people are going to default on loans where the APR is 19% or higher. It makes no sense, only the rich can afford to make those types of payments, but, as is usual in this country, it is the rich that get away with APRs lower than 5%. Owning a home is a feasible proposition for EVERY American. I know, it's unheard of really, but if you work full time, home owning should be as accessible as fast food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]