The nation's economic climate is still pretty grim. Unemployment,
which some predict will exceed 10 percent next year, is rising at a
quicker pace than the White House projected in January, weeks before
they passed their historic $787 billion stimulus package. And the
stimulus package itself -- as expected -- is taking some time to ramp
up. So far, only 10 percent of the spending is out the door.
Not surprisingly, that hasn't stopped conservatives from deriding the spending bill as wholly ineffective. On Sunday, Rep. Peter Roskam made such a claim during his appearance on FOX Chicago Sunday. But economists were never concerned that the recovery package was fundamentally flawed. Instead, many feared that after negotiations with "moderates" in the Senate, the bill was too small to dig us out of a huge hole. That worry is leading some policy makers to float the idea of a second Obama stimulus package. One local lawmaker who appears interested is Rep. Melissa Bean, who told Politico today that "the thing we have to consider is the risk to not doing it.”
That risk is great. As Paul Krugman wrote in a column last Thursday, the situation on our hands today may mirror that faced by Franklin Roosevelt, who saw the economy tank after he appeased deficit hawks and slowed government spending in 1937.
Politically, it's a very difficult sell. The administration is moving forward with expensive health care and energy bills. The Democratic Congress, facing unified Republican opposition, was barely able to pass the first stimulus. And it's unclear whether the public has an appetite for more spending, especially before the administration lets the first plan run its full course. Sen. Dick Durbin told Bloomberg, "I’m not sure how you would do it."
But that doesn't mean it's bad policy. A second plan focused in a way that offsets the cutting of state budgets could jumpstart the economy in a shorter timeframe. One idea raised by James Galbraith is to reintroduce general revenue sharing for states and localities, which the Congressional Research Service estimates could have a "significant fiscal stimulus." As this debate unfolds, it's a concept worth watching.







Comments
DrXyzzy on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 16:34
"The administration is moving forward with expensive health care and energy bills." - Health care done right will save money. AARP estimates that we will pay a total of $8,300 per person on health care in 2009. The US spends more than twice the average of all other OECD nations annually per capita on health care, and they all have some form of universal coverage.
The best stimulus will be real health care reform. It will save lives, prevent bankruptcies and foreclosures, eliminate job lock for health insurance reasons, and make care affordable for all, regardless of employment or medical history.
To paraphrase Melissa Bean, the thing we have to consider is the risk to not doing real heatlh care reform - and that means a public health care plan.
markg8 on Wed, 07/08/2009 - 18:06
Exactly Dr. When we close this gaping hole in the social safety net it'll not only end job lock but free up many to start small businesses they wouldn't dare to try without healthcare.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.