Stimulus for the Long Run

In an article today, Spend or Save? Trick Question, The New York Times' David Leonhardt looks into a question I posed a week ago, and which NBC's Chuck Todd asked the President  Monday night - whether it is best for American consumers now to spend, or save.  He begins:

It's your fault. Part of it is, anyway. You, the American consumer, spent too much money. You bought too much house, took on too much debt and generally lived beyond your means. Your free-spending ways helped cause the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

And now you're going to have to do your part to end the crisis. How? By spending. Enough already with the saving that many of you have suddenly begun doing. This very moment, Congress and President Obama are preparing to send you a tax rebate, to inspire you to stimulate the economy. So go out and stimulate. Spend as if the future of your country depended on it.

John Maynard Keynes, the great 20th-century economist, would have appreciated the apparent absurdity in these mixed messages. He coined a phrase, "the paradox of thrift," to point out that what was rational for an individual during hard times - saving money - could be ruinous for an entire economy. Eventually, many of the savers may end up out of work because everyone else is saving, too.

It's enough to make you wonder what exactly you're supposed to do. At his news conference on Monday night, Mr. Obama was asked directly whether people should spend or save their rebate checks. He ducked the question.

Fortunately, though, it has an answer. There are a few ways to help both your own finances and the country's.

Read on.  How Americans answer this question will go a long way to determining the length and depth of the current global recession.  Leonhardt concludes that the best course is for America to invest in projects that provide both short term stimulus and prepare America for future growth and prosperity.   This is the same conclusion Rob and I reached in our November memo, A Stimulus For the Long Run, and has been at the core of our advocacy these past few months.

We are very proud that many of the items we advocated in this memo - health IT, greening federal buildings and vehicle fleets, extending unemployment insurance and backstopping the states, investing in broadband and 21st century schools, modernizing the electrical grid - are still in the mix for the final Economic Recovery legislation and are at the very core of our emerging economic strategy.  

For months, NDN has written a great deal about what we believe should be in an economic recovery plan. We’ve argued for investment in provisions that will both spur the economy now and create the basis for future prosperity.  We’ve argued for investments in clean and traditional infrastructure, broadband access, electronic health records, and computers in schools. While we have some concerns about what will end up in the final bill, all in all we think the recovery plan that is emerging is a good one and should be passed as soon as possible. We applaud the work of this young Administration and Congress for moving so swiftly and so assuredly to take the kind of action required at this challenging time for the nation.  

However, there are two provisions being discussed that we believe should not be in the final bill: mandatory E-verify usage by employers receiving stimulus funds and "Buy American" requirements for materials involved in stimulus funded projects. We believe that, in coming days, these provisions should be removed from the economic recovery legislation. While they are well intentioned provisions, we, like many others, do not believe that they will function as a stimulus for the economy and will do more harm than good.

As President Obama pointed out yesterday in Elkhart, Indiana, there are many effective ways to make America more competitive in the global economy, but we believe that "Buy American" provisions, which, depending on the version of the bill, would force steel, iron, and other materials used in stimulus projects to be American-made, are not among them. We have serious concerns that Buy American provisions, while well-intentioned, place us right on the edge of our international legal commitments and open the door to dangerous retribution from other nations also in the midst of grave economic challenges at home. America not only imports from abroad, but our workers and our companies sell a great deal abroad.   Enacting provisions that would slow American exports and potentially diminish the overall volume of trade at a time of an accelerating global slowdown could tip the world into a global depression. As many have pointed out, America tried this strategy in the early 20th century, and it was instrumental in bringing about the Great Depression.  

Similarly, however laudable the goal of using the nascent E-verify system by all companies receiving stimulus funds to ensure that these funds go to legal workers, the reality is that the system is not yet ready for broad, mandatory deployment. Indeed, mandating its use could have adverse consequences for the economic recovery, as it would almost certainly slow the use of funds, be incredibly costly to employers, and, because of the consequences of false "no matches" (which are easily triggered and all too common), would delay the recovery plan’s goal of putting Americans back to work.  For those policymakers interested in the United States having national, effective electronic immigration verification system, they should work with the President to include it in a broader effort to fix our broken immigration system later this year.  

As members of Congress debate the economic recovery plan in conference committee over the next few days, we trust that they will keep an eye out for provisions that are clearly not in the economic interests of the United States. The inclusion of Buy American and E-verify provisions fall well short of this measure and should be removed from the legislation.

Like many other commentators, I thought the President was terrific last night.  Commanding, thoughtful, grounded, pragmatic.  He made a powerful case not only for the Recovery Plan, but for his Presidency.   Let's hope we see more of these formats in the future.  They are good for the nation, and good for the President.  

But there was one exchange that I kept coming back to this morning - his answer to Chuck Todd's question about consumer debt.  Chuck's question was similar to one I asked recently in this post, Spend? Save? What's The Right Course for Everyday Americans?   I post the question and answer below for your consideration, as I think getting this one right may be a predicate for us designing a Recovery Plan that will do what we need it to do over time: 

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that if your plan works the way you want it to work, it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumer spending or overspending how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first before they start spending money into the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous leverage where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system. That led to a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy, so people started making decisions accordingly -- reducing investment, initiated layoffs -- which in turn made things worse.

Now, you are making a legitimate point, Chuck, about the fact that our savings rate has declined and this economy has been driven by consumer spending for a very long time -- and that's not going to be sustainable. You know, if all we're doing is spending and we're not making things, then over time other countries are going to get tired of lending us money and eventually the party is going to be over. Well, in fact, the party now is over.

And so the sequence of how we're approaching this is as follows: Our immediate job is to stop the downward spiral, and that means putting money into consumers' pockets, it means loosening up credit, it means putting forward investments that not only employ people immediately but also lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth. And that, by the way, is important even if you're a fiscal conservative, because the biggest problem we're going to have with our federal budget is if we continue a situation in which there are no tax revenues because economic growth is plummeting at the same time as we've got more demands for unemployment insurance, we've got more demands for people who've lost their health care, more demand for food stamps. That will put enormous strains on the federal budget as well as the state budget.

So the most important thing we can do for our budget crisis right now is to make sure that the economy doesn't continue to tank. And that's why passing the economic recovery plan is the right thing to do, even though I recognize that it's expensive. Look, I would love not to have to spend money right now. This notion that somehow I came in here just ginned up to spend $800 billion, that wasn't -- that wasn't how I envisioned my presidency beginning. But we have to adapt to existing circumstances.

Now, what we are going to also have to do is to make sure that as soon as the economy stabilizes, investment begins again; we're no longer contracting but we're growing; that our mid-term and long-term budget is dealt with. And I think the same is true for individual consumers. Right now they're just trying to figure out, how do I make sure that if I lose my job, I'm still going to be able to make my mortgage payments. Or they're worried about how am I going to pay next month's bills. So they're not engaging in a lot of long-term financial planning.

Once the economy stabilizes and people are less fearful, then I do think that we're going to have to start thinking about how do we operate more prudently, because there's no such thing as a free lunch. So if you want to get -- if you want to buy a house, then putting zero down and buying a house that is probably not affordable for you in case something goes wrong, that's something that has to be reconsidered.

So we're going to have to change our bad habits. But right now, the key is making sure that we pull ourselves out of the economic slump that we're in.

For more on my thoughts on the politics of the Recovery Plan see this recent post, What The Senate Bill Cut  and this one, The Utter Bankruptcy of Today's Republican Party.