Eurozone Follies: Confusing Callousness for Courage

Mar 26, 2012Jeff Madrick

European elites pushing austerity are repeating the mistakes they made during World War I and the Great Depression. The question is whether they'll realize it before it's too late.

European elites pushing austerity are repeating the mistakes they made during World War I and the Great Depression. The question is whether they'll realize it before it's too late.

As Spain (momentarily?) reels again as rates rise over doubts it can roll over its debt, it is time to step back and note that the eurozone can almost surely solve its problems in the medium term if it truly wants to. Surprise? It shouldn’t be. But rarely has there been such poor management of economic affairs since the Great Depression. Readers should know this: there is a path to successful resolution. Yet one would be forgiven for thinking there is not after reading or watching the media.

The best piece of evidence that something could indeed work is the action beginning in December from the constructively crafty Mario Draghi, new head of the European Central Bank, the successor to the arrogant and stubborn Jean-Claude Trichet. Trichet, remember, raised interest rates in mid-2011 for fear that inflation was on its way back.

As is by now widely celebrated, Draghi was able to inject up to a trillion in euros to banks at low interest cost, which in turn they used to buy sovereign debt. Suddenly, the markets calmed, rates on debt for Spain and Italy fell, and there was breathing room. Perhaps as interest charges fell, they could pay off the debt coming due with room to spare. In such an environment, Europe even came to terms with Greece on a new bailout -- albeit onerous ones for the Greeks.

This all could have been done earlier and more directly had the ECB been run by far-seeing people. But German bankers and politicians kept the ECB from being more aggressive back in early 2010, when it should have been doing what the U.S. Federal Reserve had done back in 2008. There should be more from Draghi going into the spring, but of course there are new fears he may cut back.

What should be clear is that the big reason why countries like Spain and Greece may not be able to pay their debt are those high rates, not public spending profligacy. Greece had even run a surplus. The average deficit compared to GDP in the eurozone was 0.5 percent in 2006. Then the recession devastated tax revenues and burst property bubbles. Even so, Italy, for example, has a rather tame deficit even today. But because it has a high debt to GDP ratio, much of it short term, a rise in rates spearheaded by speculative fears becomes very expensive in the near term. Indeed, if governments made an error, it was taking on too much short-term debt that needed constant rolling over, and the U.S. is no exception. Remember when the Clinton administration, with the encouragement of Alan Greenspan, eliminated its 30-year benchmark Treasury bond?

In contrast to the narrow-minded ECB, as noted, the Federal Reserve immediately poured money into the U.S. and world economy (by cutting rates sharply, buying Treasury securities, and guaranteeing money market liabilities and other instruments) when Lehman Brothers fell apart -- and to a lesser degree earlier. Even when Europe established a new facility, the European Financial Stability Facility, to lend money in 2011, Germany restricted it from borrowing from the ECB. The EFSF should be expanded, without question. Some resist that idea, most prominently Germany, although Germany is now under recessionary pressure itself and seems to be relenting somewhat. That is unconditional good news.

The success of the Draghi plan shows how unfortunate the stringency has been. Nations that set their own monetary policy, like the U.K., have not had a run-up in rates because the central bank can in effect print money, and has. These nations can also devalue their currencies. Even the U.S. dollar has fallen, if probably not enough.

The essence of the euro crisis is that members cannot devalue or control their own monetary policy. But the ECB could have done so. If it had recognized its obligations, the crisis would not have been nearly as great. (There are some legal restrictions as well, which I believe could have been disregarded, much as Germany and France once disregarded the legal restriction of a deficit ratio of 3 percent without suffering the prescribed penalties.)

Even so, a more enlightened and courageous ECB would still not have been enough. The eurozone needed fiscal stimulus, much like the Obama stimulus provided, though Europe needed more (the U.S. needed a second round as well). Instead, however, Europe got the opposite: austerity. In return for a Greek bailout from obstinate and ostrich-like Europe, its rates soaring partly because the ECB wouldn’t serve as lender of last resort as it does in other nations like the U.K. and U.S., the EU tough guys demanded public spending cutbacks, firing of thousands of public workers, reduced minimum wages, and on. Greece is now essentially in a depression imposed with remarkable callousness by the core eurozone members.

Check out the new special issue of The Nation, guest-edited by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick.

Portugal, Spain, and Italy also have had austerity explicitly or implicitly imposed on them as part of a bailout deal. All are in recession today.

Those who imposed the austerity, led by the Dutch, the Germans, and to a degree the Sarkozy supporters in France, assumed a dog would be able to catch its tail. Austerity meant weakening incomes, as Keynes long ago taught us, and lower incomes meant lower tax revenues. When you missed your deficit target, you had to cut spending again, which led to weakening tax revenues again. Government spending couldn’t drop fast enough to meet a deficit target in any of those countries.

Almost everyone knew this was about to happen. But the imposers of austerity believed this would wring these economies of excessive debt, reduce interest rates and wages, and create a new platform from which to grow. Thus, they believed in family economics, not country economics. Tightening the belt may often work at home, but it means disaster for a country .

Research from the IMF also strongly suggests that austerity’s pain is delivered unequally. Wages go down farther than profits and stay down longer. Long-term unemployment rises and many do not return to work.

Here’s the kicker: Germany is now in recession because austerity economics has so undermined the economies of those that import goods from it. It, too, is suffering. Did it really think it was immune to the process? Its success depended in the 2000s on the very free-spending economies it now disparages. Now the beggar-thy-neighbor consequences of their export-led growth model are at last taking a toll.

It is possible that Greece will say to heck with it, we won’t pay our debts and would rather leave the euro. That would produce harsh pain all around. But the Germans don’t want a breakdown of the euro -- they benefit too much from a fixed euro that is too low given its unit labor costs. If Germany were independent, its currency would have soared already. Someone has to earn enough money to pay for the goods you make. Germany’s repressed wages would never have provided it the market adequate to supports its manufacturing growth. Such export-led growth models are not sustainable.

What Europe needs is a far more generous ECB and the end of austerity economics for now. It also needs Germany and others to raise government spending to stimulate the region. And finally, everyone should get over their obsessions with tiny Greece. Europe should treat the troubled country as an obligation, much as the U.S. carried the economies of the deep South for so long after World War II. Make Greece the ward of the state, supply it transfer social funds, help it get its house in better order, but don’t suppress the spirit and hopes of democracy.

The deepening, austerity-induced recession in Europe will also take a toll on the U.S. If it makes it still harder for the southern periphery to pay its debts as bond investors get scared off, a new financial crisis could occur. This would affect the U.S., which has exposure to European debt, especially in money market mutual funds. A new recession is not impossible in America.

Will Europe wake up? Will Germany be forced to face reality as it too suffers recessions? Can someone come forward with the guts to take a constructive stand other than Draghi, who disguises it in technicalities and sometimes talks up austerity himself? Perhaps they are now expanding their “firewall,” the money available for a bailout. Good news. But others are complaining Spain is backtracking on austerity. That is the return of the ostrich.

It is a fascinating historical period -- or would be if it weren’t so potentially tragic. The eurozone now practices pre-Depression economics. Cutting debts through spending contraction will reduce interest rates and labor costs enough to restore business investment, they say. Economies self-adjust! That is their song -- or their swan song. And we heard it most loudly in the early 1930s. The approach won’t work. Worse, it is already clearly not working. But many persist. They say, accept the necessary pain. They even say, share the pain, the best societies do. But pain is not shared under austerity economics, it is borne by the less advantaged.

Perhaps the explanation of this perverse economic policy is simply that the elite won’t suffer themselves -- the middle and working class will. But eventually everyone will. The world has suffered the insensitivity of elites many times before. Think of those World War I generals sending their working class soldiers to their deaths by the millions. Perhaps not death this time. But it is the same elitist distance from reality, the same elitist insensitivity. And it is called courage by them and by many in the media.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the Director of the Roosevelt Institute's Rediscovering Government initiative and author of Age of Greed.

Share This

International Women's Day: Celebrating Where We Are and Gearing Up for Where We Must Go

Mar 9, 2012Ellen Chesler

While Republicans continue to chip away at women's rights at home, increasing rights for women around the world is having a huge impact.

While Republicans continue to chip away at women's rights at home, increasing rights for women around the world is having a huge impact.

Yesterday was International Women's Day, and celebrations took place all over the world. Perhaps none was more prominent than the event at the U.S. Department of State where First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave out "Women of Courage" awards for the fourth year in a row. They recognized 10 individuals selected by U.S. embassies around the world as examples of grit and bravery in the global struggle for basic human freedoms and women's rights. The recipients' stories are inspiring, if bone-chilling. They need to be heard by American women, whose status as full and equal citizens is being challenged just about every day by outspoken priests, pundits, and politicians who are questioning long-established rights to family planning and other women's health programs.

Access to safe and reliable contraception has helped make possible the hard-won gains that women in the United States have achieved during the past 40 years in education, employment, and participation in public life. And no irony was lost in the fact that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives marked International Women's Day by holding another in what has been a constant drumbeat of hearings on some piece of legislation that would roll back fundamental reproductive rights and further politicize women's health.

Meanwhile, largely unnoticed over in Foggy Bottom, Secretary Clinton handed awards to an Afghani woman persecuted under the Taliban who now runs the one radio station in the country that teaches women about their rights, and to a true heroine from Burma, recently freed by the military regime after 11 years in prison simply because she had campaigned for civilian government, who is now back advocating for women, ethnic minorities, and political prisoners. Recognition also went to a 27-year-old architect from Libya who has became a clarion voice of her country's liberation movement, to two women's rights activists protesting the state sanctioned oppression of women in Saudia Arabia and Sudan, and to a women's affairs minister from the Maldives pressing for laws against domestic violence and female genital cutting. In conferring this prize, Clinton remarked in no uncertain terms to spontaneous applause, "[W]e thank you for improving lives and sending the message that domestic violence is not a cultural practice, it is a crime."

Rounding out the group was a Turkish parliamentarian who has become an international voice on the rights of the disabled and a Pakistani NGO leader from the country's most conservative provinces who has challenged a local ban on women seeking political office.  And finally there were a Brazilian police official once kidnapped by Rio street gangs and a Columbian journalist once tortured by arms smugglers, both still determined to campaign openly against the endemic violence women still face even as their countries experience modernization and growth.

Ceremonies have indisputable value. Placing compelling human faces on the courage with which ordinary women around the world fight the many indignities they endure as a daily matter "isn't just the right thing to do," as Secretary Clinton often says and repeated yesterday in her brief remarks, "it's also the smart thing to do." Clinton has long stood firmly behind the fundamental principle of the global women's movement, to which she memorably staked a claim in Beijing in 1995: Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are the right of every woman.

Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

But in the years since, she has also repositioned the issue not just as a moral imperative, but as a strategic condition of success in U.S foreign policy if our aim is to meet the world's most critical security and development challenges. She rarely misses an opportunity to remind her audiences that investments in women's rights and opportunities have immediate pay offs -- that when women gain equality of opportunity and when their labor is formalized, it's not just the women who benefit. Poverty declines, economies expand, public health improves, more children are educated, the conditions for democratic practice are secured, and conflict subsides. The evidence is no longer anecdotal.  Hundreds of empirically driven studies demonstrate a direct correlation between the improved status of women and the stability and well-being first of their immediate communities and eventually of entire countries and regions on which U.S. national security depends.

But honoring the work of individuals, however worthy, can also make complex matters seem deceptively simple, as though we can change a very messy world one woman at a time. The vulnerability of women around the world, as we are seeing all too well in our own country today, is deeply embedded in the very real assaults of globalization on economies and cultures. As academic feminists like to remind us, we cannot ignore the deep "intersections" of gender, race, class, and power. Women's rights must be placed within a comprehensive human development framework that promotes social justice and well-being for all, along with women's full citizenship. And this is a tall order.

Yesterday, this exact point was made by Laymah Gbowee, the feisty and outspoken Liberian who won the 2012 Nobel Prize for organizing market women to help bring peace to her war-torn country. "These women are working very hard. And yes, we can give them all the verbal support, we can give them all the honors," she said, "but until we continue to make it possible for them to work through resources, their issues will continue to be issues for politicians to use to make themselves look good when it's elections time." She concluded, "It's time for us to support our sisters, not just leave them with honor."

Secretary Clinton spoke directly to that challenge, promising that next week, at a gathering in Washington of all U.S. ambassadors, she will issue the "first ever" secretarial policy directive on gender in an effort  to institutionalize a permanent concern that U.S. resources be  allocated in new ways. Complementing a recently released USAID gender policy, this directive will mandate specific steps toward promoting gender equality and advancing the status of women and girls in all aspects of U.S. national security and foreign policy and will require that budgets and expenditures be analyzed from an explicit gender perspective. Together with the creation of permanent high-level staff positions, including a Global Ambassador for Women's Rights, the aim has been no less than to transform a diplomatic bureaucracy and culture long either indifferent or outright hostile to recognizing women as potential agents of change.

Just how this new way of thinking can work, however, was beautifully illustrated in a speech earlier this week at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York by the Obama/Clinton appointee at USAID, Administrator Rajiv Shah. He beckoned his audience to observe a common pattern in the age of the populations of the fastest growing and most stable countries in Latin America and East Asia today, where the percentage of workers between the ages of 15 and 64 is much larger than the percentage of the very young or very old. This phenomenon is a consequence of the demographic dividend that has resulted from decisions made collaboratively with the United States during the 1960s and 1970s in places like Thailand to expand access to voluntary family planning, to improve child survival, and to offer education and formal work opportunities to women and girls. Falling birthrates left behind just enough working-age men and women to grow economies in an orderly fashion, without placing them under too much strain. And the promising news is that at least several countries in Africa today are poised to follow.

Which leaves us with what may be our greatest challenge today: how to explain this phenomenon to a crop of Republican presidential contenders and members of Congress who are poised to take away the very benefits of U.S. support for reproductive health at home and abroad that made these gains possible. A tall order, indeed.

Ellen Chesler, a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, has a chapter in a new book published this week by Seven Stories Press in collaboration with Human Rights Watch, The Unfinished Revolution: Voices from the Global Fight for Women's Rights.

Share This

Lipsky Talks "Europe on the Edge": Where Do We Go from Here?

Feb 13, 2012Elena Callahan

Last week, Senior Fellow Bo Cutter hosted economist and former IMF Deputy Managing Director John Lipsky as part of the Next American Economy Breakfast Series, where they discussed how the European crisis came to be, past solutions, and what it will take to finally resolve it. In the video below, Lipsky lays out the current situation and the recent five-point plan:

John Lipsky :: Interview (excerpt) from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

Last week, Senior Fellow Bo Cutter hosted economist and former IMF Deputy Managing Director John Lipsky as part of the Next American Economy Breakfast Series, where they discussed how the European crisis came to be, past solutions, and what it will take to finally resolve it. In the video below, Lipsky lays out the current situation and the recent five-point plan:

John Lipsky :: Interview (excerpt) from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

Initially, most thought that the problems of the small European countries could be dealt with. But it became clear last summer that they were in dire need of a comprehensive plan -- which appeared with the five-point plan in July. Will it work? Lipsky believes "there is every intention and good reason to expect that the plan ultimately will be implemented -- if not perfectly, over stages." While he says "there is a risk that in the process of arguing about who’s going to pay they end up taking that too far" and create "an inextricable crisis that is seriously destabilizing," all sides likely understand the risks at play. However, he fears that "the criticisms that leaders have perceived... instead of making them bolder and say now we have to move forward in a cooperative way" will be ignored. “The biggest countries have to show leadership."

In the full interview below, Bo Cutter asks Lipsky how this crisis came about in the first place. He explains that despite the decision to take part in a single currency, the financial markets did not place enough restrictions on European countries to maintain economic sustainability. Most were surprised that Germany came out the winner of monetary union over Spain and Italy. How did Germany pull it off? It was "a failure, in a way, for the expected winners to capitalize on the opportunities and the unexpected success of the expected loser to actually grasp the nettle and make big reforms."

John Lipsky :: Interview from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

So what now? Lipsky says, "If policy adjustments, economic structural policies, budgetary policies, tax policies, monetary policies... and exchange rate policies were all operated in a coherent way, it could produce outcomes that were better for everybody."

Watch this video for how he addressed these questions in his lecture:

John Lipsky :: Lecture from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.

Share This

10 Questions for Economists Who Oppose Manufacturing Subsidies

Feb 13, 2012Jeff Madrick

Economists who never spoke up about financial sector subsidies are in an uproar over President Obama's support for manufacturing. But what's their alternative?

Economists who never spoke up about financial sector subsidies are in an uproar over President Obama's support for manufacturing. But what's their alternative?

Why are mainstream economists, right and left, so determined to push back any attempt to subsidize manufacturing in America? The question will arise anew tonight when President Obama presents his budget, complete with tax provisions to support manufacturing. After the president addressed the issue as his first topic in the State of the Union a couple of weeks ago, many esteemed economists seemed to rush to the offense. Obama proposed using tax carrots and sticks to encourage manufacturers to stay here, return here, or get out of those low-wage emerging markets. Some mainstreamers, seeming to represent the conventional wisdom among them, openly scorned the idea. At least one, Laura Tyson, has stood her ground in favor of a policy focus on manufacturing.

I understand the mainstream economic reflex. After working so hard to get world nations to reduce trade barriers for the last 40 to 50 years, they and their successors view subsidizing manufacturing in the U.S. as a retreat. It could provoke retaliation as well. And moving the world toward free trade makes eminently good theoretical sense -- to a degree. The anti-manufacturing subsidy bias is really a subset of the firm, almost unshakable allegiance to free trade theory among the American mainstream.

I also understand the mainstream neoclassical reflex, having taken a few of those courses. Indeed, sometimes I am a neoclassical myself. When you fundamentally believe that economies adjust efficiently, and that the markets will decide, if left unimpeded, which industries should naturally rise and fall, it is profoundly difficult to accept tinkering with matters unless very much warranted. If manufacturing is declining in America, the conventional thinkers say it is largely because first, the same business can be done more efficiently elsewhere, or second, American business has better places to put its money, usually by investing in services-oriented industries, some of them highly sophisticated. There may be manufacturing "market failures" to compensate for, but probably not many.

But here my questions begin to arise. These are by and large the same economists who, as a group, rarely raised public ire over the many subsidies the federal government bestowed on U.S. finance, at least until the recent financial crisis. Who did the American high dollar policy since the 1990s help? Finance, which could import mounds of capital and lend at low rates. Consider how little complaint there was about the interest rate tax deduction. Should you really get an interest rate deduction when you borrow to take over another company through an LBO or a privatization, and then keep a big slice of the equity for yourself? Should you get that deduction for leveraging up your investment bank's trading department or your underwriting of collateralized debt obligations?

Did economists rise in chorus over conflicts of interest with ratings agencies, asymmetric compensation incentives at Wall Street banks, or the almost complete secrecy under which derivatives are traded? All of these were express violations, not merely of progressive economic thinking, but of conservative laissez-fare thinking. If they had done so with the same vigor with which they attack those who want to stimulate manufactures through government subsidies, perhaps I would understand their passion. But they did not.

Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

Since there is plenty of uncertainty -- including my own -- about this issue, let me just pose some rhetorical questions to a phantom mainstream economist in hopes he or she will clarify the issues.

1. Doesn't America already have an anti-manufacturing strategy? It has enthusiastically supported a high value for the dollar since the 1990s. The high dollar raises export prices but, as noted, very much helps Wall Street attract capital flows and lend at low rates. Shouldn't we get the value of the dollar down?

2. Don't Germany, China, and many other countries subsidize their own manufacturing industries? Do you really think the World Trade Organization works all these out? If they do subsidize, isn't it only fair to place manufacturing on a level playing field and subsidize our own?

3. Doesn't manufacturing having a multiplier effect? Some say we can never boost the share of manufacturing adequately. So what if we create even as much as another 2 or 3 million manufacturing jobs. (The president is settling for a couple of hundred thousand.) But wouldn't manufacturing's multiplier effect stimulate the rise of other manufacturing and service industries and the creation of other jobs?

4. How can we get our trade deficit down if we don't sell more manufactures? They account for about seven-eighths of our exports. I know the answer some of you will give: savings. But do you really think raising our savings rate will reduce capital inflows adequately to lower the dollar in order to promote more exports?

5. Without manufacturing, what will we export? Isn't there a point at which we lose too many industries and labor skills to make a comeback? Given the symbiotic nature of business clusters and supply chains, aren't we rapidly losing the subsidiary companies that make manufacturing and exports possible?

6. Weren't persistent trade imbalances a major cause of the 2007-2008 financial crisis as debt levels soared? Don't you worry that the export-led models of China, Germany, and Japan are unsustainable? On a worldwide basis, they are really debt-led growth models. How do we get balance without promoting our exports?

7. Isn't manufacturing a source of innovation in and of itself? Isn't that where the scientists and engineers are? Don't we learn and innovate by doing? One commentator recently said that those innovations are exploited by others, so it doesn't matter. Really? Then maybe we should stop promoting R&D altogether.

8. Where will the good jobs come from? You always say high technology. But America now imports more high-technology products than it exports, especially to China. Even Germany has a high-technology deficit with China. I ask again, where will the jobs come from as technology gets more complex? Do you think more education is really an adequate answer, the only answer?

9. Why did the job market do so poorly throughout the 2000s? If you say we can't know where jobs will come from, that the market will decide, then why aren't you worried about the job market's poor performance over the last decade, with huge losses in manufacturing jobs? Again, you say, inadequate education. Yet according to CEPR's John Schmitt, we have not produced more good jobs as GDP grew -- good jobs measured by wages and benefits provided. Is there hard evidence we don't have the labor to fill the high-technology jobs -- and if we did, are there enough jobs going unfilled to make a difference?

10. Will the jobs come from services? The rapid growth of finance has fouled up the numbers. Finance services did provide high-paying jobs, but we now know many of these were phantoms. And the salad days may be over. The other big area of productivity growth in services was retail. We all know what kinds of jobs Wal-Mart provided.

I ask these questions sincerely. The president's program is not ideal, but it is calling attention to a problem. We need an open discussion about manufacturing policy, infrastructure investment, and industrial policy that avoids snooty recriminations and recognizes that no one has all the answers.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the author of Age of Greed.

Share This

Will Germany Bully Europe Over the Brink?

Jan 31, 2012Jeff Madrick

There's still hope for Europe to avoid a crisis, but it will first have to reject Germany's self-righteous demands for austerity.

There's still hope for Europe to avoid a crisis, but it will first have to reject Germany's self-righteous demands for austerity.

The audacity Germany has shown in floating a demand to manage Greece's finances is a window on the leaders of that country and how much perspective they've lost. Let's be clear; not all in Germany agree with this narrow, insensitive stance and the uninformed and uneducated demands for austerity economics in debt-ridden and recessionary nations. For example, there are political parties in Germany that want their country to take the lead on a Marshall Plan for the periphery of the eurozone. But they are not the ones setting policy.

I am tempted to say that antediluvian economics is ruling in Germany, but it may not really be about economic theory, but rather superior pride, irrational fear of inflation, and perhaps vindictiveness. It's as if a German version of our own Tea Party is now running economic policy in Europe. Germany reduced its unit labor costs beginning in the late 1990s, which were higher than much of the rest of the EU, but with the euro fixed, they benefited as their export prices remained low. Could they have done well without their eurozone trading partners buying more from them than they were selling? And they lent them the money to do so. Do they have no moral obligation here? Without the fixed euro, the DM would have soared.

Then there is David Cameron of Britain and his finance minister lecturing the rest of Europe about how to run their economies. Move over Monty Python. As everyone now knows, Britain's GDP is still below its pre-recession high, its deficit is high and not falling as promised, it may have slid into recession, and often ignored, average wages are well down since a recovery supposedly began. The bombast with which Cameron proclaims the rightness of his austerity economics while his people suffer is right out of school-boy debating. This time his countrymen will lose the debate, not only him.

There are some hints that people of influence are talking sanely and recognize growth is necessary and that austerity in this environment is tragically anti-growth. Some believed there would be some actual policy initiatives in Monday's summit, but there weren't. Instead, the EU agreed to a nutty deficit limit for all its nations. The good news is that they won't abide by in a crunch. Must we remind ourselves yet again that it was Germany that conspicuously violated the prevailing EU limits on deficits to 3 percent of GDP when it had problems? Some say the current limit is over a full economic cycle and therefore not that stifling, but 0.5 percent of GDP is stifling any way you size it up.

Other analysts are saying that now that Germany has won this round it will support further lending by the European Central Bank. What a group! Remember when Trichet, then the head of the ECB, actually raised interest rates in the spring of 2011? It is all a matter of confidence, he said. But trying to cut spending in the face of recession will not generate confidence; only renewed growth will.

Click here to buy Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch’s new book on the epic health care reform battle, Fighting for Our Health.

It looks like Spain may have had enough of austerity economics. After all, it didn't run crazy government deficits in the first place. I bet few non-expert citizens know how little government budget deficits had to do with the crisis, including in the U.S. For a long while, Spain's leaders kept promising they would meet reduced deficits target, but slow growth and suddenly outright negative growth is reducing tax revenues far faster than expected. Spain is a dog chasing its tail, and it may finally realize it. Deficits as a percent of GDP come down a bit at the expense of a recession and high unemployment, but not nearly enough to satisfy Germany (or, apparently, bond markets) or to meet political promises. If Spain pursues further austerity, it may remain in recession for several years. What will that do to their democracy? Let's hope they stop.

The Greeks would not stand for Germany running their country. Big surprise. Sarkozy then said no one should stand for it, and Merkel apparently backed off. Who knows if she was ever foolish or insensitive enough to believe in it? But she has some mighty thick-headed colleagues in her country to deal with. Meantime, Portugal is flailing, deep into recession, so it's not only Greece we must worry about. Spain just reported negative growth. Ireland remains a mess, despite momentary cheers that austerity was working. Alas, GDP is still 10 or 15 percent below its pre-recession high there.

Germany wants to cure the problem by getting wages to fall -- a solution it imposed on itself in the late 1990s -- in Greece, Spain, Portugal and so on. It is commonly called an internal devaluation. Had everyone not been linked to the euro, some could have devalued explicitly. With an internal devaluation, these countries would allegedly reduce their European imbalances by importing less and exporting more as prices fell -- and in the case of Greece in particular, attracting more tourists as prices fell. This is a long, painful process that will probably only marginally change imbalances.

Europe needs growth, but it is being handed recession by the Germans. Growth builds tax revenues. It's just like the old days when even many economists believed a recession just cleaned out the dead wood so we could rebuild, which led to self-destructive policies in the early 1930s. Now we have learned that the ugly part of recessions is that they feed on themselves and sink economies deeper, clean out more new wood than old, have grave long-term consequences for standards of living, and can destabilize democracies.

Any good news? As recession hits, talk has increased that austerity is not working, as noted above. If Germany itself begins to suffer some pain because it can't sell its exports, the nation may indeed wake up. The self-righteous there may at last be overwhelmed by the rational and sensitive.

Europe, and most importantly Germany, needs to encourage its central banks to lend more. It needs to build its rescue fund, and ultimately it needs to sell eurozone-backed bonds to generate more rescue money and enable it to transfer funds to needy countries as they scale back on spending so that citizens do not suffer so much. The U.S. does just this. There is no mystery, except one. That mystery is how nations repeat their follies so regularly in history.

For all I've said, I am not completely pessimistic. I see the glimmer of a horizon of hope. I think most of Europe believes in the euro and a united continent. I think they will save the day, but just by a hair's breadth. And that's too close for comfort. There is a chance the ship will sail too close to the horizon and fall off the earth.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the author of Age of Greed.

Share This

Obama's SOTU Charts a Course Toward a Prosperous Millennial America

Jan 25, 2012Monika Johnson

line-of-american-peopleWith work still yet to be done, President Obama's State of the Union kept the momentum from the 2008 election going for young Americans.

line-of-american-peopleWith work still yet to be done, President Obama's State of the Union kept the momentum from the 2008 election going for young Americans.

In November 2008, I voted in my first presidential election. The summer had been a brutal battle for the Democratic nomination, and young people were campaigning in record numbers to take hold of our futures (and, of course, that of "Joe the Plumber"). That fall, approximately 23 million young people comprised almost two-thirds of the overall 5.4 million voter turnout increase. NDN states that the Millennial Generation (born 1978 - 2000) voted for Barack Obama by a 34-point margin, a 25-point increase from John Kerry's support in 2004.

Nearly four years later, the State of the Union address reminded me of the great sense of duty we felt to turn our country around. Here stood a president who had showed us that the future of our country was in our hands but fell victim to the realities of catalyzing significant political change.

At the close of his address, Obama used the capture of Osama bin Laden to allude to the enlightened self-interest lost in Congress: "One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job: the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other, because you can't charge up those stairs into darkness and danger unless you know that there's somebody behind you watching your back."

Obama's reference was intended to inspire Congress to overcome its partisan gridlock, but its expression on a national platform illuminated more than a slap on the wrist to politicians who had acted selfishly since the last State of the Union address. It was all too obvious that the chamber full of culturally polarized baby boomers, apathetic to the president's comments, maintains a very different perspective on the role of the individual in society than my generation does.

The president's steadfast, civic-minded tone on Tuesday reflected one that inspired Millennials to act in 2008 and powerfully endures today. Many Millennials became quickly disenchanted by Washington's realities, but have continued to turn out in record numbers to enter public service. In 2009, 16 percent more recent college graduates worked for the federal government than in the previous year and 11 percent more for nonprofit groups, according to the American Community Survey of the Census Bureau. Applications to AmeriCorps and City Year tripled, and interest in Teach for America and the Peace Corps also skyrocketed.

For many of today's Americans in our early twenties, there is no alternative to taking an active role in civil society. We are skeptical that America will always be #1 because we don't remember what life was like before 9/11 and came of age during a fiscal crisis.

The realities facing our progressive and socially conscious generation breed a sense of emergency. In the fall of 2011, the media focused on the idea of a "lost generation" of young adults holding undergraduate and master's degrees, unable to both find employment and advance in the workplace. Young people wonder if public service will continue to be an option as the wealth gap grows larger and higher education becomes more expensive.

Tuesday night, the Obama administration sought to justify our continual investment of ourselves in the future of the nation, calling upon Congress to realize their self-interest and describing promises that make young voters swoon. We elected him in 2008, and he wants to keep our support for the upcoming 2012 standoff. If fulfilled, Obama's solutions could lead to a prosperous Millennial America.

American Manufacturing: Obama's blueprint for revitalizing the American middle class began with manufacturing, highlighting a large productivity increase in science and technology industries. He referenced a national skills training program, which would partner with community colleges to transform them into career centers for emerging industries. Moreover, he outlined tax incentives for companies to "in-source," continue manufacturing domestically, and relocate to communities that lost factories throughout the recession.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

With the gradual decline of manufacturing and rise of the knowledge-based economy, the opportunity to pursue the "American Dream" has increasingly relied on obtaining a college degree. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake said in a "60 Minutes" interview that he believes the foremost driver of a rapidly expanding American wealth gap is education disparity. He stated that for college graduates the current unemployment rate is 5 percent, but for those without a degree it's 10 percent. Unfortunately, the majority of educations are funded by borrowed money. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 61 percent of students and their families at public four-year institutions, 70.6 percent at private non-profit universities, and 97 percent at private for-profit schools accrue educational debt. A college degree is becoming more indispensable, but less affordable.

This phenomenon has resulted in a saturated job market, full of young adults with bachelor's and master's degrees deep in debt. The revitalization of American manufacturing might give millions of young people the opportunity to pursue a productive and lucrative lifestyle without a college diploma and the rising debt that comes with it. In the short term, this means offering these national training opportunities through community colleges to recent high school graduates in underserved areas.

Education: While skills-based jobs should be more available to young people, higher education should be accessible. Obama rightfully pointed out that Americans owe more in tuition debt than in credit card debt, and interest rates on student loans are slated to double in July. He conveniently neglected to point out that interest on graduate Stafford loans had been altered this year in order to help balance the budget, however.

Many Millennials believe access to higher education to be the single biggest issue of our generation as tuition increases (and exponentially rising text book costs) threatens the accessibility of education to the middle class and burdens graduates with immense debt. Obama called for extending the tuition tax credit, doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years, and requiring that states prioritize student aid in their budgets. Finally, he stated, "Let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down."

While these reform proposals are good, we should challenge leaders to go one step further and address the current student debt crisis. Specifically, the administration should propose better regulation of the private student loan industry to account for public service time and income-calculated minimum payments. Longer term solutions are on the rise, but a short-term solution to student debt would help alleviate a generation's fear of being economically unviable.

Trade and International Cooperation: Millennial America desperately needs a larger job market for their skills, with the highest number of college degrees compared to any other generation. However, we aren't willing to sacrifice the global perspective and civic-minded values we have developed and displayed prominently through consumer patterns.

Obama announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit to investigate unfair or unlawful trade practices. He stated enthusiastically, "Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you -- America will always win." Hopefully, this unit will work alongside the World Trade Organization to promote fair trade principles for all countries. Just execution of such a governmental entity will include cooperation with international trade agreements, construction of new, progressive principles, and full participation in multilateral negotiations.

The end of the State of the Union is traditionally a "USA!" rally, but exiting Iraq and the fall of Osama bin Laden gave a little extra enthusiasm. According to the Greenberg Millennial Study, cited in Generation We, 68 percent of American Millennials questioned believe the generation of Americans under 30 has a great deal or a fair amount in common with young adults of their generation in other countries. Opportunities to collaborate with foreign universities and students are abundant, and rising leaders know the importance of not alienating our competitors. The administration should tread carefully in advancing a progressive foreign policy that emphasizes multilateral cooperation, aligning with its young supporters globalized perspectives.

Monika Johnson is the co-Chapter Head for the Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline in Washington, DC and a member of the Pipeline Advisory Committee.

Share This

Meet the Millennials Who Are Changing the World

Jan 24, 2012Bryce Covert

Who says young people aren't paying attention? This year's Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellows have ideas that aim to solve issues from boosting economies in developing countries, finding new thinking in the Arab world, and ending the school-to-prison pipeline. They may still be in school, but their ideas could reach every corner of the country -- and even the globe. Watch them talk about their inspiring projects:

Who says young people aren't paying attention? This year's Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Senior Fellows have ideas that aim to solve issues from boosting economies in developing countries, finding new thinking in the Arab world, and ending the school-to-prison pipeline. They may still be in school, but their ideas could reach every corner of the country -- and even the globe. Watch them talk about their inspiring projects:

Whoever thinks that young people are only good for knocking doors and showing up on election day hasn't spoken to these students. Ahmad wants to "think about things in a new way" after the Arab Spring. David plans to "engage a whole new group of students in policy activism" through new approaches to global warming. May wants to "give [students] the power to talk to administrations, draft things out, look at budgets and be like, 'Wow, this really isn't effective.'" And Rajiv wants to "make sense of the byzantine way in which [health care] policy is created."

You won't find apathy here. Stay tuned for an upcoming series on all of the ideas proposed by Campus Network students for the annual 10 Ideas publication.

Share This

How the U.S. Can Learn the Right Lessons from Europe

Jan 19, 2012Keith Schumann

eu-flagAmerica shouldn't try to imitate Europe, but we should draw insight from its efforts to foster greater economic mobility.

eu-flagAmerica shouldn't try to imitate Europe, but we should draw insight from its efforts to foster greater economic mobility.

Why can't the U.S. learn from Europe? That's the question Clive Crook poses in a piece responding to the Republican presidential primary, which at times seems to be a contest to see who can hate Europe the most. Within two days, Mitt Romney's denigration of Europe as an "entitlement society," which had prompted Crook's piece, was swept from the news by an ad from the Newt Gingrich campaign castigating the current Republican front-runner for his proficiency in French.

Europe has long served a peculiar purpose in American political discourse. As the "other" so similar and yet distinctly different, it inspires strong feelings at least in part because what already exists there seems as though it could be implemented here much more easily than the political projects of countries farther distanced by geography and history. Because our differences are the result of political choices rather than radically different circumstances, discussing Europe provides an ideal opportunity to voice the underlying principles, the "ought," of one's political philosophy.

Small wonder, then, that the Republican primary candidates have seized upon Europe time and again to signal to primary voters the conservative worldview that would underlie their decision-making if elected. For progressives, this display offers more than well-traveled avenues for mockery. Tracing the contours of the opposition that would block Obama's agenda can reveal a potential opening for progress.

In this regard, perhaps no candidate is more illuminating than Rick Santorum, whose stances represent a peculiar mix of the standard Republican politics of opposing Democratic policies supposedly bent on remaking America into 'Socialist Europe' (already a familiar charge when it helped rallied the Tea Party's surge to power and influence) with a politics of decidedly more recent vintage -- a politics driven by some of the same concerns of the Occupy movement that captured the attention of so many Americans in the final months of 2011.

A recent New York Times article highlighting some leading conservative voices' praise for the greater social mobility of other Western nations quoted Santorum going so far as to say that movement "up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America." Yet in a recent Republican debate, the same candidate who calls for greater social mobility attacked Mitt Romney simply for using the term "middle class," saying "the governor used a term [that] I shrink from. It's one that I don't think we should be using as Republicans, 'middle class.'"

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Even while praising the greater mobility of Europe, Santorum has also attacked Obama for leading the country toward "European socialism" through his health care legislation. He has declared that he is "for income inequality," saying that "some people should make more than other people, because some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risk, and they should be rewarded for it." By contrast, he says that "President Obama is for income equality. That's socialism. It's worse yet, it's Marxism."

The strange case of Rick Santorum is significant because it reveals the potential for a conservative avowedly opposed to Obama's "European socialism" to identify something in Europe's social model(s) that policymakers in this country should aspire to achieve. Given that the president's adoption of a health care reform policy developed by a conservative think tank yielded cries of "death camps" from the right and universal opposition among Republicans in Congress, it's probably fairly naïve to imagine that European social policy will become a great bipartisan rallying point. But even if it doesn't, it can provide a way to challenge conservatives' commitment to their own stated principles while seeking progressive policy innovation.

For while conservatives who fear Marxist class agitation might find reassuring consistency in Santorum's use of the term "middle income" over "middle class," others no more committed to violent revolution might well recognize what such a rhetorical scheme costs in terms of explanatory power. For one thing, it seems doubtful that the term "middle class" would have inspired the deep admiration long conferred upon it if it simply referred to an income range; the tradition in America is to associate it with a set of aspirations and a certain sense of stability. Related to this is the question of whether greater equality of income might in some way be necessary to greater economic mobility, and whether the polarization of societies into very rich and poor means that the middle gets squeezed out. The former idea is supported by a recent OECD study that finds a correlation between inequality and intergenerational wage persistence and places the U.S. behind Canada, Denmark, Germany, and Spain in social mobility -- all countries that also have greater income equality than the U.S. Rather than putting progressives on the defensive, looking to Europe can offer an opportunity to challenge conservatives on their own professed commitment to income mobility as opposed to income equality.

This can be done without much fear of an encounter with the dreaded "European socialism" or too much "equality of result," because if such a thing ever existed beyond the Iron Curtain, it hardly reflects the Europe of today. In the midst of Germany's much-vaunted economic boom, the country's major news publications are abuzz with anxiety over rising income inequality over the past 20 years. And while income inequality in Germany has risen more quickly in the last 20 years than in many other countries in Europe, this level is no shocking outlier for Europe. It is comparable to inequality levels in nations as different as France and Greece and significantly lower than that of Britain. The Occupy movement did not stop at the Atlantic; it found enthusiastic reception in Paris, London, and Berlin, among other major European capitals.

For all this, our fellow Western democracies are still living proof that even in the face of globalization, better income equality and economic mobility than currently exist in the United States is possible. Because their societies do not represent the forced leveling through social reform that conservatives fear the president is bent on imitating here, we have all the more reason to look at Europe's achievements in a more constructive way: as a point of departure in a dialogue about solutions for a new era of social challenges. U.S. policymakers can point to the successes of our Western allies not to argue for imitation but to find insight and inspiration for their own efforts to increase the upward mobility that has long been America's great promise.

Keith Schumann served as the 2011 International Parliamentary Fellow in the office of Detlef Seif, a Member of the German Bundestag. He is the Coordinator for Diplomacy and International Relations for Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline's New York City chapter.

Share This

How Mobile Phones Will Power Social Good

Jan 9, 2012Dan Blue

As mobile technology spreads like wildfire through the developing world, it brings with it incredible potential.

As mobile technology spreads like wildfire through the developing world, it brings with it incredible potential.

Just over ten years ago, there were 15 million mobile phones in Africa. Today there are 616 million. In 5 years, there will be 1 billion on the continent. This same story of massive mobile growth and penetration spans the globe.

This growth means that cellular telephony, through standard voice calls and Short Message Service (SMS is how the world knows it), has become the default-and sometimes the only-way in which people in the developing world communicate.

The bottom line is simple: people have access to similar communication technology at rates and levels that few imagined a decade ago. In addition to the natural leveling effect this has on inequality and its ability to break down barriers within communities, this widespread communication platform also presents an opportunity to us as a society. We can use this widely available platform to drive and enable social good, particularly in the developing world. We're only beginning to scratch the surface of all the potential applications and services, like mobile banking, polling and data collection, social networks, distribution of public service information, and more.

Many point to the growth of the internet as presenting a similar opportunity. But while the growth of internet access has been notable, it pales in comparison to the mobile phone. Today, Africa has a 6 percent internet penetration rate, but 65 percent for the mobile phone. There is an important context to these numbers: some people in these markets have multiple SIM cards (there is no replication of the traditional U.S. method of 2-year contracts), enabling them to access different cellular networks depending on coverage. Research has yet to concretely identify exactly how widespread this is, but the growth rates and total mobile subscription stats are telling nonetheless.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

The developing world is on the verge of the same convergence the U.S. has been experiencing over the last few years: combining the two mediums into a single network and single piece of hardware, i.e. "smartphones." Fifty percent of people who access the internet in Africa and Asia only do so through a mobile device, a terrific starting point for mobile internet usage, and the introduction of 3G connectivity by operators in countries like Zimbabwe and Kyrgyzstan underscores this trend. Again, it is just beginning and only at the top section of society-voice and SMS will continue to dominate, especially until rates on mobile internet come into the price range of the world's poor.

Stories on how mobile phones are being used for social good are already coming out: empowered youth coordinating a fight against repression; the unbanked poor now having access to savings and credit through their device; community health workers going from village to village and entering public health data into an international database in seconds. The world is just now learning how to scale these ideas. Some concepts, like the ability to directly survey millions upon millions of otherwise unreachable people in a matter of days, are just beginning to take shape.

The story of the last 10-15 years was about the wildfire spread of access to communication and information technology, particularly cellular telephony. The story for the next 10-15 ought to be about how we, as a society, develop the tools and know-how to use these communication platforms and widespread access in innovative ways to drive social good.

Dan Blue is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow and a Business Analyst at Mobile Accord.

Share This

The 10 Worst Economic Ideas of 2011

Dec 22, 2011Jeff Madrick

Let's hope the New Year brings some new ideas, because this year's couldn't have been much worse -- or more widespread.

I was at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration this weekend and many clergy addressed the group. One nun told the crowd it was Christmas season and that it was time for something new to be born in America.

Let's hope the New Year brings some new ideas, because this year's couldn't have been much worse -- or more widespread.

I was at an Occupy Wall Street demonstration this weekend and many clergy addressed the group. One nun told the crowd it was Christmas season and that it was time for something new to be born in America.

It was a nice thought, and I hope that the "something new" is good sense, because it has been a year in which some of the worst economic ideas ever have gained support and are being applied around the world. So here's my list of the 10 worst economic ideas of 2011:

1. Taxes should be more regressive.

At the top of the list for sheer scandalous insensitivity are Herman Cain's and New Gingrich's tax plans for America. Cain and Gingrich are both flat tax advocates. Cain proposes "9-9-9" -- a 9 percent sales tax, 9 percent income tax, and 9 percent corporate tax. He would also eliminate most deductions. Would this raise more or less money? The romantic conservatives claim the lower income tax rate would mean more growth. Never mind that the evidence to support that claim has been found profoundly lacking time and again.

What is eyebrow-raising is how regressive the Cain tax would be. According to the Tax Policy Center, those who make more than $1 million would get a tax cut of about $455,000 on average. Those who make between $40,000 and $50,000 would get a tax increase of about $4,400. The tax rate would be 23.8 percent for this group, compared to 17.9 percent for those who make $1 million or more.

Cain's plan might take in as much money as is now taken in by the federal government. But Gingrich's plan wins the gold medal: his plan is both regressive and a gigantic revenue loser. His flat tax is 15 percent on incomes, with plenty of deductions like the one for mortgage interest still intact. He would eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends. Those who earn more than $1 million would make out like bandits, saving an average of more than $600,000 a year, while those earning $50,000 a year would save about $1,000. Meanwhile, the government would forego about $1 trillion in annual revenues by 2015.

2. Austerity works.

Is it conceivable that we have learned nothing from history -- or from economic theory, for that matter? It is hard to believe that after a year or so of the momentary return of Keynesianism in the wake of the deep recession of 2007-2009, it has been utterly renounced in practice in most rich nations around the world. The U.S. refuses to adopt a new fiscal stimulus as fears of a long-term deficit now determine short-term policy. The eurozone's decision makers are even more obtuse and dangerous. Germany is leading the pack by imposing harsh limits on deficits as a percent of GDP on member states, which is sure to lead to slow growth and probably growing deficits. In the near term, the refusal to restructure the debt of the southern periphery along with demands for harsh austerity there could lead to a break-up of the eurozone and general catastrophe.

The conventional wisdom, however wrong-headed, is widely accepted in the media. Britain is imposing austerity and its economy only gets weaker, yet a recent Financial Times article gives the country points for economic enlightenment compared to France because it is more willing to punish itself. John Banville, the estimable Irish novelist, writes in The New York Times that Ireland is now considered the "good boy" of Europe because of its intense austerity program. I am not sure he was being ironic. In fact, despite a couple of spikes in GDP, austerity is failing there as well. GDP and GNP (which is relevant because so much of their income is export-dependent) are way below their highs of a couple of years ago in Ireland.

IMF economists have recently produced solid research putting the lie to claims that austerity has led to rapid growth in some countries in the past. It almost never has, and in the couple of cases it has, it was because the countries devalued their currencies sharply to promote exports. Of course, there will be no devaluations in the eurozone.

3. Export growth models are sustainable.

Germany is especially proud that it has exported its way to becoming the strong man of Europe. It has suppressed wage growth, used subsidies to make its products more competitive, and taken advantage of the fixed euro, set at too low a rate to maintain trade balances. It is determined to remain oblivious to the fact that such a model requires countries that buy its products to run deficits and therefore borrow lots of money. This is why export models are known as beggar-thy-neighbor models, and it is why Germany has a moral obligation to help bail out nations like Greece, Italy, and Spain. Export models are really debt models on a global scale.

China also runs on an export model, and the U.S. borrows relentlessly from it. But China occasionally seems to recognize that this model may not be sustainable and is trying to raise wages and reduce imbalances some. More to the point, unlike Germany, it is now prepared to increase fiscal stimulus. This doesn't mean China gets an A for policy -- more like a C. But Germany gets an F, and its low-wage export model cannot be adopted by all of Europe. Someone has to be able to afford to buy something.

4. Fannie and Freddie did it.

A lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission has revived the argument that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the causes of the housing collapse and the financial crisis. The SEC is suing high-level executives for failing to disclose that they had more sub-prime loans than they admitted. In fact, by the actual definition for subprimes that was commonly used, they probably did make these disclosures. But they also piled on risky mortgages in 2006 and 2007, not to meet affordable lending goals as some claim, but to make a profit.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

Frank Partnoy and I have written about this in the New York Review of Books. The problem was not Fannie and Freddie. The crisis was created by the highly risky mortgages bought and sold by the private sector between 2003 and 2006, when Fannie and Freddie were cutting back their activities. They became big buyers when the damage was already done. And even now, their mortgage defaults as a percentage of their portfolios, despite the devastation in the housing market, are much lower than defaults in the private sector. Those who want to blame the government for the crisis keep coming back to this stale and very misleading issue. Get over it. And as for the SEC, can it be that the only case they can drum up against high-level executives is at Fannie and Freddie? You mean there were no bad big-time execs at Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Goldman, and so on?

5. Cutting Social Security benefits is a priority.

We have a very long-term deficit problem, not a short-term one. Social Security did not contribute to the short-term deficit -- the Bush tax cuts, the recession, and the slow recovery are the main culprits over the next 10 years. But even in the longer run, Social Security benefits will rise from a little under 5 percent of GDP to 6 percent of GDP. Cutting these benefits is not a priority and any deficit can be fixed with affordable tax increases. So why is everyone focusing on Social Security? Because it is the low-hanging fruit. The really big problems, like Medicare and Medicaid, are driven by a dysfunctional healthcare system, and that is too hard to fix. It is a little like Reagan invading Grenada and calling it a great American victory.

6. Inflation is just around the corner.

Remember the claims by the right wing that all that Federal Reserve stimulus in 2008 and 2009, not to mention the Obama spending bill, would lead to big-time inflation? Nothing would be better than a little inflation in the U.S. right now, but the economy has been too weak to deliver it. Bring on some inflation, please.

7. The Medicare eligibility age should be raised.

Reports had it that President Obama had momentarily agreed to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. Indeed, a New York Times editorial recently seemed (a little less than wholeheartedly) to endorse the idea. Yes, this might reduce Medicare expenditures, but it would raise the total amount Americans spend on health care. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation figures it would increase private health care costs for most of the seniors leaving Medicare by more than $2,000 a year on average. There would be other cost-raising effects, as, for example, healthier seniors left Medicare. Kaiser figures the increase in total health spending by Americans would be twice the amount of savings to Medicare. And of course some seniors would simply give up coverage. Call it triage.

8. Competition between Medicare and private health insurance will reform the health care system and reduce costs.

Say it ain't so, Ron Wyden. The Democratic senator from Oregon has teamed up with Congressman Paul Ryan to propose an option for Medicare recipients to buy private plans. They would be offered a flat payment to buy private plans if they so chose. Competition for these dollars will supposedly make Medicare and the health insurance companies more efficient. More likely, however, it will result in misleading claims by the health insurance companies or reduced coverage plans. It will raise costs for Medicare as healthy seniors are induced to take cheaper private plans with healthier individuals. Allegedly, the Wyden-Ryan plan would control for all this by setting minimal standards. Forget about that. The Obama administration has already given in on federal standards for Obamacare, letting states set their own. Guess who most of the states will favor. Seniors will probably have to move to New York or Massachusetts to get decent plans.

But that's not even the big rub. It is that Medicare payments will be limited to growing just 1 percent faster than GDP. Health care costs have risen considerably faster than that for a long time. Somehow Wyden thinks that such a limit will force reforms. In sum, it will simply lead to less coverage and more expense for beneficiaries.

9. Federal spending should be capped at 21 percent of GDP.

The president's Simpson-Bowles budget balancing commission proposed this cap because it is the average for the last 40 years. How's that for reasoning? With fast-rising health care costs and an aging population, such a limit is patent nonsense. For a nation that needs significant investment in infrastructure, energy savings, and education, it is especially damaging. There is no evidence to support the claim that such a cap would promote economic growth. An alternative plan offered by Rivlin and Domenici at least raises the cap to about 23 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The whopper is the House Republican plan to adopt a budget balancing amendment to the Constitution. It would reduce federal expenditures to 18 percent of the previous year's GDP, meaning more like a 16.5 percent cap. This would change America as we know it, testing the nation's political stability with harsh cuts in social spending and precluding any serious public investment in the nation's economic foundations.

10. Balancing the budget should involve equal parts tax hikes and government spending cuts.

This is not economics; it is politics. But economists argue for it all the time as if it is good economics, not admitting their conservative bias that high taxes are bad for growth and government social and investment spending never helps.

Most of the major budget balancing plans of 2010 and 2011 argued for more spending cuts than revenue increases. The Bowles-Simpson plan is comprised of two-thirds spending cuts, one-third revenue increases. Obama's budget plan last spring also had much more in spending cuts than tax increases. Only the Rivlin-Domenici plan was balanced. The one conspicuous exception was the plan from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which of course got short shrift in the press. It was about two-thirds tax increases to one-third program cuts.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the author of Age of Greed.

Share This

Pages