Beyond Growth: The Rise and Fall (and Posthumous Return) of Political Keynesianism

by the Sandwichman

The ghost of Montagu Norman notwithstanding, the fact that there are bad -- or even stupid -- arguments against something is not, in itself, a good argument for it. Some sort of stimulus package is, at this point, a foregone conclusion. Whether or not StimPack™ '09 is "big enough" or whether or not it will work as intended are questions the Sandwichman will leave for more learned Thebans to debate. What Sandwichman wonders is "what's growth got to do with it... do with it?"

Once upon a time, Keynesian policy was about "full employment", defined as a balance between the number of job seekers and the number of positions available. Then economic growth came to be seen as a prerequisite for attaining full employment. Then full employment was defined downward to the so-called natural rate or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU). Now, even that natural rate seems too high a target for fiscal policy to aim at all at once. Full employment has become an empty promise.

Meanwhile, starting back as early as the 1950s, with John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society, questions began to emerge about the social and/or environmental efficacy of economic growth as a prime policy objective. Doubts compounded in the 1970s, with the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth and Fred Hirsch's Social Limits to Growth.

Now suddenly, after 30 years of neo-liberal orthodoxy -- a regression Hirsch presumed was unthinkable -- we're being beamed back to the pre-Reagan era for a refreshing blast of old-time Keynesian pump-priming. Happy days are here again! What am I missing? All those insights into the inherent contradictions of Keynesian demand management. The stuff about conservation of resources and the distinctions between the material economy and the positional economy.

What if the StimPack™ '09 answers we have are for problems people don't have? "They've got other problems and we don't have any answers."

House Republicans Want an Inadequate Stimulus Bill

Eric Cantor writes:

We Republicans believe we can help mitigate those risks if we are given a meaningful place at the table ... Specifically, we want to keep the stimulus bill -- as well as all other future economic "rescue" measures -- limited in scope and transparent. Our country has no other choice. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a sobering report that this year's deficit will likely climb to over 8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or $1.2 trillion. That's higher than at any point since World War II -- and those figures don't even account for the forthcoming stimulus. Such heavy borrowing runs the risk down the line of rampant inflation, which scares away foreign capital while making the purchasing power of the dollar weaker for American consumers.

The stimulus may be too big? Inflation and higher interest rates? This guy really doesn’t get it – does he? The letter to President Obama by Paul Krugman should go to the top of the read pile for Representative Cantor.

Measuring the Cost of TARP

The CBO blog has a very useful discussion of how to measure the cost of TARP:

Through December 31, 2008, the Treasury disbursed $247 billion to acquire assets under that program. CBO valued those assets using discounted present-value calculations similar to those generally applied to federal loans and loan guarantees, but adjusting for market risk as specified in the legislation that established the TARP. On that basis, CBO estimates that the net cost of the TARP’s transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion—that is, measured in 2008 dollars, we expect the government to recover about three quarters of its initial investment. The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) report on the TARP, issued in early December, only addressed the first $115 billion distributed under the program. CBO and OMB do not differ significantly in their assessments of the net cost of those transactions (between $21 billion and $26 billion), but they vary in their judgments as to how the transactions should be reported in the federal budget. Thus far, the Administration is accounting for capital purchases made under the TARP on a cash basis rather than on such a present-value basis—that is, the Administration is recording the full amount of the cash outlays up front and will record future recoveries in the year in which they occur. That treatment will show more outlays for the TARP this year and then show receipts in future years.

One view – popular among certain economists including yours truly – is that the deals under TARP are nothing more than asset trades. If the government exchanges $100 in cash for $100 in other assets, there is no expenditure and no deficit cost. As the Administration uses this cash basis for deficit accounting, it overstates the deficit by ignoring the present value of future recoveries.

But this view is an extreme one if what the government gets back for its $100 in cash outflows is actually assets worth less than $100. CBO is saying here that the government may be getting back $75 in present value terms for every $100 in cash outlays. If this holds up for the rest of the $700 billion in TARP funds, then taxpayers will have spent $175 billion on net to bail out these troubled financial institutions. Not as shocking as $700 billion but still a hefty price for the laissez faire policy of letting these institutions walk away with the upside of risk taking but having the rest of us bear the downside risk.

Policy by Ponzi

by the Sandwichman

Is change.gov's Citizen's Briefing Book the best thing since SinceSlicedBread.com? Is it a matter of good intentions thwarted by (abysmally) bad design? Or is it a timely and revealing demonstration of the principle of "positional economic goods" and thus an illustration of why economic growth is likely to disappoint our aspirations?

Three years ago, the Service Employees International Union held a contest seeking ideas on how to "strengthen the economy and improve life for working men and women and their families." People were encouraged to submit ideas and vote for their favorite ideas. The most popular ideas then became finalists from which the contest winners were selected by a panel of judges.

The functional design of the website was hideous. The most evident flaw was that the early leaders were displayed on the sites front page, giving them a formidable advantage. It was also possible to game the system by registering multiple times and voting repeatedly for your own idea. Once a gamester had elevated their idea to the top five, they could sit back and let it accumulate innocent votes.

It's hard to believe that no lessons were learned from the SlicedBread fiasco and no further developments have been made in online participatory software. The cynic might argue that these things are strictly public relations exercises and that thus there are no lessons to be learned or improvements that need to be made. But even in terms of p.r., the ersatz quality of the participation might just piss thoughtful people off instead of giving them the satisfaction of having had their say.

This is an example of the kind of situation Fred Hirsch identified as a feature of the "positional economy" in his Social Limits to Growth.

"The positional economy... relates to all aspects of goods, services, work positions, and other social relationships that are either (1) scarce in some absolute or socially imposed way or (2) subject to congestion or crowding through more extensive use."

With tens of thousands of "ideas" submitted, each one only gets a few seconds of front-page exposure before being buried in the database. However, ideas that grab an initial advantage continue to get exposure as "most popular" and thus continue to obtain even more votes. In the end, the highest-ranked ideas will not necessarily be the best ideas or even those that might have been ranked highest if all participants had somehow indefatigably viewed and voted on each idea.

Hirsch's point was that the presence of these scarce or potentially congested goods or services undermined the ideal that economic growth could lift all boats. Improvements in the material economy would tend to raise the relative demand for -- and cost of -- scarce positional goods and thus lead to disappointment. Hirsh's prime example of crowding is in the demand for prestige jobs. College education once offered access to such employment but with the democratization of higher education, the screening of job applicants became more intense and required higher credentials for entry to any given level of employment.

Although Hirsch doesn't consider Ponzi schemes, his concept could equally explain the role of such episodes in the saga of economic growth. A Ponzi scheme rewards early participants with the proceeds from later entrants. In crude outline, it is little different than the employment/education credentials story except that it cuts out the "waste" of actually acquiring the subsequently-devalued credential. In an economy that increasingly values positional goods, the Ponzi is a strictly positional investment. One might even suggest that as the "real economy" of work, employment credentials, production and income acquires a greater element of positional distribution of wealth, the lessons learned there translate into a greater propensity to engage in Ponzi-like speculative bubbles.

Non-arguments Against the Fiscal Stimulus

Greg Mankiw has another post where the reader might think there is some argument against the Obama fiscal stimulus proposal – but once again, the reader finds nothing:

John Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says that among academics over the last 30 years, the idea of fiscal stimulus has been discredited and in graduate courses, it is "taught only for its fallacies." New York University economist Thomas Sargent agrees: "The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research."

Beyond dropping a couple of well known names, what does this passage substantively tell us? Cochrane says the Keynesian multiplier has fallacies but fails to identify a single one. Sargent may be right that we have learned a lot in the last sixty years but exactly what lessons apply to this policy debate. This piece does not say. In other words, this passage is absolutely worthless as it says nothing of substance at all.

Then again, when Greg tried to tout the Fama theory by accounting identity approach – he took a rather harsh drubbing. Better to offer meaningless nothings than what appears to be a substantive argument until actually thinks about it. Maybe there are legitimate arguments against this fiscal stimulus – but for all his efforts, Greg Mankiw isn’t exactly producing convincing ones!

Obama Drinks Social Security Kool-Aid

This morning's Washington Post has a front page story that not only says social security deficits start in 2011 (2017 according to the Trustees intermediate projection), but reports that Obama has now specifically included social security as an item to be dealt with in the broader analysis of longer term deficit reduction. The precise quote, " 'Social Security can be solved," he said with a wave of his left hand," with him then going on to accurately note medicare and the health system as the more important and more difficult problem. There is no word on what he intends to do or even what sort of mechanism he intends to set up for figuring out how to do it, whatever it is. The only real positive here is that, perhaps looking to the bright side of that piece on huffingtonpost, there will be no privatization scheme as part of any proposal from his administration.

I see two factors in this. The first is the noxious influence of Larry Summers being in the apparent catbird seat as "economics czar." He was part of the Clinton group that was pushing this kool-aid back in the late 1990s. The other may be a more short-term political motive. In particular, "blue dog" Democrats are reportedly unhappy about the scale of the deficits in the fiscal stimulus and want to see some moves to lowering longer term ones. The most important figure in this is Kent Conrad of ND, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committtee, who in late 2007 was part of an effort with Treasury Secretary Paulson to cook up a deal involving both fica tax increases and future benefit cuts for social security, Conrad having long been a deep drinker of the ss kool-aid baloney. That effort was killed from both the left ("no benefit cuts, leave social security alone") and the right, particularly Dick Cheney ("no new tax increases"). Again, Obama's platform called for a possible imposition of fica on higher income individuals, "if needed" in 2019, with no call for benefit cuts. But the Conrad gang wants that, and I have long pointed out that any change would involve benefit cuts, as Republicans will simply filibuster any tax increase that does not also involve benefit cuts. As it is, I hope that Obama's plan runs into complications, and that in the end, nothing is done with or to social security.

Huffingtonpost Tells Liberal Democrats To Drink "Fix Social Security Now" Kool-Aid

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson called posted yesterday on huffingtonpost "Why Liberals Should Want Obama To Take On Social Security Now," at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/why-liberals-should-want_b_157490.html. They claim that Obama's remark last week about looking at "entitlement spending" meant he wants to look at social security, and, of course, they buy the most moronic and hysterical projections about social security. If nothing is done now, "everyone will lose." Gag. While the system has not had such large surpluses now that we are in recession, it remains a fact that in nearly half of the years of the past decade, the system did better than the "low cost" projection under which the system never runs a deficit.

More specifically, Bittle and Johnson make four points: 1) that change now will be OK because the public does not want private accounts. That may be true, but to get Republicans on board we are talking about having to take benefit cuts for somebody, either now or in the future that may well not be needed at all. 2) Doing something now will "avoid a generation war." Why is this? There is no change that can be made that is not going to impact one group more than another. None. The supposed Bush plan would have hit a particular group very hard who were born over a six year period. This is just fantasy land stuff. 3) That doing something to social security is "easier than fixing health care." But, as Obama's campaign certainly knew, the big problem in entitlement spending is the sharply rising projections for health care costs, with the medicare fund already running the deficits that the social security fanatics keep freaking out might happen in 2017 or thereafter for social security. Health care may be harder, but it is far more important. And, as Bush discovered, social security is not all that easy, although perhaps these clowns think it is because they also have this delusion that somehow there is some solution that is not going to impact different age groups differently. Wrong. 4) The Dems are (will be) in control of both the WH and the Congress. So, this means they should do something both unnecessary and stupid? Of all the priorities we face right now, fooling with social security must be rock bottom, and at least the Obama campaign figured this out. Let us hope that the Obama administration remembers it as well after they get into power.

Getting the Most Bang for the Stimulus Buck

by the Sandwichman

Dean Baker has made this old Sandwichman very, very happy. Point seven of Dean's "Yes, We Can Make the Stimulus more Stimulating":

7) Pay for shorter workweeks and more vacations

The United States lags the rest of world in that its workers are not guaranteed any vacation time, sick leave, or family and parental leave. In Europe, five or six weeks a year of paid vacation is standard. Also, all Western European countries guarantee their workers some amount of paid sick leave and paid parental leave.

The stimulus gives us a great chance to catch up with the rest of the world. The government could make up the pay for two years for any paid cutback in hours, up to 10 percent of total hours worked in a year and $3,000 per worker. This means that if a firm offered workers who previously had no paid vacation five weeks of vacation a year, the government would provide a tax credit to pick up the tab, up to $3,000 per worker. Similarly, if they extended 10 days of paid sick leave, the government would provide a tax credit for the amount actually used. If employers of 70 million workers (half of the labor force) received an average tax break of $2,500, the cost would be $170 billion a year.

Wow. Wow. The other six points are great, too. But this is my favorite.

UPDATE: You can now vote for this idea at the "Citizen's Briefing Book" on the change.gov website!

Fiscal Stimulus Skeptics: Jonah Goldberg Outdoes Kevin Hassett

Just one day after my nomination, I have to rescind and give my nomination for the dumbest criticism of the Obama fiscal stimulus to Jonah Goldberg. After 7 paragraphs of Goldberg’s typical meaningless ramblings, we finally get this:

That might overstate it a bit, because some naysayers can be heard. Economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, for example, notes that whatever the benefits of the proposed stimulus, they probably don't outweigh the enormous costs of the debt we would incur. As a result of the stimulus, the deficit this year would equal the total cost of the federal government in 2000. That's on top of $7.76 trillion in bailouts pledged by the government, according to Bloomberg News. The real reason the stimulus package will be gigantic is not that the smartest people with the best ideas say it needs to be. It's that Obama's real priority is to get the bill out as quickly as possible, which means every constituency gets something, including Republicans.

Where to begin? Hassett never did offer an estimate the estimated benefits but Obama’s own economists have – and the benefits can be readily measured at the estimated reduction in the enormous GDP gap that we would have if this fiscal proposal is not passed. To suggest running a transitional deficit is more costly that having a large GDP gap must have Art Okun rolling over in his grave!

Hassett did offer an estimate of the 2009 deficit - $1.2 trillion. I guess Mr. Goldberg is not aware that Federal spending is running at an annual clip in excess of $3 trillion. Of course, the nominal expenditures of the Federal government were less in 2000 – they were only $1.86 trillion. Now in real per capita terms, the difference between 2008 and 2000 spending wasn’t that large but there is no way any knowledgeable person can write “the deficit this year would equal the total cost of the federal government in 2000”.

As far as the amount of funds pledged for bailouts – these represent asset trades not expenditures. Again - any knowledgeable person who has followed this story would have known that. But then Jonah Goldberg has proven countless times, he does not qualify as a knowledgeable person.

As far as the crack about the smartest people with the best ideas not arguing we need a stimulus package as large as what Obama has proposed, most of the economists I’ve been reading are saying that the fiscal stimulus should be larger not smaller. But then again – Jonah Goldberg is infamous for not reading up on a topic before his writes one of his op-eds on it. I used live in Los Angeles and was generally proud of my hometown newspaper so I often questioned why the Los Angeles Times would embarrass itself with the serial stupidity that comes from the pen of Jonah Goldberg. His latest is just another example of what made me wonder.

Update: One of those smartest people who Mr. Goldberg apparently never bothers to read has a bang for the buck piece that provides rough estimates of the reduction in the GDP gap per dollar of fiscal stimulus:

But if $100 billion in spending raises GDP by $150 billion, and the marginal tax rate is 1/3, $50 billion of the spending comes back in additional revenue. So bang for the buck - increase in GDP per dollar of added debt - is 3, not 1.5. Since the main concern about stimulus is that it will add to government debt, it’s this bang for the buck measure, rather than the multiplier, that’s relevant. And 3 sounds a lot better than 1.5 ... Bang for the buck also heightens the contrast between effective and ineffective stimulus policies. Stay with c = 0.5, t = 1/3, and look at the effects of a tax cut; the multiplier is 0.75, half that for public investment, but bang for the buck is 1, only 1/3 that for investment.

If one is concerned about how much the deficit has to rise to get on back on the path towards full employment, then one should favor increases in government purchases over tax cuts according to this analysis. Some conservatives pretend to care about the deficit but then they also tend to favor the tax cut route. Me thinks these conservatives haven’t exactly thought this one through very carefully.

Hassett and the Paradox of Thrift

I nominate Kevin Hassett for the worse argument yet against the Obama fiscal stimulus:

We are in the midst of a crisis caused by so many financial institutions borrowing too much money. Somehow, a critical mass of policy makers now believes that the correct response is for the U.S. government to borrow too much money.

Financial institutions lend money to those who wish to invest more than they save. Our current problem is not that there is too much private investment – rather it is that there is too little private investment. OK, financial institutions may have made certain loans that defaulted – to which they are now lending less. But that is not the same thing as “financial institutions borrowing too much money”.

As Keynes noted – when the private sector invests less than it saves, an insufficiency of aggregate demand may lead to a recession unless the public sector decides to engage in fiscal stimulus. Yet, Hassert is advocating fiscal restraint which would further increase the national savings schedule leading to the well known paradox of thrift. Herbert Hoover would be proud!

On top of this silliness, we get:

How could the deficit increase so much, so fast? Part of the story is the decline in revenue, which the CBO forecasts will be $166 billion less than it was in 2008, a 6.6 percent decline. But relative to 2000, revenue has actually increased from $2 trillion to a scheduled $2.4 trillion in 2009. The deficit has skyrocketed because spending has grown from $1.8 trillion in 2000 to a projected $3.5 trillion in 2009, fully 95 percent higher. Of course, all that happened mostly on a Republican watch.

Nominal revenues will have risen by 20%! Wow! Oh wait – the price-level will have risen by about 25% so real revenues will have declined even in absolute terms. Real revenues per capita or revenues as a percent of GDP – you know the drill! While it may be true that Federal spending relative to GDP increased during the Bush Administration – any suggestion that real Federal spending per capita doubled would be laughable in the extreme.

Did Gary Becker Really Argue Complete Crowding-Out?

Conservative criticism of the Obama fiscal stimulus plan seems to be reverting to mischaracterizing what certain economists have said. Brad DeLong is calling one foul on this score:

Is there any way to interpret Greg Mankiw's Sunday New York Times other than as an elbow to Chtistie's ribs while he thinks the ref's eye is elsewhere? Christie certainly does not believe that tax multipliers are twice the size of spending multipliers.

Greg Mankiw is now citing Gary Becker as one who thinks any increase in public infrastructure will have almost no aggregate demand effect ala crowding out but let’s review the portions of Gary’s statement that Greg left out:

If the government increased its spending on infrastructure when the economy has full employment, its main impact would likely be to draw labor, capital, and raw materials away from various other activities. In effect, increased government spending under these employment conditions would "crowd out" private spending ... Of course, the present situation is not one of full employment but of underemployment and excess unemployment, and employment is still falling. How does one adjust the full employment analysis in the first paragraph to account for the presence of unemployed labor and capital? One extreme assumes no crowding out of other private spending when governments increase their spending with significant underemployment in the economy. Increased government spending through a stimulus package under these conditions might even have a "multiplier" effect that would greatly increase, not crowd out, other private spending. The reason is that the recipients of the government spending in turn would increase their spending, and thereby stimulate other activities. Intermediate assumptions assume partial crowding out of other private activities, so a stimulus package would still increase employment and GDP.

Gary presents us the standard reasoning and then asks us to apply it to the current situation. It is true that Gary makes the following argument:

For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending.

In other words, he starts with the intermediate position and then tilts towards the full employment view but my reading of Romer-Bernstein suggests we are likely closer to the view held by the no crowding-out crowd.

We should welcome a real debate on this issue but cherry picking quotes is not exactly the best way to make a point.

Dick Cheney on the Recession – Does He Have a Point?

When Dick Cheney was Vice President-elect, he prematurely said we were in a recession. Now he is saying things are not that bad:

Appearing Sunday on the last broadcast of CNN's Late Edition, Vice President Dick Cheney defended the administration's handling of the recession and argued that its premature to call it the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. "I can't say that. I don't think we know that yet. I think certainly if you look at some earlier periods in our history, I remember back in the late '70s when we had a high rate of inflation, stagflation in effect and a high rate of unemployment," Cheney said. He added, "We've had some difficult times. Is it the worst since World War II? I can't say that. I don't believe the data shows that yet but it is clearly a serious recession."

Late 1970’s? Oh – another dig at President Carter. Of course, the unemployment rate during his tenure never reached the 9% hit during May 1975. Of course, that was during Ford’s tenure when Cheney was chief of staff. And we certainly have not reached the 10.8% unemployment rate that we saw during the end of 1982. But Cheney can’t criticize Saint Reagan – can he?

I certainly hope we don’t reach 11% unemployment but only a Pollyanna would predict that we will not exceed the unemployment rate during Carter’s tenure. Of course, the rightwing will likely try to pin this recession on President Obama somehow. After all – the Bush-Cheney Administration was not responsible for anything that has happened over the past 8 years.

Good Jobs? Green Jobs?

Fifty years ago, John Kenneth Galbraith addressed a forum of Resources for the Future with the following question and observation:

If we are concerned about our great appetite for materials, it is plausible to seek to increase the supply, to decrease the waste, to make better use of the stocks that are available, and to develop substitutes. But what of the appetite itself? Surely this is the ultimate source of the problem. If it continues its geometric course, will it not one day have to be restrained? Yet in the literature of the resource problem this is the forbidden question. Over it hangs a nearly total silence. It is as though, in the discussion of the chance for avoiding automobile accidents, we agree not to make any mention of speed!

In the half-century since Galbraith made those remarks, many scientists and economists have asked the "forbidden question" about restraining growth. It becomes perplexing, therefore, when the old silence re-asserts itself, as it apparently has in the announced program of the Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference.

Clearly cleaner technologies, greater efficiency and renewable sources of energy are part of any solution to the problems of limited resources and adverse environment effects of industry. But another, essential part of a comprehensive green strategy has to focus on developing alternatives to the imperative of economic growth. Ultimately, the technological responses have to be integrated with the ethical and social responses.

One of the alternatives to economic growth is the reduction of working time. Economic growth was adopted as a policy objective in the 1950s and 1960s because it was viewed as a means to the end of full employment. In the 1960s, the AFL-CIO urged "creating jobs through shorter hours," recognizing that "even if other economic policies are successful in stimulating greater growth in the period ahead, the rate of advance in technology and other labor-displacing changes is gathering such momentum that, unless part of the gains in efficiency are distributed in reductions in hours, it is virtually inevitable that it will show up in persistent and increased unemployment" (Economic Trends and Outlook, American Federationist, November 1962).

Not only do shorter work hours present a strategy for creating good jobs, they are better for the environment. David Rosnick and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research looked at the potential environmental effects of other countries adopted U.S. style long working hours in a report titled "Are Shorter Work Hours Good for the Environment: A comparison of U.S. and European Energy Consumption." They found that the levels of carbon emissions could increase substantially if workers in other countries worked as much as U.S. workers do. Conversely, if the U.S. adopted working times closer to the European average, energy consumption could be reduced significantly.

In his speech, Galbraith went on to inquire whether our happiness would be greatly impaired by more modest consumption. It is not unreasonable to expect that happiness could be enhanced by more generous leisure time.

How Bruce Webb And I Helped Save Social Security (Maybe)

A few days ago Obama was quoted as saying that "getting entitlement spending under control" would be part of the effort to deal with budgetary problems. Most think he is focusing on getting rising medical care costs under control, which was part of his platform. But the question of maybe he might do something with or to social security has arisen, and with Larry Summers whispering in his ear, who wanted to go after the program under Bill Clinton, this may be worrisome. As it is during the campaign, Obama opposed any cuts in benefits or moves to privatization, with his only proposal being to possibly implement fica taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year starting in 2019, if the program needs financial shoring up at that time, with the widely publicized mid-range forecast of the system having that being a year or so after the program is scheduled to start running annual deficits rather than the (large) surpluses it has been running, and will continue to run forever if the very unpublicized low-cost scenario comes to pass.

This is where Bruce Webb and I came in last spring. While the system did not do so last year and certainly will not this year, in a majority of years over the past decade it has done better than that low cost scenario, raising the likelihood that the system may in fact never run a deficit. It may not need any fixing ever, and is just fine as it is. Ain't broke and don't need no fixin'. Initially Obama was proposing to implement his added fica tax immediately after taking office. At a certain point, Bruce and I composed a memo laying out the above facts and some others that was sent through channels I shall not discuss to the highest levels of the Obama campaign. Soon thereafter came the change in position to move this proposed change off to 2019, although this decision may have had little to nothing to do with our memo. But I still hold to the position of that memo and hope that Obama is not listening too closely to Summers now on this matter. The system is doing just fine and should be left alone as it is for the duration of his presidency, however long it proves to be.

Obama’s Own Estimate of Employment Growth is Underwhelming

Reuters reports:

President-elect Obama said Saturday an analysis of his stimulus proposals shows that between 3 million and 4 million U.S. jobs could be saved or created by 2010, nearly 90% of them in the private sector.

Employment as of December 2008 was about 3.3 million jobs less than it was as of November 1007 according to the household survey. The employment-population ratio has declined to 61.0%. Even if we had an additional 3.5 million jobs today, the employment-population ratio would be only 62.5%. Now when they start talking about an additional 7 million new jobs, I’ll be impressed as that might get us closer to the 64% employment-population ratio we enjoyed in the late 1990’s.