ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Boehner Spouts Anti-Intellectualism Screed: ‘I Don’t Need To See GDP Numbers Or Listen To Economists’

This morning on Fox News Sunday, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who has waffled on the impact of the stimulus, argued against the need for more stimulus funding. He claimed that he doesn’t need to listen to economists when putting together his policy agenda:

WALLACE: Congressman — a number of top economists say what we need is more economic stimulus.

BOEHNER: Well, I don’t need to see GDP numbers or to listen to economists. All I need to do is listen to the American people, because they’ve been asking the question now for 18 months, “where are the jobs?”

Later, the interview grew a bit more hostile as Wallace tried to press Boehner on the deficit-impact of his call for extending the Bush tax cuts. “Chris, you’ve been in Washington too long because that’s all a bunch of Washington talk,” Boehner said dismissively. “I’m just asking a question, sir,” Wallace persisted, noting the exorbitant cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. “This is the whole Washington mindset, all these CBO numbers,” Boehner responded. Watch it:

Boehner — whose blind political ideology often leads him to oppose anything that Democrats and Obama might be supportive of — is not interested in hearing the facts. The GDP numbers that Boehner doesn’t want to see showed a relatively weak 2.4 percent growth rate in the 2nd quarter, which indicates that the economy is losing momentum:

MW-AF692_econom_MD_20100730085435

The consensus from leading experts is that the original stimulus was too small for the magnitude of the crisis. Forty notable economists and historians, including Joseph Stiglitz, Alan Blinder, and Mark Zandi, recently signed their names to statements calling for more government stimulus. “The urgent need is for government to replace the lost purchasing power of the unemployed and their families and to employ other tax-cut and spending programs to boost demand,” they wrote.

Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke — who Boehner has praised in the past — has said that deficit spending is critical in the short-term and that pulling support from the stimulus isn’t the right solution. “At the current moment…the large deficits, as unattractive as they are, are important for supporting economic activity, and they were important also in restoring financial stability,” he said. “And so I think they were justified in that respect, and I would be reluctant to withdraw that support too precipitously in the near term.”

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf — yet another expert that Boehner has praised in the past — has explained that there is “no intrinsic contradiction” between supporting more stimulus now and demanding deficit reduction later. Yale economics professor Robert Schiller writes in today’s New York Times, “We need more stimulus, not less — but we need to focus much more on actually putting people to work. … [U]nless we take new measures, we face the prospect of protracted unemployment.”

Yglesias

Dallas Fed Pushing Zero Inflation Agenda

Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, spends a bunch of time trying to argue that further monetary easing won’t boost growth, but that ultimately turns out not to be his real reason:

Calling price stability the Fed’s “ultimate goal,” he said the U.S. central bank will not tolerate either inflation or deflation.

“The Federal Reserve is absolutely committed to its goal of achieving price stability,” he said. “This entails keeping inflation extremely low and stable.”

As Scott Sumner emphasizes this is the opportunistic disinflation agenda the view that the Federal Reserve should deliberately prolong economic downturns in order to ratchet the inflation rate down to ever-lower levels. It’s a crazy idea. Inflation can, of course, get too higher. But after Paul Volcker beat inflation we had about a 4 percent inflation rate and things were fine. Then we progressively disinflated further and got down to about a two percent inflation rate. That was also fine. But now we’re mired in a cataclysmic recession, which is not fine. And instead of ending it, the “hawks” on the Fed are prolonging it in effort to get us down to near-zero inflation. But why?

Politics

Palin Writes Down Cost Of Extending Bush Tax Cuts On Her Hand, But She Still Gets It Wrong

Since he was on the campaign trail, President Obama has proposed renewing the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the lower- and middle-class, while allowing them to expire on schedule at the end of the year for the richest two percent of Americans. Republicans, however, have begun to obfuscate the issue by saying that the end of the year will bring history’s largest tax increase, deliberately leaving out that Democrats have proposed extending most of the cuts.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) pulled this rhetorical trick last week, saying “Democrats are poised to allow the largest tax increase in American history to take effect,” and on Fox News Sunday today former half-term governor Sarah Palin went down the same road. Fox’s Chris Wallace rightly pointed out that “the Republicans keep talking about being deficit hawks. This is $678 billion you are not going to pay for.” Palin responded “no, this is going to result in the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Again, it’s idiotic.”

Wallace proceeded to let Palin spend the next minute reading from notes on paper that she had written down. He interrupted her just for a moment to ask if she had anything written down on her hand, to which she responded that she did:

PALIN: My palm isn’t large enough to have written all my notes down on what this tax increase, what it will result in.… Democrats are poised to cause the largest tax increase in U.S. history, it’s a tax increase of $3.8 trillion in the next ten years and it will have an effect on every single American who pays an income tax. Small businesses, especially, will be hit hardest. Small businesses account for roughly 70 percent of our job creation in this country. So raising taxes on these employers is the worst thing that can happen.

WALLACE: Can I ask you, what do you have written on your hand?

PALIN: $3.8 trillion in the next ten years, so I have didn’t say $3.7 trillion and get dinged by the liberals saying I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Watch it:

Despite the preparation of her “cheat sheet,” she still doesn’t know what she is talking about.

For one thing, according to the Pew Economic Policy Group, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts will cost $3.1 trillion over ten years, once the costs of servicing the debt are factored in. But no one has proposed allowing them all expire, and it’s incredibly disingenuous of Republicans to claim otherwise, especially since it was a budget gimmick by former President George W. Bush to include the ten-year sunset at all.

Extending just the cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans will cost $830 billion over ten years. As Center for American Progress Associate Director for Tax Policy Michael Linden wrote, “to put that figure in perspective, $830 billion is enough to pay for all veterans’ hospitals, doctors, and the rest of the Veteran’s Affairs health system, plus the United States Coast Guard, plus the Food and Drug Administration, plus the operation and maintenance of every single national park for the entire 10-year period — with more than $100 billion left over.”

It was good that Wallace pointed out to Palin that Republicans are being hypocritical by complaining about deficits at the same time they’re calling for renewing huge tax breaks for the wealthy, but he then let her spew irresponsible claims that have no basis in reality.

Yglesias

Population Growth and the CBO

As I believe I’ve mentioned before, I think it’s pretty silly that people in Washington DC in 2010 spend a lot of time talking about bleak CBO forecasts of the budgetary situation in 2062. As Doug Henwood points out, one reason the long-term forecasts for entitlement spending look so bad is that the Congressional Budget Office has decided that the future U.S. economic growth rate will be slower than it’s been historically. They’re somewhat pessimistic about future productivity growth, and as Brad DeLong emphasizes also forecast a deceleration in the labor force growth rate.

Either of those contentions might be true, or they might not be true, but the point I would emphasize is that neither of them are beyond our control. If instead of looking at the CBO’s projection you look at the CBO’s model you’ll find that one thing they’re saying is that making it easier for immigrants to move here will improve out outlook considerably. Now perhaps we won’t do that, but perhaps we will. And I think that if more people understood this aspect of the problem, we’d be more likely to become more welcoming to foreign workers.

Yglesias

Christina Romer on Boosting the Economy

S030409JB-0043.JPG

The Council on Economic Advisors chair does a Q&A with the Wall Street Journal:

What can be done to make things better?

Romer: There’s a lot that can be done. We had in our budget $267 billion of temporary recovery measures. So far, by kicking and screaming, we have only gotten a fraction of that.
I think the additional state fiscal relief is absolutely essential. The FMAP extension. The $10 billion fund for preventing teacher layoffs
. If you look at what’s happening at the state and local level, that’s a clear headwind to the recovery. Anything you can do to help ease that problem would be incredibly beneficial. We are working incredibly hard to get more credit and additional tax cuts for small businesses. And, the President has been talking about the Homestar program. There have been all these good ideas and what’s been frustrating for me is it’s been such a struggle to move them forward.

All true. I just wish she would mention monetary policy. Ultimately what’s needed is a whole of government effort to raise the price level back to something commensurate with pre-crisis trends. I understand the theory that it’s better for central banks to be operationally independent of elected officials (though the theory looks worse and worse with every passing day) but the convention that elected officials shouldn’t comment on central banking issues doesn’t make sense. You can’t talk about the economy without talking about monetary policy, and clearly we wouldn’t have a CEA Chair if she wasn’t supposed to talk about the economy.

Climate Progress

Lost in translation: In a Brazilian interview, Judith Curry incluir uma cena demasiado longa ou uma varia§£o do tema de um programa de televis£o indicando que este est¡ com os seus dias contados

And you’ll never guess who else is in the post-normal fan club!

Judith Curry, tribal elder for the confusionists, has now jumped the shark in two languages.

As Wikipedia explains, “Jumping the shark is an idiom used to describe the moment of downturn for a previously successful enterprise. The phrase was originally used to denote the point in a television program’s history where the plot spins off into absurd story lines or unlikely characterizations.  These changes were often the result of efforts to revive interest in a show whose audience had begun to decline, usually through the employment of different actors, writers or producers.”

Bingo.

Tenney Naumer who blogs from Brazil on climate change, just posted, “More Currygate: Judith Curry has spread disinformation in Brazil. Interview from ‰poca magazine, May 1, 2010.”  Tenney did the translations and issues the often-crucial, often-ignored advice, “head vise warning in effect!”

For me, the confusing confusionist interview itself is not as fascinating as something I discovered in the course of writing this post.

[Note: For a change of pace, and since the subject seems to call for it, I'm going to try a Rabett Run approach here.  Do read his new post on Jindal and the berms.  I digress.]

Read more

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up