Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

To spend or not to spend…that is Obama’s question

By JIM KUHNHENN
December 4, 2010

Members of the military listen to President Barack Obama at a rally during an unannounced visit at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, Friday, Dec. 3, 2010. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

In less than three hours, the extraordinary forces tugging at Barack Obama‘s presidency — and the Republicans who will soon take more control of Congress — came into sharp relief: a sky-high jobless rate, an out-of-control deficit and pressure to keep taxes down.

Together, they illustrate the difficulty of balancing immediate, costly fixes for the economy with the long-term austerity needed to control the nation’s debt. What’s more, Obama must show that his handling of those challenges has been deft enough to earn him four more years in the White House.

To be sure, the competing demands create a conundrum for all of Washington — Democrats and Republicans alike. But it is the president who has claimed the mantle of honest broker and the price would ultimately be paid by him.

Between 8:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. Friday, the Labor Department announced first that November’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.8 percent, then a majority of the president’s deficit commission backed tough penny-pinching measures to slash $4 trillion from the budget over the next 10 years. In between, Democrats and Republicans continued to struggle for a compromise that would extend Bush-era tax cuts.

In one bright spot, the Obama administration sealed a trade agreement Friday with South Korea, further opening the 12th-largest economy as a market to American goods. The final deal, which eluded the president during his recent trip to Asia, is the largest since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico negotiated under President Bill Clinton.

The competing obligations were evident even while the president attended to yet another demand — a deadlier war in Afghanistan. As news of the unemployment rate hit, Obama was in the air on a secret visit to the troops, one year after expanding the U.S. military presence there.

“Jobs and growth are our most urgent need,” Obama said, in thanking the deficit commission for its work. “But if we want an America that can compete for the jobs of tomorrow, we simply cannot allow our nation to be dragged down by our debt. We must correct our fiscal course.”

The answers to both may seem contradictory. The long-accepted response to a recession, advocated by early 20th century British economist John Keynes, is for government to prime the economy with short-term spending that adds to the deficit. Ideally, an economic recovery then generates revenue that can offset those initial expenses.

So even as the administration welcomed the deficit commission’s work, the White House made a case that if taxes were going to remain low for even the highest-earning taxpayers, then spending to help middle income taxpayers and unemployed workers needed to be extended as well.

Obama and congressional leaders appointed a negotiating team to work out a compromise on the tax cuts. Discussions center on whether to extend them for one to three years and whether to include unemployment assistance. Officials said the deal could also include raising the debt limit, drawing yet more attention to the nation’s borrowing.

Administration officials on Thursday presented a menu of jobless benefits and tax credits totaling $150 billion for one year. Republicans insist that any spending be offset by reductions elsewhere, a step the White House opposes.

“Republicans arguing that we should immediately pay for emergency measures like unemployment insurance but we do not need to pay for a high income tax extension does not make any policy sense,” said Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

But Republicans are rejecting that response.

“To restore American exceptionalism, we must end all this Keynesian spending and get back to the practice of free market economics,” Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, a leading House Republican, said this week.

The political consequences are evident to all.

A wave of voter anger over the economy last month shifted control of the House from Democrats to Republicans and narrowed the Democratic majority in the Senate.

The restlessness in the electorate grew not only from the weak economic recovery but also from a perception that the government was spending too much and not showing results.

Both political parties immediately seized on the unemployment rate. Republicans said it illustrated the failure of Obama’s policies, while Democrats said it demanded greater spending to protect workers and prime the economy.

Vice President Joe Biden declared the unemployment number “disappointing” and said it underscored the need for Congress to approve an extension of unemployment insurance to jobless workers.

The unemployment setback came as the White House was trying to draw public attention to signs of economic improvement. Obama last month highlighted the resurgence of the auto industry with a trip to a Kokomo, Ind., Chrysler plant.

Administration officials also point to the ever decreasing taxpayer cost of the $700 billion financial rescue that became a public symbol of government intervention and bailouts. Earlier this week, the independent Congressional Budget Office lowered its estimated cost of the program to only $25 billion.

But those successes, even as they mount, get trumped by lingering unemployment, the last economic indicator in a recovery to show improvement.

The task ahead is the equivalent of turning on one spigot with the left hand while turning off another with the right.

Eleven of the 18 deficit commission members backed the austere measures proposed by its two chairmen — former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. But the commission would have required 14 supporting votes to force Congress to consider the plan.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a member of the commission and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the pressure is now on Obama’s administration.

“They are not at the table,” he said. “We need the administration at the table.”

At the White House, economist Goolsbee cautioned:

“You want to lower the deficit in the medium and long run. That’s the deficit challenge we face. That’s totally different than saying, ‘Let’s go yank the belt as tight as it will go right now.’ That would be highly detrimental.”

____

Associated Press writer Julie Pace contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 Responses to To spend or not to spend…that is Obama’s question

  1. Almandine

    December 4, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    “Obama must show that his handling of those challenges has been deft enough to earn him four more years in the White House.”

    Say what?

  2. Carl Nemo

    December 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    The distillate of this entire article article is that our reps and the leadership simply don’t understand the fact they are steaming ahead at flank speed in an iceberg field of unpayable debt and we’re now in the sweephand mode to national insolvency, no different than Greece, Ireland, Portual and Spain et al. to come.

    The Euro, now only ten years old is an obviously failed experiment in a transnational currency among different nations is in grave trouble because its member nations refused to live up to the benchmark agreements of controlling spending resulting in unpayable debts along with inflation. When it comes to a nation’s currency, one size does not fit all. Only a single hole in a hull can take a mighty vessel to the bottom. In the Euro’s case their monetary hull is now like Swiss cheese. We are to be no different as a nation and represent the world’s premier example of fiscal irresponsibility.

    This President still acts business as usual; ie., doing his perpetual ‘campaign trail’ schtick with little to no substance concerning populist friendly solutions for our grave national problems.

    As I’ve mentioned before in other articles, he and his ineffective brethren in Congress all have “bunker passes”…we don’t. / : |

    Carl Nemo **==

  3. Almandine

    December 5, 2010 at 11:58 am

    How true… ours is also a failed currency, thanks to the Fed, and we have our own multi-state insolvency in full gear with California and the rest of the “bigs” – except Texas – on their way to the dustbin:

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/05/mounting-state-debts-stoke-fears-of-a-looming-crisis/

    There is no national policy to deal with all this, especially from the big o and his band of Keynesian idiots, and given the structure of our republican governing apparatus, that seems to me to be the way it should be. If we could only get the federal money laundering under control.

    At least some states are beginning to understand that they’re on their own… bailouts notwithstanding. I’ll tell you one thing, though, if California gets bailed out it should be forced to do away with some of the crazy social and “green” policies that have been slowly ruining its solvency for decades. But, alas, electing Jerry Brown as its new governator shows that ain’t likely to happen.

    Hide your wallets.