Robert Reich, one of Bill Clinton's two Bobs (the other being Robert Rubin), is a member of Obama's Economic Transition team, and the author of an article over at TPMcafe.
Reich argues that government spending will be necessary to bump the country out of its "mini-depression" because consumers, investors, and trade won't do the trick by itself. I have no disagreements on principle, and you should go read the article, it's interesting, but I want to know what the ordinary consumer can do to help.
So one thing that Reich argues is that consumers have little money and little security, and so they won't be spending much (which will in turn reduce investment as well). No argument here, you can't get water from a stone. But he also makes the point that putting more money in taxpayers hands will see it evaporate without stimulating the economy much: basically they won't spend it on new things, only to pay down their debts; and even if they do spend it, their basket of consumption will extend well beyond America's borders into imported goods.
In his case for government spending, however, Reich suggests that we put money into infrastructure and healthcare. Of course only the government can build bridges and repair highways, but it got me to thinking: how can the US taxpayer spend their money in a way the most benefits both their own pocketbook and the economy?
I mostly just want to open this up to discussion -- is this even possible? Can the taxpayer's spending (for instance of the next stimulus check that Obama suggested during his campaign) make much difference? And if so, how? Where should he spend it.
A suggestion to get the ball rolling, given Reich's arguments: infrastructure. Give people a 50% rebate for insulating their homes. Their investment will pay off more quickly.