Skip to main content

   Larry Summers is one of those revolving door members of the DC elite, who constantly come and go from Washington on a regular basis. His specialty is economics: he was Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton and head of the National Economic Council for President Obama. If you don't like what's happening with the economy, well Summers was/is one of the key players in getting us where we are today.

    So it's more than a little interesting that Summers - rotated back to Academia - is now coming out with some pretty harsh words about the size of the stimulus back in 2009, why it was that size, and what we need now. Is anyone in the press (or the White House) paying attention? And should they? (more)

    Right now the debate on what to do about an economy where millions of people still can't find enough jobs is largely being fought out on Republican terms: Deficits will kill us all! The Government MUST slash spending, throw out healthcare reform, trash Medicare, and 'save' Social Security by turning it into a retirement program that only kicks in about the time people need to pay for their funerals. Oh, and taxes of any kind are off the table. Especially ending tax breaks for corporations and the super rich. Don't even go there. And if the Democrats don't agree to this, the Republicans are going to let the country go bust!

    In an wonderful display of bipartisan outreach, the Democrats in Washington appear to be mostly going along with this at least part way. Okay, maybe a few token tax hikes are on the table, closing some loopholes... as a figleaf to cover giving the Republicans nearly everything they want. Sure the president has finally shown up and done a little tough talking - but the debate still hasn't shifted ground much. Nor is he getting much covering fire from fellow Democrats on this.

  Kevin Drum has some thoughts on all of this which are worth considering.

But then, for about the thousandth time, my mind wanders over the past ten years. Republicans got the tax cuts they wanted. They got the financial deregulation they wanted. They got the wars they wanted. They got the unfunded spending increases they wanted. And the results were completely, unrelentingly disastrous. A decade of sluggish growth and near-zero wage increases. A massive housing bubble. Trillions of dollars in war spending and thousands of American lives lost. A financial collapse. A soaring long-term deficit. Sky-high unemployment. All on their watch and all due to policies they eagerly supported. And worse: ever since the predictable results of their recklessness came crashing down, they've rabidly and nearly unanimously opposed every single attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole they created for us.

But despite the fact that this is all recent history, it's treated like some kind of dreamscape. No one talks about it. Republicans pretend it never happened. Fox News insists that what we need is an even bigger dose of the medicine we got in the aughts, and this is, inexplicably, treated seriously by the rest of the press corps instead of being laughed at. As a result, guys like Marco Rubio have a free hand to insist that Obama — Obama! The guy who rescued the banking system, bailed out GM, and whose worst crime against the rich is a desire to increase their income tax rate 4.6 percentage points! — is a "left-wing strong man" engaged in brutal class warfare against the wealthy. And Rubio does it without blinking. Hell, he probably even believes it.

We are well and truly down the rabbit hole. The party of class warfare for the past 30 years is fighting a war against an empty field and the result has been a rout. I wonder what would happen if the rest of us ever actually started fighting back?

emphasis added

     Now if this seems like a long set up to talk about what Larry Summers is saying, I'm getting there. Summers is part of the permanent non-elected governing class that routinely gets called on for high government posts because of their expertise, their reputations (inside the Beltway) - and because of the constituency they represent. Matt Taibbi offers up an assessment  of the economic team the President, who proclaimed Change was his agenda, brought in to carry out that change.

I hear all the time from people who complain that it’s naive to wonder why we put Wall Street executives in charge of policing Wall Street — that this is actually quite a sensible policy, because we need people with experience in that world making these decisions. The reason people say this has nothing to do with reality and everything to do witht he fact that the financial markets are intimidatingly complex. When Enron buys a seat at the table to conduct energy policy under the Bush administration, everyone knows what that is. When Reagan hires notorious union-busters to run the NLRB, everyone knows what that is. And when we hire investment bankers to run banking policy, and put investment bankers in charge of handing out bailout money to investment banks, we ought to know what that is. But for some reason we don’t seem to see it the same way, not as clearly.

     The Taibbi link above starts out with a specific reference to Summers and his ties to Wall Street.

It likewise makes perfect sense that Merrill Lynch, a company just months removed from having to be rescued from bankruptcy by an eleventh-hour, pseudo-state-subsidized buyout by Bank of America, would decide to spend $45,000 on a speaking appearance by Larry Summers because, well, they really valued his economic expertise and his proven ability to rally the troops with his stirring rhetoric. It certainly had nothing to do with the fact that a) it was eight days after a Democrat was elected to the presidency, and b) Summers had a long history of being one of the key policymakers in Democratic Party politics, and c) Merrill was absolutely not going to survive more than a few more months unless taxpayers forked over another twenty billion or so to cover the giant hole in Merrill’s balance sheet that was, at that time, still being hidden from Bank of America and its shareholders.

    Fast forward to July 2011. The stimulus the White House forced through Congress in 2009 (back when Democrats 'controlled' both houses) is largely considered a dead issue. The nicest things heard about it are that the government spending kept things from getting worse, but that was then. (It's GOP dogma of course that the stimulus was a disaster that actually caused the current stagnation, crop circles in Kansas, the Federal deficit to explode, and an outbreak of giant man-eating ladybugs in Pismo Beach. Or something like that.)

       The Keynesian idea that the government must spend to restart an economy that has tanked because of low demand for goods and services, because no one else will or can, is pretty near an unspeakable truth these days. The only stimulus that seems to be permissible is tax cuts, or spending that is 'balanced' by cuts elsewhere. And anybody who says different is just a hippie who doesn't understand these things.

    So, in light of all this it's been interesting to hear Summers coming out lately with calls for more stimulus spending and admission that the original package back in 2009 wasn't big enough. The White House position - in the face of constant GOP attacks on the spending - all along has been it was just the right size at around $900 billion. Note: there were those who said even before the stimulus was enacted that it was not going to be big enough. They were and continue to be marginalized.

In practice, it was even worse, because one of the key elements of the plan — aid to state and local governments — was cut back sharply in the Senate. We ended up with only about $600 billion of real stimulus over that two-year period.

So this wasn’t a test of fiscal stimulus, even though it has played out that way in the political arena: the whole thing was obviously underpowered from the start.

The failure to address this back then is coming home to roost now as Republicans use state budgets gaps their policies created as an excuse to decimate state social programs, unions, and regulation.

    So what does Summers have to say now? An interview July 1, 2011 at Marketplace on American Public Radio picks up on what he's been saying lately. Here's some quotes from the Jeremy Hobson Marketplace interview transcript (audio at the link as well):

HOBSON: That's not true? You weren't pushing for a less-than $1.2 trillion stimulus?

SUMMERS: No, I mean it's a much more complicated story, but those reports are not accurate. It was my judgment as an economist that there was no danger of doing too much stimulus and one should achieve as much stimulus as possible. There were a set of political calculations having to do with what the Congress could accept that were mostly determined by the president's political advisers and ultimately by the president which pointed towards the size of the program that was ultimately passed. But the economic advice that I gave was that the stimulus program should be as large as it could be.

emphasis added

    There's more than a little CYA going on here. Summers claims as an economist, he knew the stimulus had to be much larger - but political considerations overruled that in favor of a much smaller package missing key ingredients because it was 'possible'. (Again - this is while Democrats controlled both houses in Congress.) While Summers defended the stimulus at the time, he let those political considerations override his own judgment as an economist. Sometimes that's considered being a team player. Sometimes that's considered one of the hallmarks of being a hack. Summers still has a job. Millions of Americans don't - and won't any time soon. (For entertainment value, here's a splendid example of knee-jerk brain-dead conservative response to Summers. Short version: taxation is theft, and we can only create jobs by making sure rich people get to keep all the money they can grab.)

     Be that as it may, Summers belated embrace of apostasy offers up some things to consider.

• The White House embraced and defended an economic policy their own inside advice told them would ultimately be inadequate. In other words, they settled for what they thought they could get rather than fighting for what was needed and hoped it would work out anyway.

• Maybe the idea was that pushing through Healthcare Reform would need all the political capital they could muster, so they wanted to conserve it. But it seems as though the same pattern prevailed: they settled for what they thought they could get rather than fighting for what was needed.

• The larger point of these decisions that allowed political concerns to drive policy, instead of fact-based principles has been to concede the strategic and tactical  advantages to the Republicans. They've been largely successful in using their message discipline and media control to discredit partial successes into failures - and preclude efforts by the Administration to do what will work rather than what is politically possible. Or even to say so.

• Being conflict-averse is a losing strategy against an opponent whose goal isn't merely mutual accommodation, but rather total destruction of all who oppose them. The problem with accepting what you can get instead of what you need is simple: on those terms, even when you win - you lose.

   So, a few questions to ponder. Is Larry Summers suffering a belated attack of conscience? Is he trying to redeem his reputation in light of what he sees happening? Is he simply manifesting the concerns of his real constituency, who is beginning to worry that hardcore fanatics in DC will actually blow up the government - and wreck their 'good thing' in the process? If the latter, that alone should set off alarm bells. If the former, ditto. Either way, it's worth taking a look at what he's saying even while we consider the source.

  And a few larger questions. Has the White House learned anything? Are they going to continue to settle for what they think they can get - or fight for what WE need as a country? At this point in time, I would hope that the President is ready to hear some advice concerning his recent attempts to get the Republicans to 'do the right thing', and the continued risks of seeking compromise over conflict.

    As Lazarus Long noted: "Never appeal to a man’s “better nature.” He may not have one. Invoking his “self—interest” gives you more leverage." As long as the administration and Democrats in Congress continue to allow Republicans have total veto power over their policies while suffering no consequences for their opposition to everything the President is trying to do, the Republicans have no incentive to change their ways. Maybe now is a time for post-partisanship - but nobody got word to the GOP.

      Destruction of Obama is their goal and they've admitted it. Not putting people back to work. Not making sure people have health care or a secure retirement. All they want from government is a tax-cutting, safety-net slashing, de-regulating wealth-transfer machine. If they have to take the country down to get it, well that's just an annoying side effect.

     Does the President get this yet? Read and decide for yourself.

Poll

When it comes to the stimulus and fighting for what we need,

0%0 votes
0%0 votes
6%1 votes
0%0 votes
12%2 votes
12%2 votes
62%10 votes
0%0 votes
6%1 votes

| 16 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    Something I thought I'd pick up on before it disappeared into the long weekend. Hope you're all having a good one.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 09:30:49 AM PDT

  •  Brother (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10

    Even though it's obviously nothing but CYA, I'll take it.

  •  The talk is window dressing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, wu ming

    and misdirection.  He's using this new self-representation as some sort of Keynesian to push for cutting the employer side of social security tax by the 2% that the employee side was already cut.  in other words, it's a fraud when he says that he's rejecting supply-side economics and trying to stimulate demand.  Sure, they could say "we cut the payroll tax" and that sounds wonderful, except every penny cut that way stays in the business, no worker gets a dime of it, in other words, more supply-siden tax cuts.  And they expect us to flush everything we know about Larry Summers as a neoligberal elitist down our memory holes to buy into this "payroll tax cut" that does nothing to help workers, nothing to stimulate demand, and further diminishes the funding flow for Social Security (and we can figure out the significance of that, can we not?)

    They think we're all cattle, stupid enough to buy into this trick, and if we do buy into it?  Then we are every bit the stupid cattle they think we are.

    "Tu vida es ahora" ~graffiti in Madrid's Puerta del Sol, May, 2011.

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:10:22 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, consider the source, but... (0+ / 0-)

      But - he does something rare - he admits they screwed up back in 2009, even if he does weasel word himself an excuse for doing so.

      Imagine how different things would be if the White House hadn't put so much energy into saying the stimulus was just the right size because they were afraid of being called big-spending liberals. Surprise - they still got called that, and they chose to cripple the stimulus so that it couldn't work - so they ended without the success they promised and got the blame. Great political thinking, lousy strategy.

      Think November 2010 would have turned out differently if back in the Spring the White House had started pushing the message that the stimulus was working - but Republican opposition was going to make it run out of gas just when it starting to really get going? Think they could have gotten the idea across that hey - they had something that was working after 10 years of Republican failure so it was time to ramp it up?

      Even 20-20 hindsight doesn't help people who refuse to look in the mirror.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:21:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time to Call Bullshit on Larry (6+ / 0-)

    Every bit of reporting on the Obama economic team had Summers being the gate-keeper, and it was Summers who had an office two doors down from Obama's Presidential Study. Who exactly was at the table with the clout to over-rule Larry AT THE TIME? Rahm?

    Nope Summers trampled over Romers and ensured that no economic advice got to Obama unvetted by him. Or at least this was the universal story coming out of the WH during the first half of 2009, this whole attempt to convert this to "if they had only listened to me" as if Larry had been stashed in some basement office in the EOB or over at Treasury is crap of the highest order.

    A comprehensive account in near real time can be found in this from the New Yorker from Oct 2009 Inside the Crisis Larry Summers and the White House economic team.
    by Ryan Lizza.

    Couple key extracts:

    The urtext of economic policymaking in the Obama White House is a fifty-seven-page memo to the President, prepared in late November and early December of last year, by Summers and his deputy, Jason Furman. It has a five-page executive summary, and forty pages of comprehensive discussion about nearly every economic and budgetary issue that the new President would face in his first months in office—the stimulus, tarp, housing policy, the state of the automobile industry, the deficit, potential budget savings, regulatory reform. An eleven-page appendix details recommendations for items to be included in the stimulus bill that Obama proposed in his first weeks in office.
    On Tuesday, December 16, 2008, as five inches of snow fell on Chicago, Obama’s top advisers gathered in his transition headquarters to discuss the memo. Obama sat on one side of a large square table, and crowded around the three others were members of his incoming team: Biden; Summers; Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff; David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser; Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary; Christina Romer, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; Peter Orszag, the budget director; Jared Bernstein, Biden’s top economic adviser; and several more.
    skip
    The most important question facing Obama that day was how large the stimulus should be. Since the election, as the economy continued to worsen, the consensus among economists kept rising. A hundred-billion-dollar stimulus had seemed prudent earlier in the year. Congress now appeared receptive to something on the order of five hundred billion. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate, was calling for a trillion. Romer had run simulations of the effects of stimulus packages of varying sizes: six hundred billion dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, and $1.2 trillion. The best estimate for the output gap was some two trillion dollars over 2009 and 2010. Because of the multiplier effect, filling that gap didn’t require two trillion dollars of government spending, but Romer’s analysis, deeply informed by her work on the Depression, suggested that the package should probably be more than $1.2 trillion. The memo to Obama, however, detailed only two packages: a five-hundred-and-fifty-billion-dollar stimulus and an eight-hundred-and-ninety-billion-dollar stimulus. Summers did not include Romer’s $1.2-trillion projection. The memo argued that the stimulus should not be used to fill the entire output gap; rather, it was “an insurance package against catastrophic failure.” At the meeting, according to one participant, “there was no serious discussion to going above a trillion dollars.”

    Summers can kiss our collective asses here.

    (BTW there is a lot of material before, between, and after the extracts cited, all worth reading, I am just focusing on Summers "Hey it wasn't me" claptrap. Yes Larry, it was. You framed the debate, now you own it)

    Please visit, follow or join our Group: Social Security Defenders

    by Bruce Webb on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:27:10 AM PDT

    •  Good stuff (0+ / 0-)

      That Summers wants to distance himself from the train wreck is no surprise, nor is the fact that he wants to re-write history. That's how these people keep coming back again and again.

      On the other hand, the president and the rest of the White House doesn't exactly seem to have learned anything from this either. It would be an interesting exercise to ask at his next presser why he did not fight to make the stimulus bigger when the chance was there - now that the former head of his economic team is saying that's what should have been done.

      But then, this is a guy who says he doesn't want to spend time looking backwards...

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 11:11:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He said this a month ago, nothing new here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xaxnar

    I know it's hard to pass up an opportunity to complain about White House advisers, but this one is hitting the right note, at least at this time.

    What are we doing to persuade the public that further stimulus is the right way to go? Can we help President Obama and the Democratic Party in this regard? Are we ready for the pushback should they propose a stimulus?

    I think further stimulus might become an issue  going into 2012, after all of this year's deficit-mania has died down a bit. People want it, it's just a question of how to pay for it and then making the case.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 10:28:28 AM PDT

  •  fuck summers (0+ / 0-)

    he's an architect of the past two bubbles and crashes, and has dirty hands from not one but two devastating shock doctrine con jobs, in russia and the US.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site