Today the New York Times
came out in favor of a
third stimulus. It's unsettling to see such a bad idea
gaining traction in the places that matter.
The rationale for another stimulus is that the jobs outlook is
weakening even as GDP growth is recovering -- signalling that we
may be in for another jobless recovery a la post-1991 or
post-2001. 10 percent unemployment, which we are right up
against, is much more painful than stagnant GDP growth, and so
the government should take more action to encourage job creation.
There are a number of reasons, apart from the jobs outlook, that
another round of deficit-finance stimulus would be a terrible
idea: the debt constraints we're facing, the ineffectiveness of
past stimulus measures, etc. But even the narrow claim that
another stimulus would create temporary jobs as we weather the
downturn
fails on its own terms.
Right now the administration knows that it does not have the
political capital for anymore large countercyclical spending
measures. That is why they have tried to slip various other
stimulus-like measures through under the radar, such as sending
Social Security recipients an extra $250. But the support of the
NYT editorial page is just the kind of thing that will
embolden them.
Wouldn't it be great to hear someone in the adminstration say:
"since the first stimulus package didn't really accomplish
anything productive . . ."?
Maybe Joe Biden will say this - that is if he is every allowed
off his leash.
Good| 10.28.09 @ 2:40AM
The debt constraints we're facing, the ineffectiveness of past
stimulus measures, etc. blackberry cases
James| 10.27.09 @ 4:07PM
Wouldn't it be great to hear someone in the adminstration say: "since the first stimulus package didn't really accomplish anything productive . . ."?
Maybe Joe Biden will say this - that is if he is every allowed off his leash.
Good| 10.28.09 @ 2:40AM
The debt constraints we're facing, the ineffectiveness of past stimulus measures, etc.
blackberry cases