http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090204235.html

I think that last post was pretty solid from start to finish.   Now, I think that there might be some potential in corporate and/or payroll tax cuts.  However, I haven't done any research in that area.

I know many on the right are bemoaning the dwindling manufacturing base in this country....(suddenly echoing the complaints of liberals for the past few decades........funny to hear conservatives bring up Michael Moore-like quotes that could come straight out of Roger and Me.

Perhaps there could be some bipartisan agreement to help our manufacturing base [Though there would be instant retaliation from Japan, Korea and Europe].

Well, if the bill, would only be critical infrastructure (defunct roads, bridges, electrical grids, dams, levees, etc), and protection from emp, effiency upgrades to the gird. Then I think it could be passed. It just isn't likely the democrats would write a bill like that and keep global warming out of it, and even if they did, Republicans wouldn't side with the Dems anyways.

Are more tax cuts really going to benefit us in the future at this point, or just add to the debt. I don't see how tax cuts at this point are going to anything except maybe lower unemployment, and raise the debt. Or am I off on that?

A couple of other factors that go beyond Wolf.

First, we do not (and maybe cannot) differentiate between the stimulus and the health care bill.  So while the former may have worked on its own.  The second undermined its potential by driving the focus on the deficit and debt.

Consumers/taxpayers were consistently looking backwards.  They kept focusing on the the money spent and not the money in action.  Very little is said about what the stimulus did do.  Any talk of stimulus, within 2 minutes, becomes a discussion about the money spent.

And this is a failure of the adminstration's communications team. The narrative has been completely dominated by the right.  But, it was almost fait accompli once the health care debate raged and ultimately passed.

For 1/ 2 a year (more?) all that was discussed (rightfully) was the cost, the cost, the cost of health care. To which the stimulus stood shoulder-to-shoulder with in conversation.

- - -

Second, and very much related.  How could consumer confidence ever have gotten off the ground with the rhetoric of the last 1 1/2 years?  It has been non-stop doom-and-gloom.  And attempts by the administration to (necessarily) paint an optimistic picture ("summer of recovery") backfire and make the administration look "out of touch." 

When you go to the taxpayer and ask for $800 Billion. You have to give a rosy picture or else you undercut the potential benefits. However, when it doesn't work like you said (though it did do plenty), you face a November you will not want to remember.

Sick~o. It would seem to me that your recent infrastructure post would be a good place to start.   Again, I would be looking for employment that creates from the bottom-up.

1. It needs to be done anyway.


2. Why wait for trickle down, when you can address the employment directly.  If construction jobs are what is lagging, then I have to imagine some of those skills are transferrable when it comes to other projects.


3. I think we need something along the lines of how tech firms treat R&D.  Sure, most projects fail. But if you can just hit a home run once, you can transform an entire economy.  No, I'm not holding out for the next internet-level-breakthrough, but lets give the geniuses of our country a chance to come up with something that increases our competitive advantage and at the same time rendering obsolete the advances of other countries.

WASHINGTON — Departing White House economist Christina Romer says the government has the tools for bringing down unemployment, but policymakers need to find the will and wisdom to use them.

Romer called on officials Wednesday to move forward on policies that will increase government spending and cut taxes. She also called for investments in infrastructure and new trade agreements.

Romer said that while some new policies should be viewed as emergency measures, most should be paid for with future spending cuts or revenue returns. She said concerns about the mounting deficit should not be used as an excuse "for leaving unemployed workers to suffer."

Romer is leaving her post as head of the Council of Economic Advisers to return to the University of California, Berkeley, as an economics professor.('theory over substance)

So how would we correctly spend that 600 billion.

From Mankiw

By contrast, recent research by Christina Romer and David Romer looks at tax changes and concludes that the tax multiplier is about three: A dollar of tax cuts raises GDP by about three dollars. The puzzle is that, taken together, these findings are inconsistent with the conventional Keynesian model. According to that model, taught even in my favorite textbook, spending multipliers necessarily exceed tax multipliers.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/spending-and-tax-multipliers.html

This also from 12/2008.  Again, conventional economics was that tax cuts are about $.70 for every $1.......not $3 to $1.

Romer thought it would hit 8%.  And because of this projection, it derailed the president's message and undercut whatever possibility of talking about the "success" that the stimulus brought.