A professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, is co-author of Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy.

This article (written November 6, 2008) appeared in the November 24, 2008 edition of The Nation.

Ed.Note: This article was interesting because it contains many of the points of the Obama Recovery Stimulus of 2009.  The article was slightly reformatted without omission or distortion of meaning to read easier online. 

Bolded passages are of particular interest; italic notes are my notes added for clarity.

A Green Public-Investment Stimulus

Recessions create widespread human suffering. Minimizing the suffering has to be the top priority in fighting the recession. This means expanding unemployment benefits and food stamps to counteract the income losses of unemployed workers and the poor. By stabilizing the pocketbooks of distressed households, these measures also help people pay their mortgages and pump money into consumer markets.

Beyond this, the stimulus program should be designed to meet three additional criteria.

1.      We have to generate the largest possible employment boost for a given level of new government spending.
2.      The spending targets should be in areas that strengthen the economy in the long run, not just through a short-term money injection.
3.      Despite the recession, we do not have the luxury of delaying the fight against global warming.

To further all these goals we need a green public-investment stimulus to
1.      defend state-level health and education projects against budget cuts
2.      finance long-delayed upgrades for our roads, bridges, railroads and water management systems
3.      underwrite investments in energy efficiency-including  building retrofits and public transportation-as well as new wind, solar, geothermal and biomass technologies.

This kind of stimulus would generate many more jobs–18 per $1 million in spending – than  would programs to increase spending on the military and the oil industry (i.e., new military surges in Iraq or Afghanistan combined with “Drill, baby, drill”), which would generate only about 7.5 jobs for every $1 million spent.

There are two reasons for the green program’s advantage.

1.      The first factor is higher “labor intensity” of spending-that  is, more money is being spent on hiring people and less on machines, supplies and consuming energy. This becomes obvious if we imagine hiring teachers, nurses and bus drivers versus drilling for oil off the coasts of Florida, California and Alaska.

2.      The second factor is the “domestic content” of spending-how much money is staying within the US economy, as opposed to buying imports or spending abroad. When we build a bridge in Minneapolis, upgrade the levee system in New Orleans or retrofit public buildings and private homes to raise their energy efficiency, virtually every dollar is spent within our economy. By contrast, only 80 cents of every dollar spent in the oil industry remains in the United States. The figure is still lower with the military budget.

What about another round of across-the-board tax rebates, such as the program the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress implemented in April?

A case could be made for this in light of the financial stresses middle-class families are facing. However, even if we assume that the middle-class households will spend all the money refunded to them, the net increase in employment will be about 14 jobs per $1 million spent-about  20 percent less than the green public-investment program (the main reason for this weaker impact is the lower domestic content of average household consumption, i.e. much of the consumption will be for foreign-made goods).

Also, it isn’t likely that the households would spend all their rebate money. Just as with April’s rebate program, households would channel a large share of the money into paying off debts. (paying off debts is not necessarily bad – it releases discretionary income for the family and increases reserves for the banks and credit card companies to extend more credit to others).

The Matter of Size

This is no time to be timid. The stimulus program last April totaled $150 billion, including $100 billion in household rebates and the rest in business tax breaks. This initiative did encourage some job growth, though as we have seen, the impact would have been larger had the same money been channeled toward a green public-investment stimulus.

But any job benefits were negated by the countervailing (counteracting) forces of the collapsed housing bubble, the financial crisis and the spike in oil prices. The resulting recession is now before us. This argues for a significantly larger stimulus than the one enacted in April.

But how much larger?

One way to approach the question is to consider the last time the economy faced a recession of similar severity, which was in 1980-82, during Ronald Reagan’s first term as president. In 1982 gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 1.9 percent, the most severe one-year drop in GDP since World War II. Unemployment rose to 9.7 percent that year, which was, again, the highest figure since the ’30s.

The Reagan administration responded with a massive stimulus program, even though its alleged free-market devotees never acknowledged as much. They preferred calling their program of military expansion and tax cuts for the rich “supply-side economics.” (supply creates demand – see Trickle, Trickle, Up, Down, part I)

Whatever the label, this combination generated an increase in the federal deficit of about two percentage points relative to the size of the economy at that time. In 1983 GDP rose sharply by 4.5 percent. In 1984 GDP growth accelerated to 7.2 percent, with Reagan declaring the return to “morning in America.” Unemployment fell back to 7.5 percent.

In today’s economy, an economic stimulus equivalent to the 1983 Reagan program would amount to about $300 billion in spending-roughly double the size of April’s stimulus program, though in line with the high-end figures being proposed in Congress. A stimulus of this size could create nearly 6 million jobs, offsetting the job-shedding forces of the recession.

Of course, the green public-investment stimulus will be much more effective as a jobs program than the Reagan agenda of militarism and upper-income tax cuts. This suggests that an initiative costing somewhat less than $300 billion could be adequate to fight the job losses. But because the green public-investment stimulus is also designed to produce long-term benefits to the economy, there is little danger that we would spend too much. Since all these investments are needed to fight global warming and improve overall productivity, the sooner we move forward, the better. Moreover, under today’s weak job market conditions, we will not run short of qualified workers.

How to Pay for All This?

Let’s add up the figures I have tossed around. These include the $700 billion bank rescue operation being engineered by the Treasury, the $540 billion with which Fed chair Bernanke has pledged to bail out the money market mutual funds, along with unspecified additional billions to buy unwanted business debts held by banks. On top of these, I am proposing $300 billion for a second fiscal stimulus beyond last April’s $150 billion program. At a certain point, it is fair to wonder whether we are still dealing with real dollars as opposed to Monopoly money.

In fact, the whole program remains within the realm of affordability, albeit approaching its upper bounds. But major adjustments from the current management approach are needed. In particular, the Federal Reserve has to continue exerting control over the Treasury on all bailout operations. That is, we need more initiatives like Bernanke’s $540 billion program to stabilize the money market mutual funds and less Treasury fumbling with taxpayers’ money to buy either the private banks’ bad assets or ownership shares in the banks.

We need to recognize openly what has largely been an unspoken fact about these bailout operations: that the Federal Reserve has the power to create dollars at will, while the Treasury finances its operations either through tax revenues or borrowed funds (which means using taxpayer money at some later time to pay back its debts with interest).

The Federal Reserve does not literally run printing presses when it decides to inject more money into the economy; but its normal activity of writing checks to private banks to buy the banks’ Treasury bonds amounts to the same thing.

When the banks receive their checks from the Fed, they have more cash on hand than they did before they sold their Treasury bonds to the Fed. Especially during crises, there is no reason for the Fed to restrain itself from making good use (though of course not overuse) of this dollar-creating power.

The Fed is also supposed to be the chief regulator of the financial system. Now is the time to make up for Alan Greenspan’s confessed failures over twenty years in this role.

In exchange for the Fed protecting the private financial institutions from collapse, Bernanke must insist that the banks begin lending money again to support productive investments, while prohibiting them from yet another return to high-rolling speculation.  

Special measures are also needed to keep people in their homes.

The Deficit Looms

When the economy began slowing this year, the fiscal deficit more than doubled, from $162 billion to $389 billion. We cannot know for certain how much the deficit will expand. It could rise to $800 billion, $1 trillion or even somewhat higher, depending on how the bailout operations are managed.  Of course, it would be utterly self-defeating for the United States to run a reckless fiscal policy, no matter how pressing the need to fight the financial crisis and recession.  But in the current crisis conditions, even a $1 trillion deficit need not be reckless.

Let’s return to the Reagan experience for perspective. In 1983 the Reagan deficits peaked at 6 percent of the economy’s GDP. With GDP now around $14.4 trillion, a $1 trillion deficit would represent about 7 percent of GDP, one percentage point higher than the 1983 figure.

Of course, the global financial system has undergone dramatic changes since the 1980s, so direct comparisons with the Reagan deficits are not entirely valid.

One change is that government debt is increasingly owned by foreign governments and private investors. This means that interest payments on that debt flow increasingly from the coffers of the Treasury to foreign owners of Treasury bonds.

At the same time, as one feature of the crisis, Treasury bonds are, and will remain for some time, the safest and most desirable financial instrument in the global financial system. US and foreign investors are clamoring to purchase Treasuries as opposed to buying stocks, bonds issued by private companies or derivatives.

This is pushing down the interest rates on Treasuries. For example, on October 15, 2007, a three-year Treasury bond paid out 4.25 percent in interest, whereas this past October 15, the interest payment had fallen to 1.9 percent (currently 1.125 percent). By contrast, a BAA (investment grade) corporate bond paid 6.6 percent in interest one year ago but has risen this year to 9 percent (currently 8.24 percent).

As long as the private financial markets remain gripped by instability and fear, the Treasury will be able to borrow at negligible interest rates. Because of this, allowing the deficit to rise even as high as 7 percent of GDP does not represent a burden on the Treasury greater than what accompanied the Reagan deficits.

There is, then, no reason to tread lightly in fighting the recession, with all its attendant dangers and misery. Indeed, severe misery and danger will certainly rise as long as timidity-the path of least resistance-establishes the boundaries of acceptable action.

The incoming Obama administration can take decisive steps now to defend people’s livelihoods and to reconstruct a viable financial system, productive infrastructure and job market on the foundation of a clean-energy economy.

The House version of the economic stimulus package was passed 244-188 almost entirely on party lines (so much for bipartisanship) with every Republican voting against it.

Republicans wanted to strip spending for rebuilding roads and bridges and upgrade healthcare and schools, and instead provide only tax cuts of about $478 billion.

Ed.note:  I didn’t think so during the campaign, but Obama was right.  The Republicans are out of touch.  The members of Congress don’t see the need for upgrading health care, since they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program that gives them top-level health care with many choices, mostly paid for by the government.  They can’t see roads and bridges in need of repair from private jets and limousines.  And they don’t need jobs, but what good is a tax cut to the millions that are out of work and have no income to tax?

There are also aggressive groups against the stimulus, collectively known as the “Do-Nothings.”  Their arguments include that the stimulus money is aimed at getting consumers spending and borrowing again where spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place.  I would feel better if they understood the problem was centered on borrowing to spend, not spending by itself. 

Our economy relies on the balanced and even flow of money.  For the individual, this boils down to monthly payments.  The economy collapsed because the supply of money in paychecks, etc. suddenly failed to keep up with the speed of the stream of capital required to pass from debtor to creditor.  Since everyone is both a debtor and a creditor, the flow slowed to a trickle for all, and creditors stopped extending credit.

The opponents quote the government regrets spending in crisis, quoting the Iraqi war (preemptive strike against a dictator with a history of attempted genocide by poison gas?), the Patriot Act (more than 700 thwarted terrorist attacks?), and the $700 billion bailout plan (still in process, but judged a failure by opponents).

Many of the Do-Nothings argue that a painful recession is the best way to cure American’s runaway culture of irresponsibility and debt and the government should allow the economic chips to fall where they may.  It is brutal but it is called capitalism and it works, where the alternative is socialism and it doesn’t work.

Ed.Note: These are all Republicans speaking who would do anything, including the destruction of America to make the other party look bad.  And Socialism is not an all or nothing policy – that’s called Communism.

Full-page ads against the stimulus will include the names of 250 economists who oppose the stimulus.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 12,740 working economists (SOC code 19-3011) in this country, at an average annual salary of $86,700.  That is less than 2% that have a dissenting opinion; hardly a mandate. 

The Do-Nothings advance that it is morally improper to deliver a crushing debt load to the next generation.  The thought passes my mind that the next generation will be a lot fewer if people feel they have no economic future and refuse to bring children into that world. 

It is also historical fact that these bailouts are mostly recovered by the government over a period of time through an increased tax base and compliance from working Americans.  What better way to spend our money than to attempt to provide for our children’s future, especially by improving the educational system, which is the lion’s share of the spending.

The Do-Nothings point out that housing sales rose 6.5 percent from November to December and this could be an indication that lower prices will draw buyers into the system.  They minimize the point that the increase for that month was based on the strength of bargain hunters picking up foreclosed properties. 

Ed.Note:  I am not sure I trust an economist who considers a single month a trend.  I know two young couples, both with high-paying jobs and no children who have purchased five foreclosed properties with the intent of renting them.  They are not exactly a portrait of the average American family.

On the other hand, to be fair, the Do-Nothings point out that without the stimulus, corrections are being made naturally.  Weak companies are going bankrupt.  It is hoped that the stronger ones will pick up their market share and laid-off employees.  Other companies, like the automakers are facing the facts that they haven’t been making the products that customers really want. 

American families are paying down their enormous debt.  This helps the economy because the money is paid to the credit card company or bank, where it can add to its reserves and extend more credit to those who need it.  When backs are against the wall, Americans know the right thing to do.

“Our standard of living must come down to the point where it can be supported by organic output,” quoting an interview with an investment consultant.  Weren’t those guys some of the ones who helped topple the economy in the first place?

The Do-Nothings fully expect to lose their argument, but put out the ads because they feel they have to Do Something.  And even though they are against it, they think it won’t work because it is not enough.  ??

His two-year $820 billion economic recovery blueprint includes plans for computerized medical records, a national electricity grid to distribute renewable energy, lower taxes for everyone under his ‘affluent’ income line, modernized schools, and education initiatives.  The House bill includes roughly $550 billion in domestic spending and about $275 billion in tax cuts.

The goal is to advance the policies the president laid out in his campaign, including education improvement, health care cost reductions, moves toward energy independence and aid to low and middle income workers.

When passed, the legislation will require all business funding recipients to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a new website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment.

About $275 billion is designated for tax cuts sent directly to the states to protect the jobs of firefighters, local government employees and public health workers as well as tax credits for education and first time homebuyers.

Job-creating road and bridge funds ($90 billion) will favor repairs to existing structures rather than funding new ones.  Repair jobs can be initialized faster, quickly injecting payroll spending into the economy, as well as curtailing urban sprawl leading to increased fuel consumption.

There will also be jobs created for clean energy development ($58 billion), a national electric grid, and funds to weatherize homes and public buildings.  It is hoped the recovery plan will spark energy efficient thinking and building as well as renewable energy technologies.

There is close to $142 billion allocated for education to protect the jobs of teachers as well as attempt to stop the “dropout crisis” and provide an easier path for many American youth to become productive taxpayers.  Studies have shown that cutting the dropout rates in half would pay back $9 for each $1 invested, representing new tax revenues and savings in welfare and incarcerations.

Funding will also go toward expanding wiring providers and implementing universal broadband service to extend Internet service to rural areas.  Internet access will allow companies to hire remote workers to work at home, saving on office expenses as well as allow individuals the opportunity to run small businesses on the Internet.  It will also be a vehicle for coordinating expanded health care records.  It is estimated that for each $1 invested in this area will return about $10 in increased productivity to the economy.

Health care investments ($111 billion) to the states to expand Medicaid will result in cost reductions connected to the medical industry’s expanded use of information technology.  The expanded use of technology to coordinate medical records ($20 billion) will minimize duplication, re-entering the same data, and “doctor shopping” for multiple issues of the same prescriptions.  On the negative side, this technology expansion has people concerned over privacy on a national network, but tight encryption methods are readily available.

President Obama’s election mandate, along with a party majority in Congress, presents him with an opportunity to spend and cut taxes more than any president in our history, with the possible exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Great Depression. 

To highlight the momentum of the recovery proposal, we can compare it to the $16 billion stimulus Bill Clinton asked the Democratic-controlled Congress for in 1993 when he had just come into office, and they turned him down.

So far, this Congress has only cut out a $3,000 tax credit for businesses for each new hire.

The size of this package is annually nearly half as much as the total federal annual discretionary spending budget with the exception of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 

The package is expected to be on the president’s desk by February 13, a scant three weeks after he took office.

He soon expects to sign legislation against gender pay discrimination (signed 1/29/2009) and for low-income child health care.  He has already issued an executive order removing the ban on federal abortion funding and expects to soon revive federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research.

Ed.Note: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act of 2009 was signed into law after passing both houses almost strictly along party lines.  The Republicans are acting like spoiled brats, voting against any Democratic legislation, no matter how it advances the causes of right and good for the country.  This was a vote by Republicans against Democrats, but it comes across as a vote against women and minority equality. 
I am ashamed of the Republican party.

President Obama will spend a lot of time himself lobbying for the passage of this bill.  He wants to go to the American people and report that this is a package passed by both parties in Congress.  However, Republican ‘nay Sayers’ claim this package will not work, so they are voting not to do anything with regard to government spending and have no positive suggestions of their own, except tax cuts.  The Republican approach is to offer tax cuts, and let the social economy recover and advance at a natural pace, a process that could take decades.

The package passed the both the House Appropriations committee and the committee on Ways and Means strictly along party lines and it is likely the bill will pass Congress along party lines as well.  This is another example of one Party driving while the other becomes a dragging anchor.

In addition to the $820 billion stimulus package, better known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan of 2009, the president will oversee the distribution of the second half of the $700 billion TARP program.  He has said he will have a strong message for bankers about sitting on any taxpayer bailout money, reminding them of their commitment to restart credit to both business and individual and work with struggling homeowners to avoid foreclosure.