Obama Changes His Tune On Deficit

After campaigning for and signing into effect more than $800 billion in federal stimulus, President Obama now is worried that too much debt could create a double-dip recession and recently spoke out against deficit spending. Although the federal stimulus package delivered limited and underwhelming job growth results, Democrats in Congress are already at work on a second package targeted at spurring job growth – one that will likely result in more deficit spending. See the following from The Street.

President Obama, the champion of stimulus spending, is suddenly worried about an overload of government debt.

After pressing Congress to approve an $800 billion package of infrastructure projects, unemployment benefits and tax cuts during his first month in office, Obama is now warning that too much debt could cause a double-dip recession.

Even more intriguing about this shift in rhetoric is that he chose to deliver the new message to Fox News, News Corp. (NWS Quote) network with which Obama has been feuding over a perceived conservative bias.

One can only assume that the detente with Fox and the decision to talk about debt issues is a politically calculated move to assuage Republicans who have been making deficit spending a centerpiece of their resistance to Obama's many initiatives, in particular health care reform.

Obama also acknowledged that he's in a precarious position in terms of boosting job creation to keep the recovery going while reinstating some fiscal discipline.

In the same interview with Fox, Obama talked about the need for new measures to spur companies to create jobs. Obama's Democratic Party chiefs in Congress are in fact working on new legislation they hope will bring down the unemployment rate from the staggering 10.2% level. Any government-sponsored initiatives along those lines will add to the deficit one way or another.

It's essentially an admission of failure that Democrats are now working on a second job-creation package.

So far, the stimulus spending isn't showing great results. At the end of October, the Obama administration released a report showing that about 650,000 jobs had been saved or created at a cost of $150 billion. That's about $230,000 per job.

I'm not knocking Obama or the Democrats for trying to stoke the economic recovery, for the trillions of dollars spent to bailout the financial industry or for realizing that they may need to do more to help the 15 million unemployed Americans find new jobs.

It's just the idea that Obama is now critical of deficit spending that I find so ironic.

This post has been republished from The Street, an investment news and analysis site.

Obama Wrong About Deficits Causing A Double-Dip Recession

Mark Thoma discusses why Obama is wrong about the deficit causing a double-dip recession. While he may be trying to reassure China about their US dollar concerns, a premature attempt to balance the budget before the economy is fully recovered is more likely to lead to a second recession. See the following post from Economist's View.

Edward Harrison catches this quote from Obama:

The president is in Beijing as part of his tour through several Asian countries to address economic challenges. He spoke candidly about the precarious balancing act his administration is trying to perform. He wants to spend money to kick-start the economy, but at the same time is in danger of creating too much red ink.

Obama warned the United States' climbing national debt could drag the country into a "double-dip recession," though he said he's still considering additional tax incentives for businesses to reverse the rising unemployment rate.

"There may be some tax provisions that can encourage businesses to hire sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines. So we're taking a look at those," Obama told Fox News' Major Garrett.

"I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

I hope his economic advisers set him straight, though I suppose there's a chance that this nonsense is coming from them. We needed a larger stimulus package to begin with, and the economy could still use more help, labor markets in particular.

Let's hope that this doesn't turn into a call to actually start balancing the budget before the economy has fully recovered as that would increase the chances of the double dip recession that he is so worried about (something we should have learned from the 1937-38 experience where an attempt to balance the budget prematurely plunged the economy back into recession).

These comments also make it sound like any jobs program, if we get one at all, will be limited to (right-wing approved) tax cuts which is, in my opinion, inferior to direct job creation strategies. Tax cuts can be part of the mix, but by themselves are unlikely to do enough to solve the employment problem.

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Obama's Report Card On The Economy

After only nine months in office, some may question whether President Obama’s administration has achieved much in changing the lives of Americans. NY Times commentator Alan Blinder believes that while any substantial achievements have yet to be seen, President Obama has been instrumental in pushing forward several macroeconomic and banking policies that may well create positive long-term changes in the future. See the following post from Economist's View.

Alan Blinder grades the administration's accomplishments on macroeconomic and banking issues:

Comedy Aside, an Obama Report Card, by Alan Blinder, Commentary, NY Times: First, “Saturday Night Live” parodies President Obama’s “achievements.” Then Mr. Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, bringing yet more head-scratching. Clearly, the nation’s attention is focused squarely on a question few presidents want to answer just nine months into their term: What has your administration accomplished?

I’ll leave foreign and military affairs to the Oslo Five and concentrate on domestic economics. ...

Stopping the Slide Let’s remember that the new president was dealt a dreadful hand on Inauguration Day — including a shattered financial system and a national economy teetering on the brink of disaster. The administration’s chief accomplishment to date surely is devising and executing — with huge assists from the Federal Reserve — a comprehensive program to pull us back from the abyss. ... Thus Job No. 1 — stopping the train wreck — appears to have been done rather well.

Enacting the Stimulus Package The much-maligned fiscal stimulus has been criticized from both the left (as too small) and from the right (as too big, especially the spending parts). My own judgment is that both its magnitude and composition were reasonable, though not perfect. But ... speed of enactment merits substantial weight in the overall grade. By that standard, the stimulus package scores well — especially considering that Republican obstructionism... Give it a B or B+.

Rescuing Banks ...[T]he Treasury secretary ... wisely resisted the siren songs coming from both the left (“nationalize the banks”) and the right (“let ’em fail”), opting instead for the high-risk “stress tests” of 19 big financial institutions. Today, all 19 are alive and breathing. None have been nationalized. ... Most are not just showing a pulse but also actually have pink in their cheeks. ... (In fairness, the Fed and other regulators deserve great credit for executing this delicate task so skillfully.)

So give the bank rescue plan an A–. The minus comes from being too soft on many banks and bankers, who failed us and then benefited from public largess.

Reducing Foreclosures Mr. Obama’s efforts to mitigate foreclosures have been more modest — and less successful. ... Give them a C.

Trying for Regulatory Reform While it is still only a set of proposals,... the Treasury worked at breakneck speed ... to produce an intelligent and comprehensive set of financial regulatory reforms after just five months in office. The ... proposals ... are not perfect. ... And I continue to be distressed that the president, having overloaded his plate, has been unable to devote enough time and effort to pushing the proposals through Congress — leaving the lobbyists far too much running room.

At this point, we can’t even guess what may pass. So give this policy an “incomplete,” noting, however, that the first draft shows promise.

Etc. In addition to these efforts on the macroeconomic and financial fronts, the president appears to be making some headway on health care reform... By contrast, the betting is against getting through Congress a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions.

On balance, then, this assessment leads to a Nobel-like verdict in the areas of financial regulation, health care and energy: the ideas have great merit, but any real achievements are hopes for the future. They don’t award prizes for that in Washington, even if they do so in Oslo.

Yet on the crucial macroeconomic and banking issues,... Mr. Obama’s accomplishments in just nine months are palpable and were very much needed. ...

Let me add one more category, how the benefits from the stimulus package and the bank bailout package have been distributed. With so many of the benefits of the financial bailout accruing to the same people and institutions that helped to cause the problems, with employment still lagging, and with social insurance programs to help those who cannot find employment coming under increased budgetary pressures, particularly at the state and local levels, it seems evident that the distribution could have been much better without compromising (and perhaps even enhancing) the speed of recovery.

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.

Should Obama Bring Bernanke Back?

There is widespread debate on whether Bernanke should be reappointed. While Bernanke receives his share of criticism, Economist Mark Thoma explains why it would be in the country's best interest for Obama to bring him back for a second term. See the following post from Economist's View to learn why.

Nouriel Roubini says:

Ben Bernanke ... deserves to be reappointed. Both the conventional and unconventional decisions made by this scholar of the Great Depression prevented the Great Recession of 2008-2009 from turning into the Great Depression 2.0.

Anna Schwartz has a different perspective:

As Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke has committed serious sins of commission and omission — and for those many sins, he does not deserve reappointment.

Here's how I see it. It's true that we failed to notice that the patient was getting sick. The signs of disease were there, but we either didn't see the signs or they were misdiagnosed. In fact, there's a case to be made that we saw some of the changes in the patient as signs of improving health. Had we made the correct diagnosis early enough, maybe we could have prevented the patient from getting sick (though it's not clear the patient would have taken our advice, so stronger measures than mere advice may have been required).

And once the patient showed up in the office and was clearly sick, we didn't get it right initially either. We thought the patient needed fluids - liquidity as they say - and the patient did need some of that, but we didn't immediately see that there were also some key nutrient deficiencies and chemical imbalances that were threatening to cause further problems.

Bu we kept at it with tests and other diagnostics, and eventually got a handle on the problem. Once we did, we began to administer the medicine the patient needed. The patient will get better, the deterioration was rapid and turning it around will be difficult - it won't happen fast enough to suit any of us - but what has been done prevented a complete collapse, and is helping to move the patient towards recovery.

So I'm with Nouriel, Bernanke should be reappointed. It's true that the progression of the underlying disease was largely missed, but that's pretty much true across the board, all the doctors missed it. It's also true that there was some dispute over how to interpret the initial symptoms and test results, and what to do to cure the patient. But again that was largely true across the board in the tumultuous period just after the patient began to exhibit clear and serious problems. It's not like everyone except the patient's doctors knew exactly what to do. The uncertainty in that initial period created fear, and the fear made the patient - who needed calm above all else - even worse off.

But as just noted, the doctors who were put in charge - Bernanke in particular - persevered and began to understand more precisely what was going wrong and what was needed, and that allowed them to save the patient from a much, much worse fate. They deserve credit for that. The patient will live, and that wasn't always so clear. In the initial confusion they did what you need to do - they administered wide spectrum drugs and other procedures that were known to abate the symptoms they were observing, and these did help, and that gave them time to find more targeted remedies. They used the time wisely to find and structure better remedies, and once those remedies were ready they used them to attack the various ways in which the disease was shutting down vital systems (not everything they tried worked, but the things that did work helped quite a bit).

There was one scary point, however, and that was when they thought the patient had become strong enough to go without the medicine, and they withdrew it too soon (the Lehman episode). The result was that they almost lost the patient completely, and only quick action saved the day. That's the one point where I think the doctors could have done better. I understand the concerns over the side effects of this medicine, but it was too soon and it created too much unnecessary uncertainty and fear.

But overall, they did the things that needed to be done to make sure the patient did not suffer an even worse, prolonged, debilitating collapse, and those efforts were successful. Failing to diagnose a disease is different from not knowing what to do once you figure it out. The disease was a difficult one to diagnose or it wouldn't have missed so widely, and it wasn't clear at first precisely what was wrong, but in every case, once they understood the problem, they took the proper course of action.

Here's the question I ask myself. If I were to suddenly come down with the same disease, would I want the current group with it's current leadership in charge of bringing me back to health, or would I want a different group led by someone new who thinks they know what to do, but has never actually been through it? I'd want this group, the one with experience. They're likely to have learned enough to spot the disease the next time and head it off all together, one hopes so. But if not and I get the disease, they are also likely to know just what to do - while avoiding the missteps they took the first time - to get me back on my feet as fast as possible (and please don't let politicians second guess them).

This post was originally published on Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Obama's Proposal For Requiring Bank "Funeral Plans"

An arguably much needed change outlined in the Obama administration's financial regulation overhaul proposal is the requirement of a "rapid resolution plan". This would provide the government with important information in the event that a systemically important financial institution faces collapse. For more, see the following post by economist Mark Thoma, author of Economist's View.

No disagreement with this. The failure to have dissolution plans for systemically important institutions on the shelf and ready to go turned out to be costly, so credible dissolution plans are certainly needed. However, the argument seems to assume that too big and too interconnected firms cannot be avoided, something I'm not ready to concede:

A sound funeral plan can prolong a bank’s life, by Anil Kashyap, Commentary, Financial Times: Buried within the 88-page Obama administration proposal to overhaul financial regulation is an overlooked option called a “rapid resolution plan”. It mandates that systemically important financial companies be required regularly to file a “funeral plan”: a set of instructions for how the institution could be quickly dismantled should the need to do so arise. ... It could be implemented now, without the need for legislative action. Regulators should do so immediately.

The first benefit is that regulators would gain a stronger negotiating position with a dying institution. Throughout this crisis the authorities have had to intervene without knowing exactly what hidden traps might emerge if a bank were to be closed down. The bankers know this and can exploit the fear of the unknown to press for bail-outs.

It is remarkable that such rules do not already exist. ... The crisis has shown us that the sudden unwinding of a large, complex financial institution is terrifying for the financial system. ...

A second immediate benefit would be to force bank managers to think much more carefully about the complex financial structures they have created. If bankers had to explain every single step needed (and the associated consequences) to shut down their subsidiaries in all the various jurisdictions in which they operate, they would have a big incentive to simplify their organisations. ...

Over the medium term, there would be additional benefits. The headline component of the plan would be the requirement for banks to estimate the number of days it would take to shut down. Banks that require longer to close would have to hold more capital. This would place management under serious pressure to improve their plans...

Senior members of the management team and the board would have to understand the funeral plan. Crucially, they would be forced to sign off on its accuracy. This might also lead to closer scrutiny of new products or lines of business if they jeopardised an orderly unwinding. ...

This proposal is far from a cure-all. One big problem is that resolution rules themselves, especially when multiple legal systems are involved, are quite complicated. But the plan has an extremely high benefit-to-cost ratio and could be put in place right away. ...

This post was republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

Who Should Be Blamed For Big Bonuses

Many Americans are outraged right now of the report that Goldman Sachs is planning to pay out record bonuses. Although Goldman Sachs denies the report, many are asking how this could possibly happen. Martin Hutchinson from Money Morning explains who deserves the blame.

It’s been in the news the last couple of days. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) bankers are headed for record bonuses. The Financial Times reports that bankers’ pay in the London market is already right back to 2007 levels and going higher. Banks are poaching each others’ best staff, and are offering huge pay packages to staffers willing to make the leap.

It’s enough to make you succumb to the Two Minutes’ Hate.

But let’s face the truth. As egregious as salary escalation seems - coming as it does on the tail of the worst U.S. banking crisis since the Great Depression - the reality is that this is the U.S. government’s fault. After all, it was the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Obama administration that created all the bailouts and the special-loan-subsidy schemes for banks that would otherwise have been on their last legs.

In a truly free market, ex-Citibankers (NYSE: C) would be on every street corner of Manhattan - selling apples - and that would properly hold down the pay of those bankers still lucky enough to have a job.

The sudden rebound in demand for bankers is a symptom of overall market conditions right now. The U.S. stock market is way up from its lows, there are three Chinese initial public offerings (IPOs) due to come to market this week (one of them for a company with no earnings), the volume of home mortgage refinancing has been running at record levels, the FHA index of home prices has dropped only 0.3% this year and the volume of new corporate debt issuance is also high. Commodity prices are well off their lows, and oil prices are again close to $70 a barrel, which would have been considered an excessively high level only three years ago. That’s not a picture of a financial market - or a global economy - in deep recession.

Far from it.

To some extent, this is good news. A revival of the financial system and its ability to finance businesses and home purchases is exactly what the huge monetary and fiscal stimulus was meant to produce. A modest revival in world trade, as inventories cease being wound down and Chinese production ramps up again, is also a necessary precondition for economic recovery.

As the banking bonus news suggests, however, much of the activity is coming in some pretty funny places, where the excesses of the past decade were concentrated and where you wouldn’t expect to see such a quick revival.

That gives us a clear indication of just what the problem is. Because bankruptcies weren’t allowed to happen back in September and October - as they would have in a free market - there are more institutions in the market than there should be, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch most notable among them.

Moreover, in a true free market, the entire credit-default-swap (CDS) business - a product that caused $180 billion of losses to the financial system through American International Group Inc. (NYSE: AIG) - would be nothing but a smoking ruin. But in the market we are living in, those $180 billion worth of losses have been transferred to the tab of the taxpayers of America.

With Citigroup and Merrill Lynch bankers mooching around on street corners, financial sector salaries would be forced down to a more reasonable level. As it is, the few unemployed unfortunates who worked at Lehman Brothers are not enough to depress the market. Likewise, credit default swaps have caused huge pain to the unfortunate employees of Abitibi-Bowater Inc. (NYSE: ABH), General Growth Properties (OTC: GGWPQ), and Six Flags Inc. (OTC: SIXFQ), each of which went bust partly because their creditors were playing in the CDS market and had no incentive to find an alternative to bankruptcy. Had CDS caused the pain they should have to financiers, the product would no longer exist, to the considerable benefit of the rest of us.

Inevitably, we are going to have to pay the price for all the bailouts. The financial sector will eventually shrink to its proper size, as will its members’ earnings. CDS will eventually be sharply restricted, to prevent their holders from forcing random companies into Chapter 11. Interest rates will have to rise, to accommodate the huge debt-funding needs the government has incurred. Money will have to be kept tight, to pay for the indulgences that Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke granted during the bubble, as well as for the even greater-indulgences of the bust.

Which is probably why you don’t want to hold U.S. stocks right now.

This article was reposted from Money Morning. You can also view this article at Money Morning's investment news site.

Why Are Republicans Attacking The Republican Fed Chairman?

Why would Republican law makers want to attack Bernanke, a Republican appointed by President Bush? If Bernanke resigns, Obama could appoint a Democrat as Fed Chairman. Economist Mark Thoma from Economist's View, attempts to explain this counter-intuitive strategy.

The GOP is targeting Bernanke as "a champion of government intrusion and an ally of President Obama":

G.O.P. to Paint Bernanke as Ally of Big Government, by Edmund L. Andrews and Louise Story, NY Times: In a peculiar role reversal, Republican lawmakers are mounting a ferocious attack on the Republican chairman of the Federal Reserve, while Democrats are coming to his defense.

Ben S. Bernanke ... will be grilled on Thursday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about his role in orchestrating Bank of America’s controversial takeover of Merrill Lynch late last year.

The House investigation is heavily colored by partisanship. President Obama is proposing to give the Federal Reserve formidable new powers to regulate giant institutions, including Bank of America, that could pose risks to the financial system.

Republicans, along with some Democrats, argue that the Fed already has too much power.

Unhappy about the huge bank bailouts that the Fed arranged with the Treasury Department during the Bush administration, many Republicans are even more displeased that Mr. Bernanke is now working hand-in-glove with the Obama administration.

The result is a set of dueling narratives and agendas, all of which will be on full display when Mr. Bernanke testifies on Thursday. ...

Despite Mr. Bernanke’s Republican roots, and the fact that President Bush nominated him to be Fed chairman, the Republican memo prepared for the hearing on Thursday describes Mr. Bernanke as a champion of government intrusion and an ally of President Obama. ...

I don't think this is an attempt to negatively influence Obama's decision on Bernanke's reappointment as Fed chair as some have been hinting because that would not be in the GOP's best interest. There are open positions on the Federal Reserve Board, so even if Bernanke didn't resign as is customary in the event he was not reappointed - and nothing says he must - Obama would still be free to appoint a new Fed Chair from outside the present Board membership.

Obama would certainly appoint someone who shares his regulatory vision, and that person would likely be confirmed (e.g. someone like Janet Yellen would likely be confirmed even if there was lots of grumbling), so I don't see how the appointment of a new Fed chair would do anything but strengthen the support for the type of regulatory oversight the administration envisions. That's not what the GOP wants.

Instead, this looks much more like an attempt to by the GOP to maintain its usual anti-regulatory, anti-government stance by arguing that the Fed should not to be trusted with the powers envisioned in the proposed regulatory reform legislation. So the real goal is the Fed as an institution, Bernanke is simply the target being used to make that the point. E.g.:

The vast extent of the Fed’s actions in the past two years to commit trillions of dollars in government money to support the economy has raised significant concerns on Capitol Hill, some of which will be aired on Thursday when Bernanke testifies before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Congressional investigators have been looking into the Fed’s role in encouraging Bank of America to purchase Merrill Lynch... Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member on the Oversight Committee, said on Wednesday that the Fed engaged in a “cover-up” and hid details about the merger, completed in January 2009, from other federal agencies.

Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties are raising questions about Obama’s proposal to grant the Fed broad new powers to prevent another crisis.

Those concerns could make the next confirmation process far more contentious than the six that have occurred in the last two decades.

And:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said, “It won’t be my decision whether he is held over or not, but right now I’m concerned that they have lost their independence and are too cozy with Treasury.”

It looks like we are going to get some version of a strategy that has the GOP saying that given what happened to the financial system, of course we need more oversight and regulation of the financial system. But any particular piece of legislation that is proposed will be fought tooth and nail by the GOP as being far too intrusive, granting the government too much power, and generally going far beyond what is needed to solve the problem. The fact that the will for reform will diminish with time works in their favor, and if they can string things out long enough with this strategy, the result will be that the legislation eventually passes in a much weaker form, or it won't ever pass at all.

Just ignore them. Altering a few words:

The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the financial regulation debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogan — Government is always the problem, never the solution! — hoping that someone still cares.

This article was reposted from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.