Despite a bipartisan effort...

Nobel prize winner Krugman speaks to the moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party.

FAILURE TO RISE

PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 12, 2009

By any normal political standards, this week’s Congressional agreement on an economic stimulus package was a great victory for President Obama. He got more or less what he asked for: almost $800 billion to rescue the economy, with most of the money allocated to spending rather than tax cuts. Break out the Champagne!

Or maybe not. These aren’t normal times, so normal political standards don’t apply: Mr. Obama’s victory feels more than a bit like defeat. The stimulus bill looks helpful but inadequate, especially when combined with a disappointing plan for rescuing the banks. And the politics of the stimulus fight have made nonsense of Mr. Obama’s postpartisan dreams.

Let’s start with the politics.

One might have expected Republicans to act at least slightly chastened in these early days of the Obama administration, given both their drubbing in the last two elections and the economic debacle of the past eight years.

But it’s now clear that the party’s commitment to deep voodoo " enforced, in part, by pressure groups that stand ready to run primary challengers against heretics " is as strong as ever. In both the House and the Senate, the vast majority of Republicans rallied behind the idea that the appropriate response to the abject failure of the Bush administration’s tax cuts is more Bush-style tax cuts.

And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan " which will, it’s worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq " has bordered on the deranged.

It’s “generational theft,” said Senator John McCain, just a few days after voting for tax cuts that would, over the next decade, have cost about four times as much.

It’s “destroying my daughters’ future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs,” said Arnold Kling of the Cato Institute.

And the ugliness of the political debate matters because it raises doubts about the Obama administration’s ability to come back for more if, as seems likely, the stimulus bill proves inadequate.

For while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn’t ask for enough. We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.

Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree. And it’s widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have " that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support. We’ve just seen how well that worked.

Now, the chances that the fiscal stimulus will prove adequate would be higher if it were accompanied by an effective financial rescue, one that would unfreeze the credit markets and get money moving again. But the long-awaited announcement of the Obama administration’s plans on that front, which also came this week, landed with a dull thud.

The plan sketched out by Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wasn’t bad, exactly. What it was, instead, was vague. It left everyone trying to figure out where the administration was really going. Will those public-private partnerships end up being a covert way to bail out bankers at taxpayers’ expense? Or will the required “stress test” act as a back-door route to temporary bank nationalization (the solution favored by a growing number of economists, myself included)? Nobody knows.

Over all, the effect was to kick the can down the road. And that’s not good enough. So far the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis is all too reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s: a fiscal expansion large enough to avert the worst, but not enough to kick-start recovery; support for the banking system, but a reluctance to force banks to face up to their losses. It’s early days yet, but we’re falling behind the curve.

And I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach " a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.

There’s still time to turn this around. But Mr. Obama has to be stronger looking forward. Otherwise, the verdict on this crisis might be that no, we can’t.

0 Replies

Paul Krugman sees increased government power and control as the solution for every problem and I believe he would hand the government total power to control every aspect of human activity so long as liberal eocnomic ideology is employed.

A rebuttal from IBD (who, incidentally, endorsed Obama):

Quote:

'Historic' Stimulus Is Egregious Waste
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Economic Recovery: Congress is confident it will send President Obama a stimulus bill to sign by Monday's holiday. Unless something unforeseen happens, what lawmakers will put on his desk is a $789 billion waste.

The old quip that no one should watch while laws or sausages get made is true " especially with this Congress. America's legislative body has moved away from creating anything of value and instead habitually turns out things that belong in a landfill.

None have ever been more dump-worthy than the spending bill being sold as economic stimulus.

Harvard economist Robert Barro calls the legislation "probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s."

"I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money," he said in an interview with the Atlantic. "I don't think it will expand the economy. . . . I think it's garbage."

Rep. Tom Cole, Republican from Oklahoma, was a bit more refined but no less biting in his commentary. Borrowing from Winston Churchill, he wryly observed from the House floor Thursday morning that "Never have so few spent so much so quickly to do so little."

Lest anyone think that Barro or Cole is guilty of overstating the situation, consider what's in this monster:

• It overflows with pork " $2 billion to ACORN, an anti-capitalist "community" group that's been accused of voter registration fraud; $30 million to restore wetlands and save the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse in the San Francisco Bay Area (a Nancy Pelosi project); another $1 billion for a Prevention and Wellness Fund for education programs on sexually transmitted diseases.

Tens of billions will be spent on high-speed rail lines, which will be of little practical use but of great political service, and projects to expand high-speed Internet access in rural areas.

There's so much special-interest spending in the bill, says House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner's office, that the dollars left over for direct small-business tax relief amount to only "about one-third of 1% of the total bill," a mere $3 billion out of a $789 billion package. Yet small businesses do most of the hiring in this country.

• The bulk of the spending comes not right away when the economy needs a boost, but in future years. This is typical. Legislative attempts to rescue the economy have been late in the last eight recessions going back to October 1949, when Congress passed an anti-recession bill just as the country was emerging from a 12-month downturn.

• By releasing $800 billion in new welfare spending over the next decade and undermining current work requirements, it will largely undo the successful 1996 welfare reform. Once again, Washington will be paying bonuses to states that expand their welfare rolls. In what world is increasing dependency on government a stimulus for the private economy?

• States that have spent recklessly for years will get bailouts when they should instead suffer the consequences of their actions. The compromise bill includes $54 billion to hand out to state and local governments, a perverse reward for elected officials who can't control their spending.

What's missing from the legislation is just as significant as what's included.

There are no tax cuts to boost investment, just a trifling $13 in tax relief per week that will appear on paychecks in the spring.

There's no real effort to boost energy production.

There's no meaningful defense spending.

Tax cuts initiated at the White House gave life to struggling economies in the 1960s, 1980s and earlier in this decade.

Rather than take money out of the private sector and sift it through Washington, from where it is doled out through the political process, it's more effective to let Americans keep more of what they earn. Tax relief spurs the investment that fuels business expansion, drives productivity upward and feeds job creation.

Helping almost instantly would be an increase in domestic energy production. If Washington were to enact public policy that allowed for more oil drilling and additional natural gas output, the markets would quickly react by cutting prices even more.

Also absent from the package is the stimulative effect of defense spending. Funding the research, development and production of military ware at private companies creates jobs, advances technological innovation and strengthens the security that's necessary for continued economic growth and improvements to the quality of American life.

The entire mess will eventually cost not $789 billion but $3.27 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that figure by including $744 billion in debt service and $2.527 trillion in spending over the next 10 years if the bill's 20 most popular programs are permanently extended, which seems likely. There's nothing in the history of government programs that indicates that won't happen.

History, though, is the most ignored subject in Washington. Not just American history, but history abroad.

How else could lawmakers rush into this effort? Right in front of them is the lesson of Japan, which made a series of unsuccessful attempts to stimulate its stagnant economy. It spent $6.3 trillion on infrastructure in the 1990s and into this decade, and in doing so amassed the largest debt ever known in the developed world.

Yet all that spending failed to pull Japan from its slump.

But like their Japanese counterparts, American lawmakers soon will return to the trough, demanding more taxpayer cash because, well, they just haven't spent enough to revive growth.

However, as they do, lawmakers might find taxpayers in a foul mood.

Rasmussen reports that 67% of Americans, when polled about the stimulus, say they "have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress," while 58% agree that "no matter how bad things are, Congress can always find a way to make them worse."

Proving that an economic downturn hasn't caused them to abandon their sense of humor " nor their insight " 44% said they believe a group chosen at random from the phone book "would do a better job addressing the nation's problems than the current Congress."

Obama should study those numbers and consider the "consent of the governed" before he puts his name on this bad bill delivered by Congress. It would be good for both the country and his presidency if he sent the bill back to lawmakers and told them to listen to what the country is saying.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=319334273223204

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Paul Krugman would hand the government total power to control every aspect of human activity.

Exaggerate much?

And the IBD article is full of inaccuracies and rank opinion -

Quote:

• It overflows with pork " $2 billion to ACORN, an anti-capitalist "community" group that's been accused of voter registration fraud;

Please, this is nothing but ideological bitching

Quote:

$30 million to restore wetlands and save the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse in the San Francisco Bay Area (a Nancy Pelosi project)

This is a lie, perpetrated by a Republican Congressman who simply made it up. It was all over the news last night that this charge 'wasn't technically true.'

Quote:

another $1 billion for a Prevention and Wellness Fund for education programs on sexually transmitted diseases.

Heaven forbid we prevent the spread of stds, man, that sure sounds useless...

Quote:

Tens of billions will be spent on high-speed rail lines, which will be of little practical use but of great political service, and projects to expand high-speed Internet access in rural areas.

High-speed internet to rural areas is critically important to the expansion of our economy, and a huge leveling factor in favor of living in rural areas. Republicans should be all about this, it's basically a business multiplier for their prime constituency.

And the high-speed rail not being of practical use? Is the writer on crack? I would ride it quite often were it available. High-speed rail is great!

Quote:

• The bulk of the spending comes not right away when the economy needs a boost, but in future years. This is typical.

The CBO sez 75% of it should be spent within 2 years. Another lie.

Quote:

• States that have spent recklessly for years will get bailouts when they should instead suffer the consequences of their actions. The compromise bill includes $54 billion to hand out to state and local governments, a perverse reward for elected officials who can't control their spending.

What does this guy think 'suffer the consequences' mean? It means many lost jobs and tons of reductions in services for people all over the country, including many firemen and police officers who have to be cut. It's as if he doesn't have a clue how the housing market crash has starved many states of revenues.

Quote:

There are no tax cuts to boost investment, just a trifling $13 in tax relief per week that will appear on paychecks in the spring.

That's b/c tax cuts to 'boost investment' are the least productive form of stimulative spending and mostly just a handout for the rich.

Quote:

There's no real effort to boost energy production.

Sure there was; before the Republicans insisted that billions in green energy programs and developments be stripped out of the bill.

Quote:

There's no meaningful defense spending.

Snort. As if we don't need to cut defense spending, it's already a bloated hog which chokes our budgets every year.

Nothing more than an ideological piece, the IBD has very little of substance within this editorial.

Cyclo0ptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Foxfyre (Post 3571336)
Quote:

Quote:

Paul Krugman would hand the government total power to control every aspect of human activity.

extremism in the pursuit of ideology can be pretty funny.

0 Replies

The good news is that when this bill fails...it will be much tougher that a 2nd bill is passed. I am excited for that.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The good news is that when this bill fails...it will be much tougher that a 2nd bill is passed. I am excited for that.

fails?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The good news is that when this bill fails...it will be much tougher that a 2nd bill is passed. I am excited for that.

Enough with the concern trolling...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Its funny out some will take a partial line out of context and try to make it appear to be something other than what was said.

But back on topic, I don't think the bill is going to fail Maporsche. It should. It should be thrown in the dumpster and they should start over and focus on whatever has proved to work in the past. Government spending on anything other than defense has historically had little or no effect on economic stimulus but certain government initiatives re regulations, private spending on infrastructure, investments, and taxes have. That's where they should start and leave anything that does not encourage the private sector to create jobs out of it entirely.

And if they would put together an honest and effective economic stimulus bill, I would be writing and telephoning my elected representatives to vote for it instead of against it as I am now.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Government spending on anything other than defense has historically had little or no effect on economic stimulus but certain government initiatives re regulations and taxes have. That's where they should start and leave anything that does not encourage the private sector to create jobs out of it entirely.

Isn't that what has happened during the last 8 years? 2 trillion dollars in tax cuts under Bush. 1 trillion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How did that work out for you?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You call it trolling, but let me ask you this.

During the depression, the govt spent Billions on all type of program, trying to end the depression.
Yet none of it worked, and what ended the depression was WW2.

Since it didnt work then, why do you think it will work now?

1 Reply

Sorry, I meant that when the bill passes, but doesn't DO anything for the economy (which I think is the likely outcome)....Congress and Obama succeeding at begging the American people to trust them again with another 1.3 trillion IOU to China will be much more unlikely.

That's what I meant by "fails".

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

No it's not...I'm not doing a very good job of convincing people of my position. I need to step it up.

0 Replies

@old europe,

It worked out fine for me and just about everybody who was actually earning money instead of depending on working people via the government to provide it. What hasn't worked out is stupid government policy and initiatives that resulted in collapse of housing and the financial markets.

But are they addressing that? Nope. Haven't seen it in this boondoggle of a bill that few serious economists believe will have any measurable positive effect on the economy any time soon if ever.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

few serious economists

that's some amazing hat you pull such facts out of.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

You call it trolling, but let me ask you this.

During the depression, the govt spent Billions on all type of program, trying to end the depression.
Yet none of it worked, and what ended the depression was WW2.

To say 'none of it worked' is fallacious. Many of the programs did in fact work, put people to work, and the unemployment rate dropped heavily - though never low enough.

True, it didn't make the economy turn into Superman overnight, but it did work.

Quote:

Since it didnt work then, why do you think it will work now?

See above.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It worked out fine for me and just about everybody who was actually earning money instead of depending on working people via the government to provide it.

This is untrue. Real Wages have been stagnant over the Bush period and his economic record has been poor.

Quote:

What hasn't worked out is stupid government policy and initiatives that resulted in collapse of housing and the financial markets.

The government did not have any policy or initiatives which caused the financial markets to collapse; the cause was Greed on the part of those who run the markets and trading houses, which you have had patiently explained to you over and over.

Quote:

But are they addressing that? Nope. Haven't seen it in this boondoggle of a bill that few serious economists believe will have any measurable positive effect on the economy any time soon if ever.

The fact that Republicans are against the bill is almost the best advertisement for it, given the poor financial record under their leadership.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

From the left

Quote:

Liberal Economists Skeptical of Obama Stimulus Package"" By Jonathan Stein | Fri January 9, 2009 8:00 AM PST
Despite the fact that President-elect Obama described his stimulus package on Thursday with only broad generalities, the proposal is already coming under criticism from economists on the left. Anxiety that the package is too small is combined with a fear that the rumored $300 billion in tax cuts for individuals and corporations will do little to jump-start the economy. They argue that Obama, in seeking a solution that Republicans on the Hill will support, has sacrificed key components that would make the package work most effectively.

Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate and in-house economic lefty for the New York Times, wrote on his blog this week:
This really does look like a plan that falls well short of what advocates of strong stimulus were hoping for "" and it seems as if that was done in order to win Republican votes. Yet even if the plan gets the hoped-for 80 votes in the Senate, which seems doubtful, responsibility for the plan's perceived failure, if it's spun that way, will be placed on Democrats.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/01/liberal-economists-skeptical-obama-stimulus-package

From Obama and the CBO
‘trillion dollar deficits for years to come’ is apparently not a problem?

Quote:

January 07, 2009 12:19 PM
"Today the Congressional Budget Office announced that the deficit we are inheriting for this budget year will be $1.2 trillion," President-elect Obama said today, noting that the stimulus package "will necessarily add more."

Even after our economy "pulls out of its slide," the President-elect warned, "trillion dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come. But as I said yesterday, our problem is not just a deficit of dollars. It’’s a deficit of accountability... a deficit of trust. So change and reform can’’t just be election-year slogans. They must become fundamental principles of government."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/pebo-stimulus-p.html

And from the other side:
Economists from the Cato Institute buy full page ad in the New York Times slamming Barack Obama’’s stimulus package. It’’s a shame they have to buy an ad to get the opposing point of view into the Times. I believe doing a bio search will show that all or most of these guys have PhDs or at least graduate degrees in economics:

Quote:

“There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”
"" PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’’s ““lost decade”” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

Signed by:
BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware
DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J.ARIAS, Georgia College & State University
HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University
STACIE BECK, Univ. of Delaware
DON BELLANTE, Univ. of South Florida
JAMES BENNETT, George Mason University
BRUCE BENSON, Florida State University
SANJAI BHAGAT, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
MARK BILS, Univ. of Rochester
ALBERTO BISIN, New York University
WALTER BLOCK, Loyola University New Orleans
CECIL BOHANON, Ball State University
MICHELE BOLDRIN,Washington University in St. Louis
DONALD BOOTH, Chapman University
MICHAEL BORDO, Rutgers University
SAMUEL BOSTAPH, Univ. of Dallas
SCOTT BRADFORD, Brigham Young University
GENEVIEVE BRIAND, Eastern Washington University
GEORGE BROWER, Moravian College
JAMES BUCHANAN, Nobel laureate
RICHARD BURDEKIN, Claremont McKenna College
HENRY BUTLER, Northwestern University
WILLIAM BUTOS, Trinity College
PETER CALCAGNO, College of Charleston
BRYAN CAPLAN, George Mason University
ART CARDEN, Rhodes College
JAMES CARDON, Brigham Young University
DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury University
EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College
V.V. CHARI, Univ. of Minnesota
BARRY CHISWICK, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University
J.R. CLARK, Univ. of Tennessee at ChattanoogaGIAN LUCA CLEMENTI, New York University
R.MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University
JOHN COCHRAN, Metropolitan State College
JOHN COCHRANE, Univ. of Chicago
JOHN COGAN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
JOHN COLEMAN, Duke University
BOYD COLLIER, Tarleton State University
ROBERT COLLINGE, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
LEE COPPOCK, Univ. of Virginia
MARIO CRUCINI, Vanderbilt University
CHRISTOPHER CULP, Univ. of Chicago
KIRBY CUNDIFF, Northeastern State University
ANTONY DAVIES, Duquesne University
JOHN DAWSON, Appalachian State University
CLARENCE DEITSCH, Ball State University
ARTHUR DIAMOND, JR., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
JOHN DOBRA, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
JAMES DORN, Towson University
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
FLOYD DUNCAN, Virginia Military Institute
FRANCIS EGAN, Trinity College
JOHN EGGER, Towson University
KENNETH ELZINGA, Univ. of Virginia
PAUL EVANS, Ohio State University
EUGENE FAMA, Univ. of Chicago
W. KEN FARR, Georgia College & State University
HARTMUT FISCHER, Univ. of San Francisco
FRED FOLDVARY, Santa Clara University
MURRAY FRANK, Univ. of Minnesota
PETER FRANK,Wingate University
TIMOTHY FUERST, Bowling Green State University
B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University
JOHN GAREN, Univ. of Kentucky
RICK GEDDES, Cornell University
AARON GELLMAN, Northwestern University
WILLIAM GERDES, Clarke College
MICHAEL GIBBS, Univ. of Chicago
STEPHAN GOHMANN, Univ. of Louisville
RODOLFO GONZALEZ, San Jose State University
RICHARD GORDON, Penn State University
PETER GORDON, Univ. of Southern California
ERNIE GOSS, Creighton University
PAUL GREGORY, Univ. of Houston
EARL GRINOLS, Baylor University
DANIEL GROPPER, Auburn UniversityR.W. HAFER, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
ARTHUR HALL, Univ. of Kansas
STEVE HANKE, Johns Hopkins
STEPHEN HAPPEL, Arizona State University
FRANK HEFNER, College of Charleston
RONALD HEINER, George Mason University
DAVID HENDERSON, Hoover Institution,
Stanford University
ROBERT HERREN, North Dakota State University
GAILEN HITE, Columbia University
STEVEN HORWITZ, St. Lawrence University
JOHN HOWE, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
JEFFREY HUMMEL, San Jose State University
BRUCE HUTCHINSON, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BRIAN JACOBSEN,Wisconsin Lutheran College
JASON JOHNSTON, Univ. of Pennsylvania
BOYAN JOVANOVIC, New York University
JONATHAN KARPOFF, Univ. of Washington
BARRY KEATING, Univ. of Notre Dame
NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State University
NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University
DANIEL KLEIN, George Mason University
PAUL KOCH, Univ. of Kansas
NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA, Univ. of Minnesota
MAREK KOLAR, Delta College
ROGER KOPPL, Fairleigh Dickinson University
KISHORE KULKARNI, Metropolitan
State College of Denver
DEEPAK LAL, UCLA
GEORGE LANGELETT, South Dakota State University
JAMES LARRIVIERE, Spring Hill College
ROBERT LAWSON, Auburn University
JOHN LEVENDIS, Loyola University New Orleans
DAVID LEVINE,Washington University in St. Louis
PETER LEWIN, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
DEAN LILLARD, Cornell University
ZHENG LIU, Emory University
ALAN LOCKARD, Binghampton University
EDWARD LOPEZ, San Jose State University
JOHN LUNN, Hope College
GLENN MACDONALD,Washington
University in St. Louis
MICHAEL MARLOW, California
Polytechnic State UniversityDERYL MARTIN, Tennessee Tech University
DALE MATCHECK, Northwood University
DEIRDRE MCCLOSKEY, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
JOHN MCDERMOTT, Univ. of South Carolina
JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ. of Central Arkansas
ROGER MEINERS, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University
JOHN MERRIFIELD, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
JAMES MILLER III, George Mason University
JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University
THOMAS MOELLER, Texas Christian University
JOHN MOORHOUSE,Wake Forest University
ANDREA MORO, Vanderbilt University
ANDREW MORRISS, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University
KEVIN MURPHY, Univ. of Southern California
RICHARD MUTH, Emory University
CHARLES NELSON, Univ. of Washington
SETH NORTON, Wheaton College
LEE OHANIAN, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
LYDIA ORTEGA, San Jose State University
EVAN OSBORNE, Wright State University
RANDALL PARKER, East Carolina University
DONALD PARSONS, George Washington University
SAM PELTZMAN, Univ. of Chicago
MARK PERRY, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
CHRISTOPHER PHELAN, Univ. of Minnesota
GORDON PHILLIPS, Univ. of Maryland
MICHAEL PIPPENGER, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
TOMASZ PISKORSKI, Columbia University
BRENNAN PLATT, Brigham Young University
JOSEPH POMYKALA, Towson University
WILLIAM POOLE, Univ. of Delaware
BARRY POULSON, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
BENJAMIN POWELL, Suffolk University
EDWARD PRESCOTT, Nobel laureate
GARY QUINLIVAN, Saint Vincent College
REZA RAMAZANI, Saint Michael’’s College
ADRIANO RAMPINI, Duke University
ERIC RASMUSEN, Indiana University
MARIO RIZZO, New York University
RICHARD ROLL, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
ROBERT ROSSANA,Wayne State University
JAMES ROUMASSET, Univ. of Hawaii at ManoaJOHN ROWE, Univ. of South Florida
CHARLES ROWLEY, George Mason University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ, Duke University
ROY RUFFIN, Univ. of Houston
KEVIN SALYER, Univ. of California, Davis
PAVEL SAVOR, Univ. of Pennsylvania
RONALD SCHMIDT, Univ. of Rochester
CARLOS SEIGLIE, Rutgers University
WILLIAM SHUGHART II, Univ. of Mississippi
CHARLES SKIPTON, Univ. of Tampa
JAMES SMITH,Western Carolina University
VERNON SMITH, Nobel laureate
LAWRENCE SOUTHWICK, JR., Univ. at Buffalo
DEAN STANSEL, Florida Gulf Coast University
HOUSTON STOKES, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
BRIAN STROW,Western Kentucky University
SHIRLEY SVORNY, California State
University, Northridge
JOHN TATOM, Indiana State University
WADE THOMAS, State University
of New York at Oneonta
HENRY THOMPSON, Auburn University
ALEX TOKAREV, The King’’s College
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University
LEO TROY, Rutgers University
DAVID TUERCK, Suffolk University
CHARLOTTE TWIGHT, Boise State University
KAMAL UPADHYAYA, Univ. of New Haven
CHARLES UPTON, Kent State University
T. NORMANVAN COTT, Ball State University
RICHARDVEDDER, Ohio University
RICHARDWAGNER, George Mason University
DOUGLAS M.WALKER, College of Charleston
DOUGLAS O.WALKER, Regent University
CHRISTOPHERWESTLEY, Jacksonville
State University
LAWRENCEWHITE, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
WALTERWILLIAMS, George Mason University
DOUGWILLS, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
DENNISWILSON,Western Kentucky University
GARYWOLFRAM, Hillsdale College
HUIZHONG ZHOU,Western Michigan University
http://conservativethoughts.us/2009/01/28/economists-slam-obamas-stimulus-package-in-new-york-times-ad/

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You do realize that Krugman and many other Kenysians merely think this bill isn't spending enough, Fox?

Cycloptichron

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

‘trillion dollar deficits for years to come’ is apparently not a problem?

The right started complaining about the Bush admin's trillion dollar deficit spending spree roughly at the time when McCain was nominated as the Republican candidate for presidency.

Zero. Credibility.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yup. That's why I posted that very sentiment.

1 Reply

Despite a bipartisan effort...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know