dagblog - Comments for "Why Should You Vote for Obama?"

It's a good idea in this

DF — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:57:00 +0000

It's a good idea in this environment, such as it is. And, yes, it matters how you craft the policy, but the basic idea is that public money subsidizes hiring. If employers don't take the credit, then we're really no worse off than we are now. Obviously your numbers don't work, but here's the thing: there are other numbers. Christie Romer gets this.

A great policy

Red Planet — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:26:07 +0000

In reply to Hey, Genghis. I don't know

A great policy suggestion?

Obama's been pushing the new jobs tax credit since his 2008 campaign. He made another pitch early last year. it's a zombie idea designed to sound like a tax cut and sound like a stimulus at the same time, but it's pretty much useless in this economy.

Employers don't need, and can't use the employees. How will a tax credit change that?

If I spend $40K annually on a new employee's wage package, and you give me back $5K, but the new employee still has nothing to do, I'm down $35K. Plus the opportunity cost.

Such a deal. Even the "job creators" can't use it (unless they're already hiring for other reasons anyway, in which case the credit isn't an incentive, it's a fraud of a different color).

Hey DF. Welcome back! I like

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:27:36 +0000

In reply to Hey, Genghis. I don't know

Hey DF. Welcome back!

I like the suggestion, particularly because it has a shot at passage. That said, I don't think that it amounts to a broad initiative that Obama can hang his campaign on.

Thanks for the reminder about the poly sci models. The sad fact is that it probably doesn't matter all that much how Obama campaigns. The economy usually has the final word.

Along those lines, it probably doesn't matter all that much what he did wrong. Short of passing a much larger and longer stimulus, which I don't think he could have pulled off even if he'd tried given the Democrats' disunity, the economy would probably be kicking his ass regardless.

I'm not familiar with Vavreck's model. I'd welcome a post on that.

Hey, Genghis. I don't know

DF — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:31:00 +0000

In reply to Why Should You Vote for Obama?

Hey, Genghis. I don't know if anyone else has mentioned it here, but Christie Romer had a great policy suggestion on Bill Maher last week. She suggested a direct tax incentive to businesses who hire additional workers. It's not a WPA, but it still amounts to fiscal expansion and puts people back to work. It also has the bonuses of working through the private sector and, provided that it can be sold as such, masquerading as a tax cut.

You're absolutely right that Obama finds himself in a tough place going into 2012. And much of that is the result of maneuvers he's made. The poli sci models I'm familiar with say that this is a Republican election to lose if we get to next June or so in poor economic shape. Forecasts are not good and without some kind of bold, top-down policy action it doesn't seem like there's much chance of improvement in the near future.

I'll be considering Lynn Vavreck's model as we roll into 2012. She incorporates the usual economic fundamentals, but also tries to incorporate information about position and messaging and claims that her model is 92% accurate. Maybe I'll write a summary of her model for Daggers to chew on.

The problem with running on

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:52:39 +0000

In reply to The first thing is to

The problem with running on "changing the way Washington works" is its a purely process, entirely abstract thing to say. Which is convenient because the bearer of that message isn't in the same breath saying what s/he believes Washington would do if it "worked"--if the voters were to send all adults there, so to speak--which immediately will generate disagreement.

Who, after all, likes the way Washington works? It doesn't necessarily mean Obama shouldn't try to run "against Washington". Incumbent Presidents, and especially incumbent members of Congress, do sometimes try to do that. Some even get away with it. Just saying that by itself isn't likely to be enough.

Even if the White House and some Congressional Dem candidates can't or won't swallow all of the agenda DanK linked to in this thread, they should be able to get behind some of those items, at least. The essential, and probably lead, item on the agenda probably has to say something persuasive on jobs, and the economy more broadly. Two thoughts on that:

1. As we get closer to the election, the White House and Senate could take advantage of their ability to propose and push legislation which helps Democrats set up the fall campaign message. A major public infrastructure jobs bill, tied to a pro-economic growth argument and paid for with partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts, would of course get blocked from a vote. But if the White House and Senate would propose and push for it and talk it up, that could help to get the public discussion onto favorable Democratic terms.

2. In re to Genghis' point on the infrastructure bank, I don't think the fact that it's $30 billion or $60 billion or whatever matters from a campaign effectiveness perspective. What matters at the level of the campaign talking points and debates is the number of new jobs it would be expected to generate. Same with a public infrastructure jobs bill, I believe.

The infrastructure bank may appeal to some of those who need or want or respond only to something which sounds "new", a point you've been making, Genghis. If they push both the public infrastructure jobs bill tied to an economic growth message and partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts, and the infrastructure bank proposal, they might see that as appealing to what they think of as both "old" and "new" Democrats. In the first two years they clearly were trying to govern with a coalition consisting of both groups. So that would not reflect a way of thinking that is alien to them in any way. Some of this, some of that, try to keep the coalition together by giving each some of what it wants.

It might well be that the mortgage market mess needs to be addressed in some more aggressive fashion to really have a viable program for getting this economy turned around. I say that reluctantly because I'm not at all sure what a politically more helpful than not proposal looks like on that, given the certainty of perceptions and charges that anything the federal government might do is helping people who were irresponsible in taking out loans on homes they should have known they could never afford. Maybe Daniel Immergluck's book Foreclosed has some good thoughts on that. He is someone who apparently has cred with the financial policy crowd in Washington.

On the infrastructure bank, Obama's Bank: Financing a Durable New Deal, by Michael Likosky, sets forth one knowledgeable person's idea of what that should, and shouldn't be. I haven't gotten either to it or the Immergluck book.

Good man!

Bruce Levine — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:41:45 +0000

In reply to OK, I'll get right on it. ;)

Good man!

OK, I'll get right on it. ;)

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:15:49 +0000

In reply to Genghis, Thanks for this blog

OK, I'll get right on it. ;)

Genghis, Thanks for this blog

Bruce Levine — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:12:00 +0000

In reply to Why Should You Vote for Obama?

Genghis,

Thanks for this blog and you ask a really important question. I honestly don't know the answer standing alone or to the extent it conflates what he should do as chief executive and what he should do as candidate. I know they're intertwined to a large extent, but, standing alone, I don't know what a candidate Obama does at this point to win.

As you know, I have a blog above yours right now, in which I argue that Obama is better than a Republican. But I understand that he has done much to damage his chances to win. For example, I also wrote in another blog that I was at a union pension fund meeting yesterday. One of the trustees, who is also a local union president and who was an early supporter of Obama's, said that he learned a long time ago that the one thing a politician should never do is turn his or her back on the base. And that, in that trustee's opinion, was what Obama has done in the eyes of many.

So I don't know what he does, but believe me I'm all eyes and ears. Figure this out.

I didn't know Obama helped

Resistance — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:46:05 +0000

In reply to And I suppose your analysis

I didn't know Obama helped get the voters out?

Maybe some here will do as

Red Planet — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:18:15 +0000

In reply to "What are we going to do

Maybe some here will do as you say, brewmn, but who cares? The question is, what are we going to do, not who are we going to blame?

There are many things Obama can do, in his role as Chief Executive, to start making things better. It isn't too late, not yet, and if he does them, he'll have a pretty good story to tell. If not, he won't.

But that doesn't answer the question, what are we going to do?

We can do those things that voters do. Those things that politically active individuals and groups do. Contact our legislators, at the local, state and federal level. Let them now what we expect. Contact our friends and family, even when it is uncomfortable. Let them know what a society of equality can be like. Don't shy from our beliefs: do somethig every day to advance them.

And if we can do that, surely we can expect our President to do that.