Associated Press
In the broadest possible sense, Washington has two main choices to spur economic growth during tough times. Policymakers can rely on Congress and the White House to approve fiscal stimulus that injects capital into the economy, or they can rely on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Though actions can vary based on circumstances -- not all recessions are the same -- the left generally prefers the former, while the right prefers the latter.
In the Obama era, Republicans oppose both.
We know the GOP is willing to fight tooth and nail to reject any efforts at public investment to create jobs and spur economic growth. What's less known is that Republicans are equally disgusted by the idea of Fed intervention to improve economic conditions.
This isn't necessarily new. Last year, Senate Republicans killed Peter Diamond's nomination to fill a Fed vacancy because he's only the recipient a Nobel Prize in economics and an expert in unemployment. As Matt Yglesias explained this morning, GOP efforts to make expansionary monetary policy impossible are only getting worse.
The good news is that there are two open seats on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Board members get automatic seats on the Open Market Committee. So in principle by filling those seats with two people who are equally committed to monetary expansion as Bernanke -- or even better, people who are more committed -- the White House and the Senate could provide a powerful boost to economic growth.
But Senator David Vitter (R-Louisiana) doesn't want that to happen, and has placed a hold on Obama's two nominees saying: "I refuse to provide Chairman Bernanke with two more rubber stamps who approve of the Fed's activist policies."
Vitter, in other words, like the jobless rates right where it is or perhaps wishes it were even lower.
For those who suspect congressional Republicans are deliberately trying to drag down the economy in the hopes of undermining the Obama presidency, the GOP's actions with regard to monetary policy offer powerful evidence.
Over the last three years, congressional Republicans have gone to almost comical lengths to stop the Fed from even trying to improve the economy (while fighting equally hard to stop Congress from also trying to improve the economy). In November 2010, GOP lawmakers went so far as to say they wanted to change the Federal Reserve's mandate so that it would stop taking steps to lower unemployment. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, National Journal reported that Republicans have effectively bullied the Fed into paralyzed inaction, and since Obama's choices to fill vacancies are blocked by knee-jerk, incoherent opposition, nothing changes.
Remember, it's within the Fed's power to pursue policies that would boost the economy, but Republicans are actively opposed to any such efforts, almost acting as if they want a weaker economy on purpose.
This quote from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) continues to resonate: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.... Our single biggest political goal is to give [the Republican] nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."
Leave a Comment:
Vitter prefers people have jobs that are illegal (except in Nevada), especially if they're into the kinky stuff (diapers, etc..).
Traitors
Thirty years of Republican Treason is enough.
Steve- where is your sense of humor ? We all know that Faux news analysts are WAY FAR better qualified on the economy than some hack that got some 'foreigner' Nobel prize.
/sarcasm off
Does anyone know how many jobs would have been created if the GOP had not filibustered every proposal Obama put forth?
no do you- and exactly what "proposal" was filibustered and how would they have created jobs- just another talking point blog
You can look it up for yourself STFU54, but I doubt that you will.
not sure what to look- the claim is that GOP filibustered every proposal put forth by President Obama- and that in doing so jobs were lost- this assumes that the unidentifed proposals would create jobs- just exactly how does any proposed fiscal policy create jobs- jobs are a result of capital investment- certainly the government can have a significant impact on how and where capital is used and the feds monetary policy can impact (QE's e.g.)- unless you are suggesting a public works project like in the 30's (of which my father was a beneficiary)- little the government can do to "create jobs"
And again, STFU54, if you do your own research on this you would find out the answer to your question.
And your whole "government not creating jobs" is a debunked right wing talking point.
The government can only create government jobs or subsidized jobs. Either way, more governmental jobs adding to the deficit. And, as we saw with the stimulus package, jobs went away when the money ran out. Private jobs are created by businesses when they see demand has outpaced the ability to supply. Today, technology has enabled business to expand production without adding to employment. This is one factor ignored by politicians. Another factor holding back employment is the ACA - uncertainty. And, all the hype about record profits just ignores the fact we are in a global economy. A good portion of those profits are earned off shore.
This is nothing new, the republicans have done everything they can to keep the economy from growing to hurt the president. In doing so they have hurt the people they are supposed to represent. If they had worked with the president on the jobs bill the whole situation would be better. I live in louisiana and don,t understand why they voted Vitter back in office. This is a poor state and poor people here always vote against their own intrest. I think they are just not smart enough to understand the facts.
I love this, quoted on Washington Monthly by Ed Kilgore from Paul Waldman: "[...] if Mitt Romney’s experience in private equity gives him such unique understanding of the economy, why is what he proposes exactly what you’d hear from any Republican who spent his working life in government? It’s partly because Romney is a Republican, and things like tax cuts and reductions in regulation are just what Republicans believe. But maybe it’s also because when it comes to the things government can do to affect the economy, being a businessman doesn’t give you such special insight after all."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_05/autopresident037160.php
Kilgore concludes: "the argument that corporate titans know more about government policies that might strengthen the economy than anyone else needs a direct hit. If, as appears to be the case with Romney, said titans are essentially arguing that there is no positive government role in the economy and that all his brilliance and experience will be brought to bear on the task of “getting government out of the way” as quickly as possible, why not just elevate a laptop to the presidency, running the best available destroy-the-government software available from conservative think tanks?"
Romney will favor outsourcing which will make previously "government" jobs like teachers and mailmen, private sector real jobs. Real jobs is code for lower paying and fewer benefits, especially defined benefits. When he complains that government workers have better benefits than the taxpayers who pay them, he is not advocating better benefits for the taxpayers!
Exactly Robert. Romney says nothing about getting better benefits for the taxpayers, and sadly tries to make the honest government workers look bad. Here in Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is doing the same thing to our state workers.
so why are you entitled to "better benefits"- what did you do to earn them
Woah Troll alert. Yes, let's have a really destructive race to the bottom for everyone, not just private sector employees who have every ounce of productivity squeezed from for minimum wage. Good plan. That's how you have a prosperous society; rich people staying rich and the rest of us peons working our fingers to the bone.
the statment or claim is an entitlment to better benefits for "taxpayers"- why does your status as a tax payer entitle one to "better benefits"- sounds like something for nothing-
Wow, STFU54. Just wow.
ST54 I might have missed it but it seems you were the 1st to use the word "entitle." Public sectors seem to have stronger bargaining power and the result is better benefits. These are just results from negotiations.
None of this means anything unless the Obama campaign ad writers cleverly revise the P.T. Barnum Republicant tactic to "repeat a lie over and over until it becomes a truth" (to the uninformed sucker). The Obama ad's simply need to repeat the truth over and over again to expose the Republicant message for what it is - a lie.
a "lie"- would that be like Elizabeth Warren claiming she is an native American because she believes she has "high cheekbones"- if a Republican had made such a stereotypical racist comment there would be no end to it
STFU54: you really need to STFU. Really.
so Elizabeth Warren did not or did not lie? Simple question.
@ST54: Whether she lied or not is irrelevant -- unless of course your defense to a lie is that someone else lied... which would make you about 5 years old.
I agree that is no defense- not suggesting otherwise- it is a matter of consistency- Republicans are accused of lying all the time- and if you are a Republican then you are guilty of lying by association- Elizabeth Warren tells a rather significant lie- and well that's ok-
ST54
I f had a nickel for everyone who mistakenly thought they had Native American ancestry I'd be rich. I remember how disappointed Stephen Colbert was when he found out there was not "Chicasaw princess" in his DNA background on the PBS show Faces of America with Henry Louis Gates Jr. Nope Colbert turned out to be 100% White Guy.
It's a mistake and a common one. Not a lie.
Yet another reason to vote the Gross Obstructionist Party out in November 2012!
It's the responsibility of the press to make this well-known to the American people. If they won't do it on their own, then Democrats have to make their own news by specifically charging Republicans with intentional economic obstruction and malfeasance. The press could not, nor would they want to, avoid covering such. Democrats need to open their damned mouths and fight.
It is Obama's fault that the right is filled with a...holes.
ST54: If you are opposed to increases in government safety net programs, why the heck are you so opposed to PRIVATE programs? If people do not have retirement programs and health care, they go on Welfare or Medicaid. Making programs like Medicaid MORE necessary by race to the bottom hiring policies is hardly a conservative ideal. Or maybe now it is?
I am not opposed to safety net programs- in general a good thing- the claim in the blog- which appears to go unnoticed- is that if you are a taxpayer you are entitled to some undetermined increase in benefits- my question is why- presumably that means that if a valid policy concept-the more you pay in taxes the greater the benefit you should recieve (which is not good policy)
I think that cost-of-living increases are automatic, assumed, expected if you are among the upper-crusts of public service, but not if you make minimum wage. Inflation means your money buys less over time and the poor get poorer.
There is a chart floating around recently that basically shows productivity is on a constant, steady increase in the workplace but wages are not keeping up with that. And CEO's are making hundreds of times what their employees do. And profits for corporations are doing fine.
A healthy economy looks like a diamond, where there is a large middle class that has time to be creative, open businesses, invent new things. The current policies mean that the economy is looking more like an hourglass.
And yet the Ron Paul fans think this is a GOOD thing for the Fed to be paralyzed, because they don't want it to even exist. Because it'd be so nice to go back to the era where we had wildly swinging boom and bust cycles every 20 years or so. Panic of 1837, anyone?