Is the GOP Cooking the Books to Avoid Recession Until After Election Day?
By James Galbraith, Mother Jones. Posted July 8, 2008.
Two enormous clouds remain for whoever becomes president: the housing slump and the banking crisis. Both are far from being finished yet
Is the worst over? Are we on the road to recovery? Will the next president take office against a backdrop of economic improvement, as Bill Clinton did in 1993? Or has something deeper and more intractable gone wrong?
Early this year, the optimists, including Citigroup chairman Bob Rubin and Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, argued that the slowdown was short-term and that a "stimulus" package should be "targeted and temporary." This with rare haste the Democratic Congress enacted. As a result, most taxpayers got one-time $600 checks in May, prefigured by bubbly messages touting "Good News!" if you filed your taxes electronically.
The rebate isn't the only little Dutch boy thrown headlong at the dike this election year. Government spending, especially for defense, will be up: Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. (It was exposed in the first Clinton "Economic Report.") Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.
Under intense pressure from panicky bankers, Ben Bernanke cut interest rates relentlessly from August 2007 through the spring of 2008. I don't accuse Bernanke of playing politics. But it's worth noting that this is what usually happens. In presidential election years when Republicans are in office, the Fed regularly and predictably pursues a more expansionary policy than when Democrats rule -- after controlling for differences in the rates of inflation and unemployment. (I made these calculations myself; see the chart.) Maybe they just can't help themselves.
But much of the ordinary effect of interest cuts on new lending -- like a rebound in construction and automobile sales -- didn't happen this time. That's because the fall in home prices (and therefore the value of collateral) overwhelmed the benefit of cheaper money to the banks. And the banks barely cut mortgage rates, so consumers saw no benefits at all. Lower interest rates did cut the value of the dollar, however, and that promotes exports and foreign investment. (These days New York Times real estate listings come with a currency converter.) It also boosts the stock market, since multinational firms can report their (unchanged) foreign income as higher dollar earnings.
More
QUOTE (Deke @ Jul 8 2008, 09:10 AM) 
Is the GOP Cooking the Books to Avoid Recession Until After Election Day?
By James Galbraith, Mother Jones. Posted July 8, 2008.
Two enormous clouds remain for whoever becomes president: the housing slump and the banking crisis. Both are far from being finished yet
Is the worst over? Are we on the road to recovery? Will the next president take office against a backdrop of economic improvement, as Bill Clinton did in 1993? Or has something deeper and more intractable gone wrong?
Early this year, the optimists, including Citigroup chairman Bob Rubin and Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, argued that the slowdown was short-term and that a "stimulus" package should be "targeted and temporary." This with rare haste the Democratic Congress enacted. As a result, most taxpayers got one-time $600 checks in May, prefigured by bubbly messages touting "Good News!" if you filed your taxes electronically.
The rebate isn't the only little Dutch boy thrown headlong at the dike this election year. Government spending, especially for defense, will be up: Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. (It was exposed in the first Clinton "Economic Report.") Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.
Under intense pressure from panicky bankers, Ben Bernanke cut interest rates relentlessly from August 2007 through the spring of 2008. I don't accuse Bernanke of playing politics. But it's worth noting that this is what usually happens. In presidential election years when Republicans are in office, the Fed regularly and predictably pursues a more expansionary policy than when Democrats rule -- after controlling for differences in the rates of inflation and unemployment. (I made these calculations myself; see the chart.) Maybe they just can't help themselves.
But much of the ordinary effect of interest cuts on new lending -- like a rebound in construction and automobile sales -- didn't happen this time. That's because the fall in home prices (and therefore the value of collateral) overwhelmed the benefit of cheaper money to the banks. And the banks barely cut mortgage rates, so consumers saw no benefits at all. Lower interest rates did cut the value of the dollar, however, and that promotes exports and foreign investment. (These days New York Times real estate listings come with a currency converter.) It also boosts the stock market, since multinational firms can report their (unchanged) foreign income as higher dollar earnings.
More
By James Galbraith, Mother Jones. Posted July 8, 2008.
Two enormous clouds remain for whoever becomes president: the housing slump and the banking crisis. Both are far from being finished yet
Is the worst over? Are we on the road to recovery? Will the next president take office against a backdrop of economic improvement, as Bill Clinton did in 1993? Or has something deeper and more intractable gone wrong?
Early this year, the optimists, including Citigroup chairman Bob Rubin and Treasury secretary Hank Paulson, argued that the slowdown was short-term and that a "stimulus" package should be "targeted and temporary." This with rare haste the Democratic Congress enacted. As a result, most taxpayers got one-time $600 checks in May, prefigured by bubbly messages touting "Good News!" if you filed your taxes electronically.
The rebate isn't the only little Dutch boy thrown headlong at the dike this election year. Government spending, especially for defense, will be up: Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. (It was exposed in the first Clinton "Economic Report.") Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.
Under intense pressure from panicky bankers, Ben Bernanke cut interest rates relentlessly from August 2007 through the spring of 2008. I don't accuse Bernanke of playing politics. But it's worth noting that this is what usually happens. In presidential election years when Republicans are in office, the Fed regularly and predictably pursues a more expansionary policy than when Democrats rule -- after controlling for differences in the rates of inflation and unemployment. (I made these calculations myself; see the chart.) Maybe they just can't help themselves.
But much of the ordinary effect of interest cuts on new lending -- like a rebound in construction and automobile sales -- didn't happen this time. That's because the fall in home prices (and therefore the value of collateral) overwhelmed the benefit of cheaper money to the banks. And the banks barely cut mortgage rates, so consumers saw no benefits at all. Lower interest rates did cut the value of the dollar, however, and that promotes exports and foreign investment. (These days New York Times real estate listings come with a currency converter.) It also boosts the stock market, since multinational firms can report their (unchanged) foreign income as higher dollar earnings.
More
They are wasting their time. They will be wiped out. We will have some major economic problems above and beyond were we are now but before the Nov. elections. If I were a Republican official I might consider keeping a real low profile.
I don't think the voters care if its called a "recession", a "downturn" or an "eggplant", they know that their lives are worse than they were 8 years ago.
They know that the oil exec.s are making weasel statements to Congress.
They're going to vote Democratic in order to avoid/end this eggplant.
They know that the oil exec.s are making weasel statements to Congress.
They're going to vote Democratic in order to avoid/end this eggplant.
QUOTE (merickson @ Jul 8 2008, 06:20 AM)
I don't think the voters care if its called a "recession", a "downturn" or an "eggplant", they know that their lives are worse than they were 8 years ago.
They know that the oil exec.s are making weasel statements to Congress.
They're going to vote Democratic in order to avoid/end this eggplant.
They know that the oil exec.s are making weasel statements to Congress.
They're going to vote Democratic in order to avoid/end this eggplant.
I hate eggplant. Yuck!
^^Does comparing the cruelty difference between Eggplant Parmesan and Veal Parmesan change your opinion?
(Trust the Republicans to inject cruelty into a vegetarian meal.)
(Trust the Republicans to inject cruelty into a vegetarian meal.)
Of course they are. Clinton was a notorious stat fudger but Bush puts him to shame.
i.e. when bushco was trying to pump up his environmental record and declared that there was a net increase in wetlands. They did this by changing the stats to NOW include golf course water hazards.
The article was called "You call this a Wetland" and it was written in the redneck "Field & Stream" magazine. Amazingly, if you try to find it on their site you get "Sorry, this page was not found" anymore but it was blogged about a lot when it came out and those blogs did a cut and paste job on the story so... it's immortalized regardless of what F&S try to do.
Here's the story in full:
You Call this a Wetland?
i.e. when bushco was trying to pump up his environmental record and declared that there was a net increase in wetlands. They did this by changing the stats to NOW include golf course water hazards.
The article was called "You call this a Wetland" and it was written in the redneck "Field & Stream" magazine. Amazingly, if you try to find it on their site you get "Sorry, this page was not found" anymore but it was blogged about a lot when it came out and those blogs did a cut and paste job on the story so... it's immortalized regardless of what F&S try to do.
Here's the story in full:
You Call this a Wetland?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.