The Anti-Economist — February 13, 2013, 5:11 pm

The Economic Understatement of the Union

If the president wants the public???s support, he should be making a forceful case for spending

President Obama has for some time now been building a Procrustean bed on the issue of deficit cutting. We have no room to increase spending, his fixed position goes, because we must cut the deficit now — and never mind that serious deficits will not afflict the economy until the late 2020s, if then. Obama began moving in this direction with his appointment of two conservatives, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, to head his budget-balancing commission, and he has reinforced the argument time and again since.

For all that, the president’s State of the Union address last night offered an admirable if weak laundry list of proposals. They included a commission on protecting voting rights (largely overlooked in post-speech analysis), and a much-needed minimum-wage rise, to $9 an hour. Neither of these would require additional government spending. But does anyone believe that voting commission will be aggressive enough? Does anyone believe this Congress will pass a $9 minimum wage?

Obama also offered general proposals on the hot-button issues of immigration reform, emissions constraints, and gun control. Only on the last of these did his speech become emotional, as he demanded that Republicans allow a vote on the issue. The strategy seems to be to force them to vote against reform, then send them home to constituents who will wonder why they refused to back sensible controls.

Less controversially, Obama proposed a high-quality system of pre-kindergarten education in partnership with the states. He also talked about infrastructure spending (though only of enacting a previous proposal), and mentioned in passing that cutting spending during sequestration could hurt the economy. His tone was so quiet on the latter issue that I doubt the public understood its importance. It ought to have been his focus.

The economy could be making progress right now, but the president’s opponents are holding it back with unreasonable demands for cuts in social spending and threats to vote against the next debt-ceiling increase. If the economy grows slowly this year, Obama might have said, we know whose fault this will be. But, sadly, he didn’t go to battle, instead falling into his Procrustean bed. None of his new proposals, he made sure to say, would add to the deficit.

Herein lies the problem. With no way to finance his pre?K program, for example, why should anyone take it seriously? Nor did he offer a strong defense of social programs in the face of proposed cuts. To the contrary, he said he’d reform Medicare along the lines suggested by the Bowles–Simpson commission, which was conspicuously free of specifics.

The economy needs more government spending — or at least a hold on spending cuts — in order to grow and to reduce unemployment. It needs bolder investment programs.  Perhaps Obama thinks speaking quietly is the path to credibility on the economy. With unemployment still hovering around 8 percent, he appears not to want to risk adopting forceful policies, yet his modest, compromised actions to date have failed to get the recovery on track. He and his team failed to implement bold mortgage relief, to back a strong public option in Obamacare, and to advertise how well their stimulus program had worked, which made it difficult to come back for a second one.

The groundwork is there, however. Obama came up with an effective jobs program at the end of 2011. His infrastructure proposal can be built upon, as can Obamacare. In the State of the Union, he made a good case for government. But even so, he was careful to state, “It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government.” He might instead have established a set of priorities, proposing two or three programs to which he devote all of his — and the government’s — energy. And he might have adopted a tone appropriate to today’s jobs emergency.

We have an intelligent president who is moving in the right direction. But he is moving too slowly, hobbled by his obeisance to the deficit hawks.

Share
Single Page
writes the Anti-Economist column for Harper’s Magazine.

More from Jeff Madrick:

Context July 16, 2015, 12:59 pm

A Deeply Integrated Europe

The euro and its discontents

Context July 10, 2015, 10:15 am

How Germany Reconquered Europe

The euro and its discontents

From the February 2014 issue

How Germany Reconquered Europe

The euro and its discontents

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2018

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Combustion Engines·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On any given day last summer, the smoke-choked skies over Missoula, Montana, swarmed with an average of twenty-eight helicopters and eighteen fixed-wing craft, a blitz waged against Lolo Peak, Rice Ridge, and ninety-six other wildfires in the Lolo National Forest. On the ground, forty or fifty twenty-person handcrews were deployed, alongside hundreds of fire engines and bulldozers. In the battle against Rice Ridge alone, the Air Force, handcrews, loggers, dozers, parachutists, flacks, forecasters, and cooks amounted to some nine hundred people.

Rice Ridge was what is known as a mega-fire, a recently coined term for blazes that cover more than 100,000 acres. The West has always known forest fires, of course, but for much of the past century, they rarely got any bigger than 10,000 acres. No more. In 1988, a 250,000-acre anomaly, Canyon Creek, burned for months, roaring across a forty-mile stretch of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness in a single night. A few decades on, that anomaly is becoming the norm. Rice Ridge, for its part, swept through 160,000 acres.

At this scale, the firefighting operation is run by an incident management team, a group of about thirty specialists drawn from a mix of state and federal agencies and trained in fields ranging from aviation to weather forecasting and accounting to public information. The management teams are ranked according to experience and ability, from type 3 (the least skilled) to type 1 (the most). The fiercest fires are assigned to type 1s. Teams take the name of their incident commander, the field general, and some of those names become recognizable, even illustrious, in the wildfire-fighting community. One such name is that of Greg Poncin, who is to fire commanders what Wyatt Earp was to federal marshals.

Smoke from the Lolo Peak fire (detail) © Laura Verhaeghe
Article
Rebirth of a Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump’s presidency signals a profound but inchoate realignment of American politics. On the one hand, his administration may represent the consolidation of minority control by a Republican-dominated Senate under the leadership of a president who came to office after losing the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. Such an imbalance of power could lead to a second civil war—indeed, the nation’s first and only great fraternal conflagration was sparked off in part for precisely this reason. On the other hand, Trump’s reign may be merely an interregnum, in which the old white power structure of the Republican Party is dying and a new oppositional coalition struggles to be born.

Illustration by Taylor Callery (detail)
Article
Blood Money·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the past three years, the city of South Tucson, Arizona, a largely Latino enclave nestled inside metropolitan Tucson, came close to abolishing its fire and police departments. It did sell off the library and cut back fire-truck crews from four to three people—whereupon two thirds of the fire department quit—and slashed the police force to just sixteen employees. “We’re a small city, just one square mile, surrounded by a larger city,” the finance director, Lourdes Aguirre, explained to me. “We have small-town dollars and big-city problems.”

Illustration by John Ritter (detail)
Article
The Tragedy of Ted Cruz·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When I saw Ted Cruz speak, in early August, it was at Underwood’s Cafeteria in Brownwood. He was on a weeklong swing through rural central Texas, hitting small towns and military bases that ensured him friendly, if not always entirely enthusiastic, crowds. In Brownwood, some in the audience of two hundred were still nibbling on peach cobbler as Cruz began with an anecdote about his win in a charity basketball game against ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. They rewarded him with smug chuckles when he pointed out that “Hollywood celebrities” would be hurting over the defeat “for the next fifty years.” His pitch for votes was still an off-the-rack Tea Party platform, complete with warnings about the menace of creeping progressivism, delivered at a slightly mechanical pace but with lots of punch. The woman next to me remarked, “This is the fire in the gut! Like he had the first time!” referring to Cruz’s successful long-shot run in the 2011 Texas Republican Senate primary. And it’s true—the speech was exactly like one Cruz would have delivered in 2011, right down to one specific detail: he never mentioned Donald Trump by name.

Cruz recited almost verbatim the same things Trump lists as the administration’s accomplishments: the new tax legislation, reduced African-American unemployment, repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court. But, in a mirror image of those in the #Resistance who refuse to ennoble Trump with the title “president,” Cruz only called him that.

Photograph of Ted Cruz © Ben Helton (detail)
Article
Wrong Object·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

H

e is a nondescript man.

I’d never used that adjective about a client. Not until this one. My seventeenth. He’d requested an evening time and came Tuesdays at six-thirty. For months he didn’t tell me what he did.

The first session I said what I often said to begin: How can I help you?

I still think of what I do as a helping profession. And I liked the way the phrase echoed down my years; in my first job I’d been a salesgirl at a department store counter.

I want to work on my marriage, he said. I’m the problem.

His complaint was familiar. But I preferred a self-critical patient to a blamer.

It’s me, he said. My wife is a thoroughly good person.

Yawn, I thought, but said, Tell me more.

I don’t feel what I should for her.

What do you feel?

Photograph © Joseph S. Giacalone (detail)

Chance that a homeless-shelter resident in a major U.S. city holds a full- or part-time job:

1 in 5

Turkey hunting was deemed most dangerous for hunters, though deer hunting is more deadly.

The unresolved midterms; Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III replaced; the debut of the world’s first AI television anchor

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today