Comments for Grading Robert Samuelson's Grading of Obama at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 20 out of 20 comments http://www.cepr.net Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:17:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18603 Obama didn't push through the ACA in his first 6 months in office. He did virtually nothing on the ACA during the spring and summer of 2009. It was not finally passed in until March 21, 2010. One of Obama's mistakes in his first year was that he allowed a group of conservative Democratic senators to "negotiate" - ie stall - with Republicans during 2009, almost killing the ACA, which came very close to falling victim to a filibuster after the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts in January 2010. After Brown's election, Rahm Emmanuel and the White House were ready to give up on the ACA. It was only Nancy Pelosi's leadership in the House, which passed the version of the bill that the Senate had already enacted in December 2009 (thus obviating the need for a second Senate vote) that saved the ACA. - Bloix Tue, 04 Sep 2012 05:12:11 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18585 "What would Samuelson have had Obama do that he didn't do because he was distracted?" Isn't this obvious? Obama chose to enact ACA over the protests of the business sector instead of focusing like a laser on convincing the private sector to regain confidence. The ACA was a giant leap in the wrong direction. It created significant uncertainty about future developments, it heated up philosophical disagreements about the proper role, size, and scope of government to the boiling point, and it also caused business leaders to give up on the recovery and grow cautious due to "Ricardian" concerns about higher taxes in the future. Believe it or not, business planners do look out beyond 3 years, when they consider Capex allocations. Obama's blunder is directly responsible for choking off the nascent recovery. It boggles the mind that you cannot comprehend that his "distraction" was costly. - Nick R Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:53:52 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18583 Jeffry; If I recall correctly, the Oberstar bill called for a hike in the gasoline tax to pay for part of its $500 billion cost. You may believe that both the House and Senate would have voted in favor of raising the gas tax in the spring of 2009, but I don't. - S.D. Jeffries Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:41:13 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18582 I largely agree with Dean Baker on his criticism of Robert Samuelson's piece, but I do think there might be one significant piece of legislation that might have been pursued in the place of ACA - Transportation reauthorization. SAFETEA-LU expired in September of 2009, and only recently was there a two year law adopted (MAP-21). I recall very clearly Jim Oberstar (former representative from MN), had a released a transportation bill in June of 2009 - a 6year $500 billion bill that would have made significant investments in transportation. I think it even had the support of the republican ranking member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, John Mica. The bill went nowhere. I don't know why exactly, though I think it would have likely passed the house and possibly the senate. My main point is that I don't think Obama pushed this bill at all, Pelosi didn't push it, and neither did Reid on the senate side. Maybe the pre-occupation with ACA was the reason, maybe not. But if this bill had passed, the large investment in the country's roads, bridges, and transit systems would have served as a second stimulus, and would have likely boosted the economy in 2010, 2011, and 2012. I don't think it was wrong for the Obama administration to tackle the healthcare problems in this country, but I think it's fair to examine the trade-offs associated with doing so. If there was any piece of legislation that had a decent change of passing and having a positive impact on the economy, it was the Oberstar bill. - Jeffrey Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:01:31 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18581 [b]skeptonomist[/b] wrote, [quote]...it's really hard to believe that Obama's focus on getting a health-care bill passed - any bill - did not lead to neglect of the economy.[/quote] I completely agree with that, and everything else in that comment. Despite uncountably many rationalizations by O-bots to the contrary, it was a terrible political blunder on Obama's part. - liberal Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:30:47 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18578 My favorite line in the piece is Samuelson's assertion that Obama should have easily predicted that his attempt to push forward a Heritage Foundation inspired, Newt Gingrich proposed and Mitt Romney implemented framework for health insurance reform would cause the Tea Party to rise up and threaten to cause a national default. - Brian Mon, 03 Sep 2012 12:45:38 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18577 Has Samuelson ever said anything that wasn't conventional right wing positions (in all their arithmetically challenged glory) decorated with a little chin stroking? - John L Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:45:19 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18576 ...the one that goes "what a waste it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind. How true that is." - low-tech cyclist Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:33:52 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18574 Ditto SS at 8:50 Even the Chicago Tribune, not exactly a progressive firebrand, has begun calling out the current Republican agenda -- or actually lack of an agenda. The paper recently pointed out that it's great to say "close the tax loop holes" or "balance the budget", but without at least SOME suggestion of what would be done to accomplish those goals it is a lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". Maybe the dawn is coming. - Ethan Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:56:34 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18573 Hey Dean, I have long meant to tell you that I appreciate your blog and the effort you put into it - so thanks! - argeec Mon, 03 Sep 2012 08:40:57 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18572 "No cuts to military spending" begs the question of whether levels are appropriate or not. Does the fact that we spend more on the military than all the other countries of the world combined and still can't win a war, even against peasants in flip-flops and pajamas, argue for more or less spending? - SS Mon, 03 Sep 2012 08:25:51 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18571 Samuelson believes that, in economic terms, the number one priority for the United States should be to reduce the deficit. He rules out military spending cuts, so that pretty much means slashing entitlements. [i]He[/i] doesn't need Social Security or Medicare (he'll [i]take[/i] them, but he doesn't [i]need[/i] them), he's capable of tapping away at a keyboard well into his seventies, and his peer group is composed of people like him - people of wealth who have gold-plated health insurance plans, plenty of money to cover any uninsured costs without any concern for depleting their retirement savings, and little if any experience with physical labor. The lack of understanding (or, to the extent that understanding is present, lack of [i]empathy[/i]) results in an attitude that it's "no big deal" if the insignificant (to him) Social Security retirement benefit is cut, eliminated, or means tested; and if Social Security is transformed from entitlement to welfare, all the better - because you can get considerable middle class support for cutting welfare benefits. Medicare? It costs a lot, the obvious solutions (i.e., following the model of any other developed nation, if not provide a permanent solution, to obtain significant, immediate savings and preserve Medicare for additional decades while we continue to work on solutions) are not politically acceptable to Samuelson and his peers. So... label it an "entitlement", correctly state that the status quo appears unsustainable, and then take a damn the facts approach and argue that the only solution is to burn it to the ground. Samuelson may be attempting to put an economic spin on his argument about the ACA, but it's actually a political argument - and that's why it doesn't make a lick of economic sense. To Samuelson, by definition any attempt to preserve and perpetuate Medicare or Social Security is a distraction and waste of time, and all you need to do is follow his logic around in a circle to see why: If the President is not focusing on how to balance the budget by cutting Social Security and Medicare, he's allowing himself to be distracted to the detriment of the nation. - Aaron Mon, 03 Sep 2012 07:55:08 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18570 [i]"..Samuelson would cut Social Security and Medicare and then give tax breaks to the rich...."[/i] That's not really fair to Samuelson. He would cut Social Security and Medicare and then attempt to balance the budget (ruling out any possibility of defense cuts), and only them would he give additional tax breaks to the rich. - Aaron Mon, 03 Sep 2012 07:44:05 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18560 Samuelson would cut Social Security and Medicare and then give tax breaks to the rich. - Peter K. Mon, 03 Sep 2012 04:46:25 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18558 You say he doesn't back up anything he says - "Samuelson doesn't give us any clue.". That's not really fair. If he ever gets a clue I am sure he will share it with us, - AndrewS Mon, 03 Sep 2012 03:58:01 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18557 THE POST OUT ON ITS FAVORITE LIMB, AGAIN? Dean, I don't know if you noticed or perhaps I am becoming delusional, but it appears to me that the main stream media including surprisingly the business media has finally recognized how extreme and dysfunctional their own Republican Party has become. As most of our elites do not want war with Iran, tax cuts that leave the fiscal deficit growing, austerity that further erodes growth and frays the social fabric and policy assaults on women and gays, they have begun to expose the Republicans for what they are rather than their usual apologia for what is after all the party created by and for their class. News outlets like Market Watch, CNBC, the Economist, Business Insider, USA Today, CNN and Reuters all seem to be trotting out a new realistic approach to the current political scene, actually finally presenting crazy ideas for what they are. Even WAPO until this weekend seemed to be flaunting some unusual balance as their new mantra. The WAPO readership has certainly caught on if one is to judge by how far the comments have veered toward a realistic appraisal of the status quo from their past divisive bitterness. It's to hope that the paper doesn't do the whole region a disservice by veering back into their habitual right wing cant under their black veil of pious sentiments masquerading as liberal, when are anything but. - SS Mon, 03 Sep 2012 03:50:56 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18556 Leaving Samuelson aside (a good idea in general), it's really hard to believe that Obama's focus on getting a health-care bill passed - any bill - did not lead to neglect of the economy. This may have come in from the very beginning, in making Obama less likely to appreciate the seriousness of the recession. If his priority was making himself the President who brought in universal health care, he would probably would have been more likely to listen to those of his advisors - some of whom were directly involved in the policies which led to the crash - who argued that the economy would turn around with only a minimal stimulus. Maybe he even planned before being elected to concentrate on health care and to leave economic policy to Summers and Rubin. - skeptonomist Mon, 03 Sep 2012 03:43:47 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18555 Is this a rerun of a 3 year old post? [i]Robert Samuelson gives President Obama a low grade for his economic performance following his initial six months in office[/i] & no link. Baffled I am, although the rest seems oddly familiar. - Downpuppy Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:46:00 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18553 ACA attempted to fix a wasteage amounting to 10% of GDP (and growing). That [i]is[/i] being concerned with the economy. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Some of that would have gone to jobs if balance sheets (demand) had recovered. Samuelson is the one who is distracted, nay, ignorant. - David Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:41:11 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/grading-robert-samuelsons-grading-of-obama#comment-18551 [quote]What is it that he thinks President Obama would have been doing to create jobs and foster growth had it not been for the ACA? Samuelson doesn't give us any clue.[/quote] Baker just can't accept that Samuelson is a zero sum kinda guy who believes absent uncertainty, everyone in the labor force is fully employed including himself and Obama, therefore whatever he or she is doing has an opportunity cost of the next best employed activity given up once uncertainty clears up. Any fool knows that if Obama had not created uncertainty with the ACA, it would not have offset the already weak stimulus in the opposite direction to result in zero net new jobs. But Samuelson did not write that column because he knows it would effectively admit the stimulus created new jobs if not wiped out by the ACA. Any fool knows as well that when Samuelson wrote this column, the trade-off included others he did not write, like the one that would have explained how the stimulus didn't work anyway because it didn't create full employment, or how the stimulus didn't work anyway since it crowds out private sector jobs, or how the stimulus itself creates uncertainty in the private sector and zeros itself out at the getgo. Had it not be for the ACA, what would have Obama been doing? Creating more uncertainty and unemployment in other areas of course, unlike Samuelson who creates the certainty of uncertainty through trade-offs constructed out of thin air. - Last Mover Mon, 03 Sep 2012 02:22:30 +0100