Geithner Says Obama’s Political Strategy Hurt the Economy

by Will Wilkinson on December 4, 2009

Over at Division of Labor, Frank Stephenson points to an interview in which the Secretary of the Treasury says this:

GEITHNER: They want — businesses want certainty. They need certainty so they can make long-term plans today. And that’s why it’s so important that Congress gets health care behind us, that we bring financial reform in place so people know what the rules of the game are. And that’s a very important thing to do. And that’s why we’re working so hard to make sure we bring clarity quickly.

Wow. Of course, Geithner is right that business needs certainty about the rules of the game in order to make long-term plans. And the government probably did need to step in to the financial sector once it started to implode.  But nationalizing GM was totally discretionary. Cap and trade legislation — which would touch every corner of the economy — didn’t have to come up during a profound recession. Even fiscal stimulus was completely elective, and it certainly didn’t have to take the form of an up-for-grabs carnival of government spending.

Creating completely irresponsible, economically chilling regime uncertainty would appear to be the basic modus operandi of the Obama administration. When Geithner argues that the debate over health-care reform needs to be resolved quickly in order to establish certainty about the rules of the economic game, he pretty clearly implies that the Obama administration has indeed made a bad situation worse. Because, of course, health care reform didn’t have to come up. It should have been blazingly obvious that attempting to reshape one-sixth of the economy during a deep recession would only throw more sand into the already grinding gears of an already faltering economy. But the shock doctrine teaches never to let a crisis go to waste, and so the Obama administration attempted to push their most ardently desired policies through the window of crisis.

That this audacious strategy would hamper the ability of the economy to recover, as Geithner sees that it has, was totally predictable. The choice to go for the gusto anyway, instead of focusing narrowly on getting the economy back on its feet and getting the unemployed back to work, amounts to putting partisan politics before the economic welfare of struggling Americans. It amounts to gross mismanagement of the economy. If the unemployment rate is still in double digits ten months hence, the Democrats are going to be in big trouble. One of the reasons is that Republicans will be able to argue, rather plausibly, that Obama and congressional Democrats irresponsibly chose to tick off  boxes on their partisan Christmas wishlist (and a pony!) when they should have been tending to the economy, and this choice made the recession worse.

  • hanmeng
    "this audacious strategy"

    De l'audace, et encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace?

    Geez, I hope not.
  • lhhunt
    "..it was having a libertarian at the Fed since the 80s that created the conditions for the financial catastrophe we witnessed a year ago..."

    You mean, exlibertarian. Greenspan's post-9/11 policy was massively interventionist.
  • musa
    Perhaps you have said it elsewhere, but what would constitute getting the economy back on its feet. From what I can tell, it was having a libertarian at the Fed since the 80s that created the conditions for the financial catastrophe we witnessed a year ago. Are you implying that Obama should have put his current policy priorities on the back burner so that financial regulation can move forward more quickly?
  • Are you just being snarky or do you really believe what your saying? Obama isn't putting partisan gain ahead of the country he is putting he long to policy preferences over short term economic considerations. Wouldn't you want a libertarian president to do roughly the same? Or do you think that opening up our immigration laws shouldn't be done during this time of crisis? Moreover I really don't see how Obama can plausibly be blaimed for our current economic situation since the whole financial crisis predated his presidency and he seems to have dealt with it rather well.
  • This administration seems to treat economic growth as the naturally occurring state of affairs, rather than the result of the right conditions. Although the economy is resiliant it is not immune to the effects of taxation, uncertainty and regulation.

    But because the administration figured the economy would bounce back on its own, they figured they could do all the things you properly identify as elective. It doesn't seem to be working out so far, but it is hard to draw conclusions about the magnitude of the negative effects of these actions after a relatively short time.
  • db
    I agree completely, but I think the way you use the term "partisan politics" appears to do to much heavy lifting in the argument.
  • suffer
    Bailing out GM (union payback), Health Care Reform (i.e. public mandate/option), and cap and trade are ALL "partisan politics" (Ds like them, Rs don't), are they not?
  • db
    Yes, these are all partisan politics, but everything is. I happen to think that these partisan policies are bad and not worth their costs, but they aren't necessarily bad just because they are partisan policies. My point is that I think the argument would be stronger without the quasi-bad faith accusation implied in the term.
  • suffer
    ah, I getcha. Yes, that makes sense.
  • shouldn't take more than 5-10 years
  • Nimed
    I believe this post is wrong on several points:

    - the in the middle of a recession argument for health care reform is weird. Should reform pass, most of the changes in our health system will take place starting 2013.

    - Few anticipated that it would take such a long time to pass the bill. Uncertainty was supposed to have ended in July at the most, then October, then the end of the year... etc.

    - Either you act as if you believe in the existence AGW or you don't. If you do, and you trust the 2007 IPCC assessment, you have to act as if there's a certain urgency in dealing with the climate change problem. Besides, let's not forget that dealing with climate change is (or should be) an international concert effort, and that there is (or was) a deadline imposed by the Copenhagen Climate Summit.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: