The Anti-Stimulus Crowd: The Fear of Success
Monday 05 January 2009
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

As President-elect Obama prepares to take office, debate resumes regarding
the best way to tackle the economic crisis. Liberal Democrats are hoping for
a new "New Deal," while many conservatives contend that the market
should balance itself. (Photo: National Archives)
At least some Republicans are starting to muster an anti-stimulus drive, claiming that President-elect Obama's package will not help the economy. Their drive is centered on what they claim is a careful rereading of the history of the New Deal. According to their account, President Roosevelt's policies actually lengthened the Great Depression.
In their story, we would have been better off if we just left the market to adjust by itself. New Deal programs that directly employed people, or in other ways supported living standards, created an uncertain investment climate. They claim that this uncertainty slowed the process of market adjustment that was necessary for returning to high levels of employment.
The Wagner Act, which created the legal framework for the union organizing drives of the era, stands out as being especially pernicious in their story. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which created the 40-hour workweek and established the first national minimum wage, also gets singled out for criticism. In this new reading of history, what most people consider the great successes of the New Deal simply worsened the Great Depression.
In reality, any careful reading showed that the New Deal policies substantially ameliorated the effects of the Great Depression for tens of millions of people. The major economic failing of the New Deal was that President Roosevelt was not prepared to push the policies as far as necessary to fully lift the economy out of the Great Depression.
Roosevelt was too worried about the whining of the anti-stimulus crowd that he confronted. He remained concerned about balancing the budget when the proper goal of fiscal policy should have been large deficits to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt's policies substantially reduced the unemployment rate from the 25 percent peak when he first took office, but they did not get the unemployment rate back into single digits.
It took the enormous public spending associated with World War II to fully lift the economy out of the depression. The lesson that economists take away from this experience is that we should be prepared to run very large deficits in order to give the economy a sufficient boost to generate self-sustaining growth.
However, from the standpoint of Republicans, the more ominous lesson of the New Deal policies is that it left the Democrats firmly in power for more than 20 years. The Republicans did not regain the White House until 1952, 20 years after President Roosevelt was first elected.
Imagine how terrifying the prospect of 20 years of Democratic presidencies must be for the current generation of Republican leaders. This would mean that they would not retake the White House until 2028, just 20 years before the Social Security trust fund is first projected to face a shortfall.
In 2028, Newt Gingrich will be 85 years old; Mitt Romney will be 81; Mike Huckabee will be 73 and Senator McCain will be 98. Even Sarah Palin will be a less than youthful 64. In short, if President-elect Obama is allowed to carry through with his stimulus package and the rest of his ambitious domestic agenda, most of current leadership of the Republican Party can expect to spend the rest of their political career in the political wilderness, far removed from the centers of power.
For this reason, the Republicans can be expected to adopt a strategy aimed at delaying and diluting the stimulus. We can expect their leaders to find every conceivable argument to slow down the spending that the economy desperately needs right now to prevent further job loss. While some of their concerns may be legitimate - we should all support efforts to restrain wasteful pork barrel spending and rein in corruption - these concerns should not be the basis for obstructing stimulus. The public should be careful to distinguish legitimate concerns from simple delaying tactics.
In short, we should realize that the main concern of some of those opposed to stimulus may not be that it will fail, but rather that it will succeed. Most of us don't have the same set of concerns.


Comments
This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.
The vast majority agree
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 18:53 β Anonymous (not verified)i am not an economist so the
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 19:43 β coberly (not verified)This article illustrates
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 19:54 β Older Redneck (not verified)Roosevelt did not face a
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:04 β dtroutma (not verified)If you want to live like a
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:12 β dr wu--I'm just an ordinary guy.not media elite (not verified)My understanding is that
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:14 β Anonymous (not verified)Thank you. And Republicans
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:27 β Anonarcmous (not verified)Here I am on my soapbox
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:44 β LHC (not verified)I love it: Newt, McCain,
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 20:49 β peterjkraus (not verified)The Republican Party wogs,
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 21:01 β Bruce (not verified)I agree with the previous
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 22:08 β Anonymous (not verified)When I consider the
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 22:20 β Anonymous (not verified)I second LHC"s comment about
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 22:28 β racetoinfinity (not verified)"...we should be prepared to
Mon, 01/05/2009 - 23:05 β EDGEOFNOWHERE (not verified)I third LHC's comments and
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 00:26 β Liz (not verified)Rational stimulus suspicion
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 02:44 β Garrett Connelly (not verified)Being a big Obama supporter
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 03:29 β Anonymous (not verified)I think the objectors to the
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 03:45 β Anonymous (not verified)No, the Fed did not cause
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 04:00 β Douglas C. Smyth (not verified)ITALIAN PENSIONS SAPPED BY
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 04:26 β Anonarcmous (not verified)Douglas C. Smyth couldn't be
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 10:25 β mysterioso (not verified)@ Douglas C. Smyth I agree
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 11:02 β racetoinfinity (not verified)Dear P-E Obama, be VERY bold
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 13:16 β Stefan Albrecht (not verified)One more point! BE VERY
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 13:57 β Stefan Albrecht (not verified)Repugnantcans are already
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 14:34 β L.D. Freitas (not verified)Yes Douglas you are going in
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 14:51 β Stefan Albrecht (not verified)Like FDR, Obama is too
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 15:25 β Anonymous (not verified)The task ahead is to
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 15:44 β Al Veerhoff (not verified)One quick way to turn around
Tue, 01/06/2009 - 17:59 β ab5tract (not verified)Excellent article. John
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 00:15 β Anonymous (not verified)America is in deep cow
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 02:11 β Anonymous (not verified)Both the New Deal and WWII
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 13:36 β Gadfly (not verified)This article implies that
Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:39 β Anonymous (not verified)* JAIL the fraudsters,
Fri, 01/09/2009 - 16:09 β Anonymous (not verified)Is it possible that the
Sat, 01/10/2009 - 02:48 β Anonymous (not verified)Unbelievable! Pray tell us
Sat, 01/10/2009 - 05:52 β trisha-johnson (not verified)Mr. Baker's article is a
Sat, 01/10/2009 - 15:46 β Anonymous (not verified)Nice turn of phrase: The
Sun, 01/11/2009 - 04:21 β Verbatim (not verified)