WSJ.com is available in the following editions and languages:
Thank you for registering.
We sent an email to:
Please click on the link inside the email to complete your registration
Please register to gain free access to WSJ tools.
An account already exists for the email address entered.
Forgot your username or password?
This service is temporary unavailable due to system maintenance. Please try again later.
The username entered is already associated with another account. Please enter a different username
The email address you have entered is already in use.Please re-enter the email address.
From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online.
Create a profile for me in the Journal Community
Why Register?
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
As a registered user of The Wall Street Journal Online, you will be able to:
Setup and manage your portfolio
Personalize your own news page
Receive and manage newsletters
Receive and manage newsletters
Keep me logged in. Forgot your password?
Digg
U.S. Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Christina Romer, in her final speech before stepping down, called on the country to stomach new stimulus measures to lift the lackluster economy, even in the face of growing fears about the nation’s deficit.
“Concern about the deficit cannot be an excuse for leaving unemployed workers to suffer,” she will say at the National Press Club on Wednesday, according to a copy of her prepared remarks. She will add, “We have tools that would bring unemployment down without worsening our long-run fiscal outlook, if we can only find the will and the wisdom to use them.”
Her scheduled speech comes a day after President Barack Obama, in addressing the nation on the end of combat missions in Iraq, pledged a renewed focus to lift the economy. Obama has said his economic team, which includes Romer, is hunkered down trying to determine new measures to spur growth. It’s unclear what new ideas the administration is considering, but The Wall Street Journal reported the administration is considering tax cuts and a new nationwide infrastructure program.
Romer will defend the administration’s economic policies in the face of what she will characterize as an unprecedented, “terrifying” and “difficult-to-cure” recession. While other recessions, she will say, were caused by deliberate monetary policy actions this one began with low interest rates. She blamed the recession on a mix of regulatory failures, unsound practices and the mortgage crisis.
She said the administration had to act swiftly. “Had the Federal Reserve not responded as rapidly and creatively as it did, the crisis would have been catastrophic,” she will say.
Her speech is titled “Not My Father’s Recession: The Extraordinary Challenges and Policy Responses of the First Twenty Months of the Obama Administration.” She will say the recession destroyed $13 trillion of wealth in 2008.
Romer is leaving the administration this week to return to a teaching post at the University of California at Berkeley.
The administration, and particularly Romer, have come under fire for making what turned out to be rosy projections about the effect stimulus efforts would have on keeping down the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate now stands near 10%.
Republicans have latched onto some of the administration’s predictions and used them to argue that stimulus efforts have failed. The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, has said that the Obama administration’s recovery efforts increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million new jobs.
Romer will answer her critics. She will say the financial shocks the U.S. faced were so rare “there were no reliable estimates of the likely impact. To this day, economists don’t fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did, and why they cut labor so much more than they normally would, given the decline in output.”
Romer will say while real gross domestic product is growing, it isn’t doing so fast enough create the hundreds of thousands of jobs each month needed to return employment to its pre-crisis level.
Yahoo! Buzz
MySpace
Digg
del.icio.us
NewsVine
StumbleUpon
Mixx
Error message
“She said the administration had to act swiftly. “Had the Federal Reserve not responded as rapidly and creatively as it did, the crisis would have been catastrophic,” she will say.”
Whu… what? The only people who had to act “swiftly” were Hank Paulson and his team following the Lehman failure and the weeks of crisis that followed where the news and markets were changing hourly and at times in minutes. It was a frightening time we all hope never happens again in our lifetime. Now I’m not advocating on how Paul’s team acted or providing an opinion either way, but it was during those key moments that the crisis was truly held in check; MONTHS before the current administration took office. It can also be argued that the monetary policies of Bernake pre, during and post crisis also had a major impact on keeping the economy in check.
The stimulus was a congressional boondoggle based on earmarks and political maneuvering. However, the lie that has been put out there is that this package was the reason why “we avoided falling into a depression”. This is revisionist history at best. At what point did this administration have to “act swiftly” since taking office? Again, I'm not making political statements or judgments. I’m just asking that these people stick to the facts and not embellish for the sake of political gain.
<>
Whu… what? The only people who had to act “swiftly” were Hank Paulson and his team following the Lehman failure and the weeks of crisis that followed where the news and markets were changing hourly and at times in minutes. It was a frightening time we all hope never happens again in our lifetime. Now I’m not advocating on how Paul’s team acted or providing an opinion either way, but it was during those key moments that the crisis was truly held in check; MONTHS before the current administration took office. It can also be argued that the monetary policies of Bernake pre, during and post crisis also had a major impact on keeping the economy in check.
The stimulus was a congressional boondoggle based on earmarks and political maneuvering. However, the lie that has been put out there is that this package was the reason why “we avoided falling into a depression”. This is revisionist history at best. At what point did this administration have to “act swiftly” since taking office? Again, I'm not making political statements or judgments. I’m just asking that these people stick to the facts and not embellish for the sake of political gain.
Had the Obama regime used the original stimulus money wisely, the American public might have some stomach for another round of stimulus. But, with Obama and company virtually throwing away the bulk of the $862BB, plus an additional $100BB on other things like teacher pay, and labor union support, the likelihood of another round getting passed is virtually nil.
Read Full Article »