E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhite House chief economic advisor Larry Summers’ departure from the White House raises questions from liberal and conservative bloggers on how he left and whom the White House will recruit to replace him.
Writing at conservative blog National Journal Online, J.D. Foster, senior fellow in the economics of fiscal policy at the Heritage Foundation, wondered whether Summers’ resignation, and those of other former White House advisors, was due to incompatibility with President Obama.
“Summers may win few popularity contests, but he is near universally acclaimed as one of the finest economic minds of our time. Word of his resignation raises the question: If Summers is so smart, how does one explain the administration’s economic policies?
…
It may turn out that Obama’s chief economic adviser was not Summers, or Orszag, or Romer. Perhaps all three were frustrated to learn that, from the start, Barack Obama’s chief and ultimately sole economic adviser has been Barack Obama. It would explain the frustrated departure of the illustrious three. It would explain the administration’s economic policies. And it would explain the unease of so many Americans who tell pollsters that Washington’s economic policies are fundamentally headed in the wrong direction.”
Hot Air’s Allahpundit also questioned the reasoning given for Summers’ departure.
“Supposedly, it’s because Harvard has a “strict two-year leave policy” for professors’ sabbaticals that Summers has to leave now. Really? They wouldn’t bend the rules for a former president of the university so that he can go on advising the president of the United States? If that’s true, how come we didn’t hear about Summers’s plans to leave long, long ago?”
Liberal bloggers don’t mourn Summers’ leaving. Writing that Summers helped further Obama’s “conservative economic agenda,” AMERICAblog's Chris in Paris at wrote that Summers’ replacement would not mean a change in policy.
“We may be in for an even more conservative economic agenda. Should that be the case, there's really even less reason to support this administration.”
Among the replacement candidates for Summers mentioned at the liberal OpenLeft: New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman, economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Elizabeth Warren, the new special assistant to the President and Treasury Secretary for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Leave a Comment:
"Among the replacement candidates for Summers mentioned at the liberal OpenLeft: New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman, economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Elizabeth Warren, the new special assistant to the President and Treasury Secretary for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency."
Good Lord, if those are the choices then maybe he should stay.
What, you thought something would be different? The faces will change, but the ideology won't. Just got look to the one doing the selecting to understand why that is true. Besides, how much brain-power do you need to spend trillions of dollars you don't have?
I would like to try to spend just a couple million as practice. I have some stuff I want.
Just max out all your credit cards and take credit for "Creating or saving jobs" and for "Stimulating the economy". At the end of the month when the bills show up, don't bother paying them off, just tell the credit card company that your kids (or someone elses kids) will pay the bills, just as soon as they grow up.
Let us know how all that works out for you.
Joanna, are you saying that we should follow the Cristine O'donnell personal financial path? the only thing you left out was to skip your college payments and mortgage payments.
Sure. What could wrong with a Constitutional lawyer/professor and Community Organizer running the largest economy in the world? Don't see any problem with that.
Of course, this would explain a lot, a lot to why the economy is in such a pitiful state.
About as much as a one-term Texas governor and failed entrepreneur. But who's keeping score? ;)
Another good example.
Kind of makes you wonder why liberals want to have our taxes raised so we can send more and more of our money to Washington so the politicians can waste that money too.
Taxes need to be raised given that debt is projected to top 100% of GDP in a few years. That needs to stop being a point of contention between the Democrats and Republicans - the Republicans in particular, who are so quick to lay claim to common sense as a hallmark of their party.
At the same time, you know as well as I do that spending needs to be curtailed significantly and sacrifices need to be made in order to bring that multi-trillion dollar figure under control. For the better part of seven decades Americans have worked dilligently to pay off the gross deficit raised during the course of the Second World War just to see the effort count for naught since 2000.
Any hike in tax rates needs to accompany a scale-back on federal spending and I don't merely mean under the vague, catch-all umbrella of 'government waste.' I want to see a temporary, across-the-board reduction in every federal program until such time that the national debt falls below at least 40% of GDP. We're shooting ourselves in the foot otherwise.
It's not a popular notion, no, but the time to do the popular thing has passed - either we do the correct thing or we wind up like Greece.
Good summary Holocaustic. You're probably more right then many others.
A few items of note. 1) Increased taxes do not necessarily mean increased tax revenue. 2) The federal budget is consumed by the entitlement programs - something needs to be done to stop that bleeding - and adding more and more entitlements to that budget (like Obamacare) is probably not the best direction to take. 3)Sending more money to Washington is useless unless they stop their addiction to spending - it would be nothing more then pouring more water into a leaky bucket.
The Republicans have been termed the "Party of 'No'". We are at the point where the federal government has to start saying No, No to new entitlement progrms, No to not reworking old entitlement programs, No to every lobbyist that shows up wanting their piece of the pie.
Until that point, we'll see what we're seeing now in Washington. A lot of spending with little positive results.
I'm still fuzzy on exactly what costs HCR is incurring - I need to do more research into that.
I'm going to vocalize another very unpopular view about one entitlement program in particular: changing Social Security to privatized accounts. I do not agree with the idea of putting that money into the stock market given the fickle nature of the beast, but why not more or less turn the program into a national savings account for every American, one from which you cannot withdraw until retirement? I'd certainly feel more secure knowing the money coming out of my paycheck for SS went directly into an account with my name and my name alone. If that money couldn't be misappropriated for other government projects, I think it would go a long way towards forcing Congress to act with more fiscal responsibility and run a balanced budget year over year.
If there's a reason that's a bad idea, someone needs to let me know.
ED -
I agree with the idea of putting YOUR money into YOUR account. Ever since the congress started looting the fund it has been more and more a political football.
Another thing that might help (and I hate the thought of it) is removing the cap on earnings. I think it is about $115k now. Maybe it should just be removed.
And no more borrowing from the fund by our illustrious congress.
If we were allowed access to financial advisers that briefly explained the idea of asset allocation, it wouldn't necessarily be gambling on the market. It would inject further liquidity in to markets and, perhaps, get more people involved in/educated about it. Hell, if we had privatized accounts, it's possible that we could deposit more than our SS taxes in to private accounts. The nation would (more) appropriately save for retirement.
I'm for the privatization of Social Security, or at least its individualization.
That's excellent suggestion, Anon. So long as people retain the choice to do what they will with the money once allocated I see no problems with that.
ED,
See 90% of Democrats don't want that, but you're right, it should be our choice. The Government thinks they know how to save our money. Kind of like the TSP that military went to around 2002ish. Not sure of the year.
Paul - I bet if you took a poll you'd find that a significant number of both parties don't want that. They either misunderstand the proposition as giving their money over to an evil corporation, that they'd lose their money in the stock market, or they don't want to have the debate about how to switch over from our current system.
You don't hear mainstream Republicans clamoring for significant changes to Social Security either. It's a popular program.
Anon,
I'm sure there's Republicans too that don't want it. Look at the Thrift Savings Plan, it's a Government site. I think this would be better for the American people. You have more control over your money.
>>>how much brain-power do you need to spend trillions of dollars you don't have?
JoAnna, were you asking this question of the George W. Bush administration too?
Absolutely.
A lot of us have been asking the question for a long time, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush is not the president anymore and that Obama is.
Should we go back and criticise Truman or Kennedy while we are at it?
So Obama thinks he knows economics. Well, how hard can it be, right? He went to Harvard and everything, and the smart people that come out of that place can figure out anything! It's just a bunch of numbers and things.
A twenty-something bank teller has more economic sense then Obama.
Validate that, Joanna.
Kirby,
Reviewing any former Administration’s policy and its impact on the years and decades that followed are truly fair and justified.
Dennis, at least up until such time as the effects of those policies cease having an effect on the current administration. The Obama White House cannot continue to point to Bush's two terms for the next 24 months.
ED,
Why not?
Reagan was still blaming Carter when he ran for re-election in 1984.
Does that make it at all right? Does that at all excuse doing it? Don't you think that's a rather juvenile reason?
ED, let the Left blame anyone but themselves all they want, only the hardcore Leftists believe that nonsense anymore.
Obama ran for the job he has now. Just when does he plan on doing it?
I think he has been doing it - but not to the satisfaction of many who voted for him. I wanted more honesty where muck-ups were concerned. I can more readily give a pass to someone who admits when mistakes were made rather than trying to spin the situation to suggest they were walking on water the entire time.
Make no mistake - I will scathe and demonize the Republicans for the same bloody behavior.
There are things I do approve of with this administration, the Credit CARD Act among them. But with HCR and ARRA...man. I can't give my approval.
I guess I don't see it quite that way ED. Obama seems detached from the job he should be doing. It's almost like what ever he does he doesn't consider that to be part of the equation, or the result. It appears like he considers himself an observer of what's going on around him, and not the main player.
Just an opinion.
ED
There are things I do approve of with this administration, the Credit CARD Act among them. But with HCR and ARRA...man. I can't give my approval.
Same here. I can't for the life of me get a grip on HCR. The only thing that will work is for costs to come down and this bill is not going to do that.
At the end of the day, the twenty-something teller knows that his/her cash drawer better be in balance. That doesn't seem to be a problem for Obama who just stuffs massive amounts of IOUs in where the money he's taking out used to be. Yeah, I know, Bush did it too. So the twenty-something has more sense then Bush too.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT ON THIS DAY, THE TWENTY-SECOND OF SEPTEMBER IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND TEN, THAT FIRST READ POSTER JOANNASMITH1 PERMITTED HER OWN WORDS TO BE LABELED OPINION, NOT FACT.
AND THE TOWNSPEOPLE REJOICED!
ED: I think it's the nature of politics today to blame someone, rather than explain the situation that caused this mess and the policies created to get out of it. It's easier to blame Bush than to explain the nature of a stock bubble and its various causes, and the reasoning behind ARRA. Heck, some people want a villain, as evidenced by many of those on these boards.
It's much more difficult to explain the complicated measures that these, er, measures take. I think one of the reasons HCR is so unpopular is because it's so nebulous. Not that fully educating the populous would make it more popular, but it would allow everyone interested to properly form an opinion instead of relying on talking points.
@Joanna: An opinion I can respect. Fair enough.
@Anon: I'd much rather see those opinions founded upon facts over punditry, even if everyone can't agree.
I agree. Either politicians believe punditry is less divisive, or that facts are just too difficult to articulate.
Too true.
Of course, the critique from the left is that Obama has been following the economic advice of folks like Summers. While those recommendations were adequate to stop the recession from getting worse and let it bottom out, they have not proved adequate to generate a strong recovery. According to that theory, if Obama had followed the recommend of Krugman instead of Summers, especially when the Fourth Quarter numbers from 2008 were substantially worse than expected, we would have a stronger recovery.
I am looking at the next 5 years as opposed to the last 5. Bush spent too much and now Obama is doing it. It has to stop somewhere.
I actually wouldn'r have a problem with raising taxes if there were a law passed concurrently that any funds from the new taxes would be applied to the debt.
What do you think the chances of that are?
Low, unfortunately. The most reasonable proposals are often the ones balked at.
I am constantly amazed at how we continue to let our government put the screws to us and we just sit there with a "you can't fight city hall" attitude.
I agree that some of the tea partiers are off kilter a bit, but maybe we need some new blood in congree. Even if it just shakes up the existing status quo.
One of the really amazing things to me about the upcoming midterms is the lack of experience and education on behalf of the Tea Party-backed candidates. Given that Obama was and continues to be minced in the public for having only been a community organizer, professor and single-term Senator, one thinks that consistency in political antagonism would turn that same high-powered lens on the woefully dismal credentials of O'Donnell, Miller and Angle.
Yet, I hear only silence and I'm left wondering what good these people could ever hope to accomplish considering some of their more...colorful sentiments.
Well kirby, now you're kind of seeing why a lot of entrenched lifers in Washington are getting a little nervous. Looks like the jig is up for them, and it's time for them to go home. But they won't give up their power easily, no, that won't happen. And the "They" are both Republicans and Democrats (we could call them "The Ruling Class"), and they will fight for what they feel they are entitled to.
Getting rid of them will be like extracting a rotten tooth. A lot of work, a lot of pain, a lot of screaming and crying, but well worth the effort.
Jeez, I started to get a tooth ache just reading this, but as long as the dental work is done on them eventually it will be worth it.
When the McCains, Kerrys, et al are gone then perhaps we'll have a shot.
Chances are slim and none, Kirby. They'd have to vote to give up the keys to printing press room, and none of them on either side are going to do that!