Obama’s new New Deal
Can public works and spending save the economy?
Can Obama pull off the FDR approach?
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
What happened
Warning that the U.S. economy will get worse before it improves, President-elect Barack Obama said he will push to enact the largest public-works program since the building of the federal highway system in the 1950s. The program, whose cost he declined to estimate, would include road and bridge projects as well as upgrading U.S. energy, education, and technology infrastructure. (The New York Times)
What the commentators said
Like Franklin Roosevelt, Obama is inheriting an economic crisis and proposing “his own New Deal” to fix it, said William Rees-Mogg in The Times of London. And like FDR, “Obama has realized that the president’s strongest weapon is his relationship with the public.” As Obama sells his plan to the public, his webcasts, like FDR’s “fireside chats,” will be “his real power.”
“Obama invokes both FDR and Eisenhower in his new program,” said Ed Morrissey in Hot Air, but the “key difference” between Obama’s plan and Ike’s interstate highway program is that Eisenhower “could afford that public works project.” Obama, inheriting tens of trillions in federal debt and future entitlements, can’t.
“We conservatives” have some “legitimate worries” about massive public-works projects, said Emil Henry Jr. in The Washington Post, but there’s a “bigger point: Our infrastructure needs are at a critical juncture.” Like private companies, the U.S. won’t be competitive unless it invests in its future. Still, conservatives can make sure Obama taps “private capital and expertise.”
Actually, the biggest determinant of success in public-works programs, said Nicole Gelinas in The Wall Street Journal, is “leadership and competence at all levels of government.” Some needed projects are too big and complex to trust to private contractors—think Boston’s Big Dig. “In public infrastructure, the word ‘public’ is there for a reason.”
Show: Oldest | Newest
10 Comments
Posted by Jesica, Monday, December 8, 2008, 11:16 am Don't let history repeat itself, FDR extended the depression by 10 years with his New Deal projects. Remember, the Gov't has no money-only the taxpayer's dollers! it makes no money, 2 million Gov't jobs are 2 million welfare payments. he will completely backpedal on not taxing the 'middle class' and end up stiffling the economy even further.
Posted by Che, Monday, December 8, 2008, 11:50 am All we have to do is make huge military cutbacks and we'll be fine.. stop the 'war on drugs', stop the war in Iraq, there are some other things, but it's time for us to stop policing the world.
Posted by Reed, Monday, December 8, 2008, 3:23 pm Oh please Jesica. Why don't we just get rid of all that other government bs then, like the post office and fire departments, and all the other crooks living off of "welfare payments." I don't even know why I'm writing this, you can't beat an ignorant person in an argument anyways.
Posted by Brett, Monday, December 8, 2008, 3:47 pm We need the work on our infrastructure, yet money is very tight. Maybe this will help government to watch its budget!! I doubt it, but we can dream, can't we?!?
Posted by APatt, Monday, December 8, 2008, 3:47 pm That is so rude, Reed. Jessica is right on. There are so many government entitlements/departments/jobs that could easily be axed so that the private sector can do it, but it's so hard for people to see outside the box. Once the government takes over another aspect of our lives people can't conceive of it ever being done any other way. Heaven forbid the govt. ever outright take over hospital, churches, countless charities, dentists offices, etc.
Posted by Jim Z., Monday, December 8, 2008, 5:26 pm FDR didn't actually try Keynesian fiscal policy (too little); this is why the depression lasted so long. The whole point of fiscal stimulus is deficit spending (i.e., spending more than revenues). Balancing the federal budget right now would be a sure path to the bottom for the economy.
Posted by Jesica, Monday, December 8, 2008, 6:08 pm to Reed, comparing added, probably unneccessary gov't programs to post offices and fire departments doesn't make you look very 'informed'. also, i grew up in the US and lived in two different socialist countries (Germany & Italy) so i know what the lethargic effects of these programs are on a society. you might want to try getting some education (economics) or experience under your belt before you throw around the word ignorant. cheers.
Posted by Kam, Monday, December 8, 2008, 7:13 pm What no one is addressing is the make-up of the current US population. In the 30s, 40s, & 50s, the citizenry was largely blue-collar and farmers. Today the population is largely service oriented. The largest group of people who have lost their jobs are white-collar and service background. How will developing infrastructure jobs assist them in any way? The unskilled and uneducated will continue to expect the free car gas and free mortgage payments since that is what BO promised them. That is a good thing. Do you really want unskilled/uneducated people repairing buildings and building bridges that you may need to get to work?
Post a Comment