(np) good news about the stimulus

[Michael Bailey]

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Deal-Hidden-Change/dp/1451642326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357316607&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+new+deal


http://swampland.time.com/category/miscellany/the-new-new-deal/

Now Karl Rove’s SuperPAC has poured $11 million into an ad rehashing
the GOP’s favorite talking point about the stimulus, that it was a
failure because a report from Obama’s transition team suggested it
would keep unemployment below 8% and drive it down to 5.6%. Here’s the
real story behind that misconceived report—and that misleading ad.

As I explain in my book, The New New Deal,  the report originated with
Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first chief of staff, who wanted an
official-looking document full of jobs predictions to help him sell
the stimulus on Capitol Hill. The economy was losing 800,000 jobs a
month and shrinking at a Depression-level -8.9% annual rate, although
no one knew it was that awful at the time; back then, the official GDP
numbers were a much less scary -3.8%, before unprecedented revisions
in the coming months. Anyway, Rahm wanted to show wavering congressmen
that emergency action would produce results and create jobs.

The report was assigned to Christina Romer, who would lead Obama’s
Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, Vice President
Biden’s chief economist. Romer and Bernstein spent most of their time
crunching numbers to estimate how much an $800 billion stimulus would
increase employment compared to the no-action baseline, calculating
the “delta” between what would happen with and without stimulus. They
spent less time assessing that no-action baseline, mostly following
forecasts from the Fed and two private firms. If anything, their
no-action baseline was somewhat more negative than the prevailing
economic consensus.

It wasn’t nearly negative enough. Page 4 of the report included the
chart that has dogged Obama ever since, the chart that Rove’s American
Crossroads replicates in its new ad. The chart suggested that
unemployment would peak at 9% without the stimulus, but would remain
below 8% with the stimulus. In fact, the jobless rate shot past 8%
before the stimulus even kicked into gear, which obviously was no
reflection on the stimulus. It was a reflection on the baseline. The
economy was in far worse shape than Romer and Bernstein had realized.

The Romer-Bernstein report—just 13 pages, barely half of that text—was
cluttered with caveats. “It should be understood that all the
estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of
error.” And: “The uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because
the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and
its severity.” But nobody remembers caveats. It even included a
humdinger of a footnote about the baseline: “Some private forecasters
anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11%.” But nobody reads
footnotes.

Before releasing the report, Romer shared it with Obama’s economic
team, as well as some academic peers. The only reader who raised
concerns about including the unemployment prediction was her husband,
another Berkeley macroeconomist. He reminded her that a fellow
economist who had muffed an employment forecast based on an overly
optimistic baseline once told them ruefully that forecasters should
stick to predicting changes in unemployment, not levels of
unemployment.

“Oh, for heaven’s sakes,” Romer replied. “If unemployment goes to 10%,
we’ll have much bigger problems than this.” She was right about that.
But Romer and Bernstein both say that no one inside the White House
tried to block or even amend the report. Obama’s political team did
exchange emails about the potential damage from the report’s (correct)
suggestion that men would get more stimulus jobs than women, but no
one seemed worried about putting the rosy employment forecast in
writing.

“Rahm loved it,” Bernstein told me. “He said: Do more stuff like that!”

In fact, most analysts believe Romer and Bernstein did a good job with
the delta, their prediction of how much the stimulus would improve the
economy. The consensus from independent forecasters is that the
stimulus added about 2 to 4 percentage points to GDP, the difference
between contraction and growth. Romer and Bernstein simply blew the
baseline, the economy’s starting point. They worried at the time that
they were being too optimistic, but they figured they would have
sounded like Chicken Little if they had strayed much further from the
consensus of their peers.

“The fact remains that 8% was a conservative forecast at the time,”
Bernstein says. “In hindsight, obviously, we just should’ve focused on
the delta.”

Which brings me to that American Crossroads “Actually Happened” ad
savaging Obama for the inaccurate prediction. Check out the blue line,
the Romer-Bernstein forecast for unemployment in the Obama era. And
then check out the orange line, the actual trend of unemployment in
the Obama era. The pleasant-looking narrator correctly points out that
the blue line is a lot lower than the orange line. But they both slope
downwards! Karl Rove is pouring $11 million into graphic evidence that
the stimulus worked. And it did work; the employment numbers in the
second quarter of 2009 were the biggest improvement in 30 years.

Of course, “we got the delta right” is not the kind of slogan you want
on a bumper sticker. The Romer-Bernstein report was a political
disaster, gifting the Republicans an enduring talking point. But it
correctly predicted that the stimulus would point us in the right
direction. It just misunderstood how far we had to go to reach our
destination. We haven’t gotten where the Obama team had hoped to be,
but we’re way better off than we were four years ago, when the economy
was in free-fall.

“If I were doing this over again, I’d be more politically astute,”
Romer says. “But those were our best estimates at the time. We weren’t
trying to puff up confidence or do the reverse. We were trying to do
an honest forecast.”

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/02/obamas-greatest-gift-to-the-gop-the-backstory-to-karl-roves-latest-stimulus-ads/#ixzz2H1bhxSUl



http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/18/why-on-earth-would-the-obama-campaign-call-solyndra-successful-and-innovative-because-it-was/