September 5, 2010 3:34 PM

Economists: Second Economic Stimulus Needed

(CBS)  The White House is facing a public that's very pessimistic about the economy, with new unemployment numbers rising to 9.6 percent, the first increase in four months. The Democrats are staring at possible defeat in the mid-term elections if the job market does not improve, and President Barack Obama will outline new measures Wednesday aimed at boosting the U.S. economy.

Laura Tyson, the former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton, and Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that more stimulus programs - in the form of infrastructure spending, a payroll tax holiday and a research and development tax credit - are needed.

"The federal government has provided a couple hundred billions dollars in additional stimulus beyond the Recovery Act stimulus we put in place a year and a half ago," Zandi said. "In my view the recovery needs more help."

"We have two trillion or so dollars of unaddressed infrastructure needs," Tyson said. "You want to start with something really big? Start with developing a high-speed rail system . . . [or] modernizing our air control traffic system, for goodness sake. These are things we want to do anyway."

Tyson, who is a key economic adviser to President Obama, said the issue of the national debt, which the Republicans are ratcheting up as a key economic problem, is not important at all at the moment. The immediate need, she said, is to create jobs.

"Before the great recession, we know that we were vastly under-spending on the nation's infrastructure. You can sort of, therefore, start with the notion that infrastructure spending is terrific in two ways: It creates demand right away when you go out and get the project started and get the workers started; it also creates the ability to grow and be productive in the future," she said.

"We were spending in real dollars about the same amount on infrastructure as we were in 1968," when, she said, the U.S. was one-third smaller economically.

Zandi also noted that if Mr. Obama were to push through such spending, the money would have to come from a strapped nation.

"He's going to have to take some of the corporate tax benefits away to pay for it. It will be interesting to see how businesses balance that," he said.

Also on the program, Gretchen Morgenson, an assistant business and financial editor at The New York Times, said she thinks infrastructure programs won't work quickly enough.

"Let's go for things that will have a more immediate impact, like, say, a payroll tax holiday," Morgenson said. "I think [people are] working down their debt load. They're still in a very difficult spot."

But she agrees that more jobs-creation programs are needed.

"The stimulus was not big enough, because you would have seen far greater recovery." She said unemployment figures today would be better if last year's stimulus package had been bigger.

The suspension of the payroll tax is one of the measures expected to be announced by President Obama on Wednesday. Some analysts are skeptical that it, along with other programs, would be able to lift growth significantly. But Zandi said it will have an impact.

"I think if we suspend the payroll tax for businesses that go out and hire additional workers, expand the job tax credit that is in place today, I think that could be effective and be helpful in the next six, 12 months, when the recovery really needs it. I think that would be a boost to the economy," he said.

Tyson also expects Mr. Obama to announce permanent tax cuts for research and development spending.

"Business accounts for something like two-thirds of all R&D spending in the United States, so this is important," she said. "I don't think this is something that has as immediate a job impact as, say, movement on the current tax credits for the unemployed or extending payroll tax holiday. But I think it's very important in terms of job creation over the longer term."

Tyson suggested paying for this tax cut by rescinding the Bush tax cuts, due to expire in January, for the top two percent of income earners, while keeping them in place for middle class earners.

"Use the revenue, which is $35 to $40 billion a year, to help fund the R&D tax credit; use the revenue to help fund a partial payroll tax holiday," she said. "That's the right thing to do."

But Zandi said the top two percent of the wealthiest people in the country will not react favorably to their Bush tax cuts ending.

"In a normal economy, I don't think high income taxpayers would respond to this increase in tax rates, because it's a small increase. But these aren't normal times.

"I think high income households are psychologically very, very fragile," Zandi said. "They've seen their nest egg significantly diminished because of the high stock values and housing values. I think we're taking a gamble with the recovery.

"I think by 2012, '13, '14, when the economy is off and running, then let's phase them in and let those tax rates go. We do need to address the long-term fiscal problems. But not in the near term."

Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 30 Comments
by rncox1 September 10, 2010 8:58 AM EDT
See the Fortune magazine 2004 article "Think Your Job Can't Be Sent To India? Just Watch" at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/12/13/8214255/index.htm). It's coming to pass.

PROPOSED: - Economic regulative legislation to ease domestic job issues and the Social Security shortfall...

o Impose a system of CAREFULLY crafted and monitored import surcharges on products made overseas, sufficient to make the price of those products fall within a narrow range of what it would cost to make said products domestically. That removes the overseas cheap labor and subsidy advantage, leaving, ideally, only quality to base purchasing decisions on. It also does not let domestic companies become complacent since they still have to compete within the window, set ideally by an independent party such as the Fed, but they are not overwhelmed. This is an economic regulation mechanism, NOT protectionism.

o Apply the revenue of said surcharges towards the national deficit, then when that is low enough towards the general revenue, thereby lowering taxes for all citizens. (See Social Security note, below.)

o Exclude foreign companies who choose to locate plants here, hire domestic labor and abide by our nation's labor laws.

o Do not exclude domestic companies which export their labor needs outside this country then bring their products made there back here to sell.

o As we now should have more domestically employed we should see more revenue going into Social Security thru FICA, thus making it solvent again :-). After all, Social Security as originally conceived is the minimal level income safety net for the old and disabled paid by domestic labor thru the good faith contract of the active generation helping take care of the retired and disabled. So if we let our jobs go overseas who will pay YOUR Social Security? Exporting jobs short circuits this mechanism, requiring alternative funding sources like what I'm proposing.

This will maintain a good standard of living within our country. It might encourage other countries to establish and maintain equally good standards of living for their citizens as well, since the cheap labor and subsidy advantage will be removed.

What could be better?

? The idea behind my proposal is to keep and bring more jobs here. I am not against trading products developed here for those we desire but are for one reason or another unavailable here. That's what trade is all about. What I am against is jobs here going overseas with the company's new plants then said company trying to bring the products back here to sell. For that I would have surcharges in place take away the labor cost advantage.

The same goes for imports from foreign companies. Let the surcharges take away that advantage by pricing the imports within a competitive margin (or window) near what it would cost to produce here. Then if it still sells, fine, a better product. The idea is "fair" trade, not "free" trade.

One more remark before we go modifying the Social Security retirement age, in addition to a "means" test it needs to take in the type of activities one was engaged in while productive. Generally speaking, while desk or nonphysical intensive careers might be worked at into your 70s if you worked at a physically hard job such as a coal miner, mill worker or general laborer you might well be worn out by the time you hit your 60s due to joint deterioration and arthritis. So maybe some justice to this: work at a physically hard job at low pay but retire early or at a higher paying less physical job but retire later. It keeps the higher wage earners paying longer.

Thanks,
Richard Cox
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/11/75/829 <= my professional profile
Independent member, WV Governor Manchin's Project Weirton task group (http://www.wtov9.com/news/5484507/detail.html)
Web page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Recycling-and-Power-Facilities-RPFs/347616143827
Reply to this comment
by trillion1 September 9, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
If they had bailed-out Main St. instead of Wall St. the economy would have improved by now. More workers means more spending and Wall St. only spends on themselves.
Reply to this comment
by tsigili September 9, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
I am beginning to doubt whether the economists really understand the economic problem properly.

Throwing away money, the way Obama has been doing, has not been working, and that should be very obvious at this point.

Perhaps some thinking outside the box, is going to be more beneficial.

Personally, I doubt there will be ANY improvement, in this economy, until manufacturers are forced to return their manufacturing on shore, through significant import taxes, on American companies manufacturing off shore.

I just think that will be possible, any other way. When all is said and done, it comes to the basics....you take the work off shore, and there are no longer any jobs to support the people.
Reply to this comment
by magnumdr September 9, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
We don't need a stimilus. All that Americans needs is to have their jobs back. That means that if there are any illegals working here, find them and make them go back home. Also, nobody works for cash here in America. Everyone should get paid by checks and pay the taxes that are owed to all of us Americans so we can pay less. Government money isn't needed here because we will just have to pay it back! Focus on all of the workers in this Country and help them to get jobs.
Reply to this comment
by bajajohn1 September 9, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
All of this is really commonsensical to an Independent-leaning Democrat; What has the Republican Party done in the last two years to promote employment? Seems like it was Republican policies that put America in the hole. As for Republican policies, the only consistent clamoring is for tax cuts for the rich because it will stimulate employment. The tax cuts for the rich are still in place and the one sensible question to ask is, Where are the Jobs?
Reply to this comment
by RobAla September 9, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
No more bogus stimulus packages or bailouts! I don't trust these people.
Reply to this comment
by nearl451 September 9, 2010 12:15 PM EDT
Yes, this is what is needed, and No, there was not enough oversight to the first stimulus......

However, you will not find any takers for any effective stimulus at this point because of the politics at hand. Dems are afraid to increase debt further at this time, and right leaning Repubs and radical rightists only want tax breaks....they are pledged in principle to "retoring" honor (whatever that means).

The effect is that the economy will languish AT LEAST THROUGH the next SEVERAL years, AFTER the Republicans take Congress back over. THEN and only then will they be properly blamed for the whole mess in the first place. It was for this sole reason that it would have been better for Romney to have won theRep. nomination and elected Pres two years ago...to have the appropriate personnel in place when the other shoe fell.
Reply to this comment
by dadirt September 7, 2010 9:37 AM EDT
More money give-aways that last only as long as the give-away lasts and that money is borrowed to extend our debt. Giving money to union contractors and union business only increases the cost of everything. The unions have ruined the country, and will continue to do so. Our tax dollars are going to keep the unions alive and retirement accounts full.
Reply to this comment
by whitmore76 September 6, 2010 10:48 PM EDT
Tyson was Clinton's economic advisor, the president who brought us NAFTA and other deals that destroyed US industry and lost jobs for so many Americans. . . And she has the nerve to serve up her opinions! And you offered her a podium online. Oh, my!
Reply to this comment
by 4understanding September 6, 2010 12:48 PM EDT
In seeking the most equitable source of extra tax revenue, why do Tax Advisers and Politicians so frequently lump together "tax the wealthy" with "tax incomes"? How many times do we see "tax the wealthiest 2% -- tax incomes"? Have these advisers stopped to look in Webster's dictionary? Wealth is accumulated assets, total net worth. Income is very different, especially in this economy of home value meltdowns and 401K destructions. No one would assess a home for tax purposes, on the basis of the owner's income. Why should we assess a person's wealth (net worth) on the basis of his income? Many baby boomers today face entry into their golden years, with little or no wealth (net worth), yet may have substantial income before retirement. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi would like to jump up and down and call these people "wealthy", for income tax purposes. Wouldn't it be more equitable to call a spade a spade, and reinstitute true wealth taxes? Like an Estate Tax (Death Tax) that kicks in above 2-3 million dollars? Or like taxes on actual net worth, assessed easily in this age of electronic data collection? To rely so heavily on salary-based income tax, but not on wealth taxes, is to foster the growth of the Super-Rich Class, at the expense of eveyone else. No wonder many feel the Obama administration is fostering war against the Middle Class.
Reply to this comment
See all 30 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook