Dear President-elect Obama: Here's How to Get the Economy out of the Ditch
Published: November 12, 2008 in Knowledge@WhartonIn little more than two months, President-elect Barack Obama will take the oath of office with virtually no time to bask in his historic accomplishment of being the first African American elected to the highest office in the land. His first term will begin amid what are arguably the most challenging days for a newly elected president since Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration in 1933, during the depths of the Great Depression. Obama seeks to lead a nation mired in a worsening recession and burdened by the costs, both financial and human, of two wars and rising debt. The president-elect will need to confront these problems while delivering on the hopeful message he sold to his legion of supporters, weighing campaign promises to cut middle-class taxes and increase access to health care.
While considering what advice to give President-elect Obama as he prepares to take office, many Wharton faculty agree that his first 100 days in office -- if not longer -- will be dominated by the aftershocks from 2008's credit crunch and the steep market declines on Wall Street. This month's grim financial news -- including an October jobless rate of 6.5%, the highest in 14 years, and double-digit declines in retail sales -- makes it likely the new president will focus on stimulating the economy.
Given the array of problems that the Obama administration will confront, what should its priorities be? How much will the new president be able to spend on programs like alternative-fuels research or middle-income tax cuts without driving the federal deficit to unmanageable depths? And how will those short-term spending decisions affect his ability to deal with a long-term crisis -- trillions of dollars in obligations to retiring Baby Boomers as they enroll in Medicare and Social Security? A growing number of commentators contend that Obama's success in dealing with the economic slowdown will affect his policy decisions in other areas.
Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel, author of the book The Future for Investors, advises the Obama administration to move quickly on a large, one-time tax cut or rebate check program for low- and middle-income Americans as a way to keep the just-starting recession from worsening. While he also supports the large-scale infrastructure and alternative-energy programs that are under discussion as an economic stimulus, Siegel notes that those programs will take much longer to start up.
He offers another piece of advice to help Americans suffering from steep declines in the stock market: Dramatically increase the annual capital loss deduction limit on income taxes, which is currently capped at $3,000. He says that $10,000 might be a more appropriate level in the current economy. "Even $10,000 is not enough to compensate for the inflation of the last 20 years, but it's one thing that would help."
He would also like to require any banks receiving money from the government's $700 billion package to continue making loans to their most creditworthy customers. But one plan he would urge the Obama administration to reject is the proposal to extend bailout monies to the troubled auto industry. Chapter 11 bankruptcy would allow Detroit to reorganize but not cause the massive job losses feared by some, he states. "Any bailout of the auto industry is really a bailout for the health benefits of the UAW [United Auto Workers]. That's all it is."
What about That Deficit?
Wharton finance professor Nicholas Souleles suggests that despite mounting concern about the government's debt -- which has grown from $5.7 trillion to nearly $10 trillion during the current Bush administration -- Obama should not worry about increasing short-term deficits during a difficult recession. "Short-term, we have an urgent need to deal with the crisis, which will entail creating deficits within limits," he notes. "That's fine. It's perfectly rational to run a deficit to get through hard times." Policy makers in Washington seem to agree, with a lame duck session of Congress slated for this month to address an emergency economic stimulus package. The President-elect, at his first news conference, spoke of extending unemployment benefits and targeting aid to the deeply troubled auto industry.
Many experts believe that Obama -- who spoke frequently during his campaign of the need to target infrastructure repair -- should tackle that issue even more aggressively with an effort similar to Franklin Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration, the New Deal-era program that created some 10 million jobs building everything from dams to football stadiums. This summer, state and local officials urged Washington to spend $1.6 trillion over a five-year period to rebuild infrastructure, especially roads and bridges. "He should think of the infrastructure insofar as we have identified current needs and current programs," Souleles says, noting that any infrastructure effort should focus on programs already planned and in the pipeline. "One general problem with fiscal policy and spending is that often by the time you do what you set out to do, the recession has passed."
Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor Eric W. Orts agrees with this approach. "In general, I think there's going to be a need for some government spending to create kinds of targeted stimulus. There are not going to be checks for everybody," as was the case with economic packages under President Bush in 2001 and again in 2008, says Orts, an Obama supporter and adviser. A likely project that Obama is already inclined to support, he notes, would be rebuilding America's roads and bridges, which are in poor condition. "This is an area that fits with his campaign promise, and laying out some government funds will take the edge off a recession."
We Suggest...
Is Social Security in Trouble? Depends on Whom You Ask
Social Security and Medicare: Trying to Tackle Two 800-pound Gorillas
The 100-day Dash: An Ambitious but Worrisome Start for the Obama Administration
Lesson One: What Really Lies Behind the Financial Crisis?
On the Job Training: Can Obama's Huge Infrastructure Program Really Work?
Taxes Lowered and Raised
Energy policy, including the incoming president's promise for a 10-year campaign to wean America off imported oil with a focus on renewable fuels, is another area where Wharton faculty agree Obama's priorities could be closely tied to economic stimulus. "I think you'll see more spending on alternative energy, with some kind of targeted spending subsidies," says Orts. "One easy target would be green jobs for energy efficiency," since an environmental jobs program would help address growing unemployment. So-called "green jobs" programs typically encompass a wide range of environmental tasks, including retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient.
Orts, along with other experts, also suggests using tax credits to encourage businesses and homeowners to spend more on renewable energy projects, such as installing solar heating panels. He says that any bailout of Detroit automakers -- who recently requested $50 billion in federal loans to deal with their health care spending and liquidity problems -- should be closely tied to a program of building more fuel-efficient cars.
The linkage between alternative energy and improving the economy could help Obama begin to address the thornier and costly long-term problem of tackling climate change during the early part of his term, notes Orts. He suggests that Obama ask Senator John McCain to lead a bipartisan effort to come up with climate change reform, given that McCain's backing for a cap-and-trade system of reducing greenhouse gases is considered more business-friendly than Obama's proposals and could improve the chances for a speedy compromise deal.
The economic slowdown clearly creates more difficult decisions for Obama in the area of taxes. He promised during his campaign to lower taxes on the middle class but raise them on families earning more than $250,000 a year, primarily by allowing the expiration in 2010 of the tax cuts for two higher-income brackets that were enacted under President Bush. The incoming president also wants to expand the earned income tax credit as a relief measure for the middle class; he would give those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income.
Philip M. Nichols, a Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics, advises Obama to stick to his tax pledge and market it as another effective way to stimulate the economy. "The effect would be two-fold. It would increase the rate of spending by the middle class, but it would also increase the rate of saving by the middle class," which would be a source of new capital that would encourage growth.
Wharton professor emeritus Gerald Faulhaber says that while he questions the wisdom of steep permanent tax cuts given the accumulated debt -- including roughly $1 trillion in new borrowing linked to the recent financial rescue packages -- he also agrees that short-term tax measures, similar in nature to the stimulus checks issued by the Bush administration, are worthy goals for the next six-to-12 months.
According to Kent Smetters, a Wharton professor of insurance and risk management, it is critical that the Obama administration avoid the temptation to pay for its tax breaks for the middle class by raising levies on corporations. During the campaign, Obama rebuffed a call from McCain to lower corporate taxes, saying that he planned to keep the current top rate at 35%. "The problem is that the United States already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world," Smetters argues. He also doesn't see the current corporate tax structure as "sustainable" when combined with the increased costs and regulatory burdens that medium-sized business must shoulder to comply with the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
First, Do No Harm
Obama has promised to increase regulations on business, especially the financial sector, following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and several large banks. Several Wharton faculty members say they understand Obama's political motivations, but advise a slow and cautious approach to imposing new restrictions on financial activities.
"Government could do a lot of harm if it gets involved in ways that aren't perfect," says Faulhaber, who served as chief economist for the Federal Communications Commission in 2000 and 2001. He compares regulation of business to a football game in which government needs to be a referee preventing egregious violations of the rules but should not act as a player, determining outcomes in what should be a free market. Faulhaber suggests that any regulatory effort have a narrow focus -- such as on the clearing banks where credit activity has stalled -- rather than a too-broad push that might punish transactions by hedge funds that, he says, shouldn't bear the blame for the crisis. A bipartisan task force could carefully study the impact of any new rules before they are imposed.
"I'm very worried about [any] overreacting to this crisis," agrees Smetters, who predicts that hasty action by the government would lead to a repeat of the activities that led to the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, which he believes was poorly thought out and rushed into law. And while Obama should pay attention to the fiscal crisis, he should also remain mindful of the long-term federal debt and the looming dangers from expected shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. A coalition of groups fighting for federal budget discipline has said the pending obligations for those programs and for Medicaid is $53 trillion, dwarfing the money pledged to rescue Wall Street.
"The amount the government will spend on the subprime issue is tiny," while Medicare and Social Security is "20 or 30 times bigger than that problem," says Smetters. He advises Obama to avoid any short-term fiscal solutions that would make the long-term debt crisis substantially worse. Neither Obama nor his rival McCain spoke much about the entitlement programs during the election season, although Obama has proposed increasing Social Security taxes on families earning more than $250,000 by 4% to help deal with projected future deficits.
As for health care reform, Wharton health care management professor Mark Pauly states that recent efforts to study the long-term Medicare funding problem have been too politicized and that a serious bipartisan effort -- along the lines of the Alan Greenspan-chaired commission that developed a long-term solution for Social Security in 1983 -- would be a welcome proposal from the Obama administration.
Pauly also believes that while the fiscal crisis would preclude any quick, major overhaul of the health care system, Obama could use the economic pain of the middle class as a rallying point for expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. Congress had failed in 2007 to expand SCHIP funding from $5 billion to $12 billion, but the program is up again for re-authorization in early 2009 and Obama will likely seek to expand it. The Obama administration, Pauly says, could also include mandates to the states that would advance a proposed model for his broader vision of national health care reform.
On the issue of trade, Nichols suggests that some of Obama's more aggressive criticism of NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- was the result of political pressures in the declining industrial regions of Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. Nichols believes aggressive moves to renegotiate free trade agreements are not likely, and he notes that the new administration could improve trade relations with agricultural nations by reducing subsidies to farmers, which would also help cut the deficit.
Transition Period
Wharton management professor Heather Berry notes that in his campaign, Obama "offered tax cuts for working class families, expanded health care coverage and investing in clean energy technologies as priorities. However, he inherits a deficit that will make multiple priorities difficult to achieve.... Obama will need to figure out not only which programs and legislative initiatives are most important, but also how to pay for these programs. One issue that Obama will have to face in his first year is middle class tax cuts given that the Bush tax cuts were temporary and will need to be extended in 2009."
Normally, Berry adds, "one of the earliest documents that offers specifics about a new president's spending priorities is the annual budget that each president must present to Congress. Obama faces an unusual circumstance of a potential stimulus package that could be enacted prior to his inauguration. Given Congressional democratic support for stimulus spending, some of the less expensive measures Obama supports could be enacted before he takes office."
As for how Obama plans to accomplish his many objectives, Berry would advise him to build a White House team that is oriented towards getting things done quickly. The hiring of Illinois congressman Rahm Emanuel -- known for his assertiveness and ability to push through agendas -- as his chief of staff is a positive move in that direction. Says Berry: "Obama's picks to lead his transition team and staff show that he realizes the need for key Washington insiders to ensure a smoother transition and to work with Congress to enact his legislative priorities."








Here's what you think...
Total Comments: 10#1 Extremely Unfortunate Choice of Words
I actually haven't read your article yet. The words in the first paragraph, "...the first person of color elected to the highest office...." had me cringing.
The words "of color" to describe a person are offensive, racist and belong in the ghettos of discrimination. The description should be swiftly banished to join such words as "girls" to describe women, "red Indians" to describe the first Americans, etc.
What exactly does "of colour" mean? Does it imply that a white person has no colour? I thought only albinos were devoid of colour. Logically, then, a white person should also be described as "of colour," yet I have never seen the expression used that way.
As far as Barack Obama is concerned, he is again and again described as black, yet his mother was white, his father black. So that makes him neither white, nor black. Or does it make him both?
"African American" would be a better term. After all his father was African; his mother American. The pride engendered by his election goes without saying, and the description "African American" would better put that point across.
Barack Obama is an American, and that is the best and right description for him.
The quicker we all acknowledge the misnomer of the word "race" and understand we are all one "race," the human race, with no need for descriptions of skin color, the quicker the divisions of "race" will disappear.
When a white person is elected to office, we don't take the time to describe that person as someone "of no colour" or more or less white.
It is doubly imperative that institutes of learning, such as The Wharton School of Management, stop using such odious euphemisms of "race" to describe people and start describing them for what they are: African, or American, or Canadian, etc.
In my case, I live in Canada, but I am not a Canadian citizen; I have a European Community passport. I am white, but I was born and grew up in East Africa. I believe that would make me an African. How would I apply your archaic description of colour to me? An African of colour? Or an African of no colour? Or an African European? See the absurdity and the horror.
I enjoy receiving "Knowledge@Wharton"; however, I sincerely hope that from now on, your writers and teachers will become real leaders in a raceless world society.
Now I will read your article -- see if you agree with my conclusion, after [observing] his campaign for months and months, that Barack Obama is actually a pragmatist and centrist, slightly left of center, who believes in bottom-up self initiative; government as a means to an end, not an end means; trimmed-down efficient government; abandoning economic theories that don't work; and focus on the middle class.
Sent: 07:47 AM Thu Nov.13.2008 - CA
#2 Obama's Priority
It is too large to reproduce here. Besides, I am not sure if this is acceptable.
Sent: 08:46 AM Thu Nov.13.2008 - IN
#3 Unfortunate Words
Sent: 09:53 AM Thu Nov.13.2008 - -
#4 Label Not as Important as Obama's Challenges
He has enormous challenges ahead of him and deserves our full support and respect. Moreover, he has already displayed some of the humor that he will need if he is going to be successful over the long term. Perhaps we should all take a lesson from him.
Sent: 11:04 AM Thu Nov.13.2008 - US
#5 Economy out of the Ditch
Sent: 04:46 PM Thu Nov.13.2008 - US
#6 Getting Mortgages and Foreclosures out of the Ditch: An equitable solution
PLAN: If Mr Bold accepts the mortgage reduction, he is required to pledge a calculated, appropriate amount of equity, at the eventual sale, to be returned to the entity subsidizing the mortgage reduction. He keeps his house and his credit rating (and the national economy heals), but Mr Bold now owns perhaps only 2/3 of the house, if he accepts a long term subsidy.
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES: Perhaps there should be three options for the troubled mortgage holder to choose from -- a Fannie Mae, a Freddie Mac and a private investor -- each with different mortgage reduction terms and different financing structures. The homeowner can choose the one better for their future plans. Will they sell the house in a few years when the market comes back? Keep the house long term? Or rent out a room or two, and require the mortgage reduction just for a short while? One of the programs might require sale of the house within five years, perhaps with easy conversion to a smaller mortgage for a more affordable home.
FEEDBACK: To inform the rescued homeowner, and help them plan, each reduction program should makes available via the Web a fill-in-the-blanks “calculator” to help the homeowner compute their equity payback amount given different scenarios.
ONE SOURCE OF FINANCING: Perhaps one of the program alternatives could get its funding from individual investors, who Paypal money into a collection Web site. Contributors might be motivated by an attractive interest rate, or a desire to contribute to the economy’s resurgence. The investors could be guaranteed flat interest rate, or one based on an index like Prime or LIBOR, with the rescued homeowner paying a higher rate (via their “calculator”) to compensate for administrative costs and losses.
NOTE: A local real estate guru’s comments about this Policy proposal were:
"Those who are in a position to do something about all of this are smart enough to see what we see, why they're not doing it is what is mind boggling to me. Believe me when I tell you that this is an outrage to some others in high places. What seems like a very simple and "fair" solution to us is not even being discussed or considered in the circles that have the authority to implement such a solution."
Sent: 01:17 PM Sat Nov.15.2008 - -
#7 Economy out of the Ditch
Focusing on the consumer with innovative ideas will help drive and shape the economy. Consumers are responsible for driving the economy more than government and the corporate sector combined. Thinking outside-the-box can drive the economy especially with first time home buyers coupled by providing a tax incentive credit along with special interest rates and payment schedules for those with a credit score between 600 and 700.
Next - The President Elect must be a confidence builder by bringing nontraditional innovative approaches to monetary & fiscal policy that’s yet to be seen. According to John Kenneth Galbraith’s teachings from the Great Depression, the major cause of the depression was not the stock market crash, but rather limited to no monetary policy. It’s time for Obama to put his advisors and himself to the most important test since 1929. Innovative and well executed ideas can rewrite the future. Let’s hope Obama can prove to the world that he has the correct DNA to correct the dismal financial markets that exist today.
Sent: 03:17 PM Sat Nov.15.2008 - -
#8 Obama and the Economy
Once the selection of his cabinet has been completed, his next priority should be to put into place policies which will help to restore the confidence of the American citizen.
It is questionable that a stimulus package, formatted along the same lines as the first, would be successful not only in meeting expectations but with its desired effect. The American consumer does not have the level of comfort or confidence that is necessary to allow them to spend money, in turn growing the economy. It appears that the average American used the proceeds of the first package to pay down debt or banked the cheque for a rainier day.
It is not the responsibility of the government to utilize part of the $700 billion, which is earmarked for the rescue of the financial institutions, to bail out domestic corporations. If companies such as GM cannot obtain either debt or equity financing from the private sector, there is just reason.
Listening to the media forecast severe job loss along with other doomsday prognostications as a result of an insolvency filing of GM fosters fear in the average American. Many hold a deep psychological and emotional attachment to GM, an American icon, who, this year is celebrating its centennial.
How would a government bailout be structured? Loan or equity or both. What happens, in a few months when the $25 billion isn’t sufficient? The government should not be in the finance business.
The American automobile industry has been in a downward spiral for over a decade. They have not as yet addressed or defined the real problems. The talk about appointing an automotive Czar for the car industry doesn’t make sense. Does he/she merge GM, Ford and Chrysler and then rule with government financing creating a monopoly? What about the other car companies who are manufacturing in the US, using American labour? How does the government make things equitable?
Chapter 11 could ultimately save jobs. Labour, legacy costs and inefficiency have led to an uncompetitive product. With GM’s shares in the vicinity of $3, the shareholders have already lost a very significant portion of their investment. The suppliers to GM have been closely monitoring and reviewing their credit risk and exposures. If trade credit is being extended to GM, it is being done so on a well defined basis, with acceptable risk to the vendor.
Chapter 11 enables decisions to be made by the trustee and new management in conjunction with a strong creditors committee. This will help to give them much needed time to review all areas of the company and implement appropriate action plans. Leases and contractual obligations (both vendor and employee) can be re-negotiated with more favourable terms. There will be layoffs, potential facility closings and the possibility of shuttering or selling divisions. If that is what ultimately saves the company and a stronger and perhaps smaller General Motors emerges, then they will not only be more competitive, but will probably have generated positive public support, which might translate into purchases. If done properly, the automobile consumer will not run from GM cars but to them.
The tightening of credit in the markets may impede the ability of GM and others to procure DIP financing. Perhaps the alternative to a government bailout might be to allow GM and the others in the auto industry to go into Chapter 11 and have the government guarantee part of the DIP financing. This is still a dangerous route to take as it sets a precedent.
It is so important that the government and media stop referring to the next two months as a lame duck period. The consumer does not need to hear this every time they turn on the television or radio. It frightens the average person. Yes, there is only one president of the United States at a time. Yet, as the next two months are so critical to retailers, manufacturers and their supply chains, this might be an opportune time to have an immediate joint prime time address with both the President and the President elect. A bipartisan breaking of paradigms and an opportune time to explain to the people what the government is doing during this transition period, where they want to go with the new administration and how they are going to get there. Perhaps, as an idealistic Canadian, I may not be seeing the entire picture but a strong America is important to the world.
Sent: 01:48 PM Sun Nov.16.2008 - US
#9 Keep the Lobbyists at Bay
The stakes are too great - the future of our children and the ability of the world to feed, clothe and care for its growing population - to continue to play politics, and government, as usual. After all, that kind of thinking, rampant in both parties, is the reason I still drive a car with a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine 35 years after sitting in the gas lines back in the days I had to get to my Penn Law clinical program in Germantown.
The prevalent culture in Washington renders the federal government virtually incapable of resolving the crisis in our domestic automobile industry, let alone affordable health care and sensible defense spending. Just read in the papers some of the pap that comes out of the mouths of our congressional leaders when pontificating on their positions on these important issues. To this apolitical and basically uninformed reader, none of that swill smacks of the genuine sound of taxpayers and voters. And unless we can filter out the partisan participation of the lobbyists, encouraging both executive and legislative staff to conduct their own research in the field instead of doing things the easy way, we will continue to be fed ill-considered solutions that ignore those elements that were not supportive of the concepts expressed by one-sided sources.
I think most of the electorate, when asked what it means to have voted for change, would say that 'politics as usual' has to be re-examined, much in the way that zero-based budgeting has often caused management to re-think the way in which it runs its business. The Wharton faculty is positioned to make an enormous contribution to this process. Government is not prepared to examine problems from the bottom up. I implore you professors and professionals well-positioned to do so to help to save our country.
Sent: 01:32 PM Mon Nov.17.2008 - US
#10 Reply to #6's
But your guru, no doubt, would still expect his 6% off the top. I suppose if I were a realtor (or real estate investor) I'd be outraged, too.
Sent: 04:38 PM Mon Nov.24.2008 - US