PLANK JUNE 6, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Republicans have worked themselves into quite a state of giddiness over comments by Bill Clinton (last night) and Larry Summers (this morning) that seem to favor extending all the Bush tax cuts when they expire on January 1. As Mitch McConnell told reporters today, “Bill Clinton’s remarks, and then Larry Summers remarks—it’s pretty obvious that the economy needs the certainty of the extension of the current tax rates for at least a year.”
Uh, no, it’s not. Even if you take literally Clinton’s and Summers’s imprecise musings, it’s hard to see how you get from their statements to McConnell’s. For one thing, neither endorsed McConnell’s timetable on the length of a possible extension—McConnell was just stating the GOP position and implying they supported it. Likewise, neither said anything about how the economy needs an extension of all the tax cuts to avoid perilous uncertainty. That, again, is just GOP agitprop dressed up as an economic theory.
Both were simply making the straight-forward Keynesian argument that it’s a bad idea to take money out of the economy, whether through spending cuts or tax increases, when you’re in a fragile recovery. In Summers’ formulation: “The real risk to this economy is on the side of slowdown, certainly not on the side of overheating, and that means we’ve got to make sure we don’t take gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year.” Clinton made essentially the same point: “What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now.” Nothing here about how tax-rate uncertainty paralyzes consumers and businesses, as McConnell would have it.
A more important question is whether Summers and Clinton believe it's dangerous to let even the upper-income tax cuts expire, or whether they believe only the tax cuts for families making under $250,000 really matter. Summers and Clinton subsequently claimed it was the latter, which is Barack Obama's position. Republicans, like House Speaker John Boehner, are claiming this is a flip-flop, and that Clinton (at least) meant the upper-income tax cuts must also be extended.
But there’s no good reason to believe this is the case. Both Summers and Clinton believe that upper-income tax cuts are pretty useless for stimulating the economy (since the affluent can spend just fine without tax cuts). If you don’t think a tax cut is stimulative, then there’s no reason you’d think letting it expire would damage the economy. The reason the Republicans have either missed this, or have chosen to ignore it, is that their political strategy for enacting tax cuts has always been to lump together stimulative tax cuts for the middle-class with non-stimulative tax cuts for the wealthy while claiming the entire package boosts the economy. But just because Republicans employ this spin, and may even believe it, doesn’t mean the rest of us should. (Set aside the Keynesian logic they militantly oppose in other contexts.)
The only shred of cover that Clinton gave McConnell-Boehner et al was when he added: “They will probably have to put everything off until early next year. That’s probably the best thing to do right now.” There’s a hint of a normative judgment here--the implication that temporarily extending all the tax cuts is a substantively good thing to do. But when you understand the political context, it seems much more likely that Clinton was making a tactical point than a normative one. After all, even if you believe that only the middle-class tax cuts should stay, you know the GOP won’t go along with that. Which leaves you with the option of extending all of them or none of them come January 1. Clinton, having decided that extending none would hurt the economy, was voicing a preference for the alternative. But saying you prefer one of two likely outcomes is very different from saying it’s the right outcome in some cosmic sense. Indeed, if you listen to the full back-and-forth on this, Clinton says that the point of an extension is to buy time for cutting a longer-term deal, not that the upper-income cuts are worth preserving in and of themselves, even temporarily.
In the end, the big problem with Summers’s and Clinton’s tax-cut riffs isn’t that they endorsed the GOP’s economic approach; it’s that they subtly undercut Obama’s leverage. That is, Obama’s best chances for cutting a favorable deal on taxes is either: 1. Convincing Republicans he’ll veto anything other than a middle-class-only extension and getting them to negotiate before January; or 2. Actually vetoing something other than a middle-class only extension and forcing the GOP to negotiate for the tax cuts’ return. Given that, it’s not exactly helpful to have two prominent Democrats say that vetoing tax cuts is a bad idea. But that’s a lot different from saying upper-income tax cuts are a good idea on the merits, which is what the GOP is claiming they said.
Follow me on twitter: @noamscheiber
18 comments
In both cases (Clinton and Summers) it's controversy created by journalists, in Summers' case Jonathan Weisman of the NYT (who has added a "correction" to his earlier post in which he says he "interpreted" Summers' comment to mean that he supported extension of all of the Bush tax cuts). Clinton is a charlatan, who would say anything that might give him an edge to get whatever (whatever!) he wants at the moment. Summer is a serious academic, who said nothing of the sort attributed to him by Weisman. This business of having to police journalists is getting tiresome. And for Scheiber, if what is being reported about you in Politico is true, nobody has to police your reporting. You are an exceptional reporter, and if the your new boss really intends to make TNR the New Yorker of Washington, he has made a great start!
- rayward
June 6, 2012 at 6:00pm
Funny how this works -- I just heard John Boehner intone on the radio, in commenting on Clinton's observation about the Bush Tax Cuts, that it would be important to give Job Creators some certainty by extending those cuts "even for just a year". So there you go! The Republicans will agree to an extension of the Bush tax cuts for a year in exchange for something significant, like a further extension of unemployment insurance/payroll tax cuts or (better yet) raising the debt ceiling for 24 months and delaying Medicare cuts. Do we have a deal?
- wildboy
June 6, 2012 at 8:37pm
Who the fuck is either Bill Clinton or Larry Summers to talk about "not taking gasoline out of the tank"?!? A lot of help Summers was when the economy first needed some gas back in 2009... If either one of them was a mensch, he'd shut the fuck up and stay out of the way. I do not care if either the press of the Republicans are taking their comments out of context. It is entirely predictable that the press and the Republucans will do just that, and it should be the first priority of any loyal Democrat to say nothing that can be taken out of context or that requires qualification by the likes of Noam Scheiber, however good a journalist he is. I'm sorry for the profanity, but I'm pissed off. Clinton ain't the Big Dawg, he's the Big Dawg Shit.
- AaronW
June 6, 2012 at 10:24pm
eithe the press OR the Republicans...
- AaronW
June 6, 2012 at 11:05pm
Quite a few of us ticked off today. Arrrgghhhhhhhhhhhh.
- Sophia
June 6, 2012 at 11:53pm
it’s pretty obvious that the economy needs the certainty of the extension of the current tax rates for at least a year And who do you think created this uncertainty? Would it be the Bush Tax Cuts, set to expire at the end of 2010 -- because they could only be passed over a filibuster threat with reconciliation which requires ten year expiration under the Byrd rule? How about that wild and crazy repeal of the estate tax where, as enacted, the heirs of someone who died on January 31st of 2009 paid estate tax while the heirs of someone who died the next day did not? Hypocrisy.
- Nusholtz
June 7, 2012 at 8:06am
Monica where are you when we needed you most?
- JAIMECHUCH
June 7, 2012 at 9:24am
And yes we have 25 million unemployed and 10 million homes under foreclosure. And Larry Somers "women are inferior for the sciences" continues barking his stupidities.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 7, 2012 at 9:27am
We only need Paul the Krugel to add his failed unhelpful comments. Are all of these the idiot savants ? And the republicans are no friends of the middle class. The unemployed and the foreclosed are on their own.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 7, 2012 at 9:32am
Jaime - you do know that Summers neither said nor even actually implied that right? It was one of three possible hypotheses that he put forward for discussion.
- Nari224
June 7, 2012 at 10:27am
Sommers resigned as president of Harvard after his denigrating women statement. Then went to help Obama to maintain the high unemployment and high foreclosure. The double chin fatso then was fired by Obama. Such a pestilent character still has a job at Harvard. No wonder young students are without jobs. we will soon hear from Paul the Krugel. What a bunch of lousy schlemiels. No wonder thenew York times is now significantly owned by Carlos Slim, richest Forbes dude making money by raiding companies in distress. Warren the Buffet does the same. CNBC just loves them. And the hell for the unemployed and foreclosed. And the republicans are no friends of the middle class. And Bill. "I did not have sex with that woman" is talking too much to the distress of Hilary. But maybe November will bring relief. Otherwise take an alka seltzer.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 7, 2012 at 12:25pm
Did he say it. Woul you believe it. There they go again. Summers' Comments on Women and Science Draw Ire Remarks at private conference stir criticism, media frenzy By DANIEL J. HEMEL, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER Published: Friday, January 14, 2005 3 COMMENT SHARE ON EMAILEMAIL PRINT Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers has triggered criticism by telling an economics conference Friday that the under-representation of female scientists at elite universities may stem in part from “innate" differences between men and women, although two Harvard professors who heard the speech said the remarks have been taken out of context in an ensuing national media frenzy. MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins ’64 said she felt physically ill as a result of listening to Summers’ speech at a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) luncheon, and she left the conference room half-way through the president’s remarks. “For him to say that ‘aptitude’ is the second most important reason that women don’t get to the top when he leads an institution that is 50 percent women students – that’s profoundly disturbing to me,” Hopkins said. “He shouldn’t admit women to Harvard if he’s going to announce when they come that, hey, we don’t feel that you can make it to the top.” But Lee Professor of Economics Claudia Goldin, whose own research has examined the progress of women in academia and professional life, said she “was pretty flummoxed” by the negative response to Summers’ speech, which—in her view—displayed “utter brilliance.” Summers spoke from a set of notes—not a prepared text—so a transcript is not available. But in an interview with The Crimson this evening, Summers said that his speech was a “purely academic exploration of hypotheses.” Summers’ speech came against the backdrop of widespread faculty criticism this fall following reports that only four of 32 tenure offers made in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences last year went to women. Early in his speech, Summers noted that women remain underrepresented in the upper echelons of academic and professional life—in part, he said, because many women with young children are unwilling or unable to put in the 80-hour work-weeks needed to succeed in those fields. “I said that raised a whole set of questions about how job expectations were defined and how family responsibilities were defined,” according to Summers. “But I said it didn’t explain the differences [in the representation of females] between the sciences and mathematics and other fields.” Goldin, who herself prepared a memo Summers cited in his speech Friday, said the president “had mountains of research” on the subject, although he spoke extemporaneously. Summers referred repeatedly to the work of University of Michigan sociologist Yu Xie and his University of California-Davis colleague Kimberlee A. Shauman, who have found that women make up 35 percent of faculty at universities across the country, but only 20 percent of professors in science and engineering. Their analysis of achievement test results shows a higher degree of variance in scores among men than among women. According to Ascherman Professor of Economics Richard Freeman, an organizer of the conference, the research found that “there are more men who are at the top and more men who are utter failures.” Summers suggested that behavioral genetics could partially explain this phenomenon. Freeman and Goldin both said that after Summers’ mentioned the “innate differences” hypothesis, he explicitly told the audience: “I’d like to be proven wrong on this one.” By that point Hopkins, a renowned cancer researcher who last year was inducted into the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, had left the conference room. She said she was concerned that it would be “rude” to get up midway through Summers’ speech, but “it was just too upsetting” for her to stay. FULL COURT PRESS Freeman said that he invited Summers to the NBER event “to come and be provocative.” “We didn’t invite Larry as a Harvard president per se,” Freeman said. “We invited him because he has an extremely powerful and interesting mind. And I think if we had invited him as Harvard president, he would have given us the same type of babble that university presidents give. And thank God we have a president who doesn’t say that.” Freeman said that Hopkins’ decision to take her concerns to the press was “very bizarre in my view.” Summers said he had not expected that the comments would be published. “If I disagree with you, I should tell you why I disagree with you and what the evidence for my point is. It shouldn’t be that I leave the room and call up a reporter and complain there,” Freeman said. Hopkins said she mentioned the Summers speech in an e-mail exchange relating to another matter with Boston Globe reporter Marcella Bombardieri on Friday—but that she did not intend for her sentiments to spark the media circus that is already underway. Following a Globe article this morning, the story has appeared across the national media, and Hopkins said she has already received a request to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” as well as several other television shows. And Hopkins dismissed the notion that Summers’ remarks were meant to be kept private among attendees at the conference. “The notion that Larry Summers’ position should be kept a secret on issues like this – that’s just wrong.” Goldin said that Summers’ support for women in academia is well-known. “The reason Larry gave this talk is that he’s extremely interested in the way that institutions can enable individuals to perform to their maximum. And it bothers him when individuals do not perform to their maximum,” Goldin said. She added that Summers is “really dedicated to changing institutions” so that women can attain leadership roles throughout academia. “Everyone agrees that working toward gender equity is vitally important,” Summers said this evening. He said that universities must address discrimination head-on, but that academics must also engage in “careful, honest and rigorous research” to understand the factors fueling the under-representation of females. “My speculations were intended to contribute to that process,” he said. STUDENTS REACT In the dining halls and on the campus open e-mail lists of Harvard College, Summers’ remarks have sparked a flurry of debate as students take a break from studying for final exams to weigh in on the University president’s latest foray into the national spotlight. “I think the evidence in favor of an ‘innate abilities’ explanation of the gender gap is very weak,” said Jessica L. Jones ’06, a biological anthropology concentrator in Mather House. “The evidence in favor a ‘social forces’ explanation is very strong.” “I don’t think ‘innate abilities’ should be our go-to hypothesis when it’s the weakest one we have now,” Jones said. Andrew G. Barr ’05, a government concentrator in Dunster House, said that “obviously my instinct is not to buy into any theory that there’s any sort of genetic flaw in women that prevents them from being good professors.” But, Barr said, “it’s too soon in the academic and scientific discussion of this hypothesis to be getting hysterical, and it’s too soon in the story of what President Summers does or doesn’t believe to be getting hysterical.” —Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel can be reached at hemel@fas.harvard.edu. —For complete coverage of the speech, please see The Crimson’s next print edition on Wednesday.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 7, 2012 at 12:30pm
In my opinion double chin fatsos , Larry Sommers and Tom Friedman, are double stupid schlemiels. And is not only my opinion , it is a fact. One denigrates women and is an economics ass. The other denigrates Israel and is an overall ass. I kid you not. Mistery of mysteries. TNR picks on David Brooks, who is a nice fellow. But they never pick on Thomas Friedman, who is a nasty prick. It is all a mistery.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 7, 2012 at 12:41pm
Curiously I fail to see your quote of "women are inferior for the sciences" in all of that text that you posted. It does however include the rather important caveat of "may... stem from..." which is a fair bit weaker than your "are" assertion and was, as I noted, one of a few items that he rather foolishly put forward. Look - I don't hold any water for Summers and his role in the various meltdowns of the economy. But this is a complete non-event, at least insofar as it tell us anything actually useful about the man, other than he clearly didn't anticipate the rather predictable backlash of speaking so.
- Nari224
June 7, 2012 at 1:58pm
Amazingly you fail to find "behavioral genetics" as proof of Larry Summers ideas of women inferiority overall. It is the same kind of talk used by racists as proof that certain minorities are inferior.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 8, 2012 at 2:47am
I wonder how Larry Summers rationalizes his pushing for people to be kept unemployed. Is that another case of "behavioral genetics"?. Or statements by the republicans, and even BHO, that Americans are lazy? Nobody makes them accountable , thus have no shame. There is nothing wrong with stealing, until you get caught. Conscience is a very personal condition. So they screw up the majority of people, so what's wrong with that. As long as they can get away with it.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 8, 2012 at 3:01am
And how is Larry Summers going to explain the lack of Blacks on the upper echelons of Academia compared to their population? is this another hypothesis of "behavioral genetics"? And talking of misogynists , I can not pass the ill fated John Edwards. During the democratic primary debates. How he attacked Hillary Clinton with the most acerbic language I ever heard. This low down effeminate bastard , the ambulance chaser and 500 dollar hair cut specimen, later found cheating on his cancer afflicted wife, was at the hight of his misogynatic behavior. Certainly he thought women are ok for fucking, not to be president. He has thus far avoided jail, like other creeps. The amoral so called leaders are a sad example. John Edwards could have been vice president. And John Kerry that lives of his wife fortune and was caught trying to avoid taxes by registering his boat in a Carabian country, could have been president. Still he leads the foreign relations senate committee. Yes he can influence the Syrian mess, I wonder with what kind of leadership. Well these are the democrats. No wonder the republicans have a free hand in destroying the middle class and protecting the super rich. Ah but we have November coming soon.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 8, 2012 at 10:17am
And finally I see TNR taking care of double chin self hatred Jew Thomas Friedman . The only thing that is flat is Thomas Friedman brain. David Brooks is a nice guy, Thomas Friedman is a creep.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 8, 2012 at 10:22am