Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Looking to the midterm election

Zooming out a bit, the midterm elections are still more likely to be about the economy than health-care reform, and Dan Gross thinks Democrats are headed for a better-than-expected performance. "Fast-forward to October 2010," Gross writes. "Assuming recent trends continue, the U.S. economy will be in its sixth quarter of GDP growth, and the rancor of the health-care debate will be a distant memory. While not producing nearly enough jobs, the economy will be producing a sufficient number to bring the unemployment rate down. Should the stock market simply move sideways, it'll still be 70 percent higher than its March 2009 nadir. Is this a setup for an electoral wipeout?"

Here's a related prediction: If the election is about health-care reform, that's a sign that the economy has improved too much for Republicans to make joblessness their theme, and thus they're in some trouble.

By Ezra Klein  |  March 26, 2010; 10:54 AM ET
Categories:  2010 Midterms  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rounding up the post-passage health-care reform polls
Next: Lunch break

Comments

"Here's a related prediction: If the election is about health-care reform, that's a sign that the economy has improved too much for Republicans to make joblessness their theme, and thus they're in some trouble."

i think and hope that the democrats have the wind beneath their wings now:-)
i am optimistic!!!!!

Posted by: jkaren | March 26, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I don't know, the Dems will lose seats, the question is how many?

If the Dems retain the same majority, or lose less than 15 seats in the house and 5 in the senate, I'd say it is a big win for Dems.

There are Dem Congresscritters serving today that represent bright red districts. For them to hold those seats the GOP would have to do something really unwise.

Posted by: nisleib | March 26, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I agree with this assessment. The Democrats' timing on the current round of mostly inconsequential jobs bills is incredibly well timed politically (although not economically).

Posted by: mjp8 | March 26, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, I think focusing on the "sweep" part in the quote is important. There's little doubt that the Dems will lose seats. Winning is not losing a ton of seats. Actually, this is why I'm really not looking forward to November. No matter how few seats the Dems lose in November I'm going to have to listen/read countless conservatives declaring it a victory and an indictment of Obama's first two years. Then there's the chance that the Dems will have learned nothing from Scott Brown's election, and the Republican reaction, and completely curl up into their shells for the last two years of Obama's first term.

Posted by: MosBen | March 26, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

On April 2, the next payroll number will be released. Expect a job gain north of 150,000, and probably closer to 250,000. (Disclosure: I'm an economist, and making calls like this is what I do for a living.) Part of that is payback for hiring that didn't take place due to the snowstorms last month--there would have been a decent positive job number last month absent the storms--and a little of it will be Census hiring. Still, the underlying hiring trend has shifted. My guess is that the political conventional wisdom will soon enough shift with it.

Posted by: madhoboken | March 26, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Wishful thinking. 1992 and 1994 economy was in much better shape than now and R's got killed in 92 and D's got killed in 94. Generally there is a good 1-2 year lag between when things start getting good and people realize it.

That said, I do think the republicans have peaked too early, If I we're to bet right now, I'd say 30 house seats and 5-6 senate. If the elections we're held say February, I'd have said 50+ house and 7-8 senate. The house will be the interesting area, since a lot of Obama's support is from the black community, which helps in the approval #'s but doesn't help in Congressional elections because so many black voters are gerrymandered and concentrated to make safe black seats. I'd be curious to see "deserves election/doesn't deserve election" for white democratic congressmen right now.

Posted by: sgaliger | March 26, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

MosBen: I promise not to gloat unless the Republicans win a majority in either house. Then, I'll gloat.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | March 26, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I agree that's its too early to be predicting the size of the Republican gains in both the House and Senate.

Posted by: rmgregory | March 26, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

On a more individual level one must consider the financial impact of the new health care legislation.The funding for the new health care bill, almost a trillion dollars over ten years, is projected to be more than 50% provided by a 500 billion dollar cut back in Medicare. A subsidy to some prescription drug coverage is nothing more than a bone to confuse seniors and soon to be seniors. There will still be a net 500 billion dollar cut back in Medicare. The massive Medicare cuts will adversely affect the availability, cost, and quality of care for those who have contributed to Medicare, some for more than 50 years. I hope all those who have, and will in the future, contribute to Medicare will send a message to Democratic congressmen and senators as well as to the White House in the next round of Federal elections.

Posted by: tkirchgessner | March 26, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Kevin, that will truly be a huge Republican win, and one which would surpass my expectations. Definitely gloatable.

Posted by: MosBen | March 26, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Kevin, that will truly be a huge Republican win, and one which would surpass my expectations. Definitely gloatable.

Posted by: MosBen | March 26, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

MosBen: Not that I'm expecting such a win. As I said, that kind of sweep would require a serious, coherent campaign, with policy initiatives. A Newt Gingrich with a Contract with America. And I just don't see the Republicans doing that.

So, I'm expecting statistically typical gains for Republicans. That could be erased come 2012.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | March 26, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure that the economy is going to be a plus for a Democrats. It's already almost April.

Six quarters of GDP growth doesn't mean much. George H.W. Bush got kicked out of office during the seventh quarter of the 1991-2001 expansion, and unemployment was much lower than it will be in fall 2010.

The question is whether levels or rates of change are most important. If rates of change are important, then maybe Pelosi's v-shaped jobs chart helps. That said, I think you need to see a very high positive growth rate, not the lack of a negative growth rate.

Once the U.S. got off gold in 1933, the economy went on a tear. So while unemployment was high in the fall of 1934, a lot of wood had been chopped so to speak. Since the recession ended mid summer of 2009, the economy has grown at a 3.9% pace, or 1.7% excluding a reduction in the pace of inventory slashing. That needs to pick up and quickly for the Dems to take solace in economic numbers.

As for seeing a strong jobs number reported for March 2010, April 1992 saw a 158,000 jobs gain, with an average of 110,000 jobs/month until October. That didn't seem to help the Republicans all that much. Just sayin'.

Posted by: justin84 | March 26, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Here's a profile of the GOP voter, middle aged white male who rams a car carrying a 10 year old child, because he saw an Obama stick on the bumper. Question, will the Tim McVeigh, domestic terrorist GOP excite or disgust the electorate? Are car bombs and assassinations next?
http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12208009

Posted by: cmpnwtr | March 26, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Six quarters of GDP growth doesn't mean much. George H.W. Bush got kicked out of office during the seventh quarter of the 1991-2001 expansion, and unemployment was much lower than it will be in fall 2010.

But consider that HW Bush was in year 12 of GOP control of the WH, not year 2, and that his administration had tried to sell the idea that the 91 recession wasn't real or significant way after most people knew better. As I recall, these were both significant factors that won't apply in November, so the parallel needs to be applied carefully.

Posted by: zimbar | March 26, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

@cmpnwtr: "Here's a profile of the GOP voter, middle aged white male who rams a car carrying a 10 year old child, because he saw an Obama stick on the bumper. Question, will the Tim McVeigh, domestic terrorist GOP excite or disgust the electorate? Are car bombs and assassinations next?"

Fear-mongering, much?

What's the solution? Round up all potential GOP voters or folks with W. bumperstickers and put them in jail? How large of a segment is the car-ramming-because-of-your-Obama-bumper-sticker in the GOP, anyhow?

The guy was a nut. You don't ram a car because of it's bumper sticker, no matter what it is, unless you're a frickin' nut. Perhaps we only have those kind of nuts on the right. Let's say it's true. What are you suggesting we do about it? Punish 99.98% of right-wingers because of the .02% of nutters?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | March 26, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

@justin: "I'm not sure that the economy is going to be a plus for a Democrats. It's already almost April."

And, as of Feb, the unemployment rate is 10.4%. Compare that do 1994, when unemployment dropped by 1% between June and the election, and Republicans swept to power during that election.

The average unemployment rate in 1992 was about 7%. Average n 1994 was about 5.5%. In 2000, the average unemployment rate was about 4%. In 2006 it was 5%. At best, you might conclude the unemployment rate doesn't have much impact on who wins or loses elections. But its hard to think that it won't have some effect when employment was 6.5% in November, 2008 and grew to 10.6% as of January, 2010. Which is the highest unemployment in almost 30 years.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | March 26, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I can't agree with your "related prediction." Republicans really can't make joblessness their *theme* no matter what. If they try to take on joblessness directly, instead of implying it and talking directly about other policy issues, they're screwed. Because then it's going to become clear that the Republicans did not vote for the jobs bill, did not help with financial regulation (to punish those responsible for the lack of jobs in the mind of most people), and have no specific plausible policy ideas to improve the jobs picture. (Payroll tax cut? Woops, Obama and the Democrats already implemented that!)

I just can't see jobs being an issue that helps Republicans, no matter what. Even with the small-government, low-taxes Tea Party wave that everyone's riding, people don't trust Republicans on jobs.

Posted by: madjoy | March 26, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

By adding +30M to health insurance with or without subsidy provides a significant factor of who they're going to vote for.

Ain't it?

Why no commentary on these masses - ie. minorities - and their potential vote?

Posted by: hariknaidu | March 26, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans really can't make joblessness their *theme* no matter what."

Sure they can. "That wasn't a jobs bill! That was a pork bill, to pay off the so-called 'community-organizing' groups that helped steal the elections for the Democrats last time around!"

There's lots of ways to spin it, if the jobs picture doesn't improve significantly. "Look, they are in power. They own this thing. So you might as well vote 'em out, cuz we can't be any worse, right?"

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | March 26, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

@ sgaliger: 1992 and 1994 economy was in much better shape than now and R's got killed in 92 and D's got killed in 94.

I think you mean 1982 for the Dems.

@ prognosticators based on 1994:
Dems passed basically a republican NAFTA bill that really hurt their popularity with the dem base and HCR FAILED, not succeeded. What other policy victories did the Clenis have?

For 2010, HCR PASSED, Stimulus passed, including the largest middle class tax cut ever, looks like some kind of financial reform will pass, and the Iraq invasion is being wound down. As for cap and trade, EFCA, and immigration, I think that 1 of these will pass before november. In fact, Obama has had one of the most productive first 2 years of any president since Kennedy and probably since FDR. The stimulus by itself, had lots of progressive stuff in it as well as big MC tax cuts. If these measures had been passed separately, it would look like a long string of victories.

I still think that dems will lose some seats because they are defending some pretty red districts and states (picked up in the last 2 disastrous elections for republicans) and historical patterns indicate the president's party loses seats in midterm elections, but I don't see a 94 repeat in the cards unless things go seriously south in the next 7 months.

Posted by: srw3 | March 26, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

But the thrust of the jobs bill (at least, the one that was passed already) was the payroll tax holiday. That's (a) lowering taxes, which Republicans claim to support and everyone loves, and (b) actually a really good way to stimulate job creation, according to economists, to appeal to the rational people. I think it'll be really hard to spin that as pork. The other part of the bill was infrastructure/transit spending, which could be spun more easily, but again, infrastructure spending is relatively popular.

Maybe I shouldn't underestimate the Republican noise machine / Limbaugh / Beck. Maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised. But somehow, I doubt it on this one.

Posted by: madjoy | March 26, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

@zimbar,

Sure, historical parallels are never perfect. However, while Bush had trouble with being tone deaf, the Democrats are facing an economy far worse that what Bush Sr. & the Republicans had to face in 1992.

A lot really depends on how things evolve over the next few months. If we start to see a surge of economic activity, then I think the Dems can relax. However, if unemployment is reported at 9.5% right before the election, then I think the Democrats will see some backlash - Republicans will say how the stimulus bill was signed almost 2 years prior, and how unemployments a lot higher now than it was then. Outside of statistics, things will still be bad for voters (either directly of for their friends/family members).

People might not trust Republicans in general on jobs, but the new guy with a fresh face in their district who happens to have an R after his name - they might trust that guy - if the Democrats can't deliver.

Posted by: justin84 | March 26, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

@zimbar,

Sure, historical parallels are never perfect. However, while Bush had trouble with being tone deaf, the Democrats are facing an economy far worse that what Bush Sr. & the Republicans had to face in 1992.

A lot really depends on how things evolve over the next few months. If we start to see a surge of economic activity, then I think the Dems can relax. However, if unemployment is reported at 9.5% right before the election, then I think the Democrats will see some backlash - Republicans will say how the stimulus bill was signed almost 2 years prior, and how unemployments a lot higher now than it was then. Outside of statistics, things will still be bad for voters (either directly of for their friends/family members).

People might not trust Republicans in general on jobs, but the new guy with a fresh face in their district who happens to have an R after his name - they might trust that guy - if the Democrats can't deliver.

Posted by: justin84 | March 26, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The mid-terms won't be about either the economy or healthcare. They'll be about both and much more - runaway debt, expansive growth of intrusive government, mistreatment of key allies like Israel and the Brits. Too much to name here.

The Dems are gonna loose, and they're gonna loose huge.

Posted by: superman32 | March 26, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

SRW, no I mean '94 in that voters punished GHWB in 92 and then punished WJC in 1994; the situations are very similar to today except the recession was comparatively mild. And please please please pass cap'n trade; if you have more "victories" like that, there will be a huge republican sweep. Unfortunately, no D senator is stupid enough to even talk about passing that right now. Same with immigration.

Posted by: sgaliger | March 26, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"By adding +30M to health insurance with or without subsidy provides a significant factor of who they're going to vote for.

Ain't it?

Why no commentary on these masses - ie. minorities - and their potential vote?"

About half of the uninsured in the United States are white. The new law isn't only going to benefit minorities.

Posted by: shamey73 | March 26, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

@ sgaliger : It doesn't make sense to compare presidential years with midterm elections, that is why I thought you were referring to dem gains under reagan. The electorate is much bigger for presidential elections. Mid terms are more base elections.

From your post, I assume you are a climate change denier. Do you also believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs in the garden? If you believe the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and geohistorians that climate change is anthropomorphic and a danger to the current environment (ie Denver will have Phoenix's weather, and edmonton will have Denver's), what is your preferred solution?

Both immigration reform and climate change legislation are hard sells right now. Financial reform will pass and it will be a boost to the dems. I think that EFCA is a good bet (especially if it softens the card check aspect, say allowing mail in card check instead of having to turn in the cards personally, so there is some privacy in the vote) although it is far from certain passage..

Still I would be way more likely to work for the dems if they did more hard stuff. I think you underestimate how fired up the dem base would be if one of these passed. Immigration reform is a long term win for dems even if it leads to some short term losses, as hispanics become a larger and larger part of the population. We elected them to do the right thing, not to just be popular enough to win the next election.

I guess you would be happy if dems did the heavy lifting on these hard issues and then repugs reaped the electoral benefits.

Posted by: srw3 | March 26, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

@ tkirchgessner: The massive Medicare cuts will adversely affect the availability, cost, and quality of care for those who have contributed to Medicare, some for more than 50 years. I hope all those who have, and will in the future, contribute to Medicare will send a message to Democratic congressmen and senators as well as to the White House in the next round of Federal elections.

The cavalier hypocrisy of republicans continues to amaze me. After opposing the creation of medicare as a "socialist takeover" (sound familiar?) since its inception, they hypocritically "defend" it against the party that created it over their objections. Most medicare cuts have been proposed by the repigges. All though the 90's dems had to fight off cuts proposed by the repubicans.

1 most of the savings in medicare is eliminating the subsidy to insurers for running (into the ground) medicare advantage. There are no massive cuts planned for medicare.

2 In fact, closing the donut hole is a big boost to medicare spending.

3 the only republican alternative right now and through the fall elections is the Ryan plan that privitizes and cuts medicare (and social security) drastically over time (along with more tax cuts for the rich). I can't wait for the repigges to defend that.

Every republican that runs on the platform that dems are trying to cut medicare should have their mouths washed out with soap.

Posted by: srw3 | March 26, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Well, after speaking to my dinosaur, 1992/1994 are completely relevant in that you had a R president defeated because of the economy and then significant D losses in the midterms, still because of the economy (along with many other things). The point being, 92/94 is a pertinent time frame to 08/10 to show economic failure/success has a strong lag effect to it; I see no reason it will be weak this time given the much greater severity of the recession.

On global warming, I don't think there is any consensus about the long-term effects, that whatever the long-term effects, they are best handled by a vibrant economy, and even according to your sainted geohistorians, when they are not cooking their data, the reductions supposed to be necessary are not ever going to happen whatever bill is passed given China and India's population/energy use. So I see vast economic costs in jobs lost and pain for no benefit, and as such, oppose it.

Posted by: sgaliger | March 26, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

@ sgaliger: I don't think there is any consensus about the long-term effects [of climate change]...

This is directly from the fact free zone of rightwingnutistan. There is really no point in using facts and logic with those who don't attend to them.

@significant D losses in the midterms, still because of the economy (along with many other things).

I think you would be hard pressed to find dispassionate observers that believe that NAFTA and the failure of HCR were not the main drivers of the 92 defeat. And there is the historical trend for midterm losses for the president's party in congress. The economy was a smaller factor than any of these things in terms of supressing democratic base voters.

Its true that since Eisenhower, republicans have always left the white house to dems after driving the economy into the ditch,that dems get blamed for trying to pull the economy back out again, and that bush the younger did a way better job of crashing the economy than his dad did. Whether or not the electorate blames Obama for the Bush crash remains to be seen.

Again, because dems cleaned the floor with repubs over the last 2 election cycles, they are defending far more swing districts and that historically the president's party loses seats in midterm elections.

Posted by: srw3 | March 26, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Health reform is not a winner for the GOP. The base may not turn out for candidates who don't call for repeal. But it's going to be difficult for candidates to argue against the whole bill to the general electorate.

What you'll end up with is a call for some kind of revision to health care reform, then. But the GOP just doesn't have enough winning political ideas on health reform. And health care is an issue where it's always much harder to defend reform than it is to defend the status quo.

In short, the GOP is going to be stuck between alienating their base and alienating moderates. That's not a recipe for success.

Posted by: jeffwacker | March 26, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

@Srw3,

The economy goes through business cycles and politicians don't have much effect on them for the most part. There were a few examples in the 1930s in which central government action really drove the business cycle (FDR's wage shocks crashed the economy several times, FDR's decision to reflate in 1933 started the initial rapid recovery from the great contraction), but few major ones recently as far as I can tell.

For example, could you explain how Bush Sr. crashed the economy? I understand a recession occured under his watch, but recessions are a fairly regular occurence. WRT Bush Jr. there a better case can be made, but more of a passive failure to regulate finance than active destruction (and by regulating finance a simple requirement of 20% down on mortgages would probably have been sufficient, although that didn't fit with the ownership society vision). In any case, the 2007-2009 recession would have been much less severe had if the Fed hadn't accidentally run a tight monetary policy in late 2008.

Also, how does the view of Republicans crashing the economy and leaving it to Democrats fit with the Carter/Reagan transition? The economy was in far better shape in 1984 than 1980.

Those questions aside, I definitely hope that the Dems pass cap 'n trade or some form of a carbon tax. The federal government needs revenue and we need to reduce carbon emissions - talk about win-win.

Posted by: justin84 | March 26, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

@justin: I guess I should be more specific. Republican after Eisenhower (particularly Reagan and the two bushies) grew and/or exploded the deficit (depending on the person) while they were in office and then blamed the dems for the national debt that they created. Republican tax cuts gutted the government's ability to do things like fix infrastructure, stop borrowing from SS, etc.

Obama has used countercyclical spending, adding to the deficit, to try to pull the economy out of a tailspin. Most of hte stimulus bill, unlike tax cuts for the rich alone, puts money back into the economy quickly and the infrastructure spending adds to the capital base of the country, more like an investment in the future. Unemployment benefits are recycled back into the economy almost immediately. I personally felt that the tax cuts should have been separate from the rest of the stimulus. The stimulus was also about 1/2 the size it needed to be to actually grow employment instead of just halting the downward spiral. Here's the difference. Bush added medicare part d without paying for it. Obama passed HCR that on paper at least pays for itself and lowers the deficit.

I think you are missing the main reason for the wall st crash. It was the huge overleveraging of CDOs, CDSs and MBSs that melted down wall st. If banks had kept those mortgages on their books, the housing market would have crashed, some banks would go belly up and the FDIC would take them over and reorganize them, but the big wall st investment firms would have been largely unscathed, except for the loss of the bank stocks they incurred. Instead they leveraged these toxic assets to the hilt and couldn't cover their losses when the assets fell to their true value. The betting on assets that one does not own using leverage instead of cash is what drove the crisis.

Posted by: srw3 | March 26, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"U.S. economy will be in its sixth quarter of GDP growth" -- Ezra Klein

27 states just logged an increase in unemployment, 19 showed no change, and only 4 showed increased employed (all four around Washington DC). Do you smell a lie?

OBAMACARE = SOCIALISM

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | March 26, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Srw3,

How does extra spending quickly put money in the economy?

I see that if you spend $1 million on unemployment benefits, the unemployed are likely to spend $1 million on goods and services and thats positive for employment, output and pricing power.

However, where did this dollar come from? If it was created (increase in the money supply), then I think the story works. If the dollar was from taxing or borrowing, I'm not sure it does. Also, I think monetary policy works independent of fiscal policy, even when interest rates are low.

Suppose that $1 million was taken in taxes to spend on unemployment benefits. If there hadn't been any taxes, the guy who was taxed would have bought a large block of shares of XYZ corp, a company valued at $1 billion and priced at $100/share. Our guy here increases the price to $104/share through his large block of demand, sending the market capitalization up to $1,040 million. That increases shareholder's paper wealth by $40 million. If that extra paper wealth convinces them to spend, say, $2 million on things like cars and home improvements, then fiscal policy effectively reduced aggregate demand. Now the reverse could be true - the alternative use of the $1 million led to less spending and aggregate demand. Ultimately, the important factor is what happens to money demand (holding money supply constant). Unemployed people often have very low demand to hold money, as they have a lot of necessities to buy. However, if by increasing the value of paper wealth you convince a set of wealthier people to reduce their demand for money balances, you might end up with more aggregate spending.

Again, my difficulty with fiscal policy is that its unclear whether it is more effective using an existing dollar one way or another. If you can use monetary policy, that seems like a cheaper, more effective way to go. If you're faced with something like the gold standard (i.e. can't create money), then fiscal policy is you're only choice, and if your economy is really depressed I can see how fiscal policy might reliably reduce demand for money balances and increase the velocity of dollars in the economy.

Posted by: justin84 | March 27, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Srw3,

One other comment on the financial crisis. I think there was serious real damage created to the economy through the financial crisis, but tight monetary policy accelerated it.

Nominal GDP is ultimately dependent on the supply of money. It has followed at 5% annual growth trend for decades. For me, the problem was that the Fed let nominal GDP contract for several quarters - clearly an example of tight money. If the Fed had kept NGDP growing 5%/yr, we'd have an economy ~10% larger than it is today. That would mean 10% more sales, 10% more in aggregate wages (both higher wages and mostly more employment hours), higher bond and stock wealth aggregates, higher home prices, etc.

This would have limited foreclosures, limited commercial loan defaults, which in turn would have limited losses on MBS and other financial products, and banks would be healthier. Now, unemployment would still have risen from 4.4% in 2007 (not sure where to - probably 6% or 7%) because there was a real imbalance in the economy that required the shifting of resources, but we wouldn't have had as much damage to other sectors (e.g. car sales falling from 16 million/yr to 9 million /yr sales pace).

Posted by: justin84 | March 27, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey Erza:

The health care bill continued with continued massive spending and borrowing with the anti-business agenda of Obama is going to strangle the economy. As more costs of the health care monstrosity bob to the surface like ice bergs in front of the Titanic, we have an empty suit snake oil salesman in the White House screaming full steam ahead.
Here is a different take on the article you cite:
"Assuming administration projections hold, Democrats could be going into the November facing the highest unemployment rate in a midterm election year in the last half century. The Council of Economic Advisers projects that joblessness won't dip below 9 percent by November. The last time unemployment was around 9 percent in a midterm election year was in 1982, and Reagan lost 26 seats in the House. What's more, as political scientist Seth Masket found, there is a statistically significant relationship between rising disposable income and House seat gains. So file this story under Bad News for Incumbents: personal income fell in 42 states in 2009. Add the horrific housing market, whose pain is concentrated in primetime states like California and Florida, and you've got the makings of a tough summer for Democrats."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/democrats-v-the-economy-in-2010/38104/

We now have Scott Brown in the Senate that can provide some insulation from Obama's march to destroy the economy and install socialism. November and 2012 will the time that Obama and Biden get to eat their pudding. Um, Um, Um...

Posted by: Bubbette1 | March 27, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, Ezra. If it makes you sleep better at night, keep dreaming. After the Fall landslide, you will need sleeping pills.

Posted by: donchew1 | March 28, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company