Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Recovery is still job No. 1

By Karl Smith

Before the election, Paul Krugman suggested that a GOP victory would spell disaster for the economy.

But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts -- cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.

So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Paul is correct that the GOP is unlikely to go ahead with anything labeled spending. However, this need not imply that our economic destiny is bleak.

The primary cure for what ails the economy – what economists sometimes call the first-best – doesn’t come from Congress or the president. It comes from the Federal Reserve. The key to getting out of our current funk is for the Fed to promise higher inflation.

For a variety of reasons, I’ve argued that the Fed move to a permanently higher inflation target, something in the range of 4 percent -- a smidge above the inflation rate we had during the Clinton administration. There are many reasons for this. It would serve as a buffer against future economic crises, and because of the relationship between inflation and mortgage rates, it would mean that homeowners would naturally grow into their monthly payments and the inflation-adjusted principle on home loans would decline over time.

However, the biggest reason to support an increase in the rate of inflation is that it would jolt the economy into growing again. Right now business and banks are holding tons of cash on their balance sheets. Part of the reason they do this is because, unlike in previous eras, there is little financial penalty for hoarding cash. In the past, businesses would have been dissuaded from holding so much cash because inflation would eat away at the value of their stockpiled money. To keep this from happening the banks and business would have to invest in productive enterprises.

Now, however, because inflation is very low and falling, there is no reason not to hold on to all that money. Indeed, if we dip into deflation then banks and corporations can earn profits simply by sitting on their pile of cash and watching it grow in purchasing power. Of course, this does nothing to get Americans back to work.

Ben Bernanke told the world at the Fed’s annual meeting that he has no intention of permanently changing the Fed’s inflation target. This was disappointing. However, it still remains a possibility that the Fed will temporarily raise its inflation target. The president of the Chicago branch of the Federal Reserved outlined a plan that could boost inflation just enough to get us out of this trap. To do that, the Fed must think big. Inflation has been running very low for some time, and the Fed will have to make up all the ground that it has lost.

It must also be strong-willed and stick to the recovery plan even as the economy picks up and inflation concerns begin to rise. Recovering from a deep recession is like taking a course of antibiotics. You have to finish the medicine even when it feels like you’re already getting better. If the bug is not totally cured, it will come back with a vengeance.

If the Fed does decide, however, to temporarily raise the inflation rate, then we should expect to see money come pouring out of those corporate coffers – otherwise it will lose value just sitting there. When that happens a recovery could come swift and suddenly.

So for Americans desperately looking for a job as we move into this holiday season, there is the possibility of hope. That hope, though, will come not from the Congress or the president but from the Federal Reserve.

Karl Smith is an assistant professor of economics and government at the University of North Carolina and a blogger at ModeledBehavior.com.

By Karl Smith  | November 4, 2010; 11:28 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Assessing our first female speaker of the House
Next: Kitzhaber's second try

Comments

Why would increasing the inflation target be better than fiscal stimulus? The economy is suffering from a lack of demand - businesses aren't expanding because there's inadequate demand for what they're selling. Directly increasing demand is the simplest and best course.

"[inflation] would mean that homeowners would naturally grow into their monthly payments and the inflation-adjusted principle on home loans would decline over time"

I hate to break it to you, but lenders notice inflation and price for expected inflation and for inflation risk. Interest rates, including mortgage rates, tend to rise with inflation.

Posted by: fuse | November 4, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Karl,

I've got to ask what you're doing here? You know you don't question PAUL KRUGMAN of all people.

And if interest rates did rise then how would people own homes that couldn't normally afford them? How would we start another housing bubble that we can blame on Republicans??

Interesting is that emerging markets in Korea and Brazil for example are blasting the FED for their quantative easing and dumping cheap money on the foreign markets as a futile attempt to restart the US economy at the expense of emerging markets.


Bravo to you for speaking the truth and good luck in your next position elsewhere.

Posted by: visionbrkr | November 4, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

But if we go into full austerity mode will the Fed be able to counteract the lessened output of the government.

I highly doubt the Fed can or will do that much to help us at this point. Their responses have been too small and to late to counteract the nothing congress is doing now. How will it be when the congress is making the situation worse?

Posted by: PaulArkay | November 4, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

fuse,

Fiscal policy may be better. But we aren't getting any more stimulus and considering the one we got wasn't optimally designed (too many tax cuts) I am not sure fiscal policy in reality is better.

Also I think you overestimate how much of the credit a normal person utilizes that is indexed to inflation. Even if it is indexed to inflation, the principal's actual value will decline. Anyways inflation is basically a tax for holding onto cash, so higher inflation increases investment which leads to employment and thus, higher demand.

Posted by: awcarr | November 4, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Agreed on Fed action, but price-level targeting strikes me as a better option. Then, you have reasonable expectation that the Fed will push to regain the long-term trend after a recession, while an inflation target would (conceivably) either continue to undershoot trend or have to be adjusted.

@fuse - I'd agree that stimulus is, perhaps, a superior cure, but I doubt Boehner would agree. The Fed remains our last best hope, I'm afraid.

Posted by: strawman | November 4, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Be afraid. Be very afraid."

And people say the Tea Partiers are fear-mongerers.

Posted by: tomtildrum | November 4, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, Paul Krugman doesn't like the real world. He likes the world he has constructed on his computer where outcomes can be controlled and precisely produced. Probably why he has never ventured into the real world, preferring the university and think tank.

Karl, I don't know you, but I am also surprised at you.

"For a variety of reasons, I’ve argued that the Fed move to a permanently higher inflation target, something in the range of 4 percent -- a smidge above the inflation rate we had during the Clinton administration. There are many reasons for this. It would serve as a buffer against future economic crises, and because of the relationship between inflation and mortgage rates, it would mean that homeowners would naturally grow into their monthly payments and the inflation-adjusted principle on home loans would decline over time."

1) the majore difference, during the Clinton years we were trying to CONTROL inflation. now we are trying to CREATE inflation. I'm sure that on your mathematical models inflation can be kept at a precise figure, give or take a few tenths. In the real world, it's like disabling the brakes of a train to try to make it go faster, and then trying to reconstruct them while it's moving at a high speed. Good luck!

2) Since we are debasing the currency, and mortgage rates are tied into the 10 year, how are you going to increase inflation, keep Treasuries low, satisfy foreign buyers that you are not destroying their dollar holdings, and avoid choking the living you know what out of any attempted recovery in the housing market when mortgage rates rise to meet the 10 year?

This answer should be interesting. (of course Ezra never responds to me or justin84 because we use real world facts and figures, so if you ignore me I'm used to it)

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Republican and, sadly, Democratic policies that repudiate Keynesian economics have pushed us into this mess, and they're about to make things much, much worse. I have severe doubts -- though I may be slightly wrong -- that Fed policy rather than federal policy will make much of a difference.

Posted by: stonedone | November 4, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

I won't be able to respond to everyone but since you baited me, I'll bite.

The short answer is that Treasury yields will stay low initially and then start to rise as the economy recovers.

The way this works is that Fed keeps buying Treasuries and holding the yield down. As inflation begins to pick up this drives the real interest rate negative. You may have noticed a bit of this in the TIPS market.

The lower real interest rate encourages increased consumption and investment, which in turn leads to a fall in the unemployment rate and an increase in production.

As that happens the Fed begins to lighten up its Treasury purchases and both nominal and real yields begin to rise.

This will tend to slow down the recovery. The trick is to do this only after the recovery is in full swing because you will get some pull back. In short you have to wait until the economy begins to overheat and then let your foot off of the gas because there will be a strong deceleration.

The economy pulls back into an equilibrium accept now you have a permanently higher inflation rate.

Now in regards to the international response. Most likely other countries will simply inflate along with us to maintain their either explicit or implicit dollar pegs.

However, to the extent they do not this simply causes this process to happen faster. Rather than just growing through Consumption and Investment, we also grow through Net Exports. Rather than prices rising simply because there are more dollars, they also rise because the dollar falls relative to other currencies.

Posted by: karlsmith | November 4, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The banks and corporations hoarding cash will also see lower yields on their short term investments in Treasuries under QE2.

Posted by: tuber | November 4, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"The primary cure for what ails the economy – what economists sometimes call the first-best – doesn’t come from Congress or the president. It comes from the Federal Reserve. The key to getting out of our current funk is for the Fed to promise higher inflation."

While this is probably true in the textbook it is probably NOT true in our current situation.

America has 2 decades of systematically under-investing in all kinds of public goods, from education to a healthcare quality infrastructure, to physical infrastructure like roads and tunnels and transit. What we should be doing is using generation-low interest rates to borrow cash and build the stuff we should have been building for the past 20 years, instead what we actually did which was starve public projects so we could give more money to rich folks in the form of tax cuts.

Public projects would not only guarantee that our capital was going to build genuinely useful things, it would also generate inflation that's based on growth generated by actual middle-class and working-class consumer demand. REAL capitalism! As opposed to the kind of crony capitalism-driven demand curves we've seen for the past 10 years which have been generated by Wall Street--demand for things like ginormous houses in terrible places, demand that existed only because Wall Street was able to make a fortune packaging and selling shoddy home loans.

The fundamental danger of the Fed's approach is that it a) makes investment in public goods more expensive, and b) it depends on our financial markets acting as efficient allocators of capital. This is what they are supposed to do, but their track record of the past 15 years show that the current crop of leaders don't actually know how to do it!!

This is not a suggestion that we move to a command-and-control economy. But the reality is that our nation has moved dangerously out of whack, and there is too much capital going to Wall Street and not enough going to roads, bridges, and tunnels. We need a decade of building actual stuff that our country needs, and we need to get a lot more money into the pockets of middle class and lower class people so they can tell the capital markets what they actually WANT to buy, rather than the other way around. I remain extremely worried about what kind of pernicious impact there will be on the real economy when we simply send another massive infusion of cash to Wall Street. They don't have anything terribly productive to do with it.

Posted by: theorajones1 | November 4, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Karl, I have to admit you are a man among men!

Thanks for the reply

Your model is finely tuned. What if any one variable goes wrong? For instance you wrote:

"Now in regards to the international response. Most likely other countries will simply inflate along with us to maintain their either explicit or implicit dollar pegs.

However, to the extent they do not this simply causes this process to happen faster. Rather than just growing through Consumption and Investment, we also grow through Net Exports. Rather than prices rising simply because there are more dollars, they also rise because the dollar falls relative to other currencies."


In order to increase net exports, we have to debase our currency FASTER than they debase theirs, correct? Otherwise a rising dollar will prevent any gain. So aren't you counting on a huge amount of ignorance/inertia from foreign buyers of Treasuries? You expect them to continue to buy at or near present amounts all the while you are laughing at them by paying them in debased currency AND subverting their economies by making their exports more expensive and our imports cheaper? If the Fed has to increase purchases to make up for the lagging buyers, that will just make the currency depreciate faster.

AND, I don't suppose you're worried that your scenarios mean oil will move to well over $100 a barrel because of it's being priced internationally in dollars? You don't think that might choke off any nascent recovery? (let's not even talk about what happens if the dollar stops being the world's reserve currency!)

It's kind of like the probably apocryphal story Johnn Cash used to tell about singing "Folsom Prison" the first time at an actual concert for prisoners. The warden asks him not to sing it because it reminds the prisoners they're in prison. He replies "you think that otherwise they'll forget?

Well as you can see I believe that any system so Swiss watch like will come to a bad real world end. You disagree, but you get a huge plus for replying.

(admit it, you weren't expecting this level of discussion in a newspaper post were you? that's why Ezra never replies LOL)

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"For a variety of reasons, I’ve argued that the Fed move to a permanently higher inflation target, something in the range of 4 percent -- a smidge above the inflation rate we had during the Clinton administration."

Back in Jan93, the CPI-U stood at 142.6. By Jan01, it was at 175.1. That's a 2.6% annual rate of inflation. Not quite 4%.

"It would serve as a buffer against future economic crises, and because of the relationship between inflation and mortgage rates, it would mean that homeowners would naturally grow into their monthly payments and the inflation-adjusted principle on home loans would decline over time."

But mortgage rates would head sharply higher under a credible promise of 4% annual inflation.

The monthly payment for an 8.5% 30 year fixed mortgage is 52% higher than at 4.5%. Even assuming strong growth in nominal incomes (6-7%/yr per capita), housing affordability would initially fall sharply.

What would happen to the banks (and Fannie and Freddie) which have lots of fixed rate assets on the balance sheet?

"If the Fed does decide, however, to temporarily raise the inflation rate, then we should expect to see money come pouring out of those corporate coffers – otherwise it will lose value just sitting there."

Corporations aren't keeping money in a vault. To the extent they have cash (and remember all that debt on the other side of the balance sheet), it's probably in vehicles like money market accounts.

"Agreed on Fed action, but price-level targeting strikes me as a better option. Then, you have reasonable expectation that the Fed will push to regain the long-term trend after a recession, while an inflation target would (conceivably) either continue to undershoot trend or have to be adjusted."

strawman,

Level targeting of NGDP would be even better. You might even end up with mostly real growth and low inflation if the short run aggregate supply curve is relatively flat.

It might not work, but it's worth a try if anything is.

"keep Treasuries low"

54465446,

You raise an important point. Current owners of medium and long term treasuries would be eviscerated. If the 10yr went back to 7% (a fair guess for a permanent 4% inflation target), current owners would be hit with a capital loss of just over 30%. If the 30yr went from 4% to 8%, current owners would be hit with an incredible 45% capital loss.

Posted by: justin84 | November 4, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

From a Krugman blog post on 11/1:

"What I’d do if I were really in charge of the Fed, however, is the same thing I advocated for Japan way back when: announce a fairly high inflation target over an extended period, and commit to meeting that target.

What am I talking about? Something like a commitment to achieve 5 percent annual inflation over the next 5 years --"

Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/if-i-were-king-bernanke/

Posted by: jm31 | November 4, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

justin:

Hey give Karl his props. He replied to me. He's obviously better equipped to do that than Ezra. Hope the kid is having fun out there.

Not sure how much longer we can teach real world economics on here though. One of these days you will have to fight on alone! LOL

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

justin:

I've been buying dollars on every dip this week, for the contrarian short term play. What do you think, am I crazy?

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

Oil is an issue because gasoline acts more like a financial obligation on households than a good - ie something in the short run they can't control. They have "deleverage" from driving.

However, its a risk you have to weigh: Will the next export effect outweigh the oil effect. It seemed to when the dollar was falling in from 2005 up until Lehman


Justin:

You are right for the overall price level growth. Most of the inflation numbers were above 3, we just had a sharp dip around 98 and the Asian Financial Crises that lowered the overall level growth

I probably should have been a little more careful there though - you are correct.


On price-level targets and NGDP. I don't know if there is a huge substantive difference between what I am saying and an NGDP or price level target. Outside of the Zero Bound they are basically the same.

I would just be arguing for a 7% NGDP target rather than 5%. It gives us more room on the bottom if something were to go wrong because I think negative NGDP growth and zero interest rates are a dangerous trap.

I wasn't sure what to expect honestly


Posted by: karlsmith | November 4, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"The short answer is that Treasury yields will stay low initially and then start to rise as the economy recovers.

The way this works is that Fed keeps buying Treasuries and holding the yield down. As inflation begins to pick up this drives the real interest rate negative. You may have noticed a bit of this in the TIPS market."

Question on this point.

If the economy is recovering sharply, and inflation expectations are at the 4% target, the natural interest rate on long duration bonds is going to be much higher than 4%. Let's say it is just 6%, though if the inflation target is 4%, higher isn't out of the question.

To keep the 10 year from jumping from 2.5% to 6% within a fairly short time frame, the Fed will have to purchase quite a few of them - and if it doesn't credibly commit to holding them, it might be the only buyer of 10 years out there.

The curve would likely flatten as well, so this would be an issue across the curve. The Fed might have to buy up most of the outstanding Treasury debt to keep rates sufficiently low.

Even if the Fed succeeds in keeping treasury rates low, unless it buyers other asset classes those will have a fisher effect, but not a liquidity effect.

In addition, that will be a huge increase in the money supply, which might push inflation and/or expectations thereof beyond the 4% target.

It seems a difficult proposition for the Fed to keep rates low.

Karl, what's your take on Scott Sumner's proposal to target NGDP futures, level targeting? Set 2007Q4=100, and target a 5% growth path from that point.

Sumner's take is that interest rates would rise due to a higher real interest rate and inflation expectations, and considers it a good thing (after all, rates are tend to be relatively high during robust periods of expansion).

"Hey give Karl his props. He replied to me."

Props indeed. I know I posted awhile after his reply, tho it's because I had the window sitting open for a long time before starting to respond. Didn't mean to disrespect him.

Posted by: justin84 | November 4, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Karl:

As before, you man up!

That's the point I am trying to show Ezra, that these are big equations with lots of variables. When you start screwing with the value of the dollar and inflation, you can't really ever control how it ends.

I would argue that the dangers of a falling dollar in a prospering economy (2005) is different than today.

Again, you should have your own column because you can step back and see the other side, unlike Krugman.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Karl,

Thanks for the response.

The difference between level targeting and rate targeting is that the Fed promises to correct for any misses.

If a large shock sends CPI from a 4% annual rate to a 1.5% annual rate for a 2 year period due to a large negative demand shock, under a rate targeting approach the Fed accepts the ~5% deviation from the price level path it implicitly targets with a 4% target.

For flexible prices this isn't such a big deal, but some prices have a sticky growth path and will be growing at 4%+ despite lower overall inflation. The real prices of these goods/services/workers will rise, and the market for them will take time to clear.

Under level targeting, the Fed allows two years of 6.5% inflation in order for the price level to return to trend.

Targeting inflation can lead to difficult trade offs. If unemployment is at 4.0%, and inflation is at 3.0%, do you ease or tighten? Under a 4.0% inflation target, you should ease - price level targeting actually suggests you should ease by more than a rate target.

If inflation is at 5% and unemployment is at 7%, a 4% inflation target suggests you should tighten, despite unacceptably high unemployment.

These problems are reduced somewhat under an NGDP target. You always shoot for 5% NGDP growth, level targeting. If a severe recession hits and you get one year of 0% NGDP growth, the Fed will continue to ease until market expectations of NGDP hit 10% for the following year, and not worry about the mix of inflation / real growth (though if NGDP fell due to a demand shortfall, it should be mostly real growth).

Take a look at Scott Sumner's blog for a lot more detail / better presentation:

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?page_id=3447

Posted by: justin84 | November 4, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Karl. But spending cuts by Congress are DEFLATIONARY. The expectation is for accelerated deflation because of deflationary fiscal policy. The Fed cannot fight fiscal policy deflation with "expectations" of inflation. The Fed game is lost unless Congress cooperates by increasing spending.

Posted by: bakho | November 4, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"The difference between level targeting and rate targeting is that the Fed promises to correct for any misses."

I recognize that completely. However, what I am saying in that if the Fed goes the temporary route then it must promise to correct for past mistakes.

It could do that with a literal price level target or it could do that as by issuing a policy statement that says "We promise to correct for past mistakes"

I think that the communication is easier with the second because you don't have to spend time trying to get people to understand what a price-level target means and everyone can very clearly see that some mistakes have been made.

Posted by: karlsmith | November 4, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Karl, I'm guessing that the business community was holding back, not due to any real economic fundamentals, (though God knows they have a whole litany of self-serving gibberish,) but simply because they wanted an election that made them feel emotionally a little better. Now that this is over, and they can be sure that the House Republicans will trumpet any blabber from the lobbyists about how American business needs us to ease-up the banging on their poor little heads, (-- because after all, the Republicans aren't likely to accomplish much else with an economic philosophy that is intellectually bankrupt --) business will go back to making money again. Because truly, everybody is bored to death with this nonsense.

Posted by: Lee_A_Arnold | November 4, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

I completely disagree with anyone that thinks the Federal Reserve or more government DEBT driven spending can fix this economy. We are at a cross roads in America and it centers on JOBS. We need to start pushing back on China. We can no longer continue to be an economy based on artificial bubbles driven by unrealistic price fixing by the Federal Reserve. We need to completely liquidate the Federal Reserve's assets and once again let the market decide what fair market values are. The manipulation of interest rates to artificially create spending is ridiculous and leads to wasteful projects.

To the person above that posted that we just need “more publically funded jobs”, you obviously are basing this on the FDR method of stimulus that Obama tried. You see the failure for people to truly understand WHY this method worked in the 1930s is the reason it always fails. FDR built highways that connected market places and promoted COMMERCE where commerce never existed. All FDR did was enable the free market to expand through increased access/ease of transporting goods. Now compare that to our failed stimulus... Fixing some roads and bridges will not promote more commerce; it does however provide a great way to waste $800 billion dollars on temporary jobs. If anyone doubts my theory… ask yourself one question. How does fixing a pot hole or resurfacing a road increase or promote more commerce? Will a cracked road stop an 18 wheeler from delivering goods? The answer is obviously no and this is why the “stimulus” completely failed. Obama is a tragic example of a follower of a flawed ideology that government can create wealth by simply spending. The worst part is that we spent money that we did not have and will never be able to back. Eventually all the other countries will realize how wasteful we are with our own currency and that will be the end of America. Voting in Republicans merely bought us a few years since I believe they will also fail to fix our spending issues. At least they will hold off any more wasteful spending.

So before you answer my post with more answers that include how we can CONTROL the market please realize that you are selling a flawed ideology created by big government and ignorance.

Austrian economics is the answer. Ron Paul for President 2012.

Posted by: camaross340 | November 5, 2010 1:59 AM | Report abuse

I completely disagree with anyone that thinks the Federal Reserve or more government DEBT driven spending can fix this economy. We are at a cross roads in America and it centers on JOBS. We need to start pushing back on China. We can no longer continue to be an economy based on artificial bubbles driven by unrealistic price fixing by the Federal Reserve. We need to completely liquidate the Federal Reserve's assets and once again let the market decide what fair market values are. The manipulation of interest rates to artificially create spending is ridiculous and leads to wasteful projects.

To the person above that posted that we just need “more publically funded jobs”, you obviously are basing this on the FDR method of stimulus that Obama tried. You see the failure for people to truly understand WHY this method worked in the 1930s is the reason it always fails. FDR built highways that connected market places and promoted COMMERCE where commerce never existed. All FDR did was enable the free market to expand through increased access/ease of transporting goods. Now compare that to our failed stimulus... Fixing some roads and bridges will not promote more commerce; it does however provide a great way to waste $800 billion dollars on temporary jobs. If anyone doubts my theory… ask yourself one question. How does fixing a pot hole or resurfacing a road increase or promote more commerce? Will a cracked road stop an 18 wheeler from delivering goods? The answer is obviously no and this is why the “stimulus” completely failed. Obama is a tragic example of a follower of a flawed ideology that government can create wealth by simply spending. The worst part is that we spent money that we did not have and will never be able to back. Eventually all the other countries will realize how wasteful we are with our own currency and that will be the end of America. Voting in Republicans merely bought us a few years since I believe they will also fail to fix our spending issues. At least they will hold off any more wasteful spending.

So before you answer my post with more answers that include how we can CONTROL the market please realize that you are selling a flawed ideology created by big government and ignorance.

Austrian economics is the answer. Ron Paul for President 2012.

Posted by: camaross340 | November 5, 2010 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Anything Obama puts forward will be rejected by EVERY Republican no matter how conservative the idea is....that is how Republicans act these days

They prefer looking "cool" to their right-wing base than actually looking at ideas that might help the country

Posted by: Bious | November 7, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company