“We Have Seen What the Edge of a Cliff Looks Like and It Was Frightening”: An Exit Interview with Dr. Christina Romer
Today was the last day of work at the White House for Dr. Christina Romer, chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, who is heading back to the University of California at Berkeley to teach. We caught up with her for a few minutes to talk about August’s jobs numbers and her gig.
TAPPER: Who’s going to replace you?
ROMER: Ah, that’s certainly an important decision for the president to make. And obviously he will announce that when he is ready.
TAPPER: I thought when he announced that you were leaving they said – or you said – that your replacement would be named by today, am I right?
ROMER: Well I think that there were words to that effect, but not from me.
TAPPER: Not from you?
ROMER: You know I think you’ve got this process that just naturally takes some time. He’s obviously taking it very seriously.
TAPPER: Do you think diversity on an economic team is important. In other words, is it not as good if everybody on an economic team is a white man?
ROMER: I think it’s certainly important, you know, to have ideological diversity. I think it’s very important. There’s been a lot of talk about how our team tends to argue and debate and I think that’s been really good for policy-making. So I think anything that brings diversity of viewpoints, diversity of experiences, and certainly diversity in terms of demographics, can affect those two things.
TAPPER: In a good way?
ROMER: In a good way.
TAPPER: What can be done about the economy? Certainly these jobs numbers are not what was anticipated – the net loss in August. I understand that it’s 8 months of positive private sector job growth, but it’s not what you guys have been hoping for. Vice President Biden in April said that in a couple months we are going to see hundreds of thousands of jobs being created. We haven’t seen that.
ROMER: Right, so we do need to be careful that, you know, it was anticipated we’d have a negative number just because we’d known we were losing a lot of temporary Census jobs for these last couple of months. And certainly the 67,000 private sector jobs that have been created, that was a little bit more than certainly most market analysts were expecting.
But, you are absolutely right: it is not good enough. It is a sign of slow, steady recovery, but we need something better than that. And that’s certainly what the president said this morning in the Rose Garden and one of the things that I tried to talk about in a speech I gave earlier this week is the number of headwinds that are special to this recovery. This was not a usual recession, and it’s not a usual recovery. We are fighting against state and local governments that are having a very hard time, we have consumers who have been through a searing crisis and have lost trillions of dollars of wealth. So we are having to dig ourselves out of difficult circumstances and we’re going to have to think about tools we have to help the private sector come back more strongly.
TAPPER: What tools do we have? You said in your speech earlier this week that there are only two things that you know of that can help and one is the government spending more money, more stimulus. And two is cutting taxes.
ROMER: Well I actually tried to talk about – there are other things. I mentioned our national export initiative, I talked about things we could do to increase consumer confidence. Fundamentally what we have now is a lack of demand. That’s the main reason that folks aren’t producing more, that’s why we don’t have employment growing —
TAPPER: Because consumers are not spending?
ROMER: Well, consumers aren’t spending as much as they were before the crisis. We’re not doing as much residential investment that we were doing before the crisis. Firms aren’t doing as much investment as before the crisis. All those things, but they are still at a lower level.
TAPPER: Why do you think consumers and businesses and corporate America are – why do you think they are sitting on money? They are saving, not spending – why?
ROMER: I think as consumers, we do know that consumers lost a lot of wealth, with the popping of the housing bubble and the falling of stock prices. That naturally tends to make them, there’s also thinking about what they’ve been through, we have seen what the edge of a cliff looks like and it was frightening.
And we actually saw this in the Great Depression. The Great Depression gave rise to a whole generation that was higher savings, more prudent investors just simply because they know what a bad downturn looks like. And so that I think ultimately that’s probably a good thing. We were having very, you know, abnormally low savings rates before the crisis.
So moving back to a more prudent, normal kind of savings rate surely is good for the long run health of the economy. But right now when we want people to be buying things so that they – so that firms hire them to produce them.
TAPPER: You originally were pushing for a bigger stimulus package than the one that passed through Congress. You were pushing for something more like $1.2 trillion.
ROMER: Well, certainly I was talking about a range of options, you know. What I certainly said is that this was a very severe crisis and we needed to hit it with all that we had and I believe that what we did was hit it with all that was feasible.
TAPPER: “All that was feasible”? That's not “all that we had.”
ROMER: I think it’s that all that you could plausibly get through Congress. I think that was always our starting point of we knew this was bad, what’s the range of actions that we could get Congress to go along with. As it is, it was the biggest counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus in American history.
TAPPER: If you had your druthers how big would it have been, looking back, in retrospect?
ROMER: I think, you know, right now I’m thinking about where we go from here.
TAPPER: Well okay let’s talk about it, where do we go from here? Everything I hear out of this administration is relatively modest compared to what many economists are pushing and compared to what the original stimulus was. The national export initiative, the $30 billion lending initiatives for small businesses, these are small, relatively small, piecemeal attempts to help the economy here and there. But it’s not a big, bold move.
ROMER; Well the important thing, the overarching thing is that we know actually for this economy to come back, it’s going to have to be the private sector to come back. It’s going to be the consumers; it’s going to be the firms that invest. It’s going to be our exports, that ultimately has to be the driver.
But what you’re asking is what the government can do to help. And with the Recovery Act we gave a big, bold shot in the arm in the middle of the crisis which I absolutely feel has been essential to helping us go from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to finally grow again. I think what we’re talking about now is not a second stimulus, its targeted measures. But they can make an appreciable difference. You mentioned the small business lending, that is one that we think it may have a small headline cost, almost none because it’s paid for but the important thing is that we think that it can make a big impact, because firms tell us, little firms tell us they’d like to be investing, they’d like to be hiring people, and they just can’t get the credit to do it. And so I think that is an example of something that could have low cost but big bang for the buck.
TAPPER: We were talking and you were dancing around the idea of what you would do, what you think is needed and what you think is politically feasible. Right now – all of the things you’re talking about seem politically feasible. The export initiative, the small business lending initiative. If you could remove that from the equation, Congress, what does the economy need?
ROMER: The ‘removi
ng Congress’ obviously is a very big if. You know, I think what I’ve tried to say in my talk earlier this week is you know I do think we need to come together, both parties, and just say what we need to do for this economy. And it’s going to be truly a range of actions, that’s what the president and his economic team are talking about.
I’m obviously not going to get ahead of him, and he’s going to be talking about what he thinks are the sensible measures. But certainly we can use the kinds of things we hope that we’ve been talking about today. The small business lending, is there – the president has talked about — how important it is to continue the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for middle class families as something that is good for them and good for the economy. We are seeing this summer a lot of infrastructure investment through the Recovery Act; I think that what we see today is important, with construction doing better, especially heavy construction. The question is are there measures like that that can help us again, another shot in the arm to help the private sector come back.
TAPPER: But if one of the problems is the psychology of this recovery, if one of the problems is investors, consumers don’t have confidence, “fear itself” as FDR would put it, don’t these small bore measures not help with that? Don’t these small bore measures not have an impact on consumers, or investors, or corporate America?
ROMER: I think the right word is targeted. They are – again, it’s not a second stimulus, but it is targeted at where we see problems.
Let me go back to the additional state fiscal relief for preventing future layoffs that was passed just before the recess. That we think is such an important measure, it’s one of the headwinds that we’re facing – that state and local governments are in terrible budgetary state. We see consistently them laying off workers — we lost 10,000 workers in state and local employment. Dealing with that area, and obviously helping that area, but it can also be something that gives more confidence, can be something that helps their communities. And so I think these targeted measures can have an impact and the important thing is to be thinking what are the best targeted measures, what’s the range out there – what are the sectors that are having troubles and how can we resolve that.
TAPPER: But do you see consumers, investors, corporate America, Wall Street looking at these targeted efforts and saying, ‘Now I feel good about the economy?’ or do you think it’s almost more likely to have the opposite effect, and to say ‘The Obama administration either doesn’t have the answers or they don’t have the capital to do what really needs to be done’?
ROMER: I think they are going to look at them and say ‘Are these smart measures?’ and I feel confident that they are. I think they will say yes, I see where they are going with that.
And confidence builds on itself, right – so we’ve now had 8 months of private sector job creation, the longer we can keep that going, I think the more that tends to build confidence. I think there’s no question we’ve been through a period of turbulence. If you go back to the early Spying I think we were seeing you know stronger growth, you know certainly stronger private sector employment growth. Clearly conditions in Europe took a toll on confidence. The renewed sort of fall of stock prices took a toll on confidence. We’re working our way through that and I think what we’re coming though now is to get back more on track with something we’re going to be hoping and looking for and maybe the kinds of measures we are talking about will help to do that.
TAPPER: What do you say when you hear Republicans saying the problem is too much uncertainly, too many taxes, too many regulations, that it’s creating a chilling effect for people who create jobs. With corporate America, with small businesses, some of whom worry that their taxes are about to go up with the Bush tax cuts expiring, what do you say to them? What is your response to the Republicans?
ROMER: I say they are wrong. I say that you know the kind – there is some uncertainty out there. I think it is largely the uncertainty about will the demand be there? Will I have consumers for my products? And I think that is the fundamental thing that we need to be working on, and it’s what we’re working on.
One of the things again that I talked about in my talk earlier this week was the regulatory uncertainty question. I think if you actually look at the regulatory record of the Obama administration that in terms of the net benefits, benefits minus the costs, they are higher in our first year for the regulations that we passed than the previous two administrations in their first year.
I think we are certainly being prudent on the regulatory side and then if we want to talk taxes, we have before Congress right now a small business tax cut and lending bill that wants to get rid of capital gains for small business owners that invest in their firms, and big firms as a matter of fact. And that is the kind of tax policy that we’ve been talking about. We think it goes directly toward job creation. And we think it’s the right policy.
TAPPER: What's it like when those job numbers come out and they are just disappointing. There were obviously some months where it was very positive but now as people fear a double dip recession and private sector growth is still growing but very, very modestly, it’s certainly not what you guys projected. What is it like when the Bureau of Labor Statistics report comes into your office and you read the number?
ROMER: It’s, its, I mean, incredibly emotional. You do – you know, it’s not just a number, it’s not about me, it’s not about how we feel. It’s, you know, when you see the unemployment rate tick up to 9.6 your heart sinks because you know there are real people behind those numbers who are suffering, whose life is harder today because that number ticked up.
Or the other side is even when its only 67,000 jobs and you know we know that’s not nearly good enough, but that’s 67,000 people that had a job in the month of August who didn’t have one in the month of July.
And so you always have to think about the people behind this. My one regret is to not be here when I get to say there are 300,000 jobs this month, there are 400,000 jobs this month. That will happen someday. It will be glorious day for the American people.
- Jake Tapper
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
“We Have Seen What the Edge of a Cliff Looks Like and It Was Frightening” – Dr. Christina Romer
Gee, I don’t know why Christina has to be so descriptive and negative about the Obama White House.
Posted by: Noz | September 3, 2010, 6:30 pm 6:30 pm
TAPPER: Do you think diversity on an economic team is important. In other words, is it not as good if everybody on an economic team is a white man?
ROMER: I think it’s certainly important, you know, to have ideological diversity. I think it’s very important. There’s been a lot of talk about how our team tends to argue and debate and I think that’s been really good for policy-making. So I think anything that brings diversity of viewpoints, diversity of experiences, and certainly diversity in terms of demographics, can affect those two things.
=========
Why do we make the assumption that diversity of race is equivalent to diversity of viewpoint?
I agree that diversity of opinion is very important, especially right now, when the President is struggling with his economic plan.
But why do we make the assumption that someone of a different color adds more diversity than, say, someone of a different ideology?
Posted by: MayBee | September 3, 2010, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
ROMER: I say they are wrong. I say that you know the kind – there is some uncertainty out there. I think it is largely the uncertainty about will the demand be there? Will I have consumers for my products? And I think that is the fundamental thing that we need to be working on, and it’s what we’re working on.
======
It seems that an administration that has been proven wrong would do well to listen to people with whom they do not agree, rather than just declare them wrong.
Certainly.
Posted by: MayBee | September 3, 2010, 6:50 pm 6:50 pm
Or the other side is even when its only 67,000 jobs and you know we know that’s not nearly good enough, but that’s 67,000 people that had a job in the month of August who didn’t have one in the month of July.
======
Spinning to the end. There were net job losses in August. Sure, those particular people got jobs- but more lost jobs.
I do agree with her that it will be a glorious day when we add 300,000/month.
That’s what we need to sustain for real growth, and I will be so happy when we get there.
Posted by: MayBee | September 3, 2010, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm
“(W)e have seen what the edge of a cliff looks like and it was frightening.”
And yet, President Obama wants to keep the car in (D)rive, heading for that cliff, foot on the gas.
Posted by: Martha | September 3, 2010, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
We did the cash infusion stimulus in 2009. Clearly, the 500,000 PER MONTH jobs losses of Bush / 2008 were put to a stop.
Now it is time to realize the full damage of those years. 15 million remain unemployed. Trying to cut off their stipends in service to an already exploded deficit, is not the right move for emergency times. The right step here is to keep them supported, with FDR-style public works jobs.
Community policing to reduce crime. Elder home care, child care – both are underserved and have positive social and economic impact. Badly needed infrastructure improvements. Many unemployed would be happy to give half a day to these roles as they wait for reintegration into the private sector.
Which is obviously going to take years. The solution isn’t hard. Morons in Washington and a Media Inc. largely beholdened to the far right, are what is in the way.
Isn’t it odd how the FDR solution isn’t even on the table? Think Hoover Dam was a bad idea?
Posted by: Mike W | September 3, 2010, 7:25 pm 7:25 pm
Hey MSM, how ’bout that tea partier who took hostages at the Discovery Channel, crazy racist, huh?… Wha?
Enviro wha?… Green… Whales… Al Gore… who?
Oh, nevermind.
Posted by: Hmmm... | September 3, 2010, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm
The economic and industrial dynamo that is the US economy, has survived in spite of what B.Hussein , his Goldman Sucks boys, tax cheats, wig wearing serial fornicators and this hog fat school teacher have tried do to it.
Posted by: nat turner | September 3, 2010, 11:35 pm 11:35 pm
Romer has no credibility!
Why give an interview if you are not willing to speak openly and honestly about what is needed?
Maybee is correct. The administration has been proven wrong on their assumptions and actions. To just dismiss serious private sector criticisms is not just condescending of Romer but displays her own inadequacies. Good riddance.
Posted by: Dave in colorado | September 4, 2010, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Well at least she admitted that all of the “rah-rah we saved the world” nonsense coming out of the White House is pure BS.
Posted by: Nephron | September 4, 2010, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
Clearly any of these commenters who are bashing the Obama White House’s attempts to stem the tide of job less and global deflation of the American economy have completely forgotten that this very real crisis was precipitated by the reckless acts of the former administration.
Under Bush, we saw tax cuts for the rich, incentives (stimulus) for already profitable corporations like oil, coal and defense, expensive and misdirected military spending,(war in iraq), and importantly, changes in the financial regulatory department which led to a lending free for all. If you look at the Canadian market, their housing market has hardly suffered at all, and it can be traced back to them not screwing with lending regulations over the past decade, so they have far fewer default mortgages.
And Maybee, as far as the current administration being ‘proved wrong’, we’ll never know because their best ideas and strongest policies have by and large been blocked in congress and never made it into the real world in any recognizable form. And as far as the assumption that demographics may affect view point, it is an assumption that is used by marketing companies all over the world, because it does. As far as the race question, that and other extremely biased questions in this article were not posed by Romer, but reflect the substantial bias of the interviewer.
And the DC bomber wasn’t a Tea Partier. The current ‘Tea Partiers’ are not pro-environment and have become a spiritual movement, poorly imitating MLK.
Also, in the current economic climate, I am disgusted that ABC news would advertise fraudulent business opportunities and baby face generators, (because we all need another mouth to feed) to their readership. That is hardly good stewardship of the public they profess to inform.
The Automatic Profit System advertised below, is the same as the Automatic Wealth System, which is now defunct. Affiliate marketing training which clutters the internet and on average will not make you a lot of money, or honor their refund policy.
Great consumer value in these trying times.
Posted by: Tom | September 5, 2010, 11:47 am 11:47 am
And Maybee, as far as the current administration being ‘proved wrong’, we’ll never know because their best ideas and strongest policies have by and large been blocked in congress and never made it into the real world in any recognizable form.
============
Which ones are those, Tom?
Posted by: MayBee | September 5, 2010, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
The problem is that Obama does everything halfway. We need a bold leader like FDR to get us back on track, not somebody middle of the road.
Posted by: freedom | September 5, 2010, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm
Here’s my problem. We were told that the stimulus would create (or save) 2.5-3 million jobs, and that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8%. Then, when it went up to 10%, we were told that the economy was much, much worse than they ever suspected it would be. People aren’t spending as much — they’re paying down debt and saving more, and our personal saving rate went from 2% to 6% after the recession. And yet still, the administration claims it saved or created 2.8 million jobs (the high end of the estimate, assuming all the best case scenarios). What kind of intellectual dishonesty is it to say that the economy is worse than you thought and people just aren’t spending, and business aren’t hiring, yet you think you STILL created as many jobs as you would have in a better economy where people are spending and firms are hiring.
Wake up, America. You’re being lied to. The stimulus was a dismal failure. Did it pull us back from the “cliff” Absolutely. Was it as effective as they’re saying it was? Not a chance.
Posted by: DaveMN | September 5, 2010, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
Yea, get back to Teaching at college please. This is at least one more job in the Administration that has a chance (however infinitesimal) of getting filled by someone that has real business experience.
Posted by: dailyrealist | September 6, 2010, 6:30 am 6:30 am
Ms Christina Romer and her husband David Romer are both established professors of economics at UC Berkeley. Not long ago, they have jointed published an article stating that tax increase will slow down the economic recovery, more specifically, a 1% increase in tax collected by the government will result in 3% drop in economic output. Google ‘christina romer,tax increase’ for detail.
Posted by: austin | September 6, 2010, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
Yeah Christina, we’re looking up at the edge of the cliff…..from the bottom of the canyon. And Obama is still grasping the wheel and has the gas petal to the floor, even though the car is a twisted hulk of metal lying on its side.
Posted by: Libs and The Lying Liars Who Elect Them | September 7, 2010, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm