U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

55–565 2010

S. HRG. 111–416 

THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee 

( 

(II) 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

[Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress] 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chair 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D., Texas 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

SENATE 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Vice 

Chairman 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Ranking Minority 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

NAN GIBSON, Executive Director 

JEFF SCHLAGENHAUF, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MEMBERS

Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair, a U.S. Representative from New York .......... 1 

Hon. Kevin Brady, a U.S. Representative from Texas ......................................... 3 

Hon. Maurice D. Hinchey, a Representative from New York .............................. 5 

Hon. Sam Brownback, Ranking Minority Member, a U.S. Senator from Kansas .......................................................................................................................... 6

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, a Representative from Maryland .............................. 7 

Hon. Ron Paul, a U.S. Representative from Texas ............................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Christina Romer, Chair, Council of Economic Advisers, Washington, DC ......... 10 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Chart titled ‘‘The Bush Economy Slowest Job Growth of Any Administration 

in over 75 Years’’ .................................................................................................. 34 

Prepared statement of Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair .................... 35 

Chart titled ‘‘Federal Reserve v. Obama Stimulus Spending: Who Did More 

to Strengthen the Economy?’’ .............................................................................. 36 

Prepared statement of Representative Kevin Brady ............................................ 37 

Prepared statement of Christina Romer ................................................................ 39 

Prepared statement of Representative Michael C. Burgess, M.D. ...................... 61 

(1) 

THE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney 

(Chair) presiding. 

Representatives present: Maloney, Hinchey, Hill, Cummings, 

Snyder, Brady, Paul, and Burgess. 

Senators present: Klobuchar, Brownback, and DeMint. 

Staff present: Paul Chen, Gail Cohen, Nan Gibson, Colleen 

Healy, Andrew Wilson, Lydia Mashburn, Jeff Schlagenhauf, Ted 

Boll, and Robert Quinn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. 

MALONEY, CHAIR, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Chair Maloney. I would like to call the meeting to order. Meetings should start on time, even though it is a very difficult time 

and many people are involved in votes and activities in other committees. And I know other members are on their way. I welcome 

my colleague, Mr. Hinchey. 

I most of all want to welcome Dr. Christina Romer, the President’s Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and thank her 

very much for her hard work and her testimony today. The Council 

of Economic Advisers and the Joint Economic Committee were both 

created by the Employment Act of 1946 and share an important 

history of providing the White House and Congress with analysis 

of economic conditions and economic policy. 

Our hearing today is on the economic outlook. The current Administration took office only 9 short months ago. And 9 months ago 

we have to remember that the economy was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with GDP falling at its 

fastest rate in almost three decades. In January alone, 741,000 jobs 

were lost, but job losses of about 600,000 or more per month had 

started in November of 2008. Those punishing job losses continued 

for 5 straight months. However, thanks to President Obama and to 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we are finally seeing some signs of recovery. For example, the $35 billion obligation 

to states so far for education has saved 250,000 jobs for teachers 

in our nation’s schools. 

However, I am deeply concerned about the state of the labor 

market, as I have been since the start of this recession. GDP 

growth is of little comfort to the millions who have lost their jobs. 

2 

The unemployment rate is at an unacceptably high 9.8 percent. I 

am particularly interested in Dr. Romer’s outlook on the labor market and additional measures that may be needed to boost job creation. 

As the economy recovers, we must continue our commitment to 

the unemployed to ensure that working class Americans are not 

once again left out of the economic recovery, as they were under 

the Bush Administration. People are losing their unemployment 

benefits at alarming rates. In my home state of New York, close 

to half of the unemployed are losing their state unemployment benefits; and the same story can be told in states around the country. 

That is why I encourage the members of the Senate to follow the 

House in passing a bill that extends unemployment benefits. 

As the 2001 recession subsided, the average American family 

was left behind. Job creation and median family income never recovered to the levels experienced during the Clinton Administration. We must do more to ensure that as we recover from this recession we do not see a repeat of the dismal job record of the Bush 

Administration, and this is a chart on that. One statistic I find 

striking is that, for every job opening, there are six Americans applying for that one job opening. 

[The chart titled ‘‘The Bush Economy Slowest Job Growth of Any 

Administration in over 75 Years’’ appears in the Submissions for 

the Record on page 34.] 

Despite this fact, the Recovery Act is working. In fact, it is softening the impact of the recession on workers. According to a report 

that the Council of Economic Advisers released last month, the Recovery Act reduced average monthly job losses by 169,000 in the 

second quarter of this year. In addition, the U.S. economy had 1 

million more jobs in August because of the Recovery Act. 

The report also notes that the Recovery Act has contributed significantly to economic growth. Using the latest GDP numbers, the 

Recovery Act raised GDP growth by 2.6 percentage points in the 

second quarter. In the third quarter, analysts expect an even larger, greater boost. 

Next week, we will hold a hearing where the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis will report advanced estimates of GDP for the third quarter; and I am optimistic that the numbers will show that the bold 

actions taken by Congress and the Obama Administration are turning our economy around. 

The Administration and Congress continue efforts to help create 

jobs. Just yesterday, the Administration announced a series of proposals to help small businesses, including tax relief to small businesses and promoting access to credit. 

Dr. Romer, we thank you for your testimony; and I look forward 

to working with you as the committee continues our focus on fixing 

the economy, helping struggling families, and, above all, putting 

people back to work. Thank you for being here. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Maloney appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 35.] 

I recognize my colleague, Mr. Brady, for 5 minutes. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN BRADY, A 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Representative Brady. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am 

pleased to join you in welcoming Chairwoman Romer before the 

committee this morning. 

There are some encouraging signs that the recession may be 

nearing its trough. Commercial paper and corporate bond markets 

are functioning. The stock market is up. Housing prices may be 

stabilizing. Industrial production edged up 2.8 percent during the 

last 3 months. Job losses continue but are slowing. 

In the October survey of economists, The Wall Street Journal 

forecasts that real GDP will grow at an annualized rate of 3.1 percent during the third quarter. Even if this forecast proves correct, 

the U.S. economy still suffers from many fundamental problems. In 

September, payroll jobs fell by 263,000, while the unemployment 

rate rose to 9.8 percent. The same Wall Street Journal survey also 

forecasts that the unemployment rate will rise to 10 percent by December. 

Commercial real estate prices continue to fall. Because of the collapse of the market for commercial mortgage-backed securities, 

many property owners cannot rollover performing commercial 

mortgage loans at maturity. Regional and community banks are 

likely to suffer large losses on their commercial mortgage loan portfolios that may impair their ability to supply credit to families and 

small businesses. 

I am concerned that any growth in the second half of this year 

may prove transient; and, consequently, the unemployment rate 

may continue to increase well into 2010. 

Those in Washington should not kid themselves. A jobless recovery is no recovery for American workers. During the last 4 months 

of 2008, the Federal Reserve injected more than $1.3 trillion of liquidity into the U.S. economy. With the traditional lag between 

monetary actions and their effects becoming apparent in the real 

economy, this liquidity injection last fall supported real GDP in the 

second quarter and should boost real growth in the second half of 

this year. 

Compared to the Federal Reserve’s $1.3 trillion adrenaline shot, 

President Obama’s stimulus spending pales. As of this month, only 

$173 billion, or 22 percent of the program’s total, has been spent. 

To the view of many, too slowly, too wastefully, and too unfocused 

on jobs. Like the hunter in the party who takes credit for every 

bird that falls, stimulus promoters should be wary of taking credit 

for the results of unprecedented Fed actions that are casting a far 

greater influence over the economy’s performance. 

[The chart titled ‘‘Federal Reserve v. Obama Stimulus Spending: 

Who Did More to Strengthen the Economy?’’ appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 36.] 

But neither liquidity injections nor fiscal stimulus can create a 

sustained expansion. As the chief executive and co-chief investment 

officer of Pimco noted, these government interventions are 

unsustainable sugar highs. If the United States is to avoid slipping 

back into a W-shaped recession, the private sector must once again 

become the driver of economic growth. 

4 

It is unclear how this handoff will occur. The balance sheets of 

U.S. families remain damaged from the collapse of housing prices 

and the excessive debts accumulated during the bubble years. The 

growth of personal consumption is likely to remain constrained. 

The large inventory of foreclosed homes is likely to dampen housing investment. Therefore, a sustained expansion must depend 

upon business investment and net exports. 

Here is a major concern going forward. Entrepreneurs and business leaders make investment decisions based on their expectations 

of risks and return. Government policies affect these perceptions. 

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats have simultaneously dampened the expected returns and increased the risks associated with new business investment through 

their actions and inactions. 

Higher income tax rates, higher taxes on capital gains and dividends are set to begin in 2011. The White House and Congress are 

proposing job-killing energy and international tax increases that 

will drive investment and jobs offshore. Congress has not acted in 

a timely manner to extend the research and development tax credit 

and the home buyers tax credit, as well as an increase in the net 

operating loss carryback period from 2 to 5 years. 

Uncertainty about cap-and-trade and health care legislation further depressed business investment. Firms fear the additional energy costs associated with what many term the cap-and-tax bill 

that passed the House this summer and are unsure what the Senate may do. The various trillion dollar health care bills leave firms, 

especially small businesses in my district, confused and concerned 

about additional taxes and regulatory burdens; and, as a result, 

many companies in my district and around the country are delaying important investment decisions and the job creation that goes 

with it. 

In short, the government’s uncertainty and interference is quickly turning a rescue operation into an anchor around the private 

sector’s neck. 

With U.S. consumer spending lagging, a key opportunity at recovery lies in selling American goods and services overseas to recovering markets. Yet America is sitting on the sidelines while 

other nations are aggressively shaping these new markets. 

The Doha round of negotiations remain stalled. Congress has not 

acted upon three completed trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, while competing countries reach agreements that leave American companies and farmers at a severe 

competitive disadvantage. 

The United States is on an unsustainable fiscal course. According 

to the CBO, projected Federal deficits will swell, publicly held Federal debt from 40 percent of GDP at the end of the last fiscal year 

to nearly 70 percent at the end of fiscal year 2019. And this CBO 

projection is before adding new health care benefits and other costly initiatives. Moreover, the CBO projects that the growth of existing entitlement programs will drive Federal deficits and debt even 

higher over the long term. 

Instead of resolving these imbalances and consequently protecting both beneficiaries and taxpayers, President Obama and conVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:09 May 17, 2010 Jkt 055565 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\55565.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
5 

gressional Democrats are seeking to create new entitlement programs that would further damage our fiscal position. 

Finally, the United States could face the risk of a dollar crisis in 

the future. Recent history in Asia and Latin America—— 

I would just finish with this, Madam Chairman. There is much 

to be concerned about in America’s economy, and today is no time 

to be taking false credit for economic indicators. 

I would yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Kevin Brady appears 

in the Submissions for the Record on page 37.] 

Chair Maloney. Okay. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hinchey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAURICE D. 

HINCHEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very much, Madam 

Chairman. 

Dr. Romer, thank you very much. Thank you for being here. 

Thank you for the leadership that you provide, and thank you very 

much for the positive directions in which the economy is now moving. And those positive directions are primarily based on the Economic and Recovery Act and the way in which that Economic and 

Recovery Act is being put into play. 

And, as we know, the vast majority of it is still not in play. Only 

about 25 or 30 percent of it has actually been out there, and there 

is a lot more to come. We know how badly that is needed. We can 

see it very clearly and then speculate about it on the basis of this 

little chart that is up here, how during the previous Administration 

we not only experienced no growth, we actually saw the beginning 

of a serious decline in this economy. 

And one of the main reasons for a decline in the economy is the 

failure of Administrations to invest in our own country. We saw 

huge amounts of spending outside the United States, of course, in 

the Bush Administration. On a monthly average, it was something 

in the neighborhood of between 10 and $12 billion a month spent 

in Iraq as a result of that illegal, illicit invasion of that country and 

how that was costing us so much money and degrading the economy here internally within the United States. 

So the Investment and Recovery Act, so-called stimulus bill, is 

critically important. We need to keep moving on it in a very positive and forward way; and, as a consequence of that, we will see 

the economy continue to grow. 

However, there are other aspects of the economic circumstances 

that we are facing that really need to be addressed as well. One 

of the things that we are confronting right now is the fact that we 

see a concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, more dramatically so than we have seen probably since the 

1930s. And the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few multibillionaires and multimillionaires means that there is less money 

in the hands of blue and white collar working Americans. 

Now, we know that the blue and white collar working Americans 

drive the gross domestic product; and without their ability to function effectively and have money, raise their families, deal with all 

of those issues, then the general economy suffers dramatically. And 

it will continue to suffer dramatically unless we are able to change 

6 

the circumstances that were created during the Bush Administration with regard to the way in which the tax system in this country 

has been put together. 

One of the others aspects of this, of course, was the repeal of the 

Glass-Steagall Act by the Republican majority here in the Congress 

of the United States and, unfortunately, signed by the Clinton Administration, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill; and this is something 

that really needs to be addressed. Once again we are seeing huge 

banking operations, like Goldman Sachs, for example, bringing in 

very substantial amounts of money but also beginning to engage in 

the kinds of very complicated investments that were engaged in 

prior to the collapse of this economy and which stimulated that collapse. 

So we are going to have to pay a lot of attention to that situation 

and focus our attention on the consequences of the repeal of that 

Glass-Steagall Act and on doing something to bring back some set 

of circumstances that are going to bring the banking system of 

America back into a rational position so that they are functioning 

not just in the benefit of a handful of people at the upper levels 

of those huge banks but also the way the banking system is supposed to operate, in the best interests of the general economy and 

the people of this country. So all of these things are critically important. 

We thank you very much for all the leadership that you are providing, the positive things that you have done. We are very grateful 

to President Obama for the changes that he has made in the short 

time that he has been in office and the way in which he has reversed these economic circumstances from a deep decline to a situation now where it is being much more effectively managed and it 

is beginning to grow. 

So, Dr. Romer, thank you very much for being with us; and we 

are looking forward to hearing your testimony and your response 

to questions. Thank you very much, ma’am. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you very much. 

Senator Brownback. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAM BROWNBACK, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

KANSAS 

Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Maloney. 

There we go. I had to give the button a little extra push. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. 

Let me first express my heartfelt condolences to your incredible 

loss. It was just stunning. I just don’t know what to say other than 

you have been in my prayers and my thoughts. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you. 

Senator Brownback. Thank you, Dr. Romer, for being here 

today. I look forward to the testimony. 

I have got a lot of questions on this. I hope you have got answers. 

Because I think there are a lot of questions to be asked. 

I was not favorable towards the stimulus. I saw it as a government stimulus, not an economic stimulus; and it just seems to me 

that the numbers have, unfortunately, borne that out. 

7 

I want to clip through a couple of charts just if I can with you 

about what has happened in several key areas: Heavy and civil engineering construction, average monthly job loss pre-stimulus, I see 

6,200; post-stimulus, 11,800. State and local government educational services average monthly job loss, pre-stimulus 6,000; 19.3 

post-stimulus. Stimulus savings in creating jobs results from targeted sectors March to September—— 

I mean, you are looking at the total job loss in these categories; 

and it just doesn’t seem like to me it has worked. 

Now, I have been one on—for instance, Cash for Clunkers, I 

thought when the money came out of the stimulus program I 

thought that actually stimulated something. But that was $3 billion of the $750 billion. And if we are doing that with that piece 

of it, what is happening with the rest of it? 

We have got numbers coming in from my state on spending 

versus job creation during that same period of time. It hasn’t been 

particularly favorable. I am hopeful of having those before the end 

of the hearing. 

But my point in saying all of that to you is that I think we did 

end up getting a government stimulus, and it hasn’t created jobs. 

And you know the job numbers like anybody else and the job loss. 

And while we may have some green shoots showing up out there, 

people sure aren’t going to feel like there is anything of a recovery 

until we start seeing job recovery taking place and that continues 

to happen in a very aggressive, high fashion and looks through the 

end of this year. 

And, finally, I would hope you could address for us some the 

growing deficit and looking like the debt is going to be equal to 

GDP here in a short period of time. It seems to me that we are on 

the exact same path that the Japanese took in their lost decade of 

running up huge government debts, of not stimulating growth, and 

at the end of the decade having this massive debt that they 

wouldn’t be allowed to join the EU if they had asked because they 

had too much debt, that we are on the same trajectory and building 

massive government projects that aren’t creating the jobs and the 

growth in the economy. 

This just seems to me that we have learned this lesson globally, 

and I would hope we would get back to an economic stimulus and 

not a government stimulus, and you can respond to some of those 

thoughts. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Cummings for 3 minutes. Then we will 

be followed by Mr. Paul and then Dr. Romer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELIJAH E. 

CUMMINGS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND 

Representative Cummings. Thank you very much, Madam 

Chair. 

I just want to start off by saying, let’s root for the home team. 

Let’s root for the home team. I get to a point where I see people 

with no insurance, people losing their jobs, people losing their savings, people losing opportunity, losing their companies—we have 

got to root for the home team. 

8 

Ms. Romer, I thank you for what you have done and what the 

President is trying to do. I am not coming here saying that all is 

rosy. We did not start with a rosy picture. And we have come a 

long, long way. And we need to all admit that, and we need to support this President. He is the President of the United States of 

America. 

Let me go back and remind my colleagues that approximately 16 

percent of this money was for tax breaks. We seem to forget that. 

We seem to also forget that 22 percent, approximately, was to assist states. Almost every single state has had phenomenal problems, almost every one of them, even those who act like they don’t 

want to take the money. 

We have kept people employed. We kept people serving other 

people. I know it has happened in my state. I know it has happened in South Carolina, where my parents are from. I know it has 

happened all over the place. 

I know it has happened in Texas. I heard the governor of Texas complaining, but he was able to balance his budget with $12.1 billion, while he was complaining, with stimulus money. Duh? 

So, you know, at some point I think—and is the recovery slow? 

Yeah, it is slow. But just a week or two ago we had the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics here, and they explained to us that it is going 

to be a slow process, that the jobs are not going to come just like 

that overnight. We have come a long way. 

And I am not going to sit here and blame Bush or anybody. What 

I do know is that I have got people in my district who do not have 

a job, who don’t have a job. And some kind of way—— 

And then I have seen others. We had Mr. LaHood, Secretary 

LaHood come in, and just a wonderful gentleman. The head of 

Transportation came into the Transportation Committee, which I 

am a senior member of. He came in a few weeks ago and said, you 

know what? After our friends on the other side of the aisle were 

complaining about a stimulus package, he said, let me tell you 

something. It is working. He said, when I travel throughout this 

country, I see people that told me just a few weeks ago they were 

drawing unemployment, and now they are working. That is what 

LaHood said, Secretary LaHood. 

So, again, you know, we say that we are this great country, that 

we can accomplish anything. But then when it comes to this kind 

of thing we say, oh, the sky is falling. We will never get through. 

Well, we will get through. This is America, the greatest country in 

the world. 

And I thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you for your statement. 

Mr. Paul is recognized for 3 minutes, and then we are going to 

Dr. Romer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON PAUL, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Representative Paul. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Dr. 

Romer. 

I appreciate this opportunity to attend this hearing. I am sorry 

I have to leave shortly to do some votes, but I did want to make 

a couple points, and maybe you can follow up on this later on. 

9 

In the several years that I have been here, I have never met anybody that is not for a sound economy. Everybody is for the economy. Everybody debates the issues and what we should do. We 

have a Federal Reserve that dictates the money supply and what 

the interest rates should be, and they want a sound economy. Then 

the Congress writes the regulations. We have the regulating agencies that are supposed to give us a sound economy, and yet we have 

probably real unemployment close to 20 percent and still a lot of 

problems. 

Although I find everybody wants a sound economy, nobody talks 

about a sound dollar. And I know you are interested and have 

worked in the monetary field. But we don’t talk about what sound 

money is, and I don’t know how you can have a sound economy 

without a sound dollar. 

As a matter of fact, we talk too often about a weak dollar. We 

allow the Fed to devalue the dollar by printing too much money to 

accommodate the Congress. At the same time, we say, well, the 

Secretary of the Treasury has the job of maintaining a strong dollar at the same time the dollar keeps going down. And this has a 

lot to do with our imbalance of payments and all the problems that 

we face. 

But a lot of people say, hey, this is great. A weak dollar is good 

for exports. You know, if you look at it from an individual level and 

you are a saver, who wants a weak dollar? Who wants to have 

their dollar lose their purchasing power? And yet we actually say, 

yeah, we should. 

And I hear comments that come across and say, well, it is okay 

to have a weaker dollar as long as it is orderly. Well, if a weak dollar is bad, if it goes down and suddenly you are orderly, you are 

still hurt and you are penalized. But there should be no place in 

economics that argues the case that it is good to have a weakening 

dollar and see your purchasing power dried up. So my concern is 

that we don’t talk about the value of money. 

On the books still and the Constitution says that there is a definition for a dollar in terms of a weight of something that governments can’t create, of precious metals. But, at the same time, 

under the law, the law says a Federal Reserve note is legal tender, 

and everybody has to obey all the laws doing it because a Federal 

Reserve note is a dollar. 

But you ask them what is a dollar? Oh, we don’t know what a 

dollar is. But there is nothing on the books that says the Federal 

Reserve note is a dollar. 

This is like building a building with a measuring rod that constantly changes. I cannot see how you can ever have a sound economy without a sound dollar and getting back to defining what a 

dollar really is. Our Founders knew about this. They advised us. 

We have ignored it, and we are in a mess. 

I yield back. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you very much. 

Now I would like to introduce Dr. Romer. She is the Chair of the 

Council of Economic Advisers. Prior to joining the Obama Administration, she was a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley; and before teaching at Berkeley, she taught economics and public affairs at Princeton University. Until her nomiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:09 May 17, 2010 Jkt 055565 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\55565.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
10 

nation, she was co-director of the Program on Monetary Economics 

at the National Bureau of Economic Research and served as vicepresident of the American Economic Association, where she was 

also a member of the Executive Committee. She is also a fellow of 

the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 

She is known for her research on the causes and recovery of the 

Great Depression and on the role that fiscal and monetary policy 

played in the country’s economic recovery. Her most recent work, 

with her husband David Romer, also an economist, shows the impact of tax policy, a report she did on government and economic 

growth. 

Chair Romer is the recipient of a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship, an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship, the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award, and the Distinguished Teaching Award at Berkeley. 

She received her Ph.D. from MIT. 

Thank you so much for being here. We look forward to your remarks; and I apologize that some members of this committee will 

be going in and out for votes, including myself. Thank you so much 

for being here and for your many contributions. 

Dr. Romer is recognized for as much time as she may consume. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA ROMER, CHAIR, 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. Romer. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Members Brady and Brownback 

and members of the committee, it is an honor to be with you today. 

There is no question that the past year has been one of enormous 

challenges for the American economy. The recession that began in 

December of 2007 has been the worst that this country has faced 

since the Great Depression. The suffering that it has brought to 

American workers and their families has been terrible, and the toll 

that it has taken on American businesses has been great across the 

spectrum. 

In my testimony this morning, I want to discuss the economic 

crisis and the efficacy of the policy response. I also want to talk 

about the outlook for the U.S. economy and describe what I see as 

the key risks to the forecast. And, finally, I want to discuss some 

of the policy challenges that are likely to face us going forward. 

Let me start by talking about the shocks that hit our economy 

in this recession, and I think one way of describing the severity of 

the crisis that we faced that I find striking is to observe that the 

shocks that hit the U.S. economy last fall by almost any measure 

were larger than those that precipitated the Great Depression. 

So this first figure shows you just some measures that economists use of the shocks hitting the system, and it compares them. 

The dark blue bars are what happened in the late 1920s; the light 

blue bars are the most recent episode. 

So that first sign, a key causal factor in both downturns, was a 

decline in household wealth that lowered consumer spending. Now, 

in 1929, household wealth fell 3 percent. In 2008, it fell 17 percent, 

more than five times the decline in 1929. 

Another factor creating uncertainty and restraining spending in 

both periods was volatility in financial markets. The variance of 

11 

daily stock returns is shown there in the middle column; and what 

you see is that that variance, measured using the S&P stock index, 

was more than one-third larger in the current episode than in the 

last 4 months of 1929. 

Now, if falling and volatile asset prices were important in both 

1929 and 2008, the defining feature of the crisis in both cases was 

a full-fledged financial panic; and one frequently cited indicator of 

the depth of the panic in September of 2008, if you remember, was 

the skyrocketing of credit spreads. Well, one spread that we can actually analyze going all the way back to the 1920s is that between 

the Moody’s AAA and BAA bonds. Well, in the fall of 1929, the 

spread barely moved at all. By December of 1930, after we have 

had the first wave of banking panics, it had risen some 87 basis 

points, as you see. In contrast, this spread rose 187 basis points between August and December of last year. 

Well, the result of these shocks, as we all know, was a rapidly 

contracting economy. Real GDP fell at a 5.4 percent annual rate in 

the fourth quarter of 2008 and at a 6.4 percent rate in the first 

quarter of 2009. Employment, which had been falling by less than 

150,000 jobs per month before September, fell by an average of 

622,000 jobs per month from October to March. 

What kept the American economy from heading into a second 

Great Depression in 2008 and 2009 was the strong and timely policy response. The Federal Reserve, as has already been mentioned, 

began cutting interest rates in late 2007; and by December of 2008 

it had brought its target for the Federal funds rate essentially to 

zero. As credit market after credit market froze or evaporated, the 

Federal Reserve created many new programs to fill the gap and 

maintain the flow of credit. 

Now, Congress’ approval of the—I think it is fair to say—not-always-popular TARP program was another crucial step. Creating a 

program that could be used to shore up the capital position of 

banks and take troubled assets off banks’ balance sheets has proven both necessary and valuable. Similarly, Congress’s willingness 

to release the second tranche of TARP funds last January gave the 

new Administration the tools that it needed to further contain the 

damage and to start repairing the financial system. 

Now, a key piece of the policy response, again, as has already 

been described, was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009. And in a report issued on September 10th, the Council of 

Economic Advisers provided estimates of the effect of the ARRA on 

GDP and employment. What this table shows you is our estimates 

of the impact of the Recovery Act on real GDP growth in the second 

and third quarters of 2009, along with estimates from a number of 

government and private forecasters. 

Well, what these estimates suggest is that the Recovery Act 

added 2 to 3 percentage points to real GDP growth in the second 

quarter and three to four percentage points to growth in the third 

quarter. This implies that much of the modification of the decline 

in GDP growth in the second quarter and the anticipated rise in 

the third quarter is directly attributable to the Recovery Act. 

Now, this next table shows the Council of Economic Advisers’ estimates of the effect of the Recovery Act on employment relative to 

what otherwise would have occurred without the Act, again in the 

12 

second and third quarters of 2009 and again along with the estimates from a number of other forecasters. What these estimates indicate is that, as of August, the Recovery Act had raised employment relative to the baseline by between 600,000 and 1.5 million 

jobs. 

All right, well, the other thing I wanted to talk about this morning is the economic outlook. Because of the unprecedented policy 

response, the economic outlook has improved markedly in recent 

months. 

This next figure shows you the growth rate of real GDP since the 

end of 2007. Together, the light blue lines are the Blue Chip consensus forecast for GDP growth from 2009 quarter three through 

the end of 2010. The path of actual GDP growth emphasizes just 

how severe the current recession has been. Equally notable is the 

improvement of GDP performance in the second quarter of this 

year. Though still declining, the moderation in the rate of decline 

was the second largest improvement in real GDP growth in 25 

years. The Blue Chip forecast shows that GDP growth is anticipated to be positive in the third quarter and each subsequent quarter through the end of 2010. 

There is a substantial range of uncertainty around any forecast. 

However, if GDP growth for the third quarter is indeed positive, as 

anticipated, this would be strong evidence that economic recovery 

is under way. 

This next picture shows the quarterly behavior of the unemployment rate, beginning with the business cycle peak in 2007 quarter 

four; and it again continues with the Blue Chip forecast. Consistent 

with the recent cyclical pattern, the unemployment rate is predicted to continue rising for two quarters following the resumption 

of GDP growth. Whether this happens and how high the unemployment rate eventually rises will obviously depend on the strength of 

the GDP rebound. 

Leaving aside timing issues, the unemployment rate typically 

falls when GDP growth exceeds its normal rate of roughly 2.5 percent per year and rises when GDP growth falls short of this rate. 

With predicted growth right around 2.5 percent for most of the 

next year and a half, movements in the unemployment rate either 

up or down are likely to be small. As a result, unemployment is 

likely to remain at its severely elevated level. 

This figure shows the quarterly average of the monthly change 

in payroll employment. The enormous declines over the last four 

quarters are graphic evidence of how horrible this recession has 

been for American workers. 

Now, because the Blue Chip forecast does not exist for employment, we continue the graph here with a survey of consensus forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. These forecasts 

suggest that payroll employment loss will slow substantially in the 

fourth quarter of this year and that payroll employment will likely 

turn positive in the first quarter of next year. Importantly, as you 

can see from these numbers, employment growth is expected to be 

quite low, below about 100,000 per month through the end of the 

forecast in the third quarter of 2010. 

All right, well, all forecasts are subject to substantial margins of 

error; and the errors are often particularly large at times like the 

13 

present, when the economy is near an inflection point. For this reason, I think it is important to consider the risks to the forecast. 

First, there are reasons to think that GDP growth could be either 

weaker or stronger than the consensus forecast. On the weaker 

side, one concern is the leveling out of fiscal stimulus. 

Fiscal stimulus has its greatest impact on growth around the 

quarters when it is increasing the most strongly. When spending 

and tax cuts reach their maximum and level off, the contribution 

to growth returns to roughly zero. Now, this does not mean that 

the stimulus is no longer having an effect. Rather, it means that 

the effect is to keep GDP growth above the level that it would have 

been in the absence of stimulus but not to raise growth further. 

Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009; and, 

by mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to further growth. 

Related to this, continued tightness in credit markets is a concern. Quantity measures of lending and issues of corporate debt remain low, and small business owners in particular report significant credit tightness. On the other hand, as has been mentioned, 

credit spreads are down dramatically from the fall of 2008, suggesting some easing of conditions. While tight credit market conditions are a factor that could hamper recovery of private sector demand and tamp down further GDP growth. 

On the positive side, surveys of consumer and business confidence have risen substantially in recent months; and the stock 

marked has increased as well. For example, the Conference Board’s 

CEO Confidence Survey and the Business Roundtable’s CEO Economic Outlook Survey show that business leaders have become 

more optimistic in both the second and third quarters of this year. 

The S&P 500 has increased some 62 percent from its low point in 

March. 

If such measures continue to rise strongly, private demand could 

rise more strongly than anticipated, which would raise GDP 

growth. Now, typically, risks to the GDP growth would translate 

into risks to the forecast for employment and unemployment. If 

GDP growth falls substantially short of 2.5 percent per year, the 

unemployment rate would likely continue to rise and employment 

to decline. If GDP rises strongly, labor market indicators could improve more quickly. In addition, one has to worry about separate 

risks to the employment forecast. 

So this figure shows you productivity growth going back to 1988. 

What you see is that—and the gray bars are recession periods. And 

what you see is that in the recoveries from the last two recessions 

productivity has risen strongly. This, together with slow GDP 

growth, resulted in unusually weak labor market improvement for 

several quarters following the business cycle troughs in the last 

two recessions. 

Now, in the current recession productivity has increased substantially. If GDP growth comes in as expected in the third quarter, the 

rise in productivity will be particularly large. A continuation of this 

behavior could lead to weaker than expected employment gains and 

possibly continued job loss. 

14 

On the other hand, because productivity has risen substantially 

during the recession, it is possible that firms have pushed the productivity of current workers about as far as possible. In this case, 

GDP growth gains could translate particularly strongly into employment increases. 

Now, while it is natural to focus most closely on real economic 

variables such as GDP and employment, much recent discussion 

has focused on the possibility of inflation. Some have expressed 

concern that the unprecedented monetary actions taken by the 

Federal Reserve and the similarly unprecedented fiscal actions 

taken by the Congress and the Administration have created conditions likely to result in inflation. Such concerns in my opinion are 

unwarranted in the near and medium term. 

Historically for the United States, the main determinant of 

movements in inflation is the relationship between output and the 

economy’s productive capacity, with additional influences from oil 

price movements and other supply disturbances. When output and 

employment are high relative to the economy’s comfortable capacity, inflation rises, as it did in the late 1960s and the late 1970s. 

When output and production and employment are low relative to 

capacity, inflation falls, as it usually does during and after recessions. 

Economic theory and evidence suggests that there is a relationship between monetary expansion or budget deficits and inflation, 

but it operates through the demand for goods. Rapid money growth 

and large budget deficits lead to inflation when they fuel growth 

in demand beyond the economy’s normal capacity. Well, the behavior of inflation so far over this recession and forecasts of it going 

forward fit with this view. 

This last figure shows inflation measures using both the Consumer Price Index, which is highly influenced by the behavior of 

food and energy prices, and the GDP Price Index, which is less influenced by those volatile components. What the figure shows is 

that both measures of inflation have fallen over the course of this 

recession. 

Furthermore, measures of expected inflation, whether from professional forecasters, as shown in the dashed lines in the picture, 

surveys of consumers, or inferences based on interest rates on inflation-protected securities all show that expectations of inflation 

remain subdued. 

All right, well, likely economic conditions I think present policymakers with many challenges going forward. First, the switch from 

decline to growth may lead to calls for the end to rescue operations. 

As the immediate crisis fades, there may be a tendency to wish to 

return to more normal policy positions. Such a premature end to 

stimulus would be misguided. The forecasts that I have described 

are largely predicated on continued fiscal ease and the Federal Reserve’s announced policies that, quote, economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the Federal funds rate for 

an extended period. Excessive moves towards fiscal policy tightening could lead to a return to output decline and a reacceleration 

of job losses. The current policies that have generated a dramatic 

turnaround in the economy need to be seen through to their completion. 

15 

A second challenge, as has been mentioned, that we face is clearly the budget deficit. The final numbers just released shows that 

in fiscal 2009, the deficit reached $1.4 trillion, or about 10 percent 

of GDP. The mid-session review released in August predicted a 

similarly large deficit in 2010 and substantial structural deficits 

even once the recession is over and the economy is fully recovered. 

Such long-term deficits are unacceptable, and they need to be 

dealt with. Over the long run, sustained deficits crowd out private 

investment and reduce long-run growth. 

Given the current precarious state of the economy, substantial 

near-term spending cuts or tax increases to reduce the deficit 

would threaten the recovery. However, the current efforts for 

health insurance reform present a critical opportunity to improve 

the long-run fiscal situation dramatically. Health reform that is at 

least revenue neutral in the short run and that genuinely slows the 

growth rate of costs in the long run is a crucial precondition for reducing the long-run budget deficit. 

A third policy challenge that we face is the likelihood that labor 

market conditions will remain painfully weak through 2010. The 

suffering and potential permanent damage that a sustained period 

of high unemployment will bring is likely to spur calls for further 

action to stimulate employment growth and cushion the effects of 

unemployment. 

As policymakers consider the options, rigorous evaluation of alternatives must be conducted. Particularly in the context of large 

budget deficits, the efficacy of different options must be considered. 

Whether expiring programs are continued or new programs are instituted should be decided on the basis of their efficacy in putting 

people back to work and in improving the future strength of the 

economy. 

Well, as I described, the last year has been one of extreme challenge and aggressive policy response. That many analysts believe 

the low point of the recess session has been reached is perhaps the 

most concise evidence that the policies are working. A recession 

that showed no signs of ending last January appears to be firmly 

entering the recovery phase. 

Unfortunately, despite this dramatic turnaround, the U.S. economy still faces many challenges. We enter the fourth quarter of 

2009 with the unemployment rate nearing 10 percent and likely to 

remain severely elevated. The Congress and the Administration 

will need to continue their excellent record of policy coordination to 

not just start the process of recovery but to finally finish it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Christina D. Romer appears in the 

Submissions for the Record on page 39.] 

Representative Hinchey [presiding]. Dr. Romer, thank you 

very much. Thanks for that very comprehensive presentation of the 

situation that we are confronting, and we appreciate the opportunity now to ask you a few questions. 

I just wanted to start briefly and talk about a few obvious things. 

One, of course, is the Economic Investment and Recovery Act and 

the way in which that money has been outlaid so far. 

If you look at the way in which the money has been put out and 

made available and then attach to it the additional funding that 

16 

has been obligated but not yet put out, we are looking at something 

in the neighborhood of $280 billion out of the $787 billion. So we 

are talking about a fraction, small percentage of the available funding. Can you give us some indication of what you think of the way 

in which the effectiveness of the outcome of that spending, and 

what you anticipate to be the way in which the remaining funding 

will be allocated and for what specifically as much as possible? As 

much specifically for which it will be allocated? 

Dr. Romer. Absolutely. You do point out that I think the Office 

of the Vice President that has been in charge of the Administration 

side of getting the money out the door has done a remarkable job 

in getting the money obligated, outlaid. I think you were also the 

one—or perhaps Mr. Cummings was pointing out that a tremendous fraction of what has already occurred are the tax cuts. That 

was one of the first things that we could get out the door. 

Another thing that was very fast was the state fiscal relief. I 

think both of those have been incredibly important. We hear from 

the state governments over and over how crucial a lifeline that 

state fiscal relief has been. 

We know the other thing that has gotten out quickly is a lot of 

the money to cushion the impact of the recession for those directly 

hurt. The increases in unemployment compensation, for example, 

have been absolutely important. 

You know, our analysis, as I suggested, does indicate that it has 

been incredibly effective. In the report that we put out in September, we looked at various pieces of it. We looked, for example, 

at the state and local—the state fiscal relief and found that that 

showed evidence that it was very much working, it was affecting 

employment at the state level. 

We also have done an analysis, as was mentioned, of the Cash 

for Clunkers program, which we think was something that was 

added or sort of a rearrangement of some of those Recovery Act 

funds that we think did add significantly to growth in the third 

quarter of this year. So absolutely we think that it has been important. 

I think, going forward, one of the things that we can look forward to—and I described what had gotten out quickly, the tax cuts, 

the state fiscal relief. What is coming out sort of next is a lot more 

of the direct government investment. And that is important because we do think that the direct government investment has a 

bigger bang for the buck in terms of employment and GDP growth. 

And so that is one of the reasons why, even though levels of quarterly spending and tax cuts are kind of up or reaching their maximum level, the composition we think is moving towards something 

that is going to be even more effective. 

Representative Hinchey. Well, thank you very much. 

The additional spending of this money, the very important 

amount that is still pending is going to be critically important. You 

talked about that. And we hope and pray that that is going to be 

handled effectively. 

One of the weaknesses of this Investment and Recovery Act has 

been the way in which it was engaged here in the Congress to try 

to get enough support from a variety of other people. I think it 

could have been much more effective if it had been specifically 

17 

adopted to the kinds of spending that we need to create additional 

jobs. That is the most important thing. 

Now, one of the things that we have in the context of this economy, which has been negative for some time, is investment outside 

of this country; and I am wondering to what extent your recommendations or others may be focused on this particular issue. 

How are we going to reduce the investments that are engaged in 

outside of this country? How are we going to change the tax rates 

that are in play so that the taxes that are owed are actually going 

to be paid internally here to deal with the circumstances that we 

are confronting? And how that would bring about the creation of 

a substantial number of jobs in this country. 

Dr. Romer. No, you are absolutely right. When we think about 

what generates growth, what generates job creation, investment is 

incredibly important. I mean, one of the things that—the Recovery 

Act did two things that I think are so important, right? Obviously, 

it did public investment. So rebuilding our roads and bridges, putting in some very forward-looking investments in health information technology, in broadband, in the smart electrical grid. All of 

those are things that increase our productivity over time but also 

increase jobs right now as we put those into place. 

But we also had in the Act incentives for private investment, 

right? So a lot of the tax treatment of investment, of research and 

development investment. We think those are incredibly important, 

again, for encouraging firms to do the investments right here and 

for creating the jobs right here. 

Also, the Recovery Act just had unprecedented incentives for investments in particular areas like alternative energy and weatherization and those kind of things, which again we think are likely 

to be job creators and a direction that our country needs to go. 

So I couldn’t agree with you more that fostering investment is 

both good in the short term for job creation but is one of those fundamental things that it is a win-win because it makes us richer in 

the future. 

Representative Hinchey. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate what you are saying. Perhaps we might be able to work closely with you and with the way in which the Vice President is operating this to engage in this more specifically and perhaps, in the 

context of that, more effectively. In any case, Dr. Romer, thank you 

very much for everything you have done. 

I would like now to recognize Mr. Brady. 

Representative Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Romer, while I respectfully disagree with your economic analysis, I am always appreciative of how open you are and how accessible you are to this committee. So thank you for being here today. 

You know, I believe the stimulus benefits are widely exaggerated. Forty-nine out of fifty states have lost jobs since the stimulus 

took effect. The unemployment rate is far above the 8 percent we 

were all promised it would be. When you look at this chart, this 

is the comparison to the White House promises on what would 

occur with the stimulus. And you can’t—it can’t be claimed that the 

economy is worse than anticipated, because at the time we warned 

from this panel that the economic projections of the Administration 

were far too rosy. And these exaggerations I think have become esVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:09 May 17, 2010 Jkt 055565 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\55565.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
18 

pecially clear when compared to the Fed’s actions that show, 

whether you agree with their unprecedented actions or not—and 

there is wide disagreement—I think economists widely agree that 

the Fed’s monetary actions have been far more influential on this 

economy than the stimulus. 

[The chart was not available at the time of publication.] 

But the negative impact of spending the money in the stimulus 

and this budget and the continuing appropriations which just blow 

through any notions of fiscal responsibility is the deficit. The deficit 

this year is nine times greater than when control of Congress 

moved from Republican to Democrat control; and it gets worse over 

the next decade, more dangerous. 

Today, this morning, Moody’s has warned the United States may 

lose its AAA credit rating unless the Federal Government significantly reduces its budget deficit below current forecasts over the 

medium term. Since Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the 

Treasury, the U.S. Government has been the world’s most creditworthy borrower. So the question is, what is President Obama’s fiscal exit strategy to bring the budget into balance over the medium 

term? 

Dr. Romer. All very good points. Let me actually respond to several of them. 

First, your chart about the Federal Reserve—as I made very 

clear in my testimony, I am a big fan of their actions. I think in 

terms of the recovery, I am very happy to share credit, that I do 

believe actions the Federal Reserve took, especially last fall, were 

very important. 

I think the important thing to keep in mind is, once the Fed had 

gotten interest rates basically down to zero, that is when they lose 

a fair amount of their ability to affect the economy; and that is precisely because the Fed, we felt, was out of firepower, that we 

thought it was incredibly important to augment that with the other 

tool that we have, which is fiscal policy. 

The second thing is to talk about your graph about where we are 

versus where we had predicted. I will be the first to admit that I 

didn’t have a crystal ball back in December and in January. I think 

it is actually very misleading to say that because the unemployment rate is higher than we predicted that is a sign that fiscal 

stimulus isn’t working. 

I used an analogy back in August that if you go to a doctor with 

a strep throat and he gives you medicine and the next day, maybe 

even after you have taken the first pill, your fever spikes, you don’t 

say, ah, see, the medicine didn’t work. Right? You probably say, my 

goodness, I was sicker than my doctor and I thought; and it is very 

good that we got to the doctor and started taking the medicine. 

And I feel that is exactly the situation that we are in. 

The third thing about the budget deficit, I agree it is large and 

it is a problem. I think we need to keep in mind why it is large 

now. It was large really for three reasons. One is simply the recession. We know that nothing is as bad for revenues as an unemployment rate approaching 10 percent. It is also high because of actions 

that were taken in the last 8 years that we did not pay for, things 

like the expansion in the prescription drug program, the wars, as 

has been described, and tax cuts. 

19 

And then, of course, there is—so, anyway, so we certainly—and 

then there are the actions—the unprecedented actions that we 

have had to take to try to get us out of the recession. And the important point there is, you know, as big as the fiscal stimulus 

sounds or as big as the TARP money sounds, the truth is those are 

one-time programs. And when you look at what they are contributing to the budget deficit over the 10-year horizon, they are actually a very small fraction of it. 

What are we going to do to get it under control? 

Well, the first thing we have to do is get the economy recovered. 

And that is precisely why we have focused so thoroughly on putting 

people back to work, that that is good for people, it is good for the 

economy, and it is good for the budget deficit. 

And then, as I mentioned, we are in the middle of probably the 

most important thing we could do on the deficit, which is to pass 

responsible health insurance reform that doesn’t add a dime to the 

deficit, as the President said, and in fact over the longer run genuinely slows the growth rate of costs so that it improves the deficit. 

Representative Brady. Thank you, Doctor. 

As I turn it back to Chairman Hinchey, I ask, will the Administration be bringing a fiscal exit strategy to Congress this year? 

Dr. Romer. Certainly, it is something—we are going to have to 

provide our 2011 budget. And in every year we have been thinking 

about, as we did last year, what is the path that we are on? 

Again, I very much want to hesitate—I like your term of ‘‘exit 

strategy.’’ I think the thing that worries me the most is when people talk about exits. Because in the situation that we are in, as I 

mentioned, I think a move to fiscal tightening while the unemployment rate is high and rising would be very bad for the economy. 

But, absolutely, we need to have a strategy going forward; and it 

is something that I am sure we will be working very closely with 

the Congress to put in place. 

Representative Brady. Thank you, Dr. Romer. Yield back. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you, Dr. Romer. 

Mr. Cummings. 

Representative Cummings. Thank you very much, Dr. Romer, 

for your testimony. 

I would like to talk to you about Social Security briefly. The latest Social Security Administration calculations show that the average individual monthly benefit is $1,012, which works out to about 

$12,744 annually. We saw the President endorse a flat $250 cost 

of living increase for Social Security retirees and beneficiaries. 

That works out to 1.96 percent on the average. And, you know, 

when you think about it, just the cost of medicine has gone up 

probably more than that. I just want to know your feelings on that 

and what is the thinking behind that. What do you see? 

Dr. Romer. All right. Well, you surely know that Social Security 

benefits are indexed to inflation. And as the numbers that I showed 

you—maybe it would even help to put them back up. We see the 

Consumer Price Index there, and what had happened was it had 

certainly gone up substantially in 2008, and that is why Social Security benefits last year got a very hefty cost of living adjustment. 

And then what you actually see is that the Consumer Price 

Index, which includes things like gasoline, it would have prescripVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:09 May 17, 2010 Jkt 055565 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\55565.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
20 

tion drugs in there, but on net has fallen dramatically. And that 

is why, the way the law is written, seniors would not get any cost 

of living increase. We don’t—the law is written, when prices go 

down, we don’t reduce benefits, obviously, but it would have caused 

for it to be flat. 

The Administration’s thought was that, given we were in a recession, given that we do know seniors are facing many special challenges, given how hard this recession has been for everyone, we 

thought a responsible way to deal with the fact that there was no 

cost of living increase called for by the law was to do an extension 

or a repeat of the one-time payment that we did last year, sort of 

the equivalent of the making work pay tax cut that we did last 

year for working families. 

We think that that is a reasonable compromise. One of the reasons—so, anyway, we think that is both more fiscally responsible 

than putting, say, an ad hoc cost of living adjustment but a way 

of acknowledging that seniors are suffering—everyone is suffering—and a way of getting a little more spending going in the 

economy. 

Representative Cummings. Do you think that Social Security 

should consider moving to a different type of index? 

Dr. Romer. I think right now the law is certainly very clear. 

And there is always discussion of are there other price indices that 

might be more accurate, but that is certainly something that I am 

sure the Bureau of Labor Statistics could tell you much more than 

I. 

Representative Cummings. Let’s talk about unemployment 

benefits for a moment. 

As we know, states have borrowed some $19 billion from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund to finance benefits. Going out on 

a limb, do you think this borrowing has had a negative impact on 

state bonding ratings? 

Dr. Romer. Well, certainly we know that state governments in 

general have been very hard hit by the recession; and many states, 

including my own of California, have had a very hard time with 

what is going on. I think it is part of a general problem, right? 

So state revenues are down dramatically. State spending in general on programs to help deal with people suffering through the recession, that spending goes up. I think all of those things have contributed to the problems that they faced, and a piece of that would 

be what they are having to pay for unemployment insurance. 

Representative Cummings. And conversely, I take it that you 

are of the belief that the whole state fiscal stabilization funds in 

the stimulus have had a very positive impact. Is that right? 

Dr. Romer. Oh, absolutely no question. 

Representative Cummings. And how do you determine that? 

Dr. Romer. Well, so, actually, we did a very interesting study 

in our office. Because one of the problems that you have is states 

that were in more trouble tend to get more state fiscal relief, right? 

So there were rules put in place like if you had a higher unemployment rate. So it is a hard statistical exercise to figure out how 

state fiscal relief is affecting employment. 

But what we did in our office is to look at, you know, a piece of 

the state fiscal relief was determined by just your FMAP, your 

21 

Medicaid matching rate and what it had been before the recession. 

And so that got some variation across states in how much money 

they got. And then we went and looked at, well, what had happened to their employment state by state? And we absolutely found 

that states that got a little bit more money were doing a little bit 

better on employment relative to otherwise. We thought that was 

very strong evidence. 

And I will tell you it is on the CEA Web site if anyone wants 

to look at the study. 

Representative Cummings. The new-hire tax credits, what is 

your feeling on those? 

Dr. Romer. I think again, as I suggested, given how high the 

unemployment rate is, I know there is a lot of discussion in Congress, I know there is a lot of discussion within the Administration 

that do we need to do more; and, if we do more, what should it look 

like? An employment tax credit is something that the President 

had certainly talked about back in the campaign. I think it is one 

of the options that should certainly be on the table as something 

that might have a particularly large impact on employment. But 

you would be weighing that against more state fiscal relief, against 

what we might want to do on infrastructure, as was mentioned earlier, investment in the economy. So there are a range of things, but 

I think the important thing is that we talk about them and figure 

out which one has the biggest job bang for the buck. 

Representative Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. Brownback. 

Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Romer, I want to give you kind of some input from the field 

of what I am seeing and hearing people say. Kevin Brady and I obviously have great skepticism about the impact of the stimulus, 

and the numbers aren’t what the Administration projected they 

would be. But I understand your position on it. 

What I am getting from people as I am traveling around is they 

can’t get credit. If you are a small business, a mid-sized business, 

you can’t get credit. If there is anything associated with real estate 

in any fashion, you not only can’t get credit, there is not a market 

if it is commercial real estate. So that people are just sitting on assets, and even banks are sitting on assets, that they don’t put them 

on the market because they can’t sell them. And if they did put 

them on the market, it would scare and mark down the entire region. 

The biggest complaint I get is that people can’t get credit, and 

anything that the Administration can do to get the credit to go towards small and mid-sized businesses—you have done a lot of work 

on getting it to big business, and I think some of that is reflective 

in the stock market’s impact. 

But if you look at syndicated borrowing numbers—I am sure you 

have—these numbers are a fifth of what they were during a normal 

time period. And this is where your mid- and certainly—mid- and 

some small businesses get money. 

As I mentioned, too, to you, anything in commercial real estate 

is just dead. Even well-financed deals with a good percentage 

down, it is not happening. And it is certainly my belief that until 

22 

you fix that piece of it, you are not going to have much in the way 

of job creation. You may slow your job loss level, but you are not 

going to have much job creation, because, generally, your engine of 

job creation has been the small and mid-sized businesses. 

And then, on top of it, the discussions here of these major policy 

initiatives, whether it be on health care or cap-and-trade, have a 

dramatic impact on people’s willingness to take risk in such an unknown tax atmosphere. So I mean you have an intangible impact 

here that is not good either. 

So that to the degree you can start to clear through your policy 

agenda and let people kind of get back to being normal and knowing what the environment is going to be, I think the cap-and-trade 

idea is one you ought to pull away from and say, in this economy, 

at this time, we are not going to do it. We are going to do things 

maybe like the renewable energy standard, we will do incremental, 

but we are not going to do these big dramatic things that have an 

impact of raising people’s prices. 

And the difficulty to project what your price is going to be in the 

future then just holds people back. And in an economy where we 

need to get things going, you are having the impact of stalling 

things when you have these huge policy debates and discussions. 

The health care does it too. As people are trying to calculate, 

okay, what do I do? This? Do I do that? Is it going to have an effect? Is it not? And it stalls everything. 

So the banks aren’t lending, the people are scared to get out on 

it, syndicated borrowing is not happening, and the total of it is that 

you just get a very lethargic private sector in the economy. And as 

many jobs as the public sector may try to create or sustain, it is 

not long term sustainable because of the debt we are running up. 

And you have noted your difficulty with the debt numbers. I 

mean, they are striking to you. They are certainly striking to me. 

And you travel across Kansas, and people are just appalled by 

it. Because they just go, you know, these things have been building. 

And now it is up to nearly $12 trillion in debt, and we are looking 

at going to 100 percent of debt to GDP within a 5-year time period. 

That just is going to further strain credit, and it is going to raise 

interest rates. It is likely to lower the dollar, which will drive oil 

prices up and gasoline up, which I think was one of the key triggers of the recession in the first place, is gas prices getting so high. 

People didn’t have any money left in their pocketbook. 

So I would really urge you to look at those pieces of it. I know 

you are here to defend what has taken place to date. But as I am 

out traveling around, those are the things that I think are going 

to long term make this very lethargic and likely to just have this 

government bubble be a sustained decade like Japan had where 

you just don’t get much happening outside of the government putting in money. And the government is not going to really cause 

much growth overall to take place. 

So that is what I am hearing from a lot of people, and I am certain you are getting it from points. But I wanted you to hear what 

I get across Kansas. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Brownback. 

23 

Dr. Romer. So let me—I mean, you make so many points. Let 

me try to respond to some. 

One, I share—I mean, I share many of your points, especially, 

you know, in thinking about the role of the government and the 

government stimulus, right? The whole reason that we are here, 

the whole reason we did something like the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act was precisely because the private sector wasn’t 

spending, right? We did see a dramatic decline in demand, you 

know, investment, consumer demand. 

And I agree completely we are all working toward the place 

where that private sector demand comes back and the government 

doesn’t need to be there. That is I think what we all want to happen. And the question is how and when we get to that place. 

Your point on small businesses and credit is a message we get 

loud and clear as well, and I can’t tell you how often the President 

gets—you know, he reads letters from people that write to him and, 

you know, we meet with him every day, and he said, what are we 

doing about small business credit? 

And that is part of what—the event yesterday, where we announced two initiatives, one working with you all to try to up the 

SBA loan limits. We hear from our small businesses that there is 

a gap, that the current programs are missing the people that need 

the somewhat bigger loans, but they are not yet the really big companies. 

The other is a program to get more capital into the small community banks. Because we do know the main people that do a lot of 

the lending to small businesses are the small local banks. And we 

have had, as you mentioned, important recovery measures for the 

big banks and trying to use some of the funds that we have. If 

small banks have a plan for doing more business lending, if we can 

get a way to get them more capital so that they are able to do that 

and grow their businesses, we think that would be a win. 

The other thing, you mentioned the idea of we need to get credit 

flowing before we will get the private recovery, and to a degree that 

is true. But I think that the causation also goes the other way. The 

more we can get the economy going again, I think the better that 

is going to be for the health of all of our banks, the health of the 

financial system. And so it does go both directions. 

And, in fact, I love one of the things that Secretary Geithner 

sometimes says. He says, I don’t think the Recovery Act gets 

enough credit for the financial rescue, the sense that by buoying up 

demand by getting the economy growing again, by getting stock 

prices growing again, that has been very healthy for the financial 

system, for getting credit. 

Again, it is still limited, but it is a lot less limited than it was 

6 months ago. 

And, finally, your point on uncertainty and the big policy initiatives, and it is a reason why we need to get moving. I hear this, 

for example, on financial regulatory reform. That, again, you know, 

we are putting in place I think some very important new rules of 

the road. The sooner we can do that, the more people know what 

the institutional framework they are going to be operating in. 

Likewise, in health care, now this is one where I would think we 

would probably, if we are talking to the same small businesses, 

24 

they tell us that what they are worried about is the rising cost of 

health care and the difficulty that they are having providing health 

insurance for their workers. And one of the great strengths I see 

of all the bills that have been working their way through the House 

and the Senate is how focused they are on making it work for small 

businesses. The exempting businesses from the—small businesses 

from the pay or play, setting up an insurance exchange. Because 

we know small businesses pay something like 18 percent more for 

the same coverage that a big firm would pay. Setting up a small 

business tax credit to make it more affordable for them. 

I think, again, the sooner we can do that and the sooner we are 

careful to make sure that anything we do on health care does protect and help small businesses I think we will get, as you mentioned, those engines of growth going again. 

Senator Brownback. Senator DeMint may have a series of 

questions that he would like to submit for the record. 

Representative Hinchey. Absolutely. 

Senator Brownback. Thank you. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Snyder. 

Representative Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Romer, I have several questions I will ask quickly, if you will 

give quick answers. 

Arkansas unemployment rate over the last 5 months has gone up 

from 7.0 to 7.2 to 7.4; and in the last 2 months it dropped to 7.1 

and then most recently stayed at 7.1. Are we like the canary that 

shows that things are going in the right direction or—how should 

we interpret what seems to be a trend in the right direction? 

Dr. Romer. I would love to interpret you as a canary. 

I think one of the things that is important is we do know, just 

as there are measurement issues even with the national unemployment rate, when you get down to the state level they are even bigger. So one of the things I have learned in my short 9 months in 

the job is to not read too much into any one number and certainly 

into any one state’s number. But certainly the fact that we are seeing a few states turning the right direction, I think that is wonderful. And, again, if we see at the end of next week that the GDP 

numbers for the third quarter are positive, as we had anticipated, 

that would be another sign in a very good direction. 

Representative Snyder. My second question, again a parochial 

question, I think Arkansas has gotten on people’s radar screen 

internationally in terms of international investment. We have had 

several international companies involved in wind power. That LM 

Glasfiber is now manufacturing windmill blades in Little Rock. 

Some Indian companies have gotten interested and made substantial investments in central Arkansas. Governor Beebe has been 

very aggressive the last several years about looking for opportunities for international investment. 

We always think about our companies investing overseas, but it 

is working the other way. How important do you think international investment can potentially be as we see some areas 

around the world that are recovering faster than we are as a potential source of investment and job creation? 

25 

Dr. Romer. I think it certainly is important. I think it does get 

to some of the things that we have been talking about, how, in general, keeping our trade in both goods and services and in financial 

flows like investment. Working and operating and on a fair, level 

playing field I think is very important. So you have talked about 

the direct foreign investment, and that is—as we build factories 

here, that is great. 

And we are also looking the other direction, of making sure we 

open up markets for our products overseas so that, if our firms that 

are already here produce, make sure that they have a place to sell. 

And, in that context, the recovery in the rest of the world is so important, right? As we see China and a lot of the Asian countries 

coming back, that is so important for making sure there is a market for our products, because net exports are something that can 

help to buoy up our demand and help us to grow. 

Representative Snyder. And one specific message I don’t want 

you to comment on. I hope you will take a message to the President 

we in Arkansas would love to see more opportunities to sell products in Cuba, and we don’t understand why we haven’t been more 

aggressive about that. We have got a lot of agricultural products 

we would like the good people of Cuba to eat. 

I have a different take than Senator Brownback does on the energy policy. He suggests we pull back from doing big things with 

regard to what we are going to do about greenhouse gases. I don’t 

understand how pulling back and not doing something somehow 

gives business predictability for the future. 

Probably the best example of that is I am one of those people 

who strongly believes we need to expand nuclear power expansion 

and construction in this country. In Arkansas, Entergy, our big 

power company, they have a nuclear power plant in Arkansas. 

They want to expand nuclear power plants. They were a strong 

supporter, as were a lot of nuclear power companies, a strong supporter of the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. And I think the 

reason is because until we resolve this issue of what we are going 

to do about greenhouse gases, because of the incredible expense of 

nuclear power plants and how long it takes to recoup that money, 

they don’t have the predictability. 

So I take a different position than Senator Brownback. If anything, what is going on right now points out the need to resolve 

what we are doing as a Nation. 

Would you comment on that specifically with regard to nuclear 

power? 

Dr. Romer. Absolutely. When you think about cap-and-trade, 

right, so the discussion was how that was causing uncertainty. But, 

of course, your point is we have got a looming problem with both 

energy independence and with greenhouse gases and so there is inherently uncertainty. So I think what you are saying is getting to 

a point where we deal with this is going to provide certainty for 

everyone. So I think that that is absolutely true. 

And the President has very much been of the view that, you 

know, at a time of economic crisis you can still be focusing on the 

more fundamental, longer-run problems. 

And certainly, you know, nuclear energy is one of the ways that 

we can increase our energy independence, can get—and your point 

26 

that getting certainty, you know—and, again, that is going to be an 

issue as we think about how we—you know, I know certainly the 

Senate is going to be thinking about its own version of the Waxman-Markey or the cap-and-trade and energy bill and thinking 

about what can you do within that to get more certainty about, you 

know, the price of energy going forward exactly so that you do have 

the right incentives to make the big investments. 

Because we want to not only do nuclear, but there is also so 

much we want to do in encouraging renewable energy of other 

kinds and those kind of investments also in just the technologies 

for energy conservation and new factories. 

Representative Snyder. And natural gas is doing very well in 

Arkansas, too. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Hinchey. Mr. Snyder, thank you very much. 

Mr. Hill. 

Representative Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Dr. 

Romer, thank you for being here this morning. 

My question will be brief. The projections that you have with the 

growth in GDP, are they based upon the fact that stimulus money 

will be spent or is it not based upon stimulus money being spent? 

Dr. Romer. Well, the numbers that I showed you from the Blue 

Chip consensus forecast—it is a survey of about 50 professional 

forecasters—I am sure that they—so each one of them will have 

some assumption about what is going to happen to interest rates, 

what is going to happen to fiscal stimulus. And given the law that 

is there, they are all predicated upon the fiscal stimulus that at 

least has been passed stays and follows through in the path that 

say the Congressional Budget Office has projected. 

Representative Hill. So if it would be taken away, then those 

growth percentages would not be realized. 

Dr. Romer. Oh, you would see their forecasts plummet. I am 

certain of it. 

Representative Hill. The one other question I have, there is 

talk among some Members of Congress—I am not one of them that 

are sounding the alarm bells, but there are several Members of 

Congress, and I have talked to some commercial real estate developers about this as well, that the second shoe that is going to be 

dropping that is going to drastically affect the economy is the collapse—or not collapse but foreclosures on commercial real estate 

loans that are being made and that many banks are going to go 

belly up because the commercial real estate developers are not 

going to be able to pay their loans. Have you got any thoughts that 

you can share with us about that? 

Dr. Romer. It is something that we certainly hear as well, and 

I know that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury we are all concerned about what we do see happening in commercial real estate. 

I think, as I understand it, part of the—or certainly one of the 

things that is somewhat different from what we went through, say, 

last fall, this is a more slower evolving problem, so it is one that 

we will have the time and the ability to deal with. But it is something that is looming there. 

It is another—I mean, we have had, you know, when I say we 

faced challenges, right, this is not a normal recovery in the sense 

27 

a normal recession is caused, you know, in post-war history was 

tight monetary policy to get inflation down, and then there was an 

obvious way that you ended it. You just loosened monetary policy, 

interest rates came down, and the economy came bouncing back. 

Where this started with interest rates low, we had a severe financial crisis, and that means coming out of this we have just got 

lots of things working against us. We know credit is still tight. We 

still have trouble in our banking system. We are—as you mentioned, the commercial real estate loans are going to be another 

thing that is going to be holding back how much banks want to 

lend and be something else we are fighting against. 

So, in my mind, it just makes it clear how hard this is and how 

important it has been that we have taken the very aggressive actions that we have taken and that we are going to have to be vigilant and keep working at this. 

Representative Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Hill. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Dr. Romer. 

In late September, you said that the recession—you said, to say 

the recession is over is a big difference than to say we are recovered. You said, I don’t want the ‘‘mission accomplished’’ banner. We 

have so much more to do. 

Could you talk about what you think, number one, is happening 

in terms of the Recovery Act—I think it was forecast to save 3.5 

million jobs over 2 years—whether we are on track for that? And, 

secondly, what other tools that you may have in the economist toolbox that we could use? 

Dr. Romer. Absolutely. So, no, I did—that statement that I 

made, I do think is important. Because when economists talk about 

the recession is over or if you look at the—I cite in my testimony, 

if you ask the Blue Chip consensus, 81 percent of them say the recession is over. What that means is you have hit the bottom and 

you have turned the corner. There is a huge difference between 

that and when you are back to something normal. 

And just—you know, one of the ways that I described this is we 

have lost 7.2 million jobs since the business cycle peak back in December of 2007. Normally, we would have added about 100,000 jobs 

every month. So if you think about the job deficit, we are at probably over 9 million. So that says, even once you turn the corner, 

you have so much work to do. 

In terms of the Recovery Act, it is—as all of our estimates suggest, it is on track. So, you know, that was a number that said, as 

of the end of 2010 we expected it to have raised employment relative to the baseline by about 3 and a half million. And it does look 

like we are going to meet that. So the one million that we saw at 

the end of August is very much on that trajectory. 

The economist tool bag, we do still have tools, all right? So that 

is part of—you know, despite the high budget deficit, there is 

still—you know, I think as long as we have a credible plan for getting it under control over the long term, health care reform is going 

to be a big part of that. Announcing a sensible plan for once we 

are recovered of how we are going to rein in spending or deal with 

28 

revenues, that is all important for making sure we retain credibility, that everyone understands that the United States is the 

safest country to put your money in to buy their government debt. 

But there are things you can do, whether it is more state fiscal 

relief, whether it is more investments in infrastructure, whether it 

is another tax cut, whether it is tax incentives for businesses to 

hire, all of those are things that I think should be looked at. 

I know that the Federal Reserve is thinking about—they are always saying, what are the tools that we have? We are thinking 

about, in terms of homeowners and mortgages and foreclosures, 

what could we do to make that program work better so that we 

don’t see a big rise in foreclosures pushing down house prices? All 

of those should be on the table and things we are thinking about. 

Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I do appreciate that. We have 

heard a lot of concerns in Minnesota with small businesses, that 

the President came out on that. I have been working with Senator 

Warner, Mark Warner, on this. 

Because it seems that, while the Dow is doing fine now, or getting better, at least, there are some huge problems for small businesses not being able to share in that credit that is starting to get 

out there and our small community banks. 

On the fiscal responsibility note, I went on a letter, nine of us 

did, to try to push for a process. I was on a bill a year ago with 

Senator Conrad to try to put a process, a bipartisan process together with suggestions on Social Security and other ways to bring 

down our deficit. And I think it is now more important than ever 

that we do that. 

But my question in my remaining time here is about unemployment benefits. The House produced a bill that extended unemployment benefits, which is good, but it only included unemployment 

benefits for states that had 8.5 percent unemployment. Our concern 

on the Senate side, as someone so nicely put it in a letter a month 

ago to me, even though our state may have 8 percent unemployment, in my household it is 100 percent unemployment. 

It is very difficult for me to explain to the people in northern 

Minnesota, where they border Wisconsin, why their unemployment 

benefits would be cut off and people just across the border—we 

have a lot of issues sometimes between Minnesota and Wisconsin, 

including Brett Favre, but to have to explain to them that we got 

Brett Favre but you don’t have the unemployment benefits would 

be difficult. 

So I just wonder if you had any views on the issue of trying to 

make sure we extend unemployment benefits across the line for all 

households and the need that we have for this despite the fact that 

we are seeing some glimmers of hope with the economy. 

Dr. Romer. Yes. I mean, it absolutely goes to the big issue of, 

you know, even—your first question, even if we are starting to recover, we do know that there are still over 15 million people who 

are unemployed. We do know that there are people who are expiring their benefits. There is still just a tremendous amount of suffering and that the recovery back to normal levels of unemployment is unfortunately going to be, you know, something that takes 

a long period of time; and we have an obligation as a country to 

cushion that blow for people. 

29 

So, absolutely, I mean, one of the things, of course, we all know 

is how much the Recovery Act did on this front, right, the unprecedented increase in the size of payments, the length of payments, 

and completely appropriate given the suffering that was going on 

and given that we needed the aggregate demand stimulus. It was 

just a sensible program. I think it is one of the ones that Mark 

Zandi says has the biggest bang for the buck. Because you give 

people their unemployment check; they spend it. So that is incredibly important. 

I think my main plea going forward is to think hard about what 

is—I mean, it is exactly your question. How do we devise this, 

right? What is the right length of extension? What is the size? I 

think all of that is something we should think about sort of as a 

coherent whole and figure out, you know, sort of what is the right 

thing to do. 

I think it is true, you know, economists do sometimes worry 

about incentive effects. I think one of the main lessons is when the 

unemployment rate is 10 percent we are not really worried about 

people not getting a job if it were there, right, that it is very 

much—we know that people are looking as hard as they can, and 

we are trying to do the best that we can to make the jobs be there 

for them but for now cushioning the blow. So the details of how we 

deal with Wisconsin versus Minnesota and those, I think that is 

something we are going to be having to working about and working 

together and thinking about. But I will certainly take that back 

with me. 

Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. 

Yeah, look at the Senate bill. We like it. 

Representative Hinchey. Senator, thank you very much. 

Dr. Romer, I think just to emphasize something that you said in 

response to a question a little while ago, we have the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which sometimes makes correct 

analysis. This week they said that their survey found that it is not 

credit problems, but it is the lack of customers that is the biggest 

problem for small businesses. And we know that that is true. It is 

lack of customers. And we wonder if we shouldn’t be focusing on 

increasing consumer spending. But how do you increase consumer 

spending other than by creating jobs? 

A lot of the consumer spending has dropped off because consumers don’t have money to spend, and they don’t have money to 

spend because they have lost their jobs or people close to them 

have lost their jobs, people working with them have lost their jobs, 

and if they haven’t lost their jobs, they are worried about the possibility of losing their jobs. That is one reason why we see some increase in private savings that have gone up across this country, because people are saying to themselves, I don’t know what is going 

to be in this for me; I better take care of myself a little bit and 

start saving as much money as I can. 

So that is part of the problem. Spending has gone down, and 

spending has gone down for those two reasons. People are worried 

about their future, and other people have just lost their jobs. They 

don’t have any money to spend. 

With that in mind, I can’t help but focus on something that Paul 

Volcker has been saying; and he has got some attention in The New 

30 

York Times yesterday and in The Wall Street Journal. And one of 

the things that he is talking about is the commercial banks and 

how the commercial banks should be restricted to commercial 

banking so that in the context of commercial banking they could 

be exhilarating the economy and that they shouldn’t be engaged in 

the Wall Street situation. 

And, of course, that takes us back to the repeal of the GlassSteagall Act, where banks that had their main focus of attention 

on commercial spending and commercial investments and job creation have stopped doing that. They stopped doing that just after 

1999. 

So what do you think about this? Isn’t this something that we 

should deal with? Isn’t there something that we should—some way 

in which we should focus attention on the huge amounts of money, 

trillions of dollars, that are in the hands of growing banks, including the specific banks that have come together and made themselves larger and increased the amount of money that they have? 

But that amount of money is not being put out into investments. 

It is being put out into other operations which are designed to try 

to bring in as much money to them as possible not over the long 

term but quickly. And if that is the case, then we are facing the 

potential of another economic decline, another serious economic recession sometime over the course of the next several years. 

What do you think? 

Dr. Romer. Many points there. 

First, your report from the NFIB about lending and what is holding back small business. I think the answer is probably a mixture. 

We do hear from them that they are having trouble getting credit. 

But we also hear the other side of, well, maybe they don’t want to 

be expanding very much because they don’t have the customers. 

That is sort of why I think a multifaceted approach makes a lot 

of sense, the kind of measures we announced yesterday to try to 

get lending going more to small business. But all of the other 

things that we are doing exactly—the tax cuts, the UI extension— 

all of those things are things designed to get people back to work 

and buying things, a lot of those from small businesses. So I 

couldn’t agree with you more that there is a mixture, and both of 

them need to be done. 

The discussion—your discussion of Glass-Steagall and where we 

go from there and Paul Volcker, I think it all brings to the fore just 

how important regulatory reform is, right? We are in the middle. 

The President has said, and I feel so strongly, that we need to use 

the pain that we have been through to some good. And what we 

saw in the Great Depression, they had the good sense to take that 

horrible crisis and say at least out of this let’s put in place a framework that makes us healthier going forward. And that is why we 

have the introduction of deposit insurance and the creation of the 

FDIC, so many of the laws about how our stock markets work, the 

Securities and Exchange Commission. So important. 

We have seen that there are gaps in our regulatory framework. 

That is what we learned last fall and how important it is that we 

do a comprehensive fix, right? And that is really what is starting 

this process that is going on in the House and in the Senate. So 

incredibly important. 

31 

The particular form, whether, you know, as Paul Volcker would 

say, can we go back somewhat to the old-fashioned world where 

banks were one thing and, you know, investment banks or hedge 

funds were another thing or has somehow the world changed 

enough that they are kind of all—it is hard to draw the lines. I 

think that is something we will have to work out with the Congress. 

I think the important thing is to make sure everybody is regulated, make sure everybody has good, strong capital requirements 

so that they have money on the line. 

We hear so much talk about executive compensation and making 

sure that regulators work with the institutions they regulate to 

say, you know, do you have pay practices that are encouraging 

risky behavior? All of that is going to be part of coming up with 

a system that, you know, I hope will buy us another 80 years without a major financial crisis. I think that would be an important legacy for our children. 

Representative Hinchey. Well, I perfectly agree with you; and 

I think that is exactly what we should be doing, trying to make 

sure that this economy is strong and stable for as long as possible 

and not going back to the way we were prior to the 1930s, when 

we had serious recessions and depressions every 10 or 15 years. 

Dr. Romer. And financial crises. 

Representative Hinchey. Yes, and an array of financial crises 

during that period of time. But the installation of those changes, 

which occurred in 1933, stabilized this economy for a long time; 

and it seems to me that this is something that we need to do. 

Nevertheless, there is a resistance to that; and the resistance to 

that is coming largely from the big banks. And that resistance coming from the big banks is having some effect on some of the decision makers in the context of this set of circumstances that we are 

dealing with, and that may include even the way in which this 

Congress is working. 

There is a very important bill that is coming out of the Financial 

Services Committee here in the House of Representatives, and we 

are hoping that that is going to do it in a way that is going to be 

effective. And I can’t help but believe that the only way to make 

it effective is to enable different kinds of banks to be engaged in 

the kinds of things that they were initially set up to do and not 

enabling them to sort of manipulate the set of circumstances that 

they have available to them that is available for their own interests. 

Now, that is just a human nature thing. That is just something 

that people are going to do unless there is some way to stop it. If 

you have the power and ability to do things, the main focus of attention is going on yourself; and that is true of the banks as well 

as it is of individuals. 

So this is something we have got to deal with, and we have got 

to deal with it effectively. We know very well that this deep recession came about largely, almost exclusively, as a result of the repeal of that Glass-Steagall Act and the economic manipulation that 

came about immediately after that. Because so many people had 

been pushing for that for a long time, and they knew how effective 

32 

it was going to be, and they engaged in that effectiveness right 

away. 

We have a big responsibility here not just to stabilize this economy over the course of the next few months or few years but to stabilize it, as you were saying, for at least the next 80 years; and I 

hope that that is something that we can do. 

We have four minutes to vote. I just want to mention before closing that I wanted to return to a point that was made earlier about 

the special relations between the JEC and the CEA. It is so special, 

in fact, that Dr. Romer, the chairman, has asked our executive director, Nan Gibson, to come over to be in the executive branch, to 

be her chief of staff at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Once again, Doctor, you are showing us that you are making 

the best possible decision. We very much appreciate it. 

Dr. Romer. Well, I very much appreciate you. My current chief 

of staff is 2 weeks away from having a baby and wants to stay 

home with her baby, and I could not be more thrilled. And I am 

sorry to steal Nan from you, but I feel very, very lucky that she 

is coming over to help us so that we can continue to help you. 

Representative Hinchey. We are going to miss her, but we are 

going to look for that help as well. Thank you very much. 

Representative Brady. And, Mr. Chairman, let me add my bipartisan congratulations to Nan as well on her new venture. 

Representative Hinchey. Mr. Brady, thank you very much. 

Dr. Romer, thank you so much for being with us. Thank you for 

your testimony and your very clear and competent responses to all 

of the complex questions that you received here today. We very 

much appreciate it, and we are very happy to be able to continue 

to work with you. Thank you so much. 

Dr. Romer. Thank you. It has been wonderful to be with you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

34 


Insert offset folio 23 here 55565.023
35 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN MALONEY, CHAIR, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

I want to welcome Dr. Christina Romer, the President’s Chair of the Council of 

Economic Advisers, and thank her for her testimony here today. The Council of Economic Advisers and the Joint Economic Committee were both created by the Employment Act of 1946 and share an important history of providing the White House 

and Congress with analysis of economic conditions and economic policy. 

Our hearing today is on the economic outlook. The current Administration took 

office only nine short months ago. Nine months ago, the economy was facing the 

worst economic crisis since the Great Depression with GDP falling at its fastest rate 

in almost three decades. In January alone, 741,000 jobs were lost, but jobs losses 

of about 600,000 or more per month had started in November of 2008. Those punishing job losses continued for 5 straight months. However, thanks to the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we are finally seeing signs of recovery. For example, the $35.4 billion obligated to states so far for education has saved 250,000 

teacher jobs. 

However, I am deeply concerned about the state of the labor market, as I have 

been since the start of this recession. GDP growth is of little comfort to the millions 

who have lost their jobs. The unemployment rate is at an unacceptably high 9.8 percent. I am particularly interested in Dr. Romer’s outlook on the labor market and 

additional measures that may be needed to boost job creation. 

As the economy recovers we must continue our commitment to the unemployed 

to ensure that working class Americans aren’t once again left out of economic recovery, as they were under the Bush Administration. People are losing their unemployment benefits at alarming rates. In my home state of New York, close to half of the 

unemployed are losing their state unemployment benefits, and the same story can 

be told in states around the country. That is why I encourage the members of the 

Senate to follow the House in passing a bill that extends unemployment benefits. 

As the 2001 recession subsided, the average American family was left behind; job 

creation and median family income never recovered to the levels experienced during 

the Clinton years. We must do more to ensure that as we recover from this recession 

we do not see a repeat of the dismal jobs record of the Bush Administration. One 

statistic I find striking is that for every job opening there are six people applying. 

Despite this fact, the Recovery Act is working. In fact, it is softening the impact 

of this recession on workers. According to a report that the Council of Economic Advisers released last month, the Recovery Act reduced average monthly job losses by 

169,000 in the second quarter of this year. In addition, the U.S. economy had 1 million more jobs in August because of the Recovery Act. 

The report also notes that the Recovery Act has contributed significantly to economic growth. Using the latest GDP numbers, the Recovery Act raised GDP growth 

by 2.6 percentage points in the second quarter. In the third quarter, analysts expect 

an even bigger boost. Next week, we will hold a hearing where the Bureau of Economic Analysis will report advance estimates of GDP for the third quarter, and I 

am optimistic that the numbers will show that the bold actions taken by Congress 

and the Obama Administration are turning the economy around. The Administration and Congress continue efforts to help create jobs. Just yesterday, the Administration announced a series of proposals to help small businesses, including providing 

tax relief to small businesses and promoting access to credit. 

Dr. Romer, we thank you for your testimony and I look forward to working with 

you as the committee continues our focus on fixing the economy, helping struggling 

families, and, above all, putting people back to work. 

36 


Insert offset folio 24 here 55565.024
37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN BRADY, SENIOR HOUSE REPUBLICAN, JOINT

ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

I am pleased to join in welcoming Chairwoman Romer before the Committee this 

morning. 

There are some encouraging signs that the recession may be nearing its trough. 

The commercial paper and corporate bond markets are functioning. The stock market is up. Housing prices may be stabilizing. Industrial production edged up 2.8 percent during the last three months. Job losses continue, but are slowing. And the October survey of economists in The Wall Street Journal forecasts that real GDP will 

grow at an annualized rate of 3.1 percent during the third quarter. 

Even if this forecast proves correct, the U.S. economy still suffers from many fundamental problems. In September, payroll jobs fell by 263,000, while the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent. The same Wall Street Journal survey also forecasts 

that the unemployment rate will rise to 10.0 percent by December. 

Commercial real estate prices continue to fall. Because of the collapse of the market for commercial mortgage-backed securities, many property owners cannot roll 

over performing commercial mortgage loans at maturity. Regional and community 

banks are likely to suffer large losses on their commercial mortgage loan portfolios 

that may impair their ability to supply credit to families and small businesses. 

I am concerned that any growth in the second half of this year may prove transient, and consequently the unemployment rate may continue to increase well into 

2010. Those in Washington shouldn’t kid themselves: A jobless recovery is no recovery for American workers. 

During the last four months of 2008, the Federal Reserve injected more than $1.3 

trillion of liquidity into the U.S. economy. With the traditional lag between monetary actions and their effects becoming apparent in the real economy, this liquidity 

injection last fall supported real GDP in the second quarter and should boost real 

growth in the second half of this year. 

Compared to the Federal Reserve’s $1.3 trillion ‘‘adrenaline shot,’’ President 

Obama’s stimulus spending pales. As of this month, only $173 billion, or 22 percent 

of the program’s total, had been spent—to the view of many, too slowly, too wastefully, and too unfocused on jobs. Like the hunter in the party who takes credit for 

every bird that falls, stimulus promoters should be wary of taking credit for the result of unprecedented Fed actions that are casting a far greater influence over the 

economy’s performance. 

But neither liquidity injections nor fiscal stimulus can create a sustained expansion. As the Chief Executive and Co-Chief Investment Officer of Pimco Mohamed 

El-Erian noted, these government interventions are unsustainable ‘‘sugar highs.’’ If 

the United States is to avoid slipping back into a ‘‘w-shaped’’ recession, the private 

sector must once again become the driver of economic growth. 

It is unclear how this hand-off will occur. The balance sheets of U.S. families remain damaged from the collapse of housing prices and the excessive debts accumulated during the bubble years. The growth of personal consumption is likely to remain restrained. The large inventory of foreclosed homes is likely to dampen housing investment. Therefore, a sustained expansion must depend upon business investment and net exports. 

Here is a major concern going forward: Entrepreneurs and business leaders make 

investment decisions based on their expectations of risk and return. Government 

policies affect these perceptions. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats have simultaneously dampened the expected return and increased the risk associated with new business investment through their actions and 

inaction. 

Higher income tax rates and higher taxes on capital gains and dividends are set 

to begin in 2011. The White House and Congress are proposing job-killing energy 

and international tax increases that will drive investment and jobs offshore. Congress has not acted in a timely manner to extend the research and development tax 

credit and the homebuyer’s tax credit as well as an increase in the net operating 

loss carry-back period from two to five years. 

Uncertainty about cap-and-trade and healthcare legislation further depresses 

business investment. Firms fear the additional energy costs associated with what 

many term the ‘‘cap and tax’’ bill that passed the House and are unsure what the 

Senate may do. The various trillion-dollar healthcare bills leave firms, especially 

small businesses, confused and concerned about additional taxes and regulatory burdens. 

As a result, many companies in my district and around the country are delaying 

important investment decisions—and the job creation that goes with it. 

38 

In short, the government’s uncertainty and interference is quickly turning a ‘‘rescue operation’’ into an anchor around the private sector’s neck. 

With U.S. consumer spending lagging, a key opportunity to recovery lies in selling 

American goods and services overseas to recovering markets. Yet America is sitting 

on the sidelines while other nations are aggressively shaping these new markets. 

The Doha Round negotiations remain stalled. Congress has not acted upon three 

completed trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea while competing countries reach agreements that leave American companies and farmers at 

a severe competitive disadvantage. 

The United States is on an unsustainable fiscal course. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), projected federal deficits will swell publically held federal debt from 40.8 percent of GDP at the end of the last fiscal year to 67.8 percent 

at the end of fiscal year 2019. And this CBO projection is before adding new 

healthcare benefits and other costly initiatives. 

Moreover, the CBO projects that the growth of existing entitlement programs will 

drive federal deficits and debt even higher over the long term. Instead of resolving 

these imbalances and consequently protecting both beneficiaries and taxpayers, 

President Obama and congressional Democrats are seeking to create new entitlement programs that would further damage our fiscal position. 

Finally, the United States could face the risk of a dollar crisis in the future. Recent history in Asia and Latin America warns us that currency crises occur suddenly with devastating consequences. If the fear that fiscal irresponsibility may 

force the Federal Reserve to monetize federal budget deficits were to cause foreign 

investors to shun Treasury debt, the foreign exchange value of the dollar could collapse, sending prices soaring. Fortunately, the risk of a dollar crisis is still very 

small. However, this risk may grow if Congress does not begin to control federal 

spending. 

There is much to be concerned about in America’s economy. Today is no time to 

be taking false credit for economic indicators—but rather outlining the Administration’s strategy going forward to address these challenges. 

Dr. Romer, I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

39 


Insert offset folio 1 here 55565.001
40 


Insert offset folio 2 here 55565.002
41 


Insert offset folio 3 here 55565.003
42 


Insert offset folio 4 here 55565.004
43 


Insert offset folio 5 here 55565.005
44 


Insert offset folio 6 here 55565.006
45 


Insert offset folio 7 here 55565.007
46 


Insert offset folio 8 here 55565.008
47 


Insert offset folio 9 here 55565.009
48 


Insert offset folio 10 here 55565.010
49 


Insert offset folio 11 here 55565.011
50 


Insert offset folio 12 here 55565.012
51 


Insert offset folio 13 here 55565.013
52 


Insert offset folio 14 here 55565.014
53 


Insert offset folio 15 here 55565.015
54 


Insert offset folio 16 here 55565.016
55 


Insert offset folio 17 here 55565.017
56 


Insert offset folio 18 here 55565.018
57 


Insert offset folio 19 here 55565.019
58 


Insert offset folio 20 here 55565.020
59 


Insert offset folio 21 here 55565.021
60 


Insert offset folio 22 here 55565.022
61 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D. 

The economic outlook is bleak and we are going to go down as the most job-killing 

Congress in history. Since the stimulus passed—which I did not vote for—unemployment has skyrocketed from 6% to nearly 10%. At the same time, the Democrats 

have increased taxes; moved on cap-and-tax . . . I mean cap-and-trade; Democrats 

are going to pass a health care bill which costs nearly a trillion dollars and doesn’t 

do anything to make the actual cost of service lower. 

A trillion dollars is a funny thing. It’s a hard thing to understand but let’s put 

this in relation to time. One million seconds comes out to be about 111⁄2 days. A 

billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years. 

I feel like it’s been 32,000 years since this new Administration started instead of 

nine months. 

Our national deficit for this year alone is $1.5 trillion. This is a trillion more than 

this time last year. The Obama Administration has been saying this is because they 

inherited a financial mess and used that excuse to pass a $787 billion stimulus bill 

which only 22% has been handed out. That’s like telling someone in the mist of the 

Mt. Saint Helens volcanic eruption to use a swimming pool to put the fire out. 

Why has only 22% of the stimulus money been handed out? We are shedding jobs 

at a scary rate—and all we seem to be doing is give out more unemployment dollars. 

Furthermore, the second quarter GDP numbers show that private investment 

went negative while the federal, state and local spending went up, thus showing 

better GDP. What is the federal government’s exit strategy from shoring up the private sector? 

Already, the consequences are immense. I already talked about the deficit. Then 

we have to consider the diminished value of the dollar. 

These are serious concerns, in a tough time, and it’s curious that we are hearing 

conversations about yet another stimulus. If things are going so well, if GDP is allegedly up 3.1% this third quarter; if the Obama stimulus has created the million 

plus jobs that they are touting, then why is there even talk of yet another stimulus 

bill? 

I look forward to hearing from Ms. Romer to hear how the Obama Administration 

will finally stop borrowing money to spend on programs which aren’t creating jobs. 

Thank you. 

Æ