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

57–313 2010

S. HRG. 111–585 

AVOIDING ANOTHER LOST DECADE: HOW TO 

PROMOTE JOB CREATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 5, 2010 

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 

ANDREA CAMP, 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, U.S. Representative from Texas ............................................ 11 

WITNESS

Hon. Alan B. Krueger, Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy and Chief 

Economist, U.S. Department of the Treasury .................................................... 3 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Prepared statement of Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair .................... 22 

Prepared statement of Dr. Alan B. Krueger .......................................................... 24 

Prepared statement of Representative Kevin Brady ............................................ 43 

Chart titled ‘‘Reality vs. Forecast Unemployment Rate (%): Actual vs. 

Stimulus Projections (2009–2014)’’ .............................................................. 45 

Chart titled ‘‘Reality vs. Forecast ‘90% of the Jobs Created . . .in the 

Private Sector’’’ .............................................................................................. 46 

Letter from Representative Michael C. Burgess, M.D., dated May 11, 2010, 

transmitting questions for Dr. Alan B. Krueger ............................................... 47 

Letter from Dr. Alan B. Krueger dated June 9, 2010, transmitting responses 

to Representative Michael C. Burgess, M.D. ..................................................... 48 

(1) 

AVOIDING ANOTHER LOST DECADE: HOW TO 

PROMOTE JOB CREATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney 

(Chair) presiding. 

Representatives present: Maloney, Hinchey, Cummings, Snyder, Brady, and Burgess. 

Senators present: Casey. 

Staff present: Andrea Camp, Gail Cohen, Colleen Healy, Jessica 

Knowles, Lydia Mashburn, and Robert O’Quinn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN B. 

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

Chair Maloney. I believe meetings should start on time. I am 

going to start this meeting even though my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle are on their way here. 

Today’s hearing is aptly called ‘‘Avoiding Another Lost Decade: 

How to Promote Job Creation.’’ From February 2001 to February 

2009, our economy gained a mere 293,000 jobs. As we are facing 

the greatest post-war economic crisis, we need to take another look 

at history. In contrast to the Bush Administration, during the Clinton Administration 22.5 million jobs were created, an average of 

234,000 jobs per month. 

But even with the stellar Clinton job creation record, it would 

take 3 years for us to recreate the 8.4 million jobs lost during this 

recession. And that doesn’t even factor in the additional 2.5 million 

jobs that were needed during the recession just to keep up with 

population growth. In other words, we are about 11 million jobs in 

the hole. 

The great recession has taken a tremendous toll on our economy 

and families across the country who are struggling to find work 

and make ends meet. Without the swift, effective response from 

policymakers, the great recession could have been another Great 

Depression. 

Signed into law less than a month after President Obama took 

office, the Recovery Act helped soften the blow of the recession and 

returned the economy to growth in the second half of 2009. It provided a tax cut to 95 percent of American families, extended unemployment benefits, expanded credit to small businesses, and proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:06 Aug 25, 2010 Jkt 057313 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57313.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
2 

vided a first-time home-buyers tax credit to help families purchase 

a home. 

The Recovery Act has been followed by other congressional actions to create jobs, including the Worker, Homeownership, and 

Business Assistance Act, which expanded the first-time home-buyers tax credit and enhanced small business tax relief, and the 

HIRE act, which provides tax incentives for businesses that hire 

out-of-work Americans. These actions are working. 

Under the current Administration, the employment report has 

shown steady improvement, with 162,000 jobs created in March, 

with three-fourths of these new jobs coming from the private sector. Manufacturing employment has been up for 3 straight months. 

On Friday, the JEC will hold its monthly hearing with the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics Commissioner to discuss the April employment 

data. I am optimistic that Friday’s employment report will show 

another month of robust job creation, but we need to remain focused on job creation. 

Part of the solution will be to look back to the Clinton Administration and see what fueled job creation during the 1990s. We need 

to recapture the spirit of innovation that fueled the economy for 

those 8 years. 

Another part of the solution will be to look at the last decade and 

not repeat the same mistakes. When we came out of the 2001 recession, job creation did not return to pre-recession levels. We can’t 

afford to repeat the mistakes of the last decade and rely on asset 

bubbles to fuel job creation. We are still dealing with the aftermath 

of the housing bubble bursting. 

But just as we fail to regain the job creation momentum after the 

last recession, we have also squandered a record budget surplus, 

leaving us with fewer options to address future challenges. 

Part of the path forward is continuing to invest in programs and 

policies that work. Yesterday, as part of the effort to create a wide 

net and look for innovative but effective approaches, the House 

Democratic leadership held an economic summit. At that summit, 

Professor Alan Blinder from Princeton said, ‘‘I think the challenge 

for the Congress now is to devise budget packages that are efficient 

in terms of job creation, relative to any deficit increases that they 

cost. It is not easy.’’ 

In an effort to look for efficient solutions to the job crisis, the 

House of Representatives recently passed the Disaster Relief and 

Summer Jobs Act of 2010, which supports an additional 300,000 

summer jobs for young workers—summer jobs that are particularly 

needed in this weak economy. 

But we also need to take some chances and be willing to place 

some bets. We should target those sectors that offer the best prospects for growth. We should recommit ourselves as a country to 

basic research that pays dividends well into the future in new industries and new jobs. 

It is clear that the private sector will drive the next expansion, 

but it is also clear that government needs to be an engaged partner, helping to build skills, to shine a spot light on new sectors and 

opportunities, and to fund research that can lead to the industries 

and jobs of tomorrow. 

3 

We are very fortunate today to have Dr. Alan Krueger before us 

to discuss job creation. Dr. Krueger served as Chief Economist of 

the Department of Labor during the Clinton Administration and is 

an editor of and contributor to the book, ‘‘The Roaring ’90s: Can 

Full Employment Be Sustained?’’ We look forward to his testimony. 

I welcome my colleague, Mr. Snyder, for any opening statement 

he may have. 

Representative Snyder. I am glad to be here. 

Chair Maloney. And our Republican colleagues have not come 

yet. 

Are they on their way? 

They are on their way. 

So I am going to introduce Dr. Krueger and then yield back to 

my Republican colleagues when they come. 

Dr. Alan Krueger is the Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy 

and the Chief Economist at the Department of the Treasury. On 

leave from Princeton University, where he has taught since 1987, 

Dr. Krueger is published widely on a broad range of topics, including the economics of education, unemployment, income distribution, 

and even what makes people happy. In his other published work, 

Dr. Krueger showed that increases in the minimum wage do not 

lead to increases in unemployment. Dr. Krueger is one of the 

world’s leading labor economists, and we look forward to his testimony this afternoon. 

So I recognize Dr. Krueger for as much time as he would like to 

use to express his thoughts today. 

Thank you for being here. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Maloney appears in 

the Submissions for the Record on page 22.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN B. KRUEGER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Dr. Krueger. Thank you very much, Chair Maloney. 

Thank you, Congressman Snyder, for coming. I appreciate that 

you mentioned the book, ‘‘The Roaring ’90s,’’ that is a book I coedited with Bob Solow. 

Chair Maloney. Can you speak up? Is your mike on? 

Dr. Krueger. It is on. 

Chair Maloney. Maybe pull it closer to you. 

Dr. Krueger. That is a book that I edited with Bob Solow and 

I have to say, we reached a rather optimistic conclusion that the 

set of policies that did help produce the strong job growth in the 

1990s could be replicated and extended. We saw that evaporate in 

the 2000s. 

What I am going to do in my remarks, which is elaborated in the 

prepared testimony, is to describe what seems to me to have gone 

wrong in the 2000s in terms of job growth. I reach a somewhat optimistic conclusion that, as we found in that book ‘‘The Roaring 

’90s,’’ with the right set of economic policies, it is possible to see 

jobs growing again and to see the U.S. economy producing enough 

jobs for its expanding population. 

The failure of job growth in the 2000s was not inevitable. As 

Chair Maloney mentioned, we are meeting at a time when the U.S. 

4 

labor market is beginning to show signs of improvement after moving through the worst downturn since, by some measures, the early 

1980s and, by others, all the way back to the Great Depression. 

The unemployment rate is currently 9.7 percent, down from a high 

of 10.1 percent last October. This is an improvement, but the number of people who want jobs but can’t find them is still unacceptably high. 

The economy gained an average of 54,000 jobs per month in the 

first quarter of 2010, a vast improvement over the 750,000 jobs lost 

per month in the first quarter of 2009. Yet even with these recent 

gains, 8.2 million jobs have been lost since the start of the recession in December 2007. A look at the jobs picture in the past decade, even before this recession hit, indicates that job market performance in the U.S. was poor relative to the 1990s across a number of measures. In other words, while the recession has taken a 

terrible toll on American workers, the job market during the first 

8 years of the 2000s before the recession was already underperforming. 

If you look over an even longer stretch of history, as the first figure in my testimony shows, that despite occasional recessionary periods, the U.S. job market has steadily increased employment to accommodate our growing population. That trend came to a halt in 

the past decade. 

During the 1990s, the economy gained 22 million payroll jobs. By 

contrast, from December 1999 to December 2009, the economy lost 

almost 1 million jobs and nearly 3 million private-sector jobs. With 

no net job gains in more than 10 years, it is no wonder that many 

analysts are calling this period the lost decade. 

And I want to emphasize that the jobs picture in the 2000s is 

weak, even if we exclude the losses that occurred during the recession. Over the first 8 years of the 1990s, the economy gained almost 16 million jobs. During the first 8 years of the 2000s, however, payroll employment rose by somewhat less than half of that, 

just 7.5 million jobs. 

The lackluster job market performance is also evident in the employment-to-population ratio, which is the fraction of the workingage population that is employed. This ratio rose by 1.3 percentage 

points in the 1990s and reached a record high in April of 2000. In 

contrast, during the most recent decade, the ratio fell nearly 5 percentage points and is now at a level that was last seen after the 

1982 recession. And even before the most recent recession, the 

share of the population that was employed fell for both men and 

for women. 

After looking at this poor performance, I asked myself why? Did 

we get it wrong in this book, ‘‘The Roaring ’90s,’’ or was the poor 

performance the result of changes in policy? Was it something inevitable due to technological change or globalization or perhaps demographics? 

One way to get a sense of whether this very weak trend, this disturbing trend in job growth in the 2000s was something that the 

U.S. was destined for is to look at other countries that have economies that are in some respect similar to the U.S. In particular, and 

my written testimony documents this, if we look at Canada, the 

UK, or the rest of Europe, we see a very different picture. 

5 

Canada and Europe had nearly a 3 percentage point increase in 

the share of their populations that were working from 1999 to 

2007, while the U.S. saw a decrease of over 1 percentage point. 

This suggests to me that the poor U.S. labor market performance 

was not inevitable. Countries, such as Canada and the UK, were 

subject to the same international trends, had access to the same 

technological advances, and faced similar demographic shifts as the 

U.S., yet they managed to produce significant job growth of the 

2000s, as the U.S. lost jobs. 

One point that I would highlight is that the U.S. has also lost 

its leadership in education. The U.S., if you look at older workers 

in the U.S., people 55 and over, the U.S. is number 1 in the world 

in average educational attainment and in the share of the population with a college degree. If we look at those 25 to 34 years old, 

we are not in the top 10 of the OECD. And if we look at high school 

graduation, excluding GEDs, we are in the bottom of the OECD. 

One of the advantages that the U.S. has had is that we were the 

first to have universal high school. We led the word world in the 

human capital of our workforce. And we have lost that advantage, 

and I think that that has contributed to our poor performance in 

the 2000s. 

The dominant feature, of course, in the jobs picture in the U.S. 

in the last decade was a sharp, sharp job loss during the financial 

crisis. Fully 4.2 million private-sector jobs were lost in the 6 

months after the fall of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. This 

pace of job loss exceeded what one would have predicted, even from 

the sharp concurrent contraction in GDP by about 25 percent. Most 

likely, the panic that took hold of the financial markets spread to 

employers and other sectors, causing them to react more than normally to a contraction in demand for the goods and services by 

shedding workers. 

To better understand the dramatic loss in employment that we 

experienced in recent years, I have analyzed for this hearing unpublished research data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS 

prepared for me information from the job openings and labor turnover survey, better known as JOLTS, broken down by establishment size. I appreciate the effort that the BLS put into computing 

and double and triple checking these statistics for me. These data 

reveal that the experiences of small establishments in the wake of 

the financial crisis were notably different from that of larger establishments. 

In the months immediately following the crisis, small establishments responded by quickly laying off a large number of workers 

and closing down. While mid-size and large establishments responded by sharply cutting back on hiring. Larger establishments 

also increased layoffs moderately, but the increase was not as large 

as that seen by smaller establishments. This pattern is consistent 

with small companies having difficulties accessing credit to maintain employment when demand for their products collapsed in late 

2008. While larger companies eventually had access to corporate 

debt markets that would turn to function, small businesses are 

more dependent on bank financing, which remains tight. 

The Administration’s small business proposals, including the proposals to create a $30 billion small business lending fund and raise 

6 

the cap on Small Business Administration 7(a) loans to $5 million, 

therefore, come at a particularly opportune time. 

The unpublished JOLTS data further highlight that the improvement in the labor market to date has been unevenly distributed 

across different sized establishments. Labor demand has trended 

up at large private-sector establishments since February 2008. Indeed, large establishments started increasing employment 8 

months ago, beginning in September 2009, a possible sign of durable job growth. 

Labor demand by smaller establishments, however, has continued to be weak, with low rates of new hires in particular. The challenges faced by small businesses remain a significant concern to 

the Administration, particularly in light of the fact that small businesses disproportionately hire minority and less skilled workers. 

In summary, the past decade could be characterized as a low 

pressure labor market, punctuated by a deep recession at the decade’s end. The consequences of a low pressure labor market are obvious: job growth that is not strong enough to accommodate a growing labor force results in higher unemployment. Unemployment 

carries severe personal and social costs and can also reduce future 

economic performance as out-of-work individuals see their skills atrophy and their attachment to the labor market erode. A chronically weak labor market has also been found to raise income inequality and increase poverty. 

For all these reasons and more, the Administration is committed 

to working with Congress to enact policies to promote sustainable 

job growth. These policies are focused on both the short run and 

the longer run. Short-run policies include such things as creating 

a small business lending fund to improve credit to small businesses, as I mentioned; summer jobs, as Chair Maloney mentioned; 

aid for State and local governments; and an increase or an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Long-run policies include 

investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure. 

With that, I am happy to take any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Alan B. Krueger appears in the 

Submissions for the Record on page 24.] 

Chair Maloney. Well, thank you so much, and this is certainly, 

I would say, a top priority on both sides of the aisle, coming up 

with ideas of ways that we can help our recovering economy hire 

more people. 

And I am interested in your comments on the disparity between 

hiring among large and small companies. You noted that the labor 

demand has picked up significantly for larger companies, with 

large establishments increasing employment in 5 of the last 6 

months, but at smaller companies, demand for labor remains very 

low. And part of that weak demand for new hiring reflects the reality that small businesses are more dependent on bank lending, 

which is still very tight and which may be limiting their growth. 

You mention that the President, in his State of the Union, talked 

about the $30 billion TARP money loan program. Could you comment on where that stands at this point? And also, what impact 

do you believe the Administration’s proposal to raise the cap on 

Small Business Administration 7(a) loans to $5 million could have 

on small business hiring? 

7 

Dr. Krueger. I think the diagnosis is right, that the sector or 

the segment of employers that are lagging most behind now in hiring is small businesses. I think that that is a common pattern after 

recessions that are caused by financial crises. Our data are not all 

that great in looking historically, and fortunately, we don’t have all 

that many financial panics to look at. However, normally it appears 

that when we have a recession that is not caused by a financial 

panic, small businesses are a moderating force. They tend to pick 

up earlier and to contribute less to job losses on the way down. 

That was the case in the recession in the early 2000s and then the 

recovery. 

In the current climate, however, it seems to be the reverse, and 

larger companies, which as I mentioned, have more access to credit 

markets because they have access to corporate bond markets, do 

tend to be expanding more. 

So that suggests to me that one avenue is to work directly on improving credit markets. And quite a bit of effort has been put into 

trying to stabilize credit markets, as you know, trying to strengthen banks to have them raise capital where they are in a position 

where they can lend. 

And the Administration’s proposal to take funds from TARP, to 

separate it from the TARP program, because TARP has a stigma 

attached to it and the banks that would be the vehicle for doing 

the small business lending weren’t necessarily the source of the financial problems that we face; to take these funds, invest them in 

viable banks, invest the capital in these banks at an interest rate 

of, say, 5 percent. If the banks increase their lending to small businesses, lower the interest rate. That gives them a strong powerful 

incentive to increase their lending. And we have been working intently with the congressional leadership to try to move this proposal forward. 

On the 7(a) loans, the cap of a million dollars prevents in particular startups in certain segments for small businesses. For example, many franchises would require more than a million dollars 

for startup. And franchise companies tend to be fairly stable businesses and fairly stable employers. So raising the cap to $5 million 

I think will open up kind of a new segment for SBA lobes with potential beneficial consequences for job growth. 

Chair Maloney. Well, assuming we can get this legislation 

through, lift the cap, and have targeted money through Treasury 

and TARP for small businesses, how quickly could we expect increased capital to flow through to hiring? 

Dr. Krueger. Well, I think some of it is a matter of confidence 

on the part of the employers. I think some of it is that there is considerable amount of damage that was caused by the recession and 

a lot of uncertainty remains. If the dynamic changes to one in 

which companies are expecting to see demand increase, which they 

are seeing, if they are expecting the recovery to continue, and if 

public policy can reinforce those expectations, it is entirely possible 

that we can see a continuation of the improvement that we have 

seen in terms of job growth; although I have to say that the normal 

pattern after a recession is that unemployment declines painfully 

slowly. Job matching takes time in the job market, and unfortuVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:06 Aug 25, 2010 Jkt 057313 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57313.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
8 

nately, the historical pattern is that unemployment declines very 

slowly after a recession. 

Chair Maloney. My time is up. 

Mr. Burgess is recognized. 

Representative Burgess. I thank the Chairwoman for the recognition. 

Just a couple of thoughts on some of the data that you have presented to us. You know, there is a pervasive sense that I get when 

I go home and talk to, particularly, the small- and medium-size 

employer that they are really not so much interested in another 

Federal program being created to help them. In fact, if anything, 

they say, spare us from another Federal program to help us; what 

we need is for you to stop doing the programs that you have been 

working on for the last 14 months, specifically in that vein would 

be health care, cap and trade, and now the financial regulatory bill, 

all of which has had a fairly toxic effect on the environment in 

which small business exists. 

And I particularly heard from small employers after the passage 

of the health care bill, during the Easter recess, where individuals 

who employed folks—I would call them entry level jobs. They tend 

to pay just a little bit over the minimum wage. They typically do 

not have a lot of benefits associated therewith. And these folks 

were looking at the bill that we had just passed—it had just been 

signed into law in fact by the President—and say, according to our 

study of this, it is going to cost us if these individuals, because the 

benefits are low at these entry level jobs, if these individuals seek 

help for their health care through the exchange, we will be fined 

a significant amount of money for each one. So what that is telling 

us is, between now and 2014, to get rid of as many of these jobs 

as we possibly can. The message we are receiving loud and clear 

from you, Congressman, is, don’t hire right now, because we are 

going to punish you if you do. 

Can you tell us anything to perhaps at least address that notion, 

and of course we haven’t even touched the expiration of the 2001 

tax policy, which is also very heavily on people’s minds as well? So 

can you help us with at least, from the direction of the administration—I know the direction of the Democratic leadership here in 

Congress—but from the direction of the administration from the 

Treasury Department, can you help us with the direction on what 

you are doing to at least to allay and ameliorate the fears that 

small- and medium-size businesses have right now? 

Dr. Krueger. Thank for the question. 

I agree that a number of small businesses are concerned about 

health care costs. In fact, when they list their concerns in surveys, 

they often list health care costs and weak sales as among their top 

concerns. 

I think the health care bill that passed the Congress and the 

President signed into law will help to lower health care costs for 

many small businesses. Right away, they are going to be eligible 

for tax credits for providing health insurance. 

Representative Burgess. If I could, because my time is limited. 

I don’t mean to interrupt, but just on that point, what I hear back 

from my small businesses, they say, this tax credit is fairly confusing. It is time limited. And realistically, the 6 million small busiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:06 Aug 25, 2010 Jkt 057313 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57313.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
9 

nesses it was supposed to help, in all likelihood, according to the 

National Federation of Independent Business, is likely to provide 

help to less than 4 million businesses. And there is also concern because of the nature of the way that benefit or that tax credit is 

written that it will decay over time. So it is not seen as a solid 

backstop that the small businessman is looking for. They are looking at a fairly hostile environment, and they are looking for some 

sure footing. And I don’t think that tax credit, in all candor, I don’t 

think that provided it. 

Dr. Krueger. Well, I think their experience might be different 

from that. I think what they may find after the tax credit is made 

available, that it does provide relief to the small businesses that 

are already providing health insurance and for those who would 

like to but can’t afford it. And my memory is that credit actually 

becomes more generous after 4 years, not less generous, although 

that is something I can certainly double-check. 

I think that small businesses will also find that they will benefit 

from being able to participate in exchanges, because right now, in 

the small group market, they are paying very high administrative 

costs. So I think that when the health care bill is implemented, 

they may find that some of their concerns in fact were not well justified by what actually took place. 

Representative Burgess. But the sense now—— 

Dr. Krueger. You also ask about tax policy, and let me also 

mention, of course, the President has supported extending the middle class tax cuts from 2001, 2003, for those earning below 

$250,000; that is the vast majority of small businesses. So the vast 

majority of small businesses in fact will continue to get a tax cut 

from the Administration’s policy. 

Representative Burgess [continuing]. Unless their gross receipts are over $250,000. 

Let me just ask you a question. And of course, congratulations 

on the 1-year anniversary of your confirmation tomorrow. That is 

a milestone I am sure you are aware of. 

Dr. Krueger. I am now. 

Representative Burgess. In reading through your resume, and 

it is an impressive resume, but can you just give us a sense of the 

private-sector experience you had prior to coming to this position? 

Dr. Krueger. Oh, certainly. For 20 years, I worked in the private sector, Princeton University. I also have been in small business, also involved in writing textbook, so that is my most recent 

private-sector experience. 

Representative Burgess. Would you care to elaborate what the 

small business was? 

Chair Maloney. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman may answer his question, and then we need to move on. 

Dr. Krueger. My small business involved consulting, writing, 

and similar types of activities. 

Representative Burgess. Thank you. 

Chair Maloney. Congressman Snyder. 

Representative Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, Dr. Krueger, for being here. 

10 

I will continue a little bit on this discussion about health care because I think it is important. I think it is part of our job to, in the 

words of Dr. Burgess, ameliorate anxiety. 

One of the anxieties I have heard for nearly decades now from 

folks back home that our current health care system, and this is 

more a question to a labor economist, the efficiency that comes 

from people feeling like they are trapped in a current job because 

of health insurance; and it seems like it mostly happens with family businesses, and sons and fathers and moms and daughters that 

probably should have parted the company some years before find 

themselves staying at the same work site because of somebody developing a preexisting condition. They are apprehensive about moving on. What is your comment about how you see the impact of this 

bill may help the efficiency, the economic efficiency of our country 

by people being able to move around with more flexibility? 

Dr. Krueger. I think your point is exactly right. I think that job 

lock, the term that we use, is a potential concern for the job market. Employees, particularly if they have a preexisting condition or 

if they have a family member with a preexisting condition, may be 

reluctant to change jobs for fear of losing their health insurance 

coverage. Others who are workers may have a concern about starting a small business because they would have difficulty getting 

health insurance coverage. 

My father was a small businessman and he was fortunate that, 

when he started his company, he was covered by my mother’s 

health insurance. So I know that is an issue for lots of people and 

the health care bill can help to ameliorate that. 

Representative Snyder. And those are people that we currently count as being taken care of under our current system. If 

you talked to them, your term job lock, they would actually feel like 

their economic prospects are limited, even though we would count 

them as currently a success. 

Dr. Krueger. That is correct. To the extent that job lock prevents people from moving to positions where they are more productive, that is inefficient for the economy. We have seen kind of a decline in labor turnover and movement across companies which 

might be indeed related. 

Representative Snyder. I have a couple of quick points I just 

want to leave with you before I ask another question. One of them 

is, I never pass up an opportunity when somebody from the Administration comes here to say, if you want to immediately do something about exports and about job creation, do something about 

Cuban trade policy. I come from a State where some studies have 

shown Arkansas would benefit the most from making it easier to 

trade, particularly agricultural products, with Cuba, and for a lot 

of us, it just doesn’t make sense to have the restrictions on trade 

with Cuba that we do. 

The second point I want to make and, again, perhaps you want 

to get back to us on this, but I have had some discussions the last 

week or so, I am sure other members have, too, about the issue of 

nursing. And here we have something, there are a lot of jobs out 

there for nurses right now. It is anticipated those needs are not 

going to go away because of my generation, us aging Baby 

Boomers. The health care will continue to go up and up. But we 

11 

have a real problem with inadequate numbers of faculty in nursing 

programs, specifically the Ph.D. type level of training to be a faculty member in a nursing program, because a lot of nursing programs don’t pay faculty well enough to make it worthwhile for 

them to stay in a teaching position. They get lured away to other 

places of work. 

And consequently, you have nursing programs that would be 

willing to take substantially more students in order to meet the 

needs of nurses out there in employment, but we don’t have adequate faculty. Maybe it has been going on for enough years now, 

that maybe there would be a need for a Federal look at that as a 

challenge; what can we do to encourage more folks to stay in a 

nursing faculty profession? 

I want to ask, yesterday or a couple days ago, I was at a company in Little Rock, a company from India that makes the big pipe 

that would transport natural gas and oil throughout the country. 

This is their 1 year anniversary, about 1 year in Little Rock; tens 

of millions of dollars in investment. They are now seeing an expansion. What role does international investment in the United States 

play in job creation? 

Dr. Krueger. I think it plays a very important role. To your 

point about exports more generally, I think that exports are going 

to play an important role going forward in job creation. If you look 

at the components of GDP and where is growth going to come from, 

exports are a very likely source. Foreign direct investment in the 

U.S. is also an important source of job growth and there are studies about quality of employment for those who work for foreign 

companies in the U.S., which also tends to be high. 

Representative Snyder. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair Maloney. Congressman Brady. 

Representative Brady. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Since I was late, I would like to place my entire written opening 

statement in the record if I may. 

Chair Maloney. Yes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN BRADY, A 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Representative Brady. Thanks for being here today, Dr. 

Krueger. 

After reading your written statement, I was surprised that as 

Treasury’s chief economist, you didn’t mention the stimulus bill or 

assess its effect on employment in your written statement. I wonder if it is because the stimulus law has failed on so many accounts 

to deliver the employment growth that President Obama and congressional Democrats promised. 

The Administration predicted if Congress enacted a stimulus 

plan, the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. We know 

where that is today, 9.7 percent. They predicted payroll employment would increase to 137.6 million by the end of this year; it 

won’t come anywhere close to that. And the Administration forecast 

that 90 percent of payroll growth will occur in the private sector. 

Actually, the only growth has been in the Federal Government secVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:06 Aug 25, 2010 Jkt 057313 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57313.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
12 

tor. The private sector has lost 3.7 million payroll jobs since the 

stimulus was enacted. 

Secondly, when you make comparisons in your statement between payroll employment growth in the U.S., Canada, and the 

United Kingdom in the 1990s and the last decade, you say more 

payroll jobs were created in the United States during the 1990s 

than the last decade, while the reverse was true in Canada and the 

UK. 

Based on these statistics alone, you jumped to the conclusion, the 

United States had better economic policy in the 1990s than in the 

last decade, but that comparison is gamed, because you don’t place 

these statistics in context. It is where both or all three countries 

started that is the key. 

The U.S. economy in December 1999 was near the peak of a 

multi-business cycle sector boom that began in November of 1982 

for a number of reasons: marginal tax rate reductions, deregulation, openness of new customers through trade. It was combined 

with disinflationary monetary policies that Federal Reserve Chairmen Volcker and Greenspan pursued as well. 

And the United States began the last decade, though, with the 

recession caused by the collapse of dot-com stock bubble and the 

job destroying 9/11 terrorist attack, that didn’t occur in Canada 

and the UK, and ended the decade with a recession caused by the 

collapse of the housing bubble. So it is not surprising U.S. growth 

in the last decade was not as strong in the 1990s. 

But the 1990s were not kind to either Canada or the UK so they 

started at a much lower base. Canada experienced a federal debt 

crisis and suffered as its resource exports fell after the Asian financial crisis. In the UK, the collapse of the exchange-rate mechanism 

on Black Wednesday triggered a severe recession. So it is not surprising the British and Canadian job growth was stronger in the 

last decade. They had nowhere to go but up. 

Finally, I find your observations on how the recession affects employment differently in small and large firms interesting. You attributed the difference on credit constraints on bank-dependent 

small businesses. I think you are partially right. Credit has been 

too tight. 

But I think, from a bigger standpoint in working with our smaller and mid-sized businesses, you would be ignoring other more important factors. That is Washington, D.C. There is an uncertainty 

created by the policies today; the businesses of all sizes tell me 

they are delaying critical hiring, investment, and expansion decisions for fear of proposals here in Washington by the White House 

and Congress regarding costly health care mandates, as Dr. Burgess said, higher energy prices, increased regulations, and now a 

slew of higher taxes on industry, on capital, international businesses. 

I think businesses have good reason to worry for all of those 

issues, especially the health care mandates, the fact that almost 90 

percent of all small businesses will not be eligible for the tax credits in health care. Energy costs are driven up by cap and trade and 

a slew of new energy taxes, hidden gas taxes on the industry. And 

of course, the White House has proposed more than $100 billion of 

penalties on U.S. companies that export and sell abroad. So, as one 

13 

owner of a company told me, it is hard enough to predict the market, but trying to predict Congress, too, forget it. 

To address that uncertainty, what small- and medium-size businesses tell me is that they need customers. Many of the new customers that they can reach are outside the United States, and 

other regions are recovering faster than we are. So my question is, 

to Dr. Snyder’s question, why are we not opening up markets for 

new customers in Colombia, South Korea, and Panama? Why are 

we not moving more aggressively to counter Asia and the European 

Union as they cut trade agreements that leave our workers in the 

dust? 

Now Canada and the EU have cut deals with Colombia that have 

already cut our wheat and soybean and corn sales by half in a 

year. So we are not just losing customers, losing out on new customers, we actually are losing the ones we have. So why won’t the 

Administration pursue new customers, give us a chance to sell to 

them? 

[The prepared statement of Representative Brady appears in the 

Submissions for the Record on page 43.] 

Chair Maloney. The gentleman’s time has expired. You may answer the question. 

Dr. Krueger. Sure, there is quite a bit there to discuss. The Recovery Act, I think, is part of the answer, by the way, to the question that the businesses raised to you about customers. The Recovery Act helped to support aggregate demand. Support for the unemployed, for example, has led to more consumer spending in the 

U.S. economy. That creates jobs and is one of the forces that has 

helped to put the brakes on this very steep slide that the economy 

was going through. 

I think the Recovery Act is a critical reason why, after four quarters in a row of contraction in the economy, we have now had three 

quarters in a row of expansion. So the fact that I didn’t emphasize 

the Recovery Act was mainly a result of the fact that I was looking 

backwards over the past couple of decades. 

On the international comparisons, I agree with you that there 

are many differences going on. You never have perfect controlled 

experiment when you look across national borders. I would point 

out, however, that in the beginning of the 1990s, the U.S. also had 

a recession, not too different than the recession from the early 

2000s. They were both, by historical standards, fairly moderate recessions. So I think the starting conditions were fairly similar comparing those two decades. 

Representative Brady. The starting conditions of Canada and 

the UK in 1999, when you begin part of your comparison, you are 

saying were the same, because they were dramatically—— 

Dr. Krueger. Oh, no, I am sorry, when you compare the U.S. 

performance in 1990s versus the 2000s. 

If you are making the international comparisons, I would make 

the argument that the U.S. had a lot of advantages going into the 

early 2000s compared to Canada and the UK. We had higher productivity and a budget surplus. We were starting with better educated workforces. We had more advanced in some respects adapting 

information technology, so I think one can make an argument that 

the U.S. started with many advantages. 

14 

Representative Brady. When? 

Dr. Krueger. When you look at the 20-year period as a whole, 

the U.S. didn’t perform better. 

Representative Brady. I understand. The point is, we were 

growing from a peak; they were growing from a valley. 

Representative Cummings. Thank you very much, Secretary. 

I want to go back to something that Mr. Snyder was talking 

about, and I think we in government, we want to be most effective 

and efficient in what we do. And it is clear, with adding some 32 

million people to the insured rolls, that we are going to need more 

people, and by the way, with the population becoming older, we are 

going to need more people in the health care area. In this committee, as we have gotten reports every month about unemployment, we noticed that it seems that the one area that seems to not 

be losing jobs but adding them is health care. 

I am just wondering, what kind of coordination there is in the 

Administration, when we have got, for example, a historically black 

college in my district, 5 blocks from my house, where they—it is 

one of the best—has one of the best nursing schools in the country. 

They are turning away, for every one person they admit, 5 inner 

city young people who have done everything right, worked hard, 

and because of the very things Mr. Snyder talked about, faculty 

and space, they can’t accommodate them. And I am trying to figure 

out, and what I have been saying to my colleges, I want them to 

look more at allied health areas and look more at things like nursing and whatever, because that is where the jobs are going to be. 

And I am wondering, the President talks about innovation, and 

I agree with him a million percent; we have got to be innovative. 

We also have to be effective and efficient. And then we have a large 

population that have lost their jobs and are not getting them back. 

They are not coming back. The research is showing that people 

have learned, a lot of these companies have learned to do more 

with less. So those jobs aren’t coming back. 

So I am just wondering, what kind of coordination is there within 

the Administration to begin to steer some of our folks, both laidoff workers and our young people coming out of school, to say, look, 

green jobs, health care jobs, we need you in those areas, and how 

do we get them there? And how do we address, you didn’t get a 

chance to address Mr. Snyder’s question, how do we address questions like, turning away our own people, our own kids that have 

busted their butts and done everything they are supposed to do, 

and then they get to a point to go to school, and there is no opportunity for them? Talk to me. 

Dr. Krueger. I will tell you what I can. You asked about how 

coordination takes place within the Administration. 

Representative Cummings. Yes. 

Dr. Krueger. Obviously, the health care workforce is not a 

mainline Treasury Department issue. 

Representative Cummings. I understand that. 

Dr. Krueger. Nonetheless, through the interagency task force, I 

have been involved in discussions about, how do we train enough 

health care workers for what is an expanding sector and will continue to be an expanding sector, given our demographics. Within 

the Administration, both health care working groups, which were 

15 

headed by Nancy-Ann DeParle, considered issues about health care 

professionals. And then, within the DPC and the National Economic Council, there are also interagency groups that have looked 

at the question of where do we get the biggest bang for the buck 

in terms of education dollars? Where does it have the most immediate return in terms of job creation? I would have to say I agree 

wholeheartedly that nursing is one profession where we do have 

demand, where workers can be retrained or the flow of workers can 

be expanded, because some nursing degrees only require 2 years; 

others require 4 years. But there are, of course, issues in terms of 

building up the infrastructure for training that workforce. And I 

would also add very big regional differences across the country. In 

some areas, tremendous difficulty with recruiting enough doctors, 

and perhaps in those areas, nurses can perform—— 

Representative Cummings. It is not just nurses. It is allied 

health, all those fields, people who look at your X-rays, take your 

X-rays, physical therapists, all of them. So I will talk to the folks 

in the Administration because I really want to see us address that 

more effectively and efficiently. 

Let me ask you this, because I see my time is running out. I 

know that you wrote a recent paper about the unemployed and life 

satisfaction and intense sadness. A lot of people don’t realize that 

when a person loses their job, it is more than just losing some 

money, isn’t it? 

Dr. Krueger. Chair Maloney mentioned my work on happiness, 

which I appreciate. This work was more on misery. 

We had looked at how people spend their time, how they feel 

about their lives. And what is striking about unemployment is it 

doesn’t only affect people while they are unemployed; it has a lasting effect. And many of life’s events, people are tremendously resilient; they adapt to them. But unemployment seems to last for a 

very long time period in terms of scarring people’s psychological 

well-being. 

And one concern is that with the high rates of unemployment 

that we have, especially long-term unemployment, that that could 

have an adverse effect on people going forward in terms of their 

ability to get jobs in the future because they maybe have become 

isolated. So I think it is particularly important for the unemployed 

to make productive uses of their time, to volunteer in their community if they can, to spend time working around their house and 

their neighborhood, and not to become isolated, which could have 

an adverse effect down the road. 

The field of looking at people’s subjective well-being has been advancing very rapidly, and economists tend to be very skeptical 

about what people’s responses are about how happy they are or 

how sad they are. What I think the research is showing is that people’s self-reported well-being measures do seem to be predictive of 

their future outcomes. And unemployment is one of those life 

events which has a long-lasting negative effect on well-being, which 

is why it is so important, as you all know, why it is so important 

to do what we can to continue the recovery and ensure sustainable 

job growth. 

Representative Cummings. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you. 

16 

Senator Casey. 

Senator Casey. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Dr. Krueger, thank you for your testimony and for your public 

service. 

Just by way of a predicate for a couple of questions, I don’t think 

there is any question right now that we are recovering. The economy is growing, which is a dramatic change from a year ago or 

less. And I believe the recovery bill is having a very positive impact 

on the economy. We may not be doing a very good job of talking 

about those positive impacts, but that is our fault. And at the same 

time, the unemployment situation is better than it has been, certainly better than a year ago. Job loss is down, and job gains are 

up, but it is still far too high. We have to acknowledge that figure. 

In Pennsylvania, we have a 9 percent unemployment rate, which 

a lot of big States would prefer to their own rate, but that 9 percent still means 582,000 people out of work. 

The question that I want to ask you centers on small business 

and really three basic words: Access to credit, which is a continuing 

frustration. I have been hearing about this from the beginning of 

the recession, but we are still hearing about it today. Something is 

still not working in terms of the access to credit that small businesses need and are asking for. 

I just want to get your thoughts, I guess in two parts, assessing 

the strategies that have been put in place so far in terms of their 

success, but secondly, more importantly, what can we do going forward to make sure that we are providing that kind of access to 

credit, which is going to be the driving force to keeping the unemployment rate a lot lower? 

Dr. Krueger. The first requirement was to stabilize the financial 

system, and that required the financial stability plan, TARP investments in banks, and the stress tests, which were enormously beneficial. I think history will show that they were a turning point in 

terms of encouraging banks to go out and raise private capital. The 

banks were far more able to raise private capital than I think 

many people expected. That was necessary, but it hasn’t been sufficient. 

Additionally, targeted efforts, particularly for small businesses, I 

think would be helpful. As I mentioned earlier, raising the cap on 

SBA 7(a) loans to $5 million will help certain lines of small businesses get started, particularly franchises, which tend to be more 

stable businesses. 

And I would just highlight the President’s proposal to take $30 

billion from TARP; there is the head room that is available to do 

that to create a small business lending fund. Use that to take capital and invest it in banks. Lower the interest rate that they pay 

to the Treasury on those funds if they increase their small business 

lending. I think that will give them a strong incentive to raise their 

small business lending. 

I have to say I am particularly worried about our start-up companies. The data that I was able to show you in my testimony 

looked at existing establishments. Another set of problems revolve 

around start-ups and trying to support new businesses to form, because ultimately, that will be the source of job growth in the future. 

17 

Senator Casey. I just want to clarify on the new fund you would create with $30 billion of TARP money; you are talking about using 

those resources to get to community banks so they can loan to 

small businesses in their regions? 

Dr. Krueger. That is right. In our proposal only banks with below $10 billion in assets would be eligible, and those below a billion dollars in assets would be eligible for a higher share of capital. 

Our view is that those are the banks in the best position to decide 

which the best businesses to invest in are. That is their business. 

That is their specialty, but if we could give them the funds so that 

they could leverage up to invest in businesses, that that is probably 

one of the best ways that government can try to increase the flow 

of credit to small businesses. 

Senator Casey. Thank you very much. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you, we have been called to a vote, followed by several 5-minute votes. 

I am going to call on Mr. Hinchey now. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very, much Madam 

Chair. 

And thank you, Dr. Krueger. 

I am impressed with reading your testimony, and I am sorry I 

wasn’t here to listen to you in your presentation that you made. I 

am sure there were a number of important things that really need 

to be dealt with. 

Representative Hinchey. One of the ways in which you describe the last period of time that we are dealing with is the lost 

decade with little net job growth, which, of course, is exactly right. 

Part of the problem that we have been facing here is a lot of expenditure of money but no money being extended in ways that are 

going to stimulate the economy, and have positive impacts on the 

internal needs here in the country to promote internal growth, generate jobs and to make life better. A lot of the money has been 

wasted, and it was wasted in providing a concentration of wealth 

in the hands of the wealthiest 1 percent, and was wasted on spending money in Iraq. That number is getting now close to $1 trillion 

that has been spent over there, which shouldn’t have been spent 

at all. The focus of our intention really has got to be internally, 

here in the internal needs of this country. These needs have not 

really been adequately addressed. 

So you may have spoken about this already, but maybe you want 

to say a little bit more about what really needs to be dealt with. 

What kind of internal investments we should be making? What are 

the kinds of things that we should be doing? 

The investment program we have, which is called the stimulus 

bill, has had a positive effect on the economy; it has been creating 

jobs. But it would seem to me that more is needed; more is needed 

primarily because so little has been done in the past. Now, we need 

to begin to catch up with the internal needs of this country. 

One of the aspects of the internal needs is an improvement in 

technology, and one of the most important aspects of technology is 

energy. Our dependence on fossil fuels is something that really 

should be changed. 

Do you think that we should be focusing attention on alternative 

energy, focusing attention on ways in which we can generate enVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:06 Aug 25, 2010 Jkt 057313 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\57313.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
18 

ergy more effectively, solar, for example, and other ways? Are there 

things like that that we should be paying attention to and putting 

funds into? 

Dr. Krueger. Thank you very much for raising such a big issue. 

I think there are many dimensions of investment that have been 

neglected in the U.S. I highlighted in my remarks earlier education. The U.S. has lost its lead in education. Ultimately, in the 

long run, there is no reason why jobs wouldn’t be attracted to the 

place or employers wouldn’t be attracted to the place where they 

get the best value. And the main resource we have in the U.S. is 

our people. 

So, first and foremost, I think, for sustainable job growth, we 

need to improve the quality of our education and the quantity of 

our education. Secretary Duncan has pursued a number of different 

and innovative programs to try to get the most bang for the buck 

in our education dollars. 

One area I would highlight is support for Pell Grants for those 

going to 2-year colleges, junior colleges, or community colleges, 

which a lot of research suggests has very high payoff for those who 

are going through those types of educational programs. 

But you mention a number of priorities and I would also add, 

going forward, given the high rate of unemployment that we have, 

extending unemployment benefits further. Also the COBRA support, which I think is an unprecedented initiative to try to help the 

unemployed maintain their health insurance while they are unemployed. 

So I think there are many, many areas, and you highlight some 

of the most important ones. 

Representative Hinchey. I very much agree with you, and one 

of the things that I think that we should be focused on is the energy issue because we are seeing examples of the way in which our 

dependence on fossil fuels is not only driving up the price, but it 

is also driving up contamination and tragedies and a whole host of 

things that we are experiencing. So there are a lot of things that 

have to be dealt with there. 

Your focusing attention on education, of course, is critically important. We have passed in the House of Representatives a significant bill which would provide additional funding, a significant 

amount of funding for education. That is one of a number of very 

critically important bills which would have very positive effects on 

the economic conditions that haven’t been dealt with in the Senate. 

Do you think that something should be done? What can be done? 

Is the whole 60 number issue something that has to be dealt with? 

We are impeded because of the circumstances in the Senate and 

particularly with education. 

What do you think? 

Dr. Krueger. Well, my expertise is in economics, not in congressional analysis, so I really don’t have something to add on relations 

with the Senate in terms of passing that bill. 

But I do agree with your comments about energy. And I would 

also add the importance of improving our infrastructure, as the Recovery Act tries to do and as the President has proposed further 

infrastructure investments. Infrastructure will help put displaced 

19 

construction workers back to work now and raise productivity in 

the future. 

So I think there are a number of areas in investment that have 

been neglected. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you. 

Chair Maloney. Thank you so very much, Dr. Krueger. We are 

very fortunate to have you as our Chief Economist and Assistant 

Secretary at the Department of the Treasury. 

Regretfully, we have been called for a long series of votes, so we 

are going to have to adjourn. I have additional questions and my 

colleague on the other side of the aisle, Congressman Brady, has 

some, and we will be submitting them to you in writing. 

Again, thank you for your testimony. We were really very grateful for your testimony today. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(21) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

22 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN MALONEY, CHAIR, JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

Today’s hearing is aptly named ‘‘Avoiding Another Lost Decade: How to Promote 

Job Creation.’’ 

From February 2001 to February 2009, our economy gained a mere 293,000 jobs. 

As we are facing the greatest postwar economic crisis, we need to take a look at 

history. 

In contrast to the last Administration, during the Clinton Administration, 22.5 

million jobs were created, an average of 234,000 jobs per month. 

But even under the stellar Clinton job creation record, it would take 3 years for 

us to recreate the 8.4 million jobs lost during this recession. 

And that doesn’t even factor in the additional two and a half million jobs that 

were needed during the recession just to keep up with population growth. In other 

words, we’re about 11 million jobs in the hole. 

The Great Recession has taken a tremendous toll on our economy and families 

across the country who are struggling to find work and make ends meet. Without 

the swift, effective response from policymakers, the Great Recession could have been 

another Great Depression. 

Signed into law less than a month after President Obama took office, the Recovery Act has helped soften the blow of the recession and returned the economy to 

growth in the second half of 2009. It provided a tax cut to 95 percent of American 

families, extended unemployment benefits, expanded credit to small businesses, and 

provided a first-time homebuyers’ tax credit to help families purchase a home. 

The Recovery Act has been followed by other Congressional actions to create jobs, 

including: 

• The Worker, Homeownership & Business Assistance Act, which expanded the 

first-time homebuyer tax credit, and enhanced small business tax relief; and 

• The HIRE Act, which provides tax incentives for businesses that hire out-ofwork Americans. 

These actions are working. 

Under the current Administration, the employment report has shown steady improvement with: 

• 162,000 jobs created in March, with three-fourths of those new jobs coming from 

the private sector; 

• Manufacturing employment up for 3 straight months. 

On Friday, the JEC will hold its monthly hearing with the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner to discuss the April employment data. I am optimistic that Friday’s employment report will provide another month of robust job creation. 

But, we need to remain focused on job creation. 

Part of the solution will be to look back to the Clinton Administration and see 

what fueled job creation during the 1990s. We need to recapture the spirit of innovation that fueled the economy for those 8 years. 

Another part of the solution will be to look at the last decade and not repeat the 

same mistakes. 

When we came out of the 2001 recession, job creation did not return to pre-recession levels. 

We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of the last decade and rely on asset bubbles 

to fuel job creation. We are still dealing with the aftermath of the housing bubble 

bursting. 

But just as we failed to regain the job creation momentum after the last recession, 

we also squandered a record budget surplus, leaving us with fewer options to address future challenges. 

Part of the path forward is continuing to invest in programs and policies that 

work. 

Yesterday, as part of the effort to cast a wide net and look for innovative but effective approaches, the House Democratic leadership held an economic summit. 

At that summit, my friend Professor Alan Blinder said ‘‘I think the challenge for 

the Congress now is to devise budget packages that are efficient in terms of job creation, relative to any deficit increases that they cost. It is not easy . . . .’’ 

In an effort to look for efficient solutions to the jobs crisis, the House of Representatives recently passed the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010, 

which supports an additional 300,000 summer jobs for young workers—summer jobs 

that are particularly needed in this weak economy. 

But we also need to take some chances and be willing to place some bets. 

We should target those sectors that offer the best prospects for growth. 

23 

We should recommit ourselves—as a country—to basic research that pays dividends well into the future—in new industries and new jobs. 

It’s clear that the private sector will drive the next expansion. But it’s also clear 

that government needs to be an engaged partner, helping to build skills, to shine 

a spotlight on new sectors and opportunities and to fund research that can lead to 

the industries and jobs of tomorrow. 

We are fortunate to have Dr. Alan Krueger before us today to discuss job creation. 

Dr. Krueger served as Chief Economist of the Department of Labor during the 

Clinton Administration and is an editor and contributor to the book ‘‘The Roaring 

’90s: Can Full Employment Be Sustained.’’ 

We look forward to your testimony. 

24 


Insert offset folio 01 here 57313.001
25 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57313.002
26 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57313.003
27 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57313.004
28 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57313.005
29 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57313.006
30 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57313.007
31 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57313.008
32 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57313.009
33 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57313.010
34 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57313.011
35 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57313.012
36 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57313.013
37 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57313.014
38 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57313.015
39 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57313.016
40 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57313.017
41 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57313.018
42 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57313.019
43 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN BRADY

I am pleased to join in welcoming Dr. Krueger before the Committee. 

Although many economic indicators show signs of a recovery, the employment situation remains dire. As of last month, 15 million Americans were out of work for 

an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent. 

Given these grim employment statistics, I thank the Chair for convening this 

hearing on how to promote job creation. We should begin by examining President 

Obama’s record on job creation. In January 2009, President Obama proposed an $862 billion stimulus plan. Two 

of the Obama’s Administration top economists, Jared Bernstein and Christina 

Romer, forecast the economic benefits from Obama’s stimulus plan, which the Congressional Democrats enacted the next month. This Romer-Bernstein forecast is the 

standard that the Obama Administration set to judge the success of its economic 

policies. So let’s compare this forecast with reality: 

• The Administration predicted that if Congress enacted the stimulus plan, the 

unemployment rate would not exceed 8.0 percent. The unemployment rate increased to 10.1 in October 2009, and remained at 9.7 percent in March 2010. 

• The Administration predicted that payroll employment would increase to 137.6 

million in the fourth quarter of 2010. Actually, payroll employment was 129.8 

million in March 2010, and would have to increase by about 867,000 payroll 

jobs per month to meet the Administration’s forecast. 

• Finally, the Administration forecast that 90 percent of payroll growth would 

occur in the private sector. Actually, the private sector lost 3.7 million payroll 

jobs from February 2009 to March 2010. The only sector in which the number 

of payroll jobs increased was the federal government. 

Let’s turn to the other major items on the Democrats’ economic policy agenda and 

assess their impacts on job creation. 

First, the recently enacted health care legislation will require employers to offer 

a costly government-mandated health plan or pay a fine of $2,000 per worker. Insurance premiums are likely to soar as the new system of guaranteed issue will 

cause some people to wait until they are sick before they buy insurance. It is not 

clear how widespread this practice will become. But, it is clear that the additional 

employment costs will discourage hiring. 

Second, the Democrats have proposed ‘‘cap and trade’’ legislation that would raise 

energy prices, require firms to use currently non-existent technologies, and mandate 

an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Speaker Pelosi claims this bill 

is about creating ‘‘green jobs.’’ Spain has tried this approach and failed. Professor 

Gabriel Calzada Alverez found every ‘‘green job’’ created cost about $763,000. Far 

more jobs are destroyed by raising energy prices through ‘‘cap and trade’’ than 

‘‘green jobs’’ are created. 

Third, the Democrats have proposed ‘‘card check’’ legislation to end the secret ballot for union representation elections and impose mandatory two-year contract 

through political arbiters on newly unionized firms if employers and unions cannot 

agree. This prospect discourages private business investment and job creation. 

Fourth, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have decided to let the 

2001 and 2003 tax reductions expire at the end of this year and impose a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income effective in 2013. As a result, the maximum tax 

rates on capital gains and dividends will jump from 15 percent this year to 23.8 percent and 43.4 percent, respectively, in 2013. This Congress also stood by while our 

R&D tax credit expired last year. 

In 1990, our average combined federal and state corporate income tax rate was 

6 percentage points lower than the average in other OECD countries. We were leading our competitors. Today, it is 9 percentage points higher—and now we are losing 

out to them. 

Despite the competitive disadvantages from the high U.S. corporate income tax 

rate and our system of worldwide taxation with deferrals and foreign tax credits, 

President Obama has proposed a grab-bag of hidden tax increases on U.S. corporations selling American-made goods and services overseas. And now, Administration 

officials and their friendly media outlets are beginning to hint that President 

Obama and Congressional Democrats may seek a value-added tax after the midterm elections in November to fund their permanent increase in the size of the federal government. All of these tax policies discourage private business investment 

and job creation. 

Finally, Congressional Democrats have failed to ratify the already signed free 

trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that would boost U.S. 

exports by $13 billion and create 250,000 new high-paying jobs here in America. 

44 

Taken together, the economic policies of President Obama and Congressional 

Democrats, however well intentioned they may be, are a hindrance to a robust job 

creation. If Americans wish to enjoy vigorous job growth, these economic policies 

must be reversed. 

I look forward to today’s discussion. 

45 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57313.020
46 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57313.021
47 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57313.022
48 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57313.023
49 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57313.024
50 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57313.025