The Dynamic Duo

David Cho of the Washington Post reports that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have become outsized voices on Obama’s economic team. A few weeks ago, for example, they teamed up to keep Obama focused on the long-term deficit:

Meeting in January on the eighth floor of the transition team’s office in downtown Washington, Geithner pressed the incoming president to commit to cutting the deficit to 3 percent of the economy over the next five years, which would keep the nation’s debt roughly in line with normal economic growth. Summers quickly backed him.

Some, including economist Jared Bernstein, resisted, saying that such a strict limit would make it more difficult to confront the many challenges ahead and that the size of the government’s emergency response to the economy and financial markets would make the cap tough to maintain.

In February, the entire economic team convened in the windowless Roosevelt Room in the White House. Obama abruptly ended the debate. Geithner and Summers would have their way.

Tim Fernholz says “this doesn’t sound too good,” but I think that’s too quick a judgment.  Bernstein may have lost this battle, but he wasn’t shut out of the conversation, and in any case it’s a battle he probably deserved to lose.  The long-term deficit is important, both in substantive and optical terms.  Substantively it’s important because it’s related to the current account deficit, which eventually needs to start coming down.  We can’t keep borrowing from China forever.  And optically it’s important because Obama needs to appear fiscally responsible if he wants to achieve his long-term goals.  So far Republicans haven’t been able to make the “wasteful spending” charge stick, but if they ever get any traction with it the public is likely to start turning against Obama’s plans.  One way to keep that from happening is for him to take economic fundamentals seriously and to make sure the public knows he’s taking them seriously.

If the Bernstein faction starts to lose every battle, then that’s a problem.  But it’s only been a few weeks so far, and I suspect that he’s going to win a few on some other issues.  But Obama did the right thing this time.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.