Wasted or Wasteful? Are Bureaucrats All That Bad?

The recent glorification of Cash for Clunkers is depressing. Although the program was not all that popular with the American public and its benefits were questionable, its lightning fast impact impressed the hyperactive news media. The Obama administration, beleaguered by endless weeks of health care drudgery, lapped up the positive PR.

The stimulus package, on the other hand, has received the cold shoulder, both from ordinary Americans and from the media. The $787 billion measure, which is in the process of righting the economy, gets very little love.

Indeed, studies have begun to trickle out tentatively calling the stimulus a success. Even conservative commentators are pondering what the likelihood of a successful stimulus means for future Republican administrations. And recent Gallup polling shows that Americans are becoming more optimistic about the direction of the economy: 40% believe it is improving, 7 percent more than last month.

However, only 41% of Americans think that the stimulus package will make the economy better in the short term. Worse, an Economist/YouGov poll found that a dismal 24% of Americans believe the stimulus package is working. Further, news outlets are making a cottage industry out of stimulus criticism. For example, the investigative journalism site ProPublica is doing a fantastic job of aggregating news stories on misspent stimulus funds and raising questions about how the administration is calculating its all-important "jobs created and saved" metric.

The gulf between the opinion of economists and the American public is generally quite wide, so perhaps the divergence in judgment about the stimulus should be unsurprising. Yet, the package includes lots of good things for most Americans, from tax cuts (even if unrecognizable) to increased unemployment benefits and subsidies for health insurance for the unemployed.

The divergence of opinion is more likely the result of a failure on the part of stimulus proponents to explain why and how government investment - that is, spending by bureaucrats - is actually a good thing.

Instead of defining why the Department of Energy and HUD and HHS and other agencies (most of the time) spend taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently - and so will spend stimulus dollars effectively and efficiently - there is a tendency for the administration simply to explain that it will ensure that these agencies will not spend money badly, that it will root out fraud and abuse. That is why Vice President Biden, not a lower-level administration official, is running stimulus oversight: so far, he has primarily been in charge of damage control, not coordinating stimulus spending among agencies. Government stimulus spending is presented by the administration as a necessary evil.

In the absence of an argument for why spending by the government makes sense, the American public has been captured by the conservative viewpoint that paints all bureaucrats as wasteful and unthinking. A similar situation has occurred in the debate about health care reform. Conservative opponents of reform have forced reformers to explain why government will not ration health care services, rather than explain how measures like comparative effectiveness research can improve care.

There is much to be said for how well the federal bureaucracy is functioning under President Obama. Just one example is the coordination between the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency to create livable communities connected to affordable housing, an initiative that breaks down the historical and illogical boundaries between the two agencies.

Another example, more to the point, is the expenditure of the stimulus's vast sums. No federal agency has yet buckled under the weight of the spending, funds have been directed relatively quickly from Washington to state governments, and the stimulus is more or less on track with the CBO's predicted spending timetable.

The Obama administration should not be afraid to explain that the federal bureaucracy has responded quite well to the gargantuan task of spending the stimulus. Otherwise, progressives will find themselves in the untenable position of arguing that spending is good but the spenders are bad.

Follow Harry Moroz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hmoroz

Comments

[NordicSci]

I find the criticism that dealers haven't been getting their rebates very quickly and that the program requires too much paperwork rather ironic. The "cash for clunkers" program has been running for just over a month, hardly enough time to evaluate how quickly claims are being processed, especially when compared to the performance of many private sector rebate programs. The majority of "corporate" rebate programs I have dealt with require plenty of paperwork and often some follow-up to be sure you get your money (the whole "rebate" model is in part premised on the recognition that many won't bother to apply and/or go through the many barriers put up to make it difficult). It is not unusual to be told later you weren't really eligible for the rebate based on some lame excuse. If you are lucky and you persevere you may get a check within the promised 6-8 weeks needed for processing. And if they fail to follow through, it is up to you to remember that you were due a rebate. Whatever the faults of the program may be, it is a bit premature to judge how quickly the government is able to cut the checks.

[EbonBear]

Well, of course the media loved Cash For Clunkers. The American media has terminal ADD.

More to the point though, it's also not surprising that the public is dubious about the stimulus. The public has been programmed for over thirty years by the Right and the corporate media to disdain the very concept of government. Why else would we have a health care debate that amounts to "government bureaucracy = bad; insurance industry bureaucracy = great!"? Why else would so much of the public think this centreist (if not centre-right) president is to the left of Stalin? Your public debate has been entirely corrupted to see the extreme-right fringe as the centre.

[dadw5boys]

Oh ok now we have heard from the Drum Majors.

Next up are the Cheerleaders.
Then we got the High School Kitchen Staff.
Listen up people. If you with the Baseball Insititute they are meeting in the dug go there leave the Cheerleaders alone.
OK the Swim Instutite and the Volleyball Insutitie are joining in one statement on Public Policy find your group people.
Get out of these hallways kids.

[Photofarm]

The Cash For Clunkers program is typical of government corruption and unintended consequences.

Cash for clunkers has caused a shortage of used cars, less work for auto mechanics, pushed 6-12 months of care demand into a few weeks. The results in the next year will be worse because it was enacted. Not to mention that like usual, government is too slow getting money out.

Doing nothing would have been better, but politicians always have to do " something " , which over half of the time is wrong.

[aofh]

The right has dominated our conversation about how government (doesn't) work for a long time, and their terms are the default values we use. It is good to see that you, along with George Lakoff, are challenging their framing. I hope this is an evolving propensity.

[middleoftheroad]

The stimulus is not the reason the economy has at least become stable. The stimulus was one big agenda bill...$142 billion to the DOE, grants, CER, etc...how has this stimulated the economy. Big business has stopped their bleeding by closing location, plants, layoffs etc...ie-cost saving, not via sales. Plus, 60-70% of the stimulus is still not spent, and about 30% will go to job creation. They should have cut everyone making less then $80,000 a $1,000 check, extended un-employment, and cut payroll taxes...THAT would have given a boot to the system...NICE GOING APOLLO ALLIANCE!

[AnnfromCA]

The problem is that the country watched as the government floundered with Cash for Clunkers. The implementation was lousy. One more time, the bill demanded so much paperwork that dealers still haven't been paid in accordance with the promise made by the government.

How does this help anyone feel confident in expanding healthcare?

It doesn't.

[Eraser]

As a student of Public Administration, this reminds me of the phrase "sheep in wolf's clothing" - How government bureaucrats are always demonized by the right, when it's just everyday people doing their job honestly and as best they can. Far better than a civil servant whose job it to serve the public good make decisions about money, healthcare, etc than someone who's goal is to make money for themselves.

[Photofarm]

failed basic human psychology I see.

[EbonBear]

Not half as much as you failed basic debate.

[Eclectic Radical]

It is worth noting that the stimulus is most likely being presented as a necessary evil because of President Obama's own economic education. His economic ideas are heavily influenced by the Chicago school.

In plainer English, eager and adoring liberals elected a Fried-maniac president. A pragmatic Fried-maniac who understands the need for intervention in a catastrophic event, but who still believes such intervention contravenes the natural functioning of the economy.

The reason we are not seeing a concerted effort by the administration to sell stimulus as a good thing, a la New Deal, is that the administration itself does not believe in the 'goodness' of a New Deal. This is an emergency, crisis measure and things will all get back to normal after it's over and done. The fundamental economic thinking behind the Bush approach to this issue and the Obama approach to this issue is the same, because they are both operating on the same neoconservative, supply-side playbook.

[Photofarm]

nope, not at all right.

[NordicSci]

He lived in Chicago so he must be a devotee of the Chicago School!

An administration that pushed for the largest stimulus since FDR is a non-believer!

A stimulus plan focused more on infrastructure than not tax cuts is an example of "supply-side" economics!

[serena1313]

People forget when the recession began Bush was in the WH. By the time Obama was elected the recession had already escalated to the point just short of no return.

Obama came into office with the housing market in free-fall; the world financial system on the verge of collapsing; global stock markets hitting all time lows; spending and borrowing grinding to a halt; people losing their jobs; millions of homes going into foreclosure; homelessness and bankruptcy exponentially rising; and the economy contracting faster by the minute. Everything was crashing. All of which started while Bush was in office. I'd be remiss not to mention the $40 Trillion dollars in wealth that simply vanished practically overnight -- with it millions lost their retirement funds, 401Ks, savings and pensions.

The number of job losses are still significant, however, they are almost half of the 700,000 lost every month during Bush's presidency. New home sales are up. Global markets are less volatile. Banks are lending, but people aren't really spending. The economy is still contracting, but at a much slower pace. Nevertheless things are stabilizing somewhat.

The stimulus money (less than $100 billion spent) helped steady the economy, minimized the downturn and stemmed the bleeding jobs. While Obama managed to pull us back from the brink, we are not out of the woods, not yet. But at least we are headed in the right direction.

[rocketman69]

And Boo$h was sworn in on a booming economy? (think dot-com)

[boophus]

A stubbed toe compared to a major coronary by Bush apologists. Another serf to corporations and the rich speaks out for his masters

[EbonBear]

The 2001 recession started two months after Bush took office.

[Tim303]

Have you ever been to a third world country such as Indonesia or Peru? You will be glad of our roads and postal service, not to mention garbage pick up.

[NordicSci]

The public health conditions are nothing to brag about either.

[picomanning]

The late and truly great Milton Friedman - American economist, statistician and public intellectual, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.

Friedman stated in 1995 in his book Money Mischief, that EVERY nation in history which utilized a fiat currency saw that currency fail. At some point each nation was seduced by the political urge to just print money to escape debt problems. Push the problem into the laps of future politicians. A stradegy that has an obvious limited life. A little printing might be good as an illusion of growth, but a threshold will be seen only after the watered down currency does real harm.
Amerika will realize that our national good looks have faded. Few will look up to us then. And the fact that all 'developed' nations now operate on fiat currency should give us even more concern. Standards of living are at risk, even for responsible citizens.

[dadw5boys]

Freidman left out the part about Corporate control of the Government to force actions to create economic stimulus with every action.

Planning ahead of those action with insider knowledge Corporations could take in all the money from the Government leaving the private citizen out on the cold as the banks would be slow to act on loans trying to find a way the bank could profit too.

[dadw5boys]

Freidman also left out the ever increasing damand to pay interest on debt of the Government.

That interest is unearned and threating the very heart of any country.

[peterg76]

Cash for clunkers was consumption - the stimulus was investment. Which do you think Americans value more?

[dadw5boys]

Cash for clunkers also removed millions of dollars in used parts off the market and put people back to work making new parts. The price of used parts already in the salavage yards went up to there will be more tax collected on each sale.

[thnk4selfagain]

The notion of one can't prove a negative is at work with the public's view (or no view) of the stimulus at work for the citizens' benefit. It's logical that the stimulus has softened the economic blow of the crash. But what citizens see and feel (like a punch to the gut) is disappearing opportunity, job insecurity, irrational commodity prices, predator banks raising fees while Wall Street gambles with their 401(k)s and their house equity -- all with Geithner and Obama Admin's blessing. The stimulus, the one positive thing the Obama Admin has effected, is drowned out by the bleak picture for America's middle class and working class now and increasingly forevermore. The stimulus is finite and insufficient, Americans realize this. After that, the jobs that will eventually return in the two track recovery will be on the order of "Do you want fries with that?" and "Tall, Grande or Venti?"

[dadw5boys]

The local governments are not making the move to replace schools with asbeotes in them or imporving the public transpoitations system.

The old system of corruption in contracts and kickback Swill not work with the stimulus money and these theifs do not know any other way to do business.

[Harry Moroz - Huffpost Blogger]

I can't help thinking that much of this "gulf" would be mitigated by a more concrete effort to help homeowners. The political opposition - or, well, the business opposition - is substantial. But the benefits would be readily apparent to the public.

[noneIn2008]

There will be enormous fraud in the stimulus. The best part is that it give Congress yet another reason to have hearings in the future, rooting out the stimulus fraud. Congress can be indignant over the waste, fraud and abuse, just in time for good photos prior to the elections.