It’s the economy, stupid.

The New York Times writes:

If President Obama has a big economic initiative up his sleeve, as he hinted recently, now would be a good time to let the rest of us in on it. . . .

The fiscal stimulus of 2009, coupled with low interest rates and other Federal Reserve interventions, kept the recession from being much worse. But it has not been enough to revive hiring, without which a real recovery is impossible. In the meantime and even more ominously, economic policy making has all but ground to a halt. . . .

Mr. Obama and his economic team had clearly hoped for an economic rebound in time for the midterm elections. They are not going to get it. The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small. Standing back is not doing the country or his party any good. We believe Americans are ready for hard truths and big ideas.

Read the rest of this Editorial in the New York Times . . .

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times:

President Obama is weighing new steps to bolster the economy, he said Monday. But any measures he takes seem likely to be small ones, and his options are limited with Congress showing little appetite for more spending in a hotly contested midterm election year. . . .

The president . . . said he and his team were “hard at work in identifying additional measures,” including extending tax cuts for the middle class that are scheduled to expire this year, increasing government investment in clean energy and rebuilding more infrastructure.

None of those steps, however, will come close to the $787 billion stimulus measure that Democrats passed at the outset of the Obama presidency. With voters angry about government spending, and economists divided about just what approach is the correct one, such aggressive steps are by now out of the question.

“There’s a deep frustration among economists that they simply don’t know what to do under these circumstances, at least in terms of fiscal policy,” said Bruce Bartlett, an economist who advised Republican presidents.

“I think there are a lot of economists who, in principle, would support some new fiscal stimulus, perhaps a jobs program where people were directly employed by the government or something of that sort,” Mr. Bartlett said. “But politically it’s simply not possible to do anything remotely like that under the current circumstances.” . . .

Read the rest of this article in the Times . . .

Laura Tyson writes:

Our national debate about fiscal policy has become skewed, with far too much focus on the deficit and far too little on unemployment. There is too much worry about the size of government, and too little appreciation for how stimulus spending has helped stabilize the economy and how more of the right kind of government spending could boost job creation and economic growth. By focusing on the wrong things, we are in serious danger of failing to do the right things to help the economy recover from its worst labor market crisis since the Great Depression. . . .

Two forms of spending with the biggest and quickest bang for the buck are unemployment benefits and aid to state governments. The federal government should pledge generous financing increases for both programs through 2011. . . .

An increase in government investment in roads, airports and other kinds of public infrastructure would be cost-effective, too, as measured by the number of jobs created per dollar of spending.

Read the rest of this Op-Ed in the Times . . .

Peter S. Goodman writes:

By default, muddling through has emerged as the prescription of the moment.

Read the rest of this story in the Times . . .

Click here to read  about economic recovery and Nature’s New Deal . . .

Click here to read about Economic Stimulus, Green Space and Equal Justice . . .