In the summer of 1982, I was a special assistant to assistant secretary of labor John Cogan. That summer, the U.S. was still in the midst of the 1981-82 recession. When you’re in it, you don’t know how long you’re in it and you don’t know you’re out of it until at least a few months after you are. That meant that there was strong pressure to renew the federal extension of unemployment benefits. On the other hand, there was a reasonable case to be made that the extension of unemployment benefits was extending the recession.
The Senate had a bipartisan proposal to the extend the federal extension (an additional 13 weeks, if I recall correctly) of unemployment benefits. The Reagan administration opposed this extension and John Cogan was tasked to write and deliver the testimony on this before the Senate Finance Committee. The Republicans were in the majority in the Senate and so Bob Dole was chairman of Senate Finance.
I helped Cogan write the testimony. I think we made the argument in the testimony that extending the benefits would keep unemployment higher than otherwise. As a kind of reward, I got to go and sit behind him when he testified, close enough that I could whisper thoughts into his ear.
We got slammed. It wasn’t just that no one on either side of the aisle who was on the Senate Finance Committee agreed with us. It was that (and I learned later that this was par for the course) their way of expressing disagreement was to be nasty. So Democrat Bill Bradley was nasty; Democrat Russell Long was nasty; and Republican Bob Dole was nasty.
I kept whispering comebacks into Cogan’s ear but he didn’t bite on any of them.
A former student of mine from Santa Clara University, Ken Kam, was in town and I had told him that he might want to attend and see how we did.
He did attend and afterward he told me words to the effect, “I agreed with you guys on the policy but even I hated you by the end.”
I had thought to check my watch when our turn came and again when it ended. I had thought, given the treatment we received, that we had been there 2 hours. The actual time: 26 minutes.
By the way, none of this means that I hold Dole in contempt. Indeed, from everything I know, I liked him substantially more than the median Senator. I think he was a sharp man with a sharp wit and he had some integrity.
READER COMMENTS
Alan Goldhammer
Dec 6 2021 at 6:19pm
When he retired from the Senate he worked for a large DC law firm that was in the same building where I was. I used to see him in the elevator about once every week or so. He was always cordial and often had something witty to say. It was a winter day and he told me he was on his way out of town back to Kansas. I said, ‘you realize it is about 10 below zero there right now.’ ‘Yes, I really need to have my head examined,’ he replied with a wry smile.
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 7 2021 at 8:10am
Following is a link to the Senate hearing transcript on that bill. I think it is only fair that readers have access to this in order to assess whether Dole was “nasty” to Cogan, which, per my dictionary, as applied to human behavior, means “behaving in an unpleasant or spiteful way”. Synonyms include “unkind, unpleasant, unfriendly, disagreeable, inconsiderate”. Or, perhaps that’s not the meaning Mr Henderson intended?
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hrg97-112.pdf
I believe that the exchange begins at page 87.
robc
Dec 7 2021 at 9:32am
What I got from that was that the senator’s on the committee were passing on their role of actually writing legislation. They kept asking for proposals from the administration instead of doing their own jobs.
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 8 2021 at 9:00am
Not sure I follow your complaint. Congress writes the legislation and in this case they, not Cogan, wrote the bill that eventually became law even if you or I or Cogan might not have agreed as a policy matter with the substance. As for asking the witness (Cogan) for his input and alternative suggestions, what was the purpose of him being there in the first place if not to do just that? Simply oppose it without more? I would, however, agree that Congressional testimony is often, and perhaps in this case, just formal window dressing even if coming from the Executive branch. It is hard from me to imagine how this abrogated the Congressional role of writing legislation. If they didn’t seriously consider what he had to offer, I’d come to the exact opposite conclusion that they were “passing on their role”!
robc
Dec 8 2021 at 9:23am
My interpretation:
“Here is why President will veto this bill.”
‘Sure, but what about this small subset of people, what about them?’
“If you propose something targeted at them alone, he won’t veto.’
‘But what about this subset?”
“See above.”
‘But what is your alternative?’
“We veto, you write alternatives and we will consider.”
They kept asking the admin to write a new bill. That is there job. If you want a targeted amendment, submit a targeted amendment to the bill. But it was clear, they didn’t want that, they wanted the widespread legislation, they were using the subset as a rationale.
robc
Dec 8 2021 at 9:24am
Shorter version, with less typos:
Motte and bailey.
rsm
Dec 7 2021 at 9:57pm
“The best way to reduce unemployment is to get the economy
moving again and there is broad agreement that the way to do this
is by controlling Government spending and reducing the Federal
deficit.” Dole added, “Any proposals will have to be considered
in this context.”
Was he 100% wrong?
David Henderson
Dec 8 2021 at 11:21am
No.
rsm
Dec 8 2021 at 12:22pm
Didn’t Reagan’s deficits average four times Carter’s, even as unemployment fell?
David Henderson
Dec 8 2021 at 2:11pm
That could be. I haven’t checked but it should be easy for you to check.
rsm
Dec 9 2021 at 8:33pm
Would ten out of ten very serious economists (yourself no doubt included) have predicted, in 1982, that the US would be a failed state by now if the national debt ever reached $29 trillion, with annual deficits in the trillions? Were all of you wrong?
What is the opportunity cost of being needlessly hard on ppl during the 1980s, using now-falsified economics as an excuse?
Comments are closed.