Thursday, February 05, 2009

Stimulate me already

I'm seeing a lot of calls for action in Leftopia but I have to agree with Atrios who notes the problem with that is "it isn't clear what should be supported." The debate is all about the fight and not about the substance of the bill. I'm not an economist. I don't know what specifically should be done. I'm where Echidne is right now.
I haven't written about the most recent quarrels over what constitutes job-creation and what the stimulus package should contain, because what I think matters most right now is for the government to step in to increase aggregate demand in the economy. Consumers are not going to spend much money at this time, but the less we spend the more jobs we will lose, due to the lack of customers or clients. Hence the need for government spending.
That's the single overriding notion I can wrap my head around. They need to start pumping some cash directly into the economy. Immediately. As in, should have done it yesterday. I see Obama added his two cents at the WaPo today with some lofty prose.
So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.
Well and good. I agree, but that's not the reality we're dealing with here. Digby has some useful thoughts that our President might want to ponder.
I think the administration thought they could be mediators between the two parties rather than leaders of the Democratic party. That just won't work, particularly when the Democrats aren't very good at battling the Republicans in close combat and the Republicans can make those who stay above the fray seem lightweight and insubstantial, which is what they've managed to do. They've showed they don't respect Obama and are unimpressed with his mandate --- the administration needs to accept that and strategize with that in mind.

He said today that bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake is not desirable. He should just drop that whole schtick. ...But [the GOP] are going to represent their narrow interests because that's what they believe their constituents want. That's the way the system works. They aren't partners, they're political adversaries and they remain adversaries even when there is an emergency at hand. Accept that and fight it out on the merits.
Bi-partisanship is a wonderful thought. It's not going to happen. That should have been made painfully clear by the GOPers' strategy meeting with Joe the Dumber on how to raise the rage of the base. Just pass a bill dammit and start spending the money already. That's much more important than political comity.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News.]

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

9 Comments:

Blogger Porthos said...

It doesn't surprise me so much that you would advocate this position, insomuch as you don't seem to see it AS a position.

What you advocate is just as ideological and partisan as anything on the other side. The reason Republicans (and a growing number of Dems) are opposing the stimulus package is because of fundamental differences in philosophy about how to stimulate the economy.

It's not about being partisan for partisan's sake (although I'm sure there is some of that)—it's about mutually exclusive economic philosophies.

You think government spending is the solution. I say it's the problem.

And then Obama tries to dismiss any opposition by maligning them as fighting "old ideological battles". Umm... that's exactly what he and EVERYONE ELSE is doing in this situation—fighting for their ideologies. It's insulting and dishonest that he'd suggest otherwise.

5:12:00 PM  
Blogger (O)CT(O)PUS said...

Porthos, while you criticize Obama for being ideological and partisan, you manage to be just as ideological and partisan while saying absolutely nothing.

Current status: The last administration spent and/or squandered $ trillions, and the American people have nothing to show for it.

Some quick thoughts from the scratchpad of sand about misconceptions floating around the blogosphere:

just create an all new 'nationalized' bank

One can’t start a new bank from scratch, presto, just like that in time to stop the rapid deceleration of financial system.

The whole purpose of TARP was to pass the buck: The prior administration wasn't looking for a solution any longer than one that lasted till January 20th.

Probably true, but there is a political price: Obama and McCain, many Democrats, and a few Republicans voted for it. One can hardly expect them to disavow today what they supported yesterday, which is quite beside the point.

Wall Street is a borrower not a lender any longer.

Wall Street has always been a borrower. One can’t lend without borrowing. One can’t invest without taking people’s money. While liquidity is certainly a problem, this is a regulatory failure of staggering proportions brought about by 3 decades of failed ideology, i.e., supply side economics.

Just go in and refinance existing mortgages at current asset value and call a spade a spade.

The financial lobby has steadfastly refused to accept this option, and there are polemicists in Congress who call this approach, “socialism” and "communism" with smear rhetoric. The political atmosphere is paralyzing.

In theory, the government could and should buy up bad debt and re-set the financial clock. My mentor, Walter Wriston (legendary CEO of CitiBank), used to say this: While nations may have a liquidity crisis, a nation is sovereign and can never, by definition, go bankrupt. Meanwhile, fiscal conservatives in Congress moan, not over concepts, but on behalf of lobbyist who pay them to protect dinosaurs.

If easy credit was what got us in this mess then why are we attempting to bail out the purveyors of easy credit?

“East credit” is just another scapegoat for systemic problems that started 30 or more years ago.

Stand up for BUY AMERICAN …

By all means, buy American, but do you have to make it official policy and start a trade war! Shhhh. Do it, but do it quietly. A wave of trade protectionism will compound and confound an already tenuous situation. In fact, it will sink the global trading system.

Options? There are very few, in my opinion. Tax cuts will buy only short-term relief while driving up sovereign debt. Nationalize the banking system? Logistically justifiable, but politically radioactive.

Better regulatory oversight and strategic investments in infrastructure, education, and green energy? At least these will create jobs and leave a legacy for our children, even if we fail at everything else.

6:06:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Porthos, what 8pus said. The GOPers spent us into this mess and it's going to take money to spend us out of it. What we need right now is money in the working man's pocket. They spend it here, on silly things like food and clothes, not sock it away in offshore accounts for themselves.

What seems to be lost in the debate is that the stimulus is not a legacy bill. It's not going to create spending programs that last forever. The idea is jump start the economy so it can sustain itself again. You do that by giving money to poor people, not to people have more than they need.

7:20:00 PM  
Blogger Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

It never ceases to amaze and confound me that there are still people who accept this republican propaganda of "less government and lower taxes." We sw what happened under Reagan. Unregulated greed led to the savings and loan scandal that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions. Eight years of Bush deregulation and now we're in the biggest financial mess since the Depression.
I vote for people I think will make government work for my Country. My Community and my family. Not because I don't want them working for me. Freedom is not free. Protecting our way of life and helping Americans better their lives is the job of government. No other entity can do what needs to be done to keep our economy from getting worse.

If it helps you accepth that we need good government Pothos, next time you see a Veteran say thanks. He was a government employee.

8:29:00 PM  
Blogger Capt. Fogg said...

Isn't it standard wisdom that protectionism (buy American) was one of the bad moves that made the Depression worse? ISn't it conventional wisdom that tax cuts in the top bracket - like those Warren G. Harding pushed, seem always to precipitate bubbles and their collapse?

Seems to me that this quasi-anarchism and religious attachment to trickle-down economics has very little historical support and quite the opposite.

Hey, what do I know, I'm not even a Musketeer.

11:32:00 AM  
Blogger Porthos said...

Wow. I say "everybody is being partisan and the Dems are trying to pretend they're not" and we end up on "Buy American". That's some kind of staying on topic.

I'm not talking about the value of the stimulus bill (although I agree with the CBO that it's bad bad bad). I'm talking about this "We just need to dump money into the economy and do it now!" mentality. Just throwing money at something DOESN'T WORK. It hasn't work in education, it hasn't worked in welfare, and it won't work across the board.

Besides, have you seen the PORK in that package?! Holy cow. Job creation my ass.

I'm just saying Obama and the Dems shouldn't pretend like they're some visionary leaders blazing a new trail and Republicans are obstructionists. The Dems are pushing the same brand of "big government" that they have been since the New Deal. And the Republicans are finally pushing what they should have been doing (IMO) during the Bush years, but weren't.

Two sides of the issue. Different takes on how to solve it. That's it.

Article on CBO report:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

2:41:00 PM  
Blogger Porthos said...

Ok, some quick counterpoints, then I'll stop since I know it's pointless to try and discuss this. Neither of us is going to change.

"The GOPers spent us into this mess and it's going to take money to spend us out of it."

1. Democratic controlled congress (and budget) for how many of those Bush years?
2. You fix spending too much by spending less, not more. I mean, isn't that just common sense? How do you spend yourself out of debt??

"If it helps you accepth that we need good government Pothos, next time you see a Veteran say thanks. He was a government employee."

Weak attempt at pulling the heartstrings. The military is CLEARLY a constitutional responsibility for the government. Making federal building "green"? Money for Amtrak? Digital-TV converter coupons? Neither a constitutional mandate, nor stimulating to the economy.

"What seems to be lost in the debate is that the stimulus is not a legacy bill. It's not going to create spending programs that last forever."

Riiight. Come on, Libby. You're WAY too experienced in politics. You know once these things get in, it's twice as hard to get them out.

"Eight years of Bush deregulation and now we're in the biggest financial mess since the Depression."

If anything, it can be said that there has been MORE regulation under Bush (much to the disgruntlement of non-neo-conservatives). The crux of the economic fall (the housing bubble) is largely due to government intervention in forcing sub-prime lending (see: strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act in 2005 and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, happily assisted by plenty of greedy bankers).

Bush has done more than his fair share of regulating (see: Sarbanes-Oxley). He's arguably one of the most fiscally un-conservative presidents we've had for awhile. He spent and regulated freely. If you want to blame him, great. But realizing that you're blaming increased regulation, not decreased.

3:14:00 PM  
Blogger Porthos said...

Back to my original purpose of commenting. 8PUS said:

"Porthos, while you criticize Obama for being ideological and partisan, you manage to be just as ideological and partisan while saying absolutely nothing."

That, actually, is exactly my point. Digby said:

"But [the GOP] are going to represent their narrow interests because that's what they believe their constituents want. That's the way the system works."

Let's assume that's the case. How is that ANY DIFFERENT than what the Dems do? Are elected officials *supposed* to represent their constituents' interests? Isn't that the entire point of a representative democracy?

Let's flip it around:

"But [the Democrats] are going to represent their narrow interests because that's what they believe their constituents want. That's the way the system works."

Fits like a glove. Politics is the same, no matter which side of the aisle you're on. Or who is in the Big House.

3:27:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Porthos. You've been pwned by the Washington Times. See my post above.

I'm not saying that Congresslizards aren't blowing the handling of the bill, or that only side has a political agenda, but the GOPers are not dealing in good faith. Their obstructionism is painfully apparent and the provisions they're trying to extort out of this is designed pretty solely to reduce the effectiveness of the stimulus.

You've been following politics long enough to understand that politically, that's their best outcome and they're still putting party before country.

9:04:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home