Watching CNN, here’s John Boehner surrounded by the senior GOP house leadership, arguing against the stimulus package. They don’t like the spending, they just want tax cuts.
Interesting.
Here’s a list of a plethora of situations, and the GOP “solution:”
Clinton built up a budget surplus? Tax cuts.
Planes fly into the World Trade Center? Tax cuts.
Surplus vanishes after first round of tax cuts? More tax cuts.
Expensive war in Iraq? Tax cuts.
Saddam Hussein found hiding in an undisclosed hole in Iraq? Tax cuts.
Dick Cheney hiding in a bunker in an undisclosed location in the US? Tax cuts.
Republicans lose control of Congress? Tax cuts.
Economy tanks? Tax cuts.
Cubs lose in the first round of the playoffs? Tax cuts.
Obama elected president? Tax cuts.
Boehner holds a press conference? Tax cuts.
There are 88 keys on a piano. Boehner and the Republican caucus are 87 keys short.
Don’t you think they’re set up pretty well for a 1994 like resurgence?
<
p>Basic plan:
<
p>1. No ideas besides tax cuts.
<
p>2. Both the new TARP and the stimulus are likely to have so many rip-offs built-in, pick the 5 to 10 that make people most angry. Then revert to simple brand of “Republicans don’t waste.” Helps Republicans avoid most of their in-house fights.
<
p>Voters will have forgotten Bush = crazy spending, and a Dem message of “We kept what would have been a depression to merely a receession” might not work so well.
However, I don’t expect it to work in the long-run.
<
p>The liberal-technocratic view of how to face the recession is currently under-explained. It’s not that complicated:
Combine that with some 1930s footage of bank runs and it’s not hard to get what the Democrats are trying to do.
First, let me know how anyone knows that these guys against the stimulus package are wrong, and these guys for the stimulus package are right.
<
p>Second, let me know of a single period in US history where government fiscal stimulus actually worked, keeping in mind that there is no consensus among mondern economist whether the New Deal did anything but put the Great into the Great Depression.
<
p>And finally, if the blue line represents digging ourselves into debt, why seek shovel-ready projects. Clearly we have had shovels since the mid-70s. Seems like STOP DIGGING is better advice:
<
p>
<
p>Many of the people on the ‘wrong’ list are not arguing either ‘for’ or ‘against’ the specific package but from an abstract posture of anti-tax ideology and anti-governmental intervention. There is no stimulus that, for many of them, would be correct or acceptable. William F. Buckley, standing athwart the world, yelling “stop” does not an expertise make.
<
p>Among the actual economists on that list (as opposed to the
bloviatorsjournalists like Will, Kinsely and Samuelson, et al) there appears to be one, maybe two, recycled arguments running through their minds. Mainly the idea that, well yeah, they’ll be a ‘stimulus’ affect, but who’s gonna pay for it…? (the word stimulus is almost always in quotes for these guys…) and the notion that Obama is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.<
p>
<
p>You’re joking, right? This is a joke?
<
p>A small faction of obstreperous fresh water fish calling John Maynard Keynes names is a far cry from “no consensus among modern economist”
<
p>Right, what a surprise. All through school, the various educators tell us that either i) the New Deal helped pull us from the Great Depression, or that ii) the New Deal provided stimulus, but not enough.
<
p>All the while, economists never did agree that either point was true.
C’mon! You think we’re stupid? Of course you do… sigh.
<
p>I’m 42 years old (as of yesterday) so I been around the block a little.
<
p>And I’ve been here before. I’ve seen this ‘no consensus’ argument used (uniformly by rightwingers…) to deny action on everything from asbestos to acid rain. In fact, everytime I hear the phrase ‘no consensus’, I reach for my wallet to make sure it’s still there.
<
p>AND… when there genuinely IS no consensus, you wight-ringers go in the complete opposite direction!!! cough WMD cough tax cuts cough
<
p>So spare me your sudden alarm at your lack of consensus. … mkay?
Who says there’s less religion in massachusetts.
<
p>I guess, then, no consensus, huh? urp..
<
p>I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.
<
p>When was the last time us “right wingers” reached for any wallet but our own. Your party is the party of stealing wallets. In fact we actually have the same goals… ” our wallets! In many ways that exactly delineates our parties and ideology… you want to take our money and we want to keep our money. We certainly don’t want your money so don’t insult our intelligence by implying any differently.
<
p>PS Happy Birthday.
“When was the last time us “right wingers” reached for any wallet but our own.”
<
p>See Gary’s chart above. The very steepest period of increase, 2000-2006, coincides with the only period of total GOP control. You’ll have to admit there were at least a few “right wingers” involved in that.
I do see your point but for those who do consider it wallet thievery, what would they consider the next 4 years of budget deficits and national debt compared to George Bush? Think of Gary’s chart in 4 years… OMG!
…then where does it come from? The government can only raise money two ways – they can tax us, or they can borrow – but when they borrow, it has to be paid back, and the only way to pay it back is to tax us. While the national debt may not be a line-item in your checkbook, it really is a line-item in our collective checkbook, and we’re all on the hook for that money…
it’s coming out of my wallet.
<
p>So, I guess republican ideology says that it’s fine to spend unlimited money so long as the next generation pays for it?
Pretty sure the spending package that’s been passed isn’t coming from new taxes, and therefore, not from your wallet. It must then be coming from more borrowings, true?
I wrote out Limbaugh epistemology.
<
p>There’s also Republican Talking Points epistemology: something is true if it takes more than 100 words to disprove, e.g., private accounts will make social security more stable. “There is no consensus” is part of this general approach. It moves the discussion away from the merits and over to trying to evaluate whether dissenters are statistically significant or not, experts or not, cranks or not, shills or not.
<
p>The fulcrum of this method, though, is people granting Republicans the benefit of the doubt. Conservatives are fond of waving away objections on political grounds. (“Oh, he’s very left wing.”) The strength of this method weakens if the reverse can be done. (“Oh, he worked for the Bush Administration.”)
<
p>Hoping for a happy return to arguing on the merits.
among (serious) economists that WWII spending was instrumental in lifting the economy out of Depression.
<
p>Whether the New Deal was substantial enough to have any positive effect is a debatable point. Krugman, who is prescient and right on most issues, believes New Deal didn’t work because it wasn’t large enough.
<
p>But you can’t pick out a few Austrians, stale Chicago economists, and right-wing hacks to say there isn’t a consensus that increased government spending can help lower unemployment and expand GDP in the short-run b/c there is a wide consensus.
… the spending in WWII is compared to the spending in the new deal, and it is considered that the WWII spending helped, that’d be consistent with Krugman’s theory.
I think Krugman would say that the New Deal helped mitigate the depression’s impact, but not large enough to actually end it. If the New Deal never happened, the depression’s impact would have been much worse on America.
<
p>Right, there is. So, to address the current situation, let’s stimulate the economy in a manner similar to that of WWII: conscript 10% of the male workforce, with an additional 5% into war-related functions, establish wage and price controls, take over all basic commodities to the point where we print pennies outta steel ’cause copper goes to the war effort, ration rubber and gas and oil and concrete and steel….in short, nationalize business.
<
p>The fact is that when WWII ended, troops came home and every economist worth his salt figured the Depression would return as the government spending disappeared and spending was redirected to pay off debt. But it didn’t. Things boomed, and no one is exactly sure why.
<
p>Maybe it was because, during WWII, we built some big steel mills, and metal refract’ furnaces, and coke ovens, and mines and concrete plants, and…. and upon the ending of war, people tried to keep them running full tilt by building toasters and t-birds. And it worked. They built it and consumers consumed.
<
p>Under the current scenario, however, if we’re trying to simulate WWII spending and we end up with no projects worth building and a pile of debt, then we’ve done no good.
<
p>Or maybe green projects are the answer because they’re oh so dreamy green, and they’re saving the planet and whales and there’s a Prius in every pot. BTW, if the government buys them it’s wonderful but with such crappy payoffs, you’d never buy one yourself, unless you’re just pandering to the public or maybe an elected official. But I repeat myself.
Two words: middle class. Didn’t have one going in, had one coming out. Brought to you by wage controls.
So now the story is that the wage controls, and not the fiscal stimulus of WWII that tamed the Great Depression.
<
p>Good a theory as any, considering there’s significant debate that WWII fiscal stimulus didn’t do it.
… WWII stimulated the economy by spurring production. Wage controls made sure that such stimulus went to (largely creating) the middle class. The strong middle class coming out of WWII created the market conditions to sustain growth for decades afterward. None of this in a vacuum of course. The G.I. bill did a lot as well.
It seems a number of them are speaking outside their area of expertise without thinking too carefully. A number of those objecting are making very bad arguments. That, for example, explains the return of the Treasury View.
<
p>Greg Mankiw seems to have straddled the question of stimulus somewhat. See tribute to John Maynard.
During this video called it out by saying “you use crisis to enact your long term agenda…” As for the stimulus package, he critiqued it had ” a lot of pork… pet projects… ” needed to help the right projects and help kids with college tuition.
The Bush tax cuts are a good part of the problem. More of the same should be off the table for anyone.
<
p>If you want to talk tax cuts, then create some that will actually move the fundamentals of the economy in a better direction. Exacerbating the maldistribution of wealth would be a sin on top of the many sins of the past 8 years.
<
p>
Is there any problem they can’t solve?
<
p>Got a big job interview coming up, and just got your best suit stained? Have a tax cut!
<
p>Trying to woo that special girl, and having no luck? Go to a charter school!
We’ve been beaten like dogs for a few years now and while we have endured, it wasn’t fun. The GOP has been looking for something to rally around and the Stimulus package has done it.
<
p>We can’t rely on the MSM but yesterday’s vote presented a party in unison. The press of course was all over the Republican’s solidarity being a bad thing but they never mentioned the solidarity of the Democrats as being a bad thing. Somehow voting along party lines is only a negative for Republicans. Obama has gone out of his way to try bipartisanship but “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”. Republicans were NOT obstructionists yesterday, they were standing up to a bad bill being rammed down their throats. The “fear mongering” stick has been replaced with the “Economic fear mongering” stick and Republicans said no way.
<
p>The Senate will debate the bill and hopefully fix it by stripping out so much “non” earmarked pork. I think many people will support public infrastructure projects but shame on the Dems for using this angle to push every piece of spending legislature they have been storing in their top draws for years. I don’t care what party you’re in but this insane spending has to stop. The Washington Mall doesn’t need a $300 Million re-seeding while the manufacturing vertical of our country needs jobs. Even if this Stimulus plan works and future “bad bank” bills work, what exactly is going to happen when inflation starts to clobber us? Does Obama have a “withdrawal” plan for the country? What century will we have a balanced budget? How will the retirement of the baby boomers factor into the future budgets?
<
p>As for 2010, the Dems took many seats in the last 2 elections. The Republicans in the House now have concrete locks on the their existing seats and will start to regain “swing” seats as GB is no longer around (although Keith Olbermann still comments on his show nightly how many days it has been since GB declared the war on terror being over… Give it up Keith”. I disagree with KBusch and think this plan will work since our population of sheep will loose faith in the Dems and look for a change yet again.
<
p>Gaa..Ah..acck!
<
p>Are you serious? Were you under a rock for the past eight years? I’m trying to think of exactly how the Republicans have NOT been unified…
<
p>Since the ‘Contract on America’ in ’94, the Republicans have been goose-stepping together like siamese twins wearing the same straitjacket. It’s been the one and only source of their strength: unwavering, unswerving, unthinking fealty to the party leaders.
<
p>If they weren’t so unified, they wouldn’t have let George Bush drive us all into the ditch and they’d be at least reflective about how to get us out. Instead, it’s reflexive unity. SHEESH!
Prior to that we did have a great unified party. I used to say we were monolithic in our views (for the most part).
<
p>
<
p>I take it from your tone that you didn’t like the Republicans doing this? Are you ok with the Democrats now doing it? Do 2 wrongs make a right in your book? Or will you be a typical partisan and refer to Republicans the way you did but Democrats will enjoy “proud unison behind strong smart ideas”?
<
p>Are you happy with the Stimulus bill or are you just happy to be a democrat supporting a bunch of other democrats? Enjoy it while it lasts.
Maybe the Contract with America was the wrong thing to get Siamese on. Maybe Obama’s agenda is.
<
p>Conformity in defense of bad policy is no virtue; discipline to achieve good results is no vice.
And I think people who blindly assign virtue or vice to these positions are wrong too and yet that is exactly what I heard about the Republicans last night for voting together and heard no criticism of the Democrats for doing the same thing. I want a Stimulus package but I do NOT want the current package as defined by the De,s. It’s hard for me to take the seriousness of this economic situation to heart when the jerks keep inserting their “pork” whenever they get a chance. Stop it!!!!
<
p>Let’s get past this “tribalism” and talk about issues on merit not party.
In general, yes, I don’t like federal money allocated based on Congressional mojo rather than public need. The allocation of homeland security funds come to mind.
<
p>However, we are facing economic calamity.
<
p>Worrying about whether the color of the bandages clash with the patient’s outfit and hair color is secondary to getting them on the first place.
<
p>For no other reason, but that we simply don’t have enough metaphors for the economy, to cure the ill patient, we should try leaches, or bloodletting, because the patient is sick so we must do something.
<
p>/exorcism?
If we regard fiscal expansion as what is necessary, the government could buy gold-plated toilets and it would still count.
… why? Because I can’t often agree with my Democratic friends!! (not that I agree with my Republican friends, but that’s sorta understood from the outset… )
<
p>
<
p>Democrats doing what? Obstruction for the sake up obstruction? Loyalty for the sake of loyalty? That I would oppose. First thing I said when Eliot Spitzer announced his malfeasance was ‘buh- bye!’. Seems to me like Larry Craig and David Vitter need the same being said to them, no?
<
p>Or, put another way, do you support ‘Joe the
PlumberJournalist’?<
p>
<
p>Unison is alright if it’s done for the right reasons. But YOUR party got behind George Bush and his ill-fated foray into Iraq for no discernible good reason. Democrats, IIRC, were divided on the issue. Kennedy voted against, Kerry for.
When votes come down along party lines how do we decide if one party is being partisan and the other party is just voting the right way. I’m glad we agree that voting for the sake of loyalty is wrong. And yes that goes for Republicans too. If you want to drag out historical references to Republicans doing that for George Bush then go ahead… they were wrong to do it. You also didn’t hear me support Larry Criag nor would I support any other politician turned criminal. I’d reference a few recent Republicans guilty of that but fortunately the party in power (Democrats) have been supplying all the political crooks (DiMasi, Rogers, Turner, Wilkerson, Marzelli, Blago, Richarson, Jefferson…). I would however suggest we have a set of rules for politicans who are charged with anything. It really pisses me off when either a Republican/Dem ask for the resignation of a pol charged with something but if they are in the same party they lecture us on “Innocent until proven guilty…”. C’mon, either they are innocent and they stay or they aren’t… don’t let party effect your spine.
<
p>Either way, I am happy that we have begun the long road back to power in the country. I hope we can accomplish things together as opposed to fighting each other at every turn. I will not support obstructionist activities for the sake of party loyalty.
Marzilli, whatever his faults, was no crook.
<
p>I’ll stick with calling him a crook but I’m sure we could come up with a few other monikers.
That’s why this is relevant.
<
p>Yes, I know he did bad things. Got that.
<
p>I keep seeing him in lists as an example of corruption. He isn’t an example of that.
I will refer to Marzilli in a similar light to former Republican Congressman Mark Foley who resigned but whose charges were dropped for lack of evidence.
<
p>What about John Buonomo, the Democratic Middlesex County probate register? Should I have added him to the list? I also forgot the other 2 Democratic former Speakers of the House.
How to keep your Senate seat for Dummies: Step 1, keep up with the news
In my mind it’s easier most of the time to call the naysayers of a proposal partisan, unless they have a solid idea of their own that they are pushing.
I’ve posted enough on policy that I can take a trip to the dark side.
<
p>1. Kos has been paying Research 2000 to do regular polling on approval ratings. January 19-22 we find:
Favorable
Unfavorable
Obama
77%
20%
Congressional Democrats
41%
51%
Congressional Republicans
26%
63%
Democratic Party
57%
36%
Republican Party
34%
57%
And do remember that liberals are very disappointed in Congressional Democrats for reasons that should give conservatives no comfort.
<
p>2. Gallop just did a survey of political party affilition. Republicans have an advantage in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, and no place else. They also report in a different study that Democrats have the largest advantage in party ID since 1983: 36% versus 28%.
<
p>3. In terms of narrative, Republicans have been claiming for a while that Democrats are more partisan than they are. I believe this is counter-factual. The history of this bill demonstrates clearly that Republicans are more partisan:
This narrative looks increasingly toxic for Republican prospects.
Similar polls taken in 2004 may not have indicated the results for 2006 (due to 2 years worth of events like Iraq or Katrina swaying voters). I believe the next 2 years are going to be very hard on people and I think they won’t have the patience to wait for a longer term solution… and we don’t even know what other “events” will occur.
<
p>I won’t say your polling numbers are irrelative (or is it irrelevant) but I do think trying to extrapolate on this data is risky. We don’t need to swing too many people back the other way… Don’t forget this map…
<
p>AS for the bill… let’s see what happens in the Senate.
<
p>PS why did the Democrats put so much “All sorts of useful spending” in the bill to begin with?
In another comment, I pointed readers to Luntz’ op ed in the L.A. Times where he indicates a very hefty majority of Americans favors spending on infrastructure even if it causes a tax increase. We’re talking north of 75%.
<
p>I’m enjoying my extrapolating, thank you very much.
I do drive on roads, cross bridges and uses railways… I’m surprised the poll isn’t higher than 75%. I’m not in favor of a bill that is touted to be an infrastructure bill but it full of all sorts of other entitlements and pet projects.
Politico
At least, I think he does.
<
p>I may need to reread this when I get a chance but I’m finding it difficult to pay attention.
And you know this…how? You were at the closed-door meeting Obama had with the GOP Caucus?
<
p>We need to get something established up front – Obama is not the Democratic Party. He is President and is behaving Presidentially. Congress is behaving like small children.
<
p>Nancy Pelosi says, ‘We Won – forget you!’ and we’re supposed to rely on HER version of how things are done?
<
p>What is toxic is the return of Government by Gallup poll, so cleverly employed by the Clintons. Having a poll that says a majority believe in space aliens doesn’t make it true, andy more than a poll about tax policy makes it true except for partisan activists.
<
p>And as far as the original post about tax cuts goes, let’s take a look in the mirror, BMG –
<
p>Wilkerson? Raise revenue!
<
p>Cognos? More taxes for the children!
<
p>Pension hikes? Alternative fees!
<
p>No show jobs? Pay your fair share!
<
p>Saying ‘Tax Hike’ in different ways isn’t actually a different idea.
<
p>This is a false equivalency. The way in which Republicans in recent years have introduced tax cuts to nearly every problem (and in every economic situation) is unlike how most Dems/liberals have suggested tax/fee hikes as ways to close budget gaps. The fact is that Dems have been considerably more flexible on this issue (for example, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, which the GOP also used to like, and providing for tax cuts in this stimulus package).
<
p>Interestingly, many conservative economists nowadays don’t have much of a problem supporting higher spending in this economy. The Republican Party, though, has not followed suit, suggesting that their religious-like fealty to tax cuts as the chief answer to every question continues unabated.
To agree with Hoyapaul, it’s not that tax cuts are bad. They are fine, even desirable, in many cases, in my opinion. But not in every case and not to the exclusion of all other possible forms of government action. I think the point of the original post is that the GOP is out of ideas. It shows in the leaders and, sadly, it shows in the arguments advanced right here on this page, which have more in common with Rush Limbaugh and the economic record of eight years of the Bush administration (during six of which the Republican Party controlled all three branches of the government) than reasoned discourse based on historic and observed reality.
Behaving like small children, eh?
<
p>The Republicans that actually have to govern, you know Republican governors, have a different view:
<
p>There may be child-like representatives in the House, but I think you have misidentified their party affiliation.
Should someone tell you – you being the governor – that the Fed stands ready to hand you a Brazillion dollars for various needed, almost needed and unneeded bridges, roads, and instant pork-o-projects, my guess is that 49 out of 50 governors will say yes.
<
p>Some Southern cracker will say no on principal and lose in re-election or else wisely let the opposition overturn his principaled objections before he politically shoots himself in the head.
<
p>It’s not that they’re mature adults but rather that they are typical politicians, and love the smell of money in the morning. It smells like victory.
<
p>Democrats are so quick to point out how foolish the Republicans were to have voted against the Porkification Bill of 2009. Not so.
<
p>First, the empirics of “this spending bill is absolutly gonna work, Trust us” simply aren’t supported by history. Despite your 7th grade teacher’s cliche that the New Deal worked but wasn’t big enough, the ‘experts’ just don’t agree that the New Deal did anything beneficial other than bide time while FDR kept getting elected. Many agree that WWII was a perfect example of Keysian stimulus in which case we ought avoid a few years of pain and simply declare war on something and build victory gardens.
<
p>It’s all a bit like those Comet-heading-toward-earth movies. Bruce Willis flies up there in some experiental comet busting ship to save the day and it all ends kinda ok, but beforehand, no one knows.
<
p>So here we are with a Recession-coment heading toward your favorite shopping mall:
<
p>Let’s put the probability that Keysian Stimulus via Government Spending even works at all at P(x). Seriously, Keynes could be some crackhead, you know, like Darwin.
<
p>Second, is the House Bill the right combination of stimulus? Is this motley crew of tax cuts, pork sandwichs, and infrastructure a mix that will effectively stimulate the economy. We’ll call that probability of success P(y).
<
p>Third, is there some significant danger that spending money as if you owned Dianne Wilkerson’s bra, will do more harm than good. You know, Dollar crashing, inflation hypering, cats and dogs…. P(z). (Probability of that ugliness not happening is therefore [1 – P(z)]
<
p>The only probability that’s really known, is that Politicians will do something, it will have unintended consequences and no one will admit it was they who did it. P = 1.
<
p>Therefore the Democrats’ calculation of the Probability of the Porkification bill successfully ending the recession is:
<
p>P(x) * P(y) * [1-P(z) * 1
<
p>Republicans find that the Probability of the Porkification bill being anything other than finger licking good is:
<
p>1-[P(x) * P(y) * [1-P(z)] * 1]
<
p>Now, if you follow me so far, you obviously have way too much time on your hands. Hell, if you’ve even read this far, you’re nuts.
<
p>But I’m thinking neither equation is solvable at all, (kinda like the same thinking that says “why of course there’s life elsewhere in the universe; look at all the stars. Billions and billions….) Given, that there’s no answer, conservatives just say no. Because, first, do no harm. Rely on principles: keep government small, save, keep taxes low and God bless America. And if you believe the country is governed from the middle right, it’s the right answer.
economist Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher to deliberate with them, the Republican caucus is behaving like a bunch of children.
<
p>Agreed.
Suppose you jammed a pork sandwich down your kitchen plumbing. Wouldn’t you call a plumber?
JSW is not even that!
<
p>Were Nixon’s licensed? I forget.
This is a recession.
<
p>Maybe an illegal alien, maybe not, but I wouldn’t call a licensed plumber.
GOP is hoping for a replay of 1993. It might happen or these may be different times. 2010 elections will tell the tale.
<
p>While the credit markets are still in disaray the 850 billion spending does have some questionable components, grass seed and STDs among them. I am fearful we might be in a pattern of bad news = drop in consumer spending = layoffs = drop in consumer spending = more lay offs. this is a scary scenario. Where is the bottom?
<
p>People are still being foreclosed on. Would it not make more sense for monies to be made available to help re-structure loans for people that may have a chance if given a fixed rate and a lower rate.
Sorry but your post is a bit simplistic and has left out some of the major solutions in the Repulican platform:
<
p>Deregulate it
Bomb it, shoot them
Spy on everyone, (if that doesn’t work, see previous)
But most important – secrecy!
<
p>Katrina victims in need of relief – Send in troops with orders of shoot to kill.
<
p>I’m sure you can think of more, so be fair!
<
p>
There is a whole second tier of slightly less salient mess-ups that people also forget. A distressing example: Fallujah. This was a Sunni Iraqi city that our military was directed to destroy. It was an example of a childish approach to policy that Peter Porcupine above finds so very, very distasteful (but never distasteful enough to feel the slightest remorse).
<
p>If those guys don’t know understand what’s going on, obviously, they think, more needs to be blown up.