So after the stimulus bill passed the House with nary a single Republican vote, it looks like the bill will stall in the Senate. Not that the Democrats don't have the votes, they do. As it stands, all the Republicans will balk as will Ben Nelson from Nebraska and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, which means the vote would be 56-42 (Republican Judd Gregg would recuse himself during his consideration for Commerce Secretary). But the Dems do not have the 60 votes necessary to block a filibuster, they're backing off for now. Instead of making the Republicans actually filibuster though, they're just going to let them bluff the filibuster, like they always do. Wouldn't it be great politics if the Dems actually made the Republicans look foolish by having them stand on the floor, literally stand in the way of the stimulus bill passing while they read various lists and poems into the Congressional Record.
It would be different if the Republicans actually had good ideas about what the stimulus package should look like. But they don't, demonstrating the economic understanding of a fourth grader in the process. All Senate Republicans know how to say is tax cuts; they don't care about infrastructure spending, education spending, or healthcare spending, saying that it all will be too expensive. While I guess it's refreshing that Republicans have suddenly discovered their fiscal austerity, it's funny that it only happened after they added the executive branch to their stunning losing streak. Look at this chart put out by those radical Marxist at Moody's- which shows real GDP growth from various stimulating activities.
Pretty startling isn't it. From the looks of the chart, it seems like all forms of spending activities have a much larger effect on real GDP growth than all forms of tax cuts. Now, the spending activities should not be permanent, as we do need to get our deficit and long-term debt under control But instead of just giving people money that under the circumstances they'll just hoard, perhaps we could, I don't know, use this opportunity to create jobs by doing things we should have been doing a long time ago, as well as take advantage of the multiplier effect. Fixing roads and bridges, improving our electrical grid, improving public transportation, retro-fitting schools, making capital improvements to our hospitals. These are things that have been needed for a long time, only the people in power did not have the political will or the political philosophy to do it. Now, those in power have a mandate for it- don't let the Senate Republicans forget that. I know that Obama wants to be magnanimous and doesn't want the same divisiveness that was fostered during the Bush years (although it wasn't divisiveness so much as the Dems being completely spineless). There's a difference though between listening and allowing others to dictate. That's just what it seems like lately- a show of political power would certainly not be a bad thing right now.
PS- For your viewing pleasure. House Democrat and Chairman of the Financial Services Committe Barney Frank; Senate Republican, ranking member of the Finance Committee and all around dimbulb Jim DeMint; CEO of FedEx Fred Smith; and CEO of Google Eric Schmidt on "This Week."
Idiot Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) comes across as... well.. an idiot. I bet if I asked him what the answer to 10x10 was he'd say "tax cuts" with the same smug look on his face that he uses in this discussion. He's the ranking member on the Senate Finance committee and he doesn't know that a stimulus bill by definition is a spending bill. He also used the Heritage Foundation- THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION as a legitimate source of evidence. They sure do breed good ones down in SC.
Chairman Barney Frank is masterful as usual, running circles, squares, triangles, and pentagons around DeMint with his actual knowledge of economics and finance. I thought Fred Smith did very well also. I was a little less impressed with Eric Schmidt, I thought the CEO of company as ubiquitous and with as high a market cap as Google would be a bit more impressive- although he is an IT guy by trade (I actually like companies that are run by the operations people rather than the finance folks). But all three of them take turns running roughhouse all over DeMint. I just hope the 47% of people who voted for the Repubs this election cycle will realize how intellectually bankrupt the current iteration of the GOP is.
2 comments:
The reason that the Republicans are balking at the bill is twofold. 1)There are some very real ideological differences in what the long-term direction of our country should be. 2)The stimulus bill is not going to work. It's like going to war with fire hose. Public spending cannot replace the amount of wealth lost in the private sector by 2010. So when the 2010 elections roll around Republicans can whine about the stimulus bill being ineffective without ever having to have had put their alternative to the test. So not stupid...just shrewdly political.
Addressing your first point- Insofar as there are real ideological differences I don't think they're on display here. What is on display is political opportunism of the highest order. I don't think that Republicans are anymore adverse to spending than the Dems. It's just about what constituencies get the money (tax cuts viewed this way is the same as spending)- they never seem to mind military spending increases. Now, there are some classical conservative critiques of the stimulus bill put forth which are lucid, well-researched, and intellectually honest (Calculated Risk for instance). But are there any Repubs citing them? Last I heard, they purged all of their true intelligentsia after they started to rag on Palin.
To your second point- I have doubts about the stimulus program working in the way people imagine as well. My lefty/union tendencies aside, I am pretty austere, philosphically speaking, when it comes to fiscal policy- I'd be fine with our country swallowing the medicine without any kind of chaser. But since it usually takes financial disasters for us to do serious investment in infrastructure, healthcare, and education, I think this is a good opportunity for that targeted investment.
I agree that we're not going to see short-term gains that will help us approach the private sector "wealth" we lost, and I'm glad we're not. If this is what it takes for the country as a whole to start taking a long-term view then it'll be better. But the improvements we will see later on I think will help past 2010.
And it may be because I didn't have a 401K to begin with, and I am in no danger of losing my job, but in my heart of hearts I think that private sector "wealth" that was lost was phony in the first place. Have you read Michael Lewis' article in Portfolio- he sums up very nicely how I feel.
And finally, as far as the 2010 midterms go, I agree with you that Republicans are being shrewd banking on people having short-term memories (again). They also don't have much of a choice- if they vote for the stimulus package and it works Obama gets the credit. If they don't vote for it and it works, well Obama gets even more credit. If they vote for it and it fails; it blunts their arguments for the 2010 midterms. So they have only one option that results in a net gain for them.
I don't think it will have as much of an effect though. Maybe they flip a couple House seats in swing states, best case scenario- but there aren't any Democratic Senate seats they can flip. And the Dems are serious threats to win Judd Gregg's New Hampshire seat, Jim Bunning's Kentucky seat, and Mel Martinez's seat in Florida. They could also win Brownback's seat in Kansas if Sebelius runs, Spector's seat in PA, and Vitter's seat in Louisiana if they hammer the prostitution thing. I just think playing politics on this will come to bite them in the ass, even if the stimulus doesn't work as intended.
Post a Comment