For the record: I am in favor of one-time spending as stimulus for the economy. I do not think that the Republican plan of lots of tax cuts would be nearly as effective.
That said... this plan is so bloated with pure pork, it's obscene and Obama should be ashamed to be trumpeting this as a "the nation faces imminent collapse unless we pass this" bill.
To every Democrat who was upset with Bush for his WMD argument in Iraq, behold your new president making the same sort of argument here. This may not cost American lives, but it will cost far, far more than the war in Iraq, especially if this is allowed to be the tone of a "never let a crisis go to waste" administration.
9 comments:
What would be the right kind of spending?
A couple thoughts.
1. As Kenny says, what would be the right kind of spending? What distinguishes "pork" from "stimulus"?
2. I think Obama's engaging in realpolitik. I think there's probably pet spending programs in there to get the bill passed, but I also think what he's mainly concerned about is what he believes will be spending that will stimulate the economy. Now, I'm not an economist, so I don't really get what would stimulate the economy (thus my first question above).
But the only way to say Obama's being disingenuous, as you are implying, is to say that his real motive in pushing this bill is to get all of the alleged pork passed - not to give the economy a stimulus. If that were true, all his arguments about crisis would truly be shameful. If, however, he does believe that it has some sort of important stimulus - and the alleged pork is simply the cost of doing business with Congress - then the argument isn't shameful. The inclusion of pork doesn't change the fact that he believes an immediate stimulus is necessary and he believes this bill delivers that (among other things).
My guess? It's somewhere in the middle. He - or Democratic members of Congress - want to get some pet programs in under the radar....AND they believe stimulus is necessary and this delivers it.
Now there's the entirely separate question of whether calling everything a crisis to get one's agenda passed without debate is the right thing in a democracy. Our government was designed to work slowly, with much deliberation. I get nervous when Presidents claim emergency, although yes, there are sometimes emergency situations. The parallel I would draw is not to Iraq but to the Patriot Act. (Gotta pass this now without debate or else.) Of course Obama at least gave some effort to listen and engage the other side. More than Bush ever did. But still.....
The comparison to Iraq escapes me. What pisses of liberals about Iraq is not the haste or the claims of emergency, it's the belief that Bush was lying...or at least very selectively filtering the intelligence. Are you saying that Obama is filtering the economic information with his arguments here? Like I said, you lost me.
For me, the lie is in the urgency. It is something that I see a lot in politics, in the "this must be passed right-now as is with absolutely no time for delay!"
That is, simply, false. Stimulus passed today won't be implemented for months or, possibly, more than a year. The real rush is pure politics - get something passed so that you appear to be doing something.
The CBO, some time ago, did a nice brief on effective stimulus. The goals are that it is timely (a quick implementation), targeted (that is, it addresses a very specific group or need), and temporary (that is, it doesn't create long-run expectations for funding.) I'd add to that that the best sort of spending-stimulus is that which crates something useful, which wouldn't otherwise be built.
One possibility would be to dramatically enhance the electrical grid. Another is to build a network of alternative-fuel fueling stations in major cities (LNG stations, hydrogen, or even rapid-charge electrical) to create a hub for an alternative-energy transportation network (something that needs critical mass to get the ball rolling). Putting money toward large-scale projects is not timely, but it is focused on creating. I'd like to combine spending for projects like that with block grants to states, or even to local governments. Focus spending on the most adversely affected MSAs in the country, and let local governments decide how best to spend the money, within some broad guidelines if necessary.
What do I not consider stimulus? A sampling:
$650 million for DTV converter subsidies.
$600 million to buy hybrid cars for federal employees.
$400 million to prevent STDs
$248 million for furniture for the Department of Homeland Security.
$2 billion for 4 power plants in Illinois (it's close to my above definition, but $2 billion just to the president's state because it's the president's state sounds like a gravy train to me).
$100 million to reduce the hazards of lead paint.
$6 billion for Federal "green" buildings.
The Federal government using tens of billions of dollars is a prime example of the self-focused nature of this stimulus.
I'm frustrated to see Obama playing a passive role concerning Congress with regard tot his bill, because one of the major filings of the Bush administration was to be too conciliatory to a Congress that saw single-party rule as a way to load up their own gravy train. If anyone inrecent memory has had the public clout to stand up to Congress to say "no" to Congress and expect Congress to back off, it is Obama. For him to set the tone in Congress of cooperation-as-concession, and just load up a bill with pork, it gives too much ground up front.
The Patriot Act is a good parallel, though - far better than mine.
Along the lines of "what is good stimulus" I offer the following, from my favorite economics blog: The Paradox of Thrift
I'll need to check out that economics blog.
But I'm surprised by your contention that Bush was too passive toward Congress. One of the main criticisms I've had about Bush (and heard about him) is that he was too aggressive...that he usurped too much power from Congress and rejected Congressional oversight. What is your response to that criticism?
I think it's a matter of perspective.
Mine is this: as I recall, Bush didn't veto any bills whatsoever until the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. That's over 6 years without a single veto.
In doing so, Bush was too passive in restraining partisan excess in the Congress. The same is probably true in reverse - that Congress was too willing to cede power to Bush. It's entirely probable that this is simply an inherent problem in single-party rule, but that Obama would follow the same path doesn't make it less problematic.
Expanding a bit on my previous thought...
There is a normal push and pull between the branches of government for power - ideally, they counter-balance each other and don't allow any one branch to run roughshod over the others.
With that in mind, I don't blame Bush or (when the time comes) Obama for trying to gain power for their branch. That is simply what is expected of them, and is similar to FDR appointing biased judges to the Supreme Court to allow him the power to implement the New Deal. For executive over-reach, or a lack of Congressional approval, blame the Congress that stood by and allowed it - both the Rebpublican Congress of 2002-2006 and the Democratic Congress (or Senate) of 2001-2002 and 2007-2008.
It is the Congress's fault for not stepping to the plate to limit executive overreach, so I think that to blame Bush for it is misguided (though I'd gladly see an argument to the contrary).
This is consistent with my blaming Bush and, perhaps, Obama for being to passive with Congress - not willing to step up and say "no you won't" to limit the excesses of that branch.
I don't think it's a constitutional duty of one branch to be humble and not try for power, though I'd consider it the proper thing to do. I do think it's their constitutional duty to push back against the other branches.
It's one thing to say there's no duty to be humble (though even that's debateable), it's another thing entirely to claim the right to ignore laws altogether (not veto them, but sign them and proclaim you will ignore a duly-created statute). This, more than Iraq or the Patriot Act or the deficit or anything, is what I found offensive about the Bush Administration. It amounts to an entire rejection of the rule of law. If Obama does the same (and lately, he has been wont to follow some Bush precedent re: War on Terror stuff like the state secrets privilege), then I would support impeaching the man I voted for. That's how seriously I take the idea that the law applies to everybody, including the President...and the Presidents cannot just pick and choose which laws they will obey.
While I certainly believe it was Congress's fault for not stepping up to the plate to stop executive overreach, as you say.....I find it ridiculous to say that Bush should not be blamed for the times when he went too far. Yes, the Framers intended the branches to fight for power. So I expect and welcome attempts by the branches to encroach on each other's prerogative. (Actually, I happen to believe that Congress has the power to specifically limit a President's actions as Commander in Chief....to the point of even specifically directing troop movements. I've written a paper on it. I just also happen to believe that it's an idiotic idea for Congress to do such a thing in most circumstances.) And certainly the executive branch has the right - among other things - to decide how vigorously it will enforce one law over another. But no Executive has the right to openly ignore the law. So that's my main criticism of the Bush Administration.
And with that, I've gotten waaaaaaay off topic of the stimulus plan.
"...it's another thing entirely to claim the right to ignore laws altogether (not veto them, but sign them and proclaim you will ignore a duly-created statute)."
Agreed. As this seems to be a reference to the infamous "signing statements," I'm in complete agreement that the way a President rejects laws he doesn't approve of is the veto, not these statements.
So... what's the appropriate response of the other branches to such an approach?
I ask, because they are the checks on the President's power. In the case of "signing statements," then those branches have a serious responsibility to use whatever means they have to respond to the President's over-reach.
As a side-note to this discussion, I've heard the "President Bush pushed the executive branch too far" argument a lot. Usually, it's in connection with things like wiretaps, the Patriot Act, or Iraq - and in each of those examples I find the other branches more responsible for not checking the President's power. Even in the case of signing statements, shouldn't the matter have been brought before, say, the Supreme Court?
By placing all the blame on the President, we're setting the stage for any strong-willed executive to do the same thing, so it's in our interests to say "how should this be stopped?"
To use a very unflattering analogy, it's as though the guards at a prison unlock the doors and allow a serial murderer to go free. We are not surprised if the offender repeats, and he does deserve punishment for his additional crimes. But the real blame - the reason the murderer was not contained within the prison walls is the guards who let him roam free.
In the same way, an unrestrained branch of government, while still responsible for its own actions, is something we expect to over-reach. But the guards of that branch - namely, the other two branches - have a serious responsibility to the community to keep the doors shut.
Post a Comment