Blocking Stimulus for Political Gains ?
“Now I’m looking at the political system turning itself into a paralyzed beast. A lost decade now looms as a much bigger risk. The Fed’s running out of powder; Its really powerful ammunition has been expended.”
-Alan Blinder, former vice chairman Federal Reserve, on whether the US could sink into a Japan-style quagmire
>
Peter Goodman has a longish article in the NYT Week in Review, What Can Be Done to Cure the Ailing Economy?.
It is notable for a few reasons: Great chart porn (see right), a few good quotes (see above), and a bombshell from Bruce Barlett, the Treasury economist in the first Bush administration.
Bartlett has become a pariah to the Republican party, saying out loud what few people dare to even think. He notes that we are already in gridlock, with the GOP deploying a blocking strategy. He thinks nothing substantive is going to change for a simple reason:
“Clearly, a weak economy in 2012 will be very good for whoever the Republican presidential candidate is. It’s hard to see how the Republicans lose by blocking stimulus.”
That is a pretty damning accusation. Bartlett is essentially arguing that the anti-stimulus crowd is doing so not for ideological beliefs, but for political advantage. He is implying their goal is to keep the economy weak in order to prevail politically.
That is quite an accusation . . . Do any of you buy it?
>
UPDATE: August 29, 2010 6:00PM
Bruce Bartlett writes in to clarify my interpretation:
I don’t actually believe that there are any Republicans intentionally blocking policies that they know would help the economy just so that their party would benefit.
But on the other hand, there is no denying that a bad economy is good for the out-party, especially in presidential elections. So what we have is a situation in which Republicans can’t lose. Insofar as they actually believe that their policies would be better for the economy than Obama’s, and insofar as Obama’s policies are in fact bad for the economy, Republicans benefit politically from gridlock either way.
The only way Republicans can lose is if Obama suddenly gives them carte blanche to enact whatever policies they want and we get a 1937-type double-dip from inappropriate fiscal tightening. But then it would still be Obama’s fault for listening to them. As Otter explained to Flounder in Animal House, “You f&%ed up. You trusted us.”
>
Source:
What Can Be Done to Cure the Ailing Economy?
Peter S. Goodman
NYT, August 28, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/weekinreview/29goodman.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
August 29th, 2010 at 10:33 am
I’m suing you, Big Picture. you are violating my patent 6,757,682
“Alerting users to items of current interest”
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6757682.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/27/paul_allen_patent_offensive/
— Paul Allen
August 29th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Do any of you buy it?
Yes
If Republicans really cared about the deficit, they wouldn’t have done the things they did during the Bush administration that caused the deficit to explode.
History suggests they are not opposed to spending, just spending during Democratic administrations. The recent opposition to small business tax credits is a telling example.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:43 am
I’m buying. Republicans are selfish and care about themselves far more than their care about the country, whether is be off shoring jobs or taking care of Wall Street or heath care. Democrats always care what republican think. So while republicans can block anything with 40 votes the dems will block nothing if the republicans have 50 votes.
Either way we are screwed because their isn’t a leader among either party.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Sadly, this is the result of a seriously flawed two party system. I see no reason to believe it will end soon.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:44 am
It is hard to imagine tht “political gridlock” can be viewed as anything but good. For my money the entire United States Congress can stay on vacation and taker Bernanke, Summers and Geithner with them. Look, I know Mitch McConnell is a moron but then so is Reid and Boehner isn’t much better than Pelosi and that is strictly a side-by-side comparison as they are both dunces. Gosh I wonder if we should just let creative destruction have its way?
August 29th, 2010 at 10:46 am
I hate to say it, but I think that’s very true and have been suspecting this for a while.
Some individual republicans may want to have stimulus, but the republican caucus leadership will exert strong pressures to discipline and pull support from anyone that falls out of line. To the party leadership, it is more important to take back Congress and the Presidency than to resume economic growth, and they are willing to push millions of Americans into another two years of suffering in order to do it.
Worse yet, the strategy may work. As far as I can see, the republicans have brought no new solutions to the table other than the usual prescriptions of cutting taxes (but that is not a new solution)
August 29th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Since we’ve allowed federal politicians to become a privileged class, immune to the effects of the economy in every way EXCEPT politically, why would you doubt this? Of course, being easy to believe doesn’t prove the assertion, but damning accusations against either party rarely stretch my credulity.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Yes I buy it. However, the only one to blame is Obama. He should have read Machiavelli’s The Prince as guide of how to govern during his first 100 days. As it is now he is just a sitting duck.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:54 am
watchin my fav Sunday morning tv channel & where they just played the TeaParty candidate and his plans for Alaska … I wonder if he is a separationist .. that seems the game these days . use other peoples cash get the structures built . pull the rug out legally .. walla TBTFight
and not ps ..
“their goal is to keep the economy weak in order to prevail” .. who is they? financiers maybe?
Tears for Fears – Everybody Wants to Rule the World (live)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMjzxHzZnnI
August 29th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I don’t buy it.
The acolytes of Rupert Murdoch are capable of genuine stupidity without an underlying motivation.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Agree with foosion and “me”. Trouble is, with a Congressional deadlock, the morons in Treasury and FHA get to run things using all the slush funds floating around. Saw somewhere that two new programs to prop up house prices, aka stealth bank bailouts, are in the works.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:04 am
I believe it.
For the Republican narrative to come true Government has to fail. And they are masters at manipulating the fears of the just-about-to-be-disempowered to vote against their own interests.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Gee, how controversial. Next, opposition to killing people will be called unpatriotic.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Without credible 3rd party candidates, it’s always possible. If anything this should provide impetus for 3rd parties to get organised which would make for an interesting outcome if they could point out these Republican tactics and garner some support.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Yes, I buy it. That’s the game plan and has been from the start. Which sort of makes you wonder why Obama had such a fetish for bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship is grounded in compromise, and the current Republican Party is crazy. Who wants to compromise with crazy?
August 29th, 2010 at 11:23 am
I agree that the Republican strategy is to gum up the works then blame the other side for doing nothing.
But
I can’t help feeling that something deeper is at work that makes this possible. Obviously, the media is a big part of the problem. Not just Fox either. And the rentier-political whore complex. But even that doesn’t feel like an adequate explanation.
So here is a hypothesis:
We have gone about as far with economies driven by greed as it is possible to go. I am not saying greed is bad or immoral. Just no longer effective.
Probably because greed is better fuel for competition than for cooperation and the more that value creation is about knowledge rather than material, the larger the optimum scale of cooperation
One small bipartisan example: in our current structure, the value of an elite education is increased by the lack of education for the non-elite. No one would say it out loud and most of the well-educated would hate to even think it, but allowing education in the US at most non-elite levels to fall behind the rest of the world helps those who can afford the best school to out-compete all those who can’t. But it is one of the worst possible things for the nation as a whole.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Agree with foosion. Further, without advocating cutting the MIC budget and without proposing serious Wall Street reform, the Republican Tea Party hasn’t convinced me they’d change anything for the better. Instead, they’ll probably push some new religious ideas.
Like Beck — from political trash talker to aspiring preacher man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd6ISmCPHgg
August 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Neither party has a clue about what to do because there is no overarching principle(s) that lead to a national “perogative.” Many times, such a principle or idea (such as going to the moon in the sixties or morning in America in the eighties) led us forward. But now, when everything is debateable and all sides are heard (regardless of how inane or ridiculous) politicians latch on to anything simply to hold on to their jobs.
Woe be it for those who don’t. So goodbye Senators Bennett and Murkowski for not appealling to the most radical elements of their party.
Goodbye President Obama from the radicals on the progressive side who want sex, drugs, and rock and roll as part of the national anthem in 2012.
Tea Partiers and Radical Progressives make up only 30% of the electorate in the general election, but around 50% of the individual parties.
The answer is the “national vision” of moving America forward towards something. Then we can stop wandering around in the wilderness of debateable.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Rentier-political whore complex: That portion of the economy and especially profits that is based on finding some niche from which competition is kept out by legal devices (not by product superiority) and using some small percentage of the take to purchase the required political protection. In a sense, it is the form of the defense industrial complex extended to other areas of the economy, for example medical equipment supply.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:36 am
“Do any of you buy it?”
Of course, don’t be silly: it’s hardball politics 101 and the Republicans have been playing it well since Nixon.
With that much history I personally fault the Democrats for their lack of discipline to effectively counter. Admittedly the train-wreak of the 4th Estate with its horse-race and he-said/she-said reportage made the Democratic task more difficult but it’s been more than three decades for crying out loud and better party and message discipline coupled with a more aggressive stance could have compensated.
In any case, the future looks bleak and folks who think government gridlock is a good think and/or that Clinton-era type congressional witch-hunting is only a distraction at worst are going to learn something about what it means when government is paralyzed in a time of national weakness. Do people forget that the Republicans under Gingrich nearly caused a government freeze/default the last time they were in power w/ a Democratic POTUS? Anyone think that Boehner or Pence are going to do any better?
If folks haven’t figured out that a political party that believes government is the problem can neither govern democratically (small d) nor well then I guess the country is due for another big dose of education in the school of hard knocks.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:41 am
That is quite an accusation . . . Do any of you buy it?
—–
But of course, because Bartlett has stated this previously: For example, in “capitalgainsandgames” on August 11 in a piece entitled “Am I on the Right or Left,” he writes:
“The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of; it stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself, with no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country. In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, I characterized the Republicans as the greedy, sociopathic party. I stand by that.”
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1899/am-i-right-or-left
August 29th, 2010 at 11:54 am
The Dems have the Presidency, big majority in the House, and a majority in the Senate. Blame the republicans?
Now this is silly. However, I will say the republicans totally blew it by bloating the deficit under their own watch.
I challenge all the libs writing these comments to try to pull back and have some intellectually honest discussions, in search of truth instead of being so damned partisan. That includes the Mr. Big Picture. It has become a posting for the evils of capitalism and a place to trash the republicans. Can someone recommend a blog or web site where there exists good debate using ideas rather than personal attacks and questioning motives?
August 29th, 2010 at 11:55 am
That is a pretty damning accusation. Bartlett is essentially arguing that the anti-stimulus crowd is doing so not for ideological beliefs, but for political advantage. He is implying their goal is to keep the economy weak in order to prevail politically.
—
Incidentally, don’t kid yourself Barry, there are a lot of people including Democrats and Independents (especially) who have significant doubts about more spending. And that includes Democrats in office who are focused on staying there.
There’s a lot of blame to go around regarding our economic predicament, and that includes the current administration and Congress.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Really like jessica’s line of thinking here. Few thoughts in no particular order, apologies in advance for some of the examples:
- Sometimes I feel like ‘America’ is often used like a whore where individuals only see what and how fast they can get ‘some’ for themselves, damn the consequences for the future. I fear though that between our politico’s & corporate’s massive greed for the immediate is / has destroyed the future and guess what? It seems the future has arrived.
- The thing about education I find so fascinating from a market perspective is that there is a *huge* and growing demand for the best education and yet, even in the face of having seemingly unstoppable control to raise prices (aka tuition) there is literally no net new Tier 1 supply! Where are the new Harvard’s, UNC-Chapel Hill’s, Stanford’s, Berkley’s, etc.? Note I didn’t discriminate between public vs. private because I don’t think it should matter – the point is there is this absolute crush of demand and no new market entrants. Why is this!?!
- Deflation will suck for most of the people on this board, but many of my relatives are poor and I can tell you a general bout of deflation for the class that used to be considered ‘middle’ (I’d argue there’s only two classes now – upper and lower) would be a huge win for them.
- The great ‘leveling’ (see a couple prior posts) continues, but I’m worried our gamble of dealing openly and fairly with China has backfired. Our geopolitical bet was (my opinion) that we could create a middle class in China fast enough to avoid a collapse of our middle class. Unfortunately (again, my opinion) I think we underestimated the ability of the power-elite in China to control so many people as to basically keep a nearly ‘slave labor’ class of several hundred million people, perhaps equal to the working middle class adult populations of the G7, intact and in captive ‘factory towns’. Yes, the average wage in China has went up, but the distribution of wealth is horribly lopsided.
- Not a big believer in the last 40% of this rally (or maybe former rally). Maybe we bounce here but I think the big financials are going to take it in the shorts between the pull-back from the public, the slow volume, etc. If you really think about the ability of the financials to pull $100′s of million out of their trading desks quarter after quarter you have to go back to first principles and ask yourself where that money was coming from? Of course it was coming out of the marginal transaction of the individuals, pension funds, etc. Once people and organizations decide that this ‘game’ doesn’t work anymore guess what? The only ones left are the big banks trying to suck money out of each other, a truly zero-sum game.
- Finally, I think the big banks are about to really get the stuffing kicked out of them. The political class has to be working up their polling data for the final run into the elections and I would bet the issue that really polls well is turning the double-barrels onto the financial class. I’d argue up to now the financial class was able to out-wit and / or convince the politicos the end of the world would have happened if they didn’t drop their drawers and give them the key to the FED. Now, the end of the world really is happening – no not financially (although I keep looking back at 666 on the S&P and wondering if that isn’t just sitting there as a number to be taken out) but politically! If you’re a politico the end of the world for you is when you lose your election and your access to power is cut-off. I think we’re finally setting up for a much harsher treatment of the big banks and the just announce new SEC investigations are just the start. Perp-walks are coming and I’d forecast 100% chance of heavy downpours for the street for the next 18 months.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Wow. So it’s unreasonable to be against the various “stimulus” programs simply based on their lack of effectiveness and long-term effect of the deficits we face? Seems like everybody ought to take a deep breath. Nobody would dream of handling their personal finances the way the gov’t is handling public finance, by borrowing massive amounts to counter how horribly in debt the nation is. What’s wrong with opposing spending money we don’t have that our kids are going to have to pay the carrying cost on?
August 29th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
NO !
August 29th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Yes, it’s true. Classic example being Obama proposals in Dec 2009 and Jan 2010, $33 billion in tax cuts for small business, including “$5,000 tax credit for every net new employee in 2010…. Employers would receive a tax credit to cover Social Security payroll taxes on wage increases. ” This was something described on Fox News as “surprising and Republican-esque”. Republicans ended up blocking the proposal, claiming Obama was playing election year politics. Mitch McConnell balked, saying it would add to the budget deficit. Naturally, McConnell favors extending the Bush tax cuts, ignoring the vast deficits that has created and will continue to create.
If Barack Obama supported extending the Bush tax cuts permanently, the Republicans would claim he was playing election year politics, too. They have a spin strategy for everything.
“Nuf said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703389004575033021463287594.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29268784.htm
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270010
August 29th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I don’t buy it.
I agree with withere’s point.
I’d add that it seems from press coverage when one party is against something it’s because of their courage and morality, when the other party is against something it’s because they are money grubbing bastards only seeking power. I think both parties are power seeking bastards, but in this case my money grubbing power seeking bastards are right.
the people that are pro-more-stimulus should be able to point to at least a few examples where the previous 800 billion wasn’t just pissed away, instead of just pointing at the opposition and saying it would have worked if the wreckers hadn’t prevented success.
August 29th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Some are, some aren’t. Those that ARE don’t understand the precipice over which our economy teeters. Actually – I don’t think very many humans see this in general.
August 29th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Bruce Barlett’s comment perfectly explains why Richard Shelby is blocking Peter Diamond’s nomination to the FOMC. The issue isn’t one of qualifications.
August 29th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Read Martin Gross’ books—-Washington A to Z explains how the rules of congress govern our daily lives. Both political parties when in the majority control the committees who spend our money. It is difficult for any new member to vote independently without losing funding from the national committee for their reelection. As voters, we should care less about which party we belong to and concentrate on the money flow. How many present members of congress voted against TARP?? Who voted to give our money to the same people who traded derivatives?? Who in congress receives the most money from Goldman Sachs and the other banks??
August 29th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Mayor Quimby (and Jessica) summed it well.
“Some are, some aren’t. Those that ARE don’t understand the precipice over which our economy teeters. Actually – I don’t think very many humans see this in general.”
The rhetoric from some is just shy of encouraging broad based violence and I suspect its only a matter of time before that happens.
August 29th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
It would be shameful if the Republicans roadblocked measures that would really help the economy, but that’s not what they’re doing. What they oppose are the ponderously bureaucratic Democrat programs that have failed to do anything to relieve massive unemployment (e.g., public infrastructure projects, grants to states and localities, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac financial gimmickry).
What’s needed is government action that would put money directly in the hands of consumers. Specifically, the government should send every family in the country a check for $1,000 every three months for the next year (i.e., four quarterly checks totaling $4,000 per family). This would cost the government about $400 billion, but the families receiving the money would probably spend at least half that amount on goods and services that they couldn’t otherwise afford, and this incremental spending would provide enough revenue to private sector employers to enable them to put at least four million workers back on the payroll.
Granted, the government would have no control over the way families chose to spend their handouts, but using this no strings attached method to inject $400 billion into the economy would do far more good than the pathetically ineffective $862 billion “stimulus” program launched in 2009.
Would the Republicans support this initiative if the Democrats proposed it? Yes, I believe they would as long as the Democrats agreed to cover the $400 billion cost with proceeds from the sale of the government’s stock in GM and Citigroup. At worst, the Republicans might insist on capping the handouts so no family could receive more than its total federal income and social security payments in recent years.
So here’s my question back to you, Barry. What do you think the Democrats would do if the Republicans put this $400 billion economic recovery proposal on the table?
John D. Hartigan
Chevy Chase, MD
August 29th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Of course it is true. How do we know? Because Republicans have no interest in creating jobs for the working class even when they are in charge. This good Newsweek story points out the obvious, that the policies Republicans are advocating would actually create fewer jobs and increase the deficit more than the Democratic policies they are against. http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/08/26/on-jobs-and-deficits-republicans-are-worse-than-obama.html
August 29th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
There’s nothing to “buy” except your inaccurate, over-the-top inventions and creations of what Bartlett actually said – as quoted by you. Did you used to be a lawyer – you lie like one.
August 29th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
BR see what you have done…..
and on a Sunday to boot. my my….
August 29th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Certainly the majority of Republicans are blocking it for political gain. However, there’s no difference between 99% of Republicans and Democrats. They both spend money we don’t have on sh*t we don’t need. They just choose a few different things to spend tax dollars on and claim they are somehow different from each other. End of the day average American gets screwed while the oil companies, military industrial complex, wall street and municipal/labor unions get their fill no matter what happens. They can spend all the money they want or choose not to but until you force the bad debts back onto the banks and let the chips fall where they may for people who have been living beyond their means then you aren’t going to get out of this mess.
August 29th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Yes…because Bruce Bartlett certainly must know about the “Invisible Hands.” Unfortunately most of us haven’t had the information to connect the dots because MSM under-reported the connections for years.
—–
Article from Frank Rich, NYT’s:
August 28, 2010
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
By FRANK RICH
ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.
Vive la révolution!
There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.
Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might.
All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R. You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. and Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?ref=frankrich
August 29th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
That is quite an accusation . . . Do any of you buy it?
No
August 29th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Yes I buy it. In fact it’s been obvious as hell all year and if you haven’t seen it or thought of it until now you’ve been living in some kind of insulated bubble, be it geographical, ideological, or financial.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Of course Bartlett is correct. R Senators are taking what they think is the path to maximum utility. In most legislative situations, that is done by trading votes for changes in a bill. In this case, the caucus has decided the best strategy is wall-to-wall obstruction. What this does to the economy is irrelevant; what it does to Republican Party fortunes is (unfortunately) soon to become apparent. We are in for a long dark period.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Do I buy it? Of course. It’s a purely political strategy and seems to be very effective. It’s certainly effective at bringing the gov’t to a standstill. Whether it’s an effective long-term strategy for coming to and staying in power remains to be seen.
As @RW says they’ve been doing this crap since Nixon (southern strategy basically). Now Repubs of the past few years have no interest in governing, only power. They block everything – bills, appointees, you name it. They block things based on their own ideas. It doesn’t matter. If it benefits Obama and Democrats in any way, it’s blocked, country be damned.
As for greed / competition, especially when taken to the Ayn Rand extreme, it is not effective in the long term for the health of any society. The pendulum needs to swing to cooperation which has served our species well in the past.
I like this quote from Soros regarding the matter — “There is a common interest. And this belief that everybody pursuing his self-interests will maximize the common interests or will take care of the common interests is a false idea. It’s a suitable idea for those who are rich, who are successful, who are powerful. It suits them to justify you know, enjoying the fruits without paying taxes. The idea of paying taxes is an absolute no-no, right?” George Soros in interview with Bill Moyers
I recommend Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” subtitled “How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”
I’m not real optimistic on where the U.S. is headed.
As for the Republican Party, I have not voted for any Republican candidate in 10 years and will not until they change their apparatchik approach to politics.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
At the very least, blocking economy-improving measures is a downwind run for Pubs, politically.
Are they consciously damaging the American economy to improve their political prospects? Some of them certainly. Most of them, to some semi-conscious extent? Also Yes.
Are they justifying it to themselves by believing they’ll fix everything once they get the power back? Absolutely. Despite unequivocal evidence that their drown-baby-in-the-bathwater policies — the economic and intellectual equivalent of bloodletting — have failed the thirty-year test.
So:
Q: Which is it: delusional or despicable?
A: Yes.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
““The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of”
That is such a groan-inducing statement.
I guess that we should forget about Iran Contra, huge budget deficits, 10.2 % unemployment, his support for Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Yes, those same Taliban.
I am glad Mr. Barlett has finally seen the sun. Much like Ken Mehlman. But the damage is already done.
Barry asks:
“That is a pretty damning accusation. Bartlett is essentially arguing that the anti-stimulus crowd is doing so not for ideological beliefs, but for political advantage. He is implying their goal is to keep the economy weak in order to prevail politically.
That is quite an accusation . . . Do any of you buy it?”
But of course. When you are devoid of ideas, deception and diversion are the only ways to achieve your goals.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Why not? And why doesn’t everyone go down and sign up for all the social welfare they can get. Take this system down to the level it deserves to be and in its place will rise a much more ligitimate governing class.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
To Eye Wall,
“- Sometimes I feel like ‘America’ is often used like a whore where individuals only see what and how fast they can get ’some’ for themselves, damn the consequences for the future. I fear though that between our politico’s & corporate’s massive greed for the immediate is / has destroyed the future and guess what? It seems the future has arrived.”
To what degree have we changed and to what degree has what is needed change. For example, I think that Japan has done mostly the same thing during its Japan As Number 1 days and during its multi-decade slow decay. The times changed.
“- The thing about education I find so fascinating from a market perspective is that there is a *huge* and growing demand for the best education and yet, even in the face of having seemingly unstoppable control to raise prices (aka tuition) there is literally no net new Tier 1 supply! Where are the new Harvard’s, UNC-Chapel Hill’s, Stanford’s, Berkley’s, etc.? Note I didn’t discriminate between public vs. private because I don’t think it should matter – the point is there is this absolute crush of demand and no new market entrants. Why is this!?!”"
This would be very difficult for the market to take care of. I don’t think any of these institutions were generated by the market. The government doesn’t because post-secondary education has been a whipping boy since the days when it was associated (reasonably fairly) with the movement against the war in Vietnam. I suspect (without any evidence) that the current Tier 1′s and accreditation organizations and the ways of allocating the big research dollars are also obstacles.
“Finally, I think the big banks are about to really get the stuffing kicked out of them. ”
I despair that you are wrong. The Dems will get blamed for letting Wall Street use the financial collapse as a type of shock capitalism, but power will just be given back to the Republicans who created the mess (with Democratic complicity) in the first place. It will take a third party to really take on the banks. The fact that the justified anger at the financials has no genuine expression on the ballot this fall is extremely discouraging.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
It would be shameful if the Republicans roadblocked measures that would really help the economy, but that’s not what they’re doing. What they oppose are the ponderously bureaucratic Democrat programs that have failed to do anything to relieve massive unemployment (e.g., public infrastructure projects, grants to states and localities, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac financial gimmickry).
What’s needed is government action that would put money directly in the hands of consumers. Specifically, the government should send every family in the country a check for $1,000 every three months for the next year (i.e., four quarterly checks totaling $4,000 per family). This would cost the government about $400 billion, but the families receiving the money would probably spend at least half that amount on goods and services that they couldn’t otherwise afford, and this incremental spending would provide enough revenue to private sector employers to enable them to put at least four million workers back on the payroll.
Granted, the government would have no control over the way families chose to spend their handouts, but using this no strings attached method to inject $400 billion into the economy would do far more good than the pathetically ineffective $862 billion “stimulus” program launched in 2009.
Would the Republicans support this initiative if the Democrats proposed it? Yes, I believe they would as long as the Democrats agreed to cover the $400 billion cost with proceeds from the sale of the government’s stock in GM and Citigroup. At worst, the Republicans might insist on capping the handouts so no family could receive more than its total federal income tax and social security payments in recent years.
So here’s my question back to you, Barry. What do you think the Democrats would do if the Republicans put this $400 billion economic recovery proposal on the table?
John D. Hartigan
Chevy Chase, MD
August 29th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Do I buy it? How could we assume anything else?
I’ll go one step further. I think that the Republicans were only too happy to have Democrats win in ’08 because they knew that these 4 years would suck. Republicans don’t believe in GOVERNING. They have said so so, clearly and publicly. Government is BAD.
The problem is I’m not sure their strategy is going to work so well. FDR was President during the depression and he will be the all-time record holder for winning presidential elections. People do not like change when things are bad. I’ll give you a counter example — George W. Bush was elected after one of the most prosperous periods in our country’s history. In one of the 2000 debates, he actually argued that people should vote for him so that we as a country wouldn’t “coast along on our success.” LOL he definitely delivered on that promise. The thing is when people feel rich they feel like Republicans. When they feel poor….not so much. Republicans know this, and that is why they are trying to re-brand themselves as a different party “We’re not about lowering your taxes anymore (because you don’t make any money), we’re about freedom and liberty!”
August 29th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Yes.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
The Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the White House. If they can’t get legislation through Congress, they have no one to blame but themselves. Yes, you need 60 to get anything done in the Senate but they control 59 votes. All they need to do is to get one of the Maine milquetoast moderates on-board and they’re home free.
Furthermore, as Jim Grant recently pointed out – government stimulus (fiscal and monetary) exceeds 22% of GDP during this downturn – it was only 8% during the Great Depression. The Keynesian crowd is no different than the supply side crowd – the tonic for everything is more, more, more – one side insists government spending is the magic multiplier while the other side says it’s all about tax cuts.
August 29th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Pause, sit back and think for a moment. What will America and the world for that matter look like by Christmas? How many more spins of crazy can we take before something serious cracks? Then, think of where we’ll be by spring. Since there is no indication that there is a pressure release valve anywhere in the system this boiler could be ready to explode six months down the road with all the inputs that are happening
August 29th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Don’t buy it so much as history told us economic perform far more better under Democratic administration…although it is much like china way to gain control economy but think that combine stimulus in monetary and fiscal policy is effective, only time will tell…
August 29th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Buy it ? – well if there was any other coherent and logic explanation for the GOPsters complete lack of willingness to make any compromise on any substantive initiatives then at least we could have a debate about it. For good sake they are even refusing to come out with a comprehensive alternative policy themselves – all they do is vote no. Look at their deficit proposals, unspecified cuts in gobinment waste and huge tax-cuts for the rich. Crying about the huge national debt at the same time as they propose to double it by making these irresponsible unfunded tax-cuts permanent.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Some are, some aren’t. -Mayor Quimby
Trouble is the ones that are, are running the show for the republicans. This is blow back for Nixon’s Southern Strategy….
Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy)
You can’t speak to them about factual errors they make (death panels?) because all they’re doing is speaking to each other in code (YOU’RE the one who doesn’t ‘get it’.)
This is their second chance at their great ‘Lost Cause’ ……and they don’t care if they have to take the whole fuckin’ country down with them, this time they’re gonna’ win!!
August 29th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
All the Big D Democrats need to take a big hard look in the mirror before looking anywhere else for people to blame.
You were a part of the 87-13 senate vote that ushered us into Iraq.
You were leading Congress during the 75-25 bailout vote. (also wrangled the votes with sweeteners to get it through the house)
You fumbled crappy stimulus bills, fought a silly Healthcare battle that ended with passage of the same bill that the Republicans put out in 1994 (to fend off Hilary care) plus sweeteners.
You all have had a Congressional Mandate and the Presidency for two full years and have done nothing but fumble the political football around. The list is long.
So yeah, blame Republicans if it makes you feel better. They are saying mean things on Fox News. This is true.
But The Democratic Party has the house, Senate, and Presidency.
FULL F$#@ING STOP.
The House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Who’s to blame?
August 29th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Are you asking if I think that politicians consider their own re-election over ALL else? The struggle for power and infinite re-election is never-ending, OF COURSE Bruce Bartlett is right, to nineteen decimal places.
All that ANY politician cares about is maintaining power and pushing and shoving to get the prime positions to suckle at the lobbyists’s teat. If that were not the case, they never would have received party backing in the primaries, and would never have made it into office in the first place.
However, it’s not just the Republicans, just look at the hatchet job Chris Dodd is doing on the consumer as he glides toward “retirement” as a financial lobbyist, elevating his game up a notch in his quest to be slime-ball numero uno.
Just another step downward, as Bananamerica moves decisively onward toward becoming history’s largest banana republic, ruled by the likes of Rupert Murdock and the Koch brothers, floating above their political minions on a cloud of money and power. The upper elite don’t give a rat’s ass about what happens to the nation, they see it only in terms of assets available for plunder, and are intent on leaving no control in the hands of the squabbling, ignorant peasants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?ref=opinion
August 29th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Bartlett is another idiot in DC, spewing whatever keeps getting him invited to swank parties in the Beltway. His premise makes sense to only those who can’t see the most obvious of facts.
Let’s have a quick quiz here, shall we?
What party controls the White House? That would be the Democrats.
And which party controls the Senate? That would be the Democrats.
And which party controls the House of Representatives? That would be the Democrats.
The GOP can’t block anything. Obama’s stimulus bill sailed through both houses of Congress. Whether you agree with Obama’s legislative agenda or not, he has gotten quite a lot through Congress since taking office, proving that the GOP can’t block anything.
You Democrats are going to have to own up to your own failures. You like to keep blaming Bush and the Republicans, but Democrats have had complete control of DC for the past two years, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for two years before that.
Democrats put out a stimulus bill, they got it passed, they spent huge amounts of money… and now they have to resort to idiotic metrics (eg, “jobs created or saved”) to try to cover up the failure of the legislation to keep U-3 unemployment from going above 8%. Romer has now resigned (wisely) after her projections turned out to be incorrect (and expensively so) and Democrats want to blame the GOP for “blocking” their stimulus?
Bullshit.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
You would really have to be an ideologue not to have seen the strategy by now. Haven’t the republicans already said it enough times that they want this president to fail?
August 29th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Do I buy it?
I’ve been long this premise since they started to scream:”He’s not MY President!”
Since the president is the president of ALL Americans, it is simple logic to conclude they want a very different America than the one we’ve known and cherish. What better way to reach their goals than to destroy it than making every effort conceivable to let the current situation getting worse and worse?
After all there ought to be a reason why billionaires are funding every initiative they can (see Frank Rich last NYT column) to make things impossible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html
While we’re at it, it should be noted that the GOP hasn’t been exactly discreet about their intentions. If they win the House in November, take a look at what awaits us:
http://t.co/RLsMiCS
If you thought the Lewinski affair was over the top, (or the Terri Schiavo sordid scandal) you ain’t seen nothing yet, bitchez.
One day, people will have to realize who are the true enemies of the State. Don’t listen to the spin, the denials and the loud-mouthed protestations…look at the deeds.
Res ipsa loquitur as the Latin proverb goes. Yet, the biggest problem is to accept what we see…exactly like when we read the chart of a trade-able security.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Apparently dsawy is not acquainted with the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate. As long as 60 votes are required for passage of every bill, the Democratic majority does not rule in Congress.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
The Republican Party is obstructionist, and will gladly sacrifice U.S. wage-earners in the interest of political advantage.
The problem, as pointed out above, is that the Democratic Party also contains a lot of obstructionists, who will claim to be on the side of U.S. wage-earners right up to the moment it’s time to vote on something, and then will vote with Republicans. Their motives are somewhat obscure to me, although I think they might have something to do with making their Corporate sponsors happy, which I guess is more important to them than political advantage. I’m guessing that when the Revolving Door spins fast enough, you don’t have to worry about whether or not the political party you identify with is in power or not, because you’re always in power.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
dsawy, I don’t know how much time you have had to observe the political process, but obviously your slanting too much to one side. Which makes me wonder why we only have a binary system of government? It does have its benefit of being speedient but far from succinct. The system lacks a way to determine who really is at fault. The system is so flawed at this juncture that your arguement suggesting that the party in power at the moment has any control over what has went on before when the prior party took things to such extremes that only suggest that they must want failure to occur at some level in order to make us a better nation or that the power within the system has gotten so centralized it does not matter what “party” ends up holding the presidency only that things remain the same. So this: “the republicans suck and or the democrats suck,” holds true across the board but it doesn’t answer the question, why the people in the altimate positions of power are letting things workout the way the are? The fact of the matter is that there is a big swath of the “american way,” of the last 40 years that have to find a new way of life.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
@dsawy:
“The GOP can’t block anything. Obama’s stimulus bill sailed through both houses of Congress. Whether you agree with Obama’s legislative agenda or not, he has gotten quite a lot through Congress since taking office, proving that the GOP can’t block anything.”
You are a prime example of why this country is so screwed. Here you come, stating the most blatant falsehood about the political process in the Senate (check filibuster in you civics 101), and then just stepping on your own weenie with the “Obama’s stimulus bill sailed through both houses of Congres”.
Newsflash asshole! Check the DATE of passage of the stimulus bill. Obama was not even in office!
Endless torrential flow of fact-free grade-AAA bullshit polluting our screen real estate.
So sick and tired of it!!
August 29th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
no big deal, anyway you guys can remove this moderation delay?
I don’t spam, no ad hominems, stay on topic and enjoy the Blog. The damn delay means my weekend comments always get held up..
Again, no big deal thanx for the time :)
August 29th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Another way to spin this story might be to say that Obama has usurped the ideological and policy ground held by his predecessor, so the Republicans are forced to go so far out in their opposition to the Democrats. But there as well, it all comes down to the struggle for political power, with no thought for the fate of the nation.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Who suggested Obama know Machiavelli’s principles? Must we swoop to such levels? Bring in the Christians – John Calvin, et. al… Not that I prefer their systems of governments totallly. They are the reasons “we the people” ever made it in print!
August 29th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
” But there as well, it all comes down to the struggle for political power, with no thought for the fate of the nation.”
Bin Laden is laughing….
August 29th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
@FrancoisT 3:53pm
Nicely skewered.
Matt Taibbi takes on the firestorm of clueless disregard for the facts in the rush to assassinate the characters of those whom the Tea Party dislike (and this applies to the Republicans and Democrats as well, I think, but perhaps not to the same degree of offensiveness):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/195177/83512#userComments
Don’t read it on a full stomach.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Will John Boehner be our Robespierre?
And where can I invest in the stocks of guillotine manufacturers?
August 29th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
This started with Rove Smearing John McCain.
Politics have become war, because the insane can Only Win in that kind of fight.
Rove has destroyed the Republican Party.
Out Right Lies about Everything are now the norm.
They will destroy this country.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Do we want old Machi Milking U.S? Such government is for a bygone era…not the 21st century…too many cell phones around for one reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism
August 29th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
There is one positive.
Now that Fox News had become the Anti-Christ,
- screw the poor, the unemployed, screw the planet, seed hate,
they will all go to H*LL.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
It’s pure doublethink to be anti-stimulus and pro-business.
Why do they think we’re running these huge deficits in the first place? It went to support FIRE, automakers, durable goods, construction, retail and government anti-jobs (which, frankly, have been the only ones createed in the last decade).
August 29th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Is Obama’s advisor’s Advising him to LOSE?
Is the Democratic party controlled by Wall Street? In a recent pole 67% to 33%(?) not sure of the exact percentages, want the administration to do more Job Creation. That 67% isn’t going to be voting Republican or Tea Party.
So why won’t Obama follow the Politically Advantageous Strategy?
Does his Wall Street backers Not Want these policies enacted? Have they convinced Obama that the Democratic Party SHOULD Lose More Seats in the House?
http://robertreich.org/post/1020104902/the-two-stories-of-this-terrible-economy-yet-obama-and
August 29th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
To be fair, the Democrats (Obama included) have done an absolutely horrible job of beating back the Tea Party crap attack.
It’s almost like they are conceding a big loss in the midterms. Then, when they can’t get a stimulus passed during the next congress, they will blame it on the election. “We can’t do anything! Our hands are tied!”
August 29th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Yes, I buy it.
I think this, from 2005, was in Barry’s Friday reading list: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0207GREETINGS
Some had to say it. It neatly summarises the growth of abdication of (personal) responsibility (conscious or otherwise) in the past 50 years, and it’s revealing to read it in 2010. Just like the banks: corporate gains, socialised losses; if one does not use a condom, the government (i.e. the rest of us) will pick up the subsequent health tab (50¢ vs. $1,000,000 plus the societal costs). Etc., etc.. And there’s little to no thought of the fundamental reality of the costs; it’s all about how ‘my’ life is the way ‘I’ want it. The dumbing-down and self-centredness of the west, due in large part to the laziness engendered by the technical excellence that preceded it, is really rather scary to observe.
So many people, including politicians of all stripes, are now all too happy for other people to think for them; or to be able to offload ‘the awkward stuff,’ in the knowledge that the masses are effectively powerless to stop the practice, mainly because the masses are, literally, ignorant of what’s going on. Someone else can/will do the heavy lifting; that is, until there’s nobody left with any heft.
We’ve had more than a century of science, elevating living standards to a level of expectation and entitlement that has resulted in Tea Parties, and others, who want to throw all the qualified, thinking people out of government. Ironic, no?
And the fourth estate is greatly culpable in this lamentable state of affairs. Their bottom line is more important than either responsibility to report accurately or serving their community. In their attempts to provide something for nothing (giving away their reporting on the web, fundamentally misreading that one of the most valuable commodities is information), they’ve devalued what they can now report, and almost a generation has grown up expecting the research and reporting of fact to be free. Opinion has become almost the only currency the fourth estate can afford to publish. Reasoned thought and discussion was/is simply too expensive, when remain few people prepared to pay for the real stuff. After all, Barry does his own research, rather than collect opinion; for that, his clients are prepared to pay.
This race to the bottom is even infecting Canada and Europe. It took a generation to create; it might take as long to fix. Perhaps the instantaneity of Twitter, etc. revealing what actually happened will speed the fix in some cases, but I’m not holding my breath.
I think Barry and Bartlett are right; North America will have to pay for the past few decades’ excesses and dismissal of reality. Part of the current reality is that politicians realise that it is to their political advantage to be anti-stimulus. The dumbing-down will get worse before it gets to the point that it hurts enough to become better. It could get fugly.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
US Democracy has one fatal flaw: Corporate – Super Rich – Control of Democracy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html
August 29th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
withere,
“Wow. So it’s unreasonable to be against the various ‘stimulus’ programs simply based on their lack of effectiveness…”
What “lack of effectiveness” ?
Before the stimulus, the job losses in the national economy when Chimpy Bush was still in office were about 750,000 a month. After the stimulus, the national economy had been gaining an average of almost 200,000 jobs a month. That’s a dramatic reversal approaching a million jobs a month.
The stimulus worked like a charm.
The problem, as many of us were stating from the very beginning, was that the stimulus was far too small and filled with far too many useless tax cuts which have never been stimulative.
~
“What’s wrong with opposing spending money we don’t have that our kids are going to have to pay the carrying cost on?”
You’re one administration too late.
According to the independent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the vast overwhelming majority of the current and future projected federal budget deficits and debt are as a result of the loss of revenue from the many rounds of tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate, and secondarily spending on two wars, more Corporate Welfare, and a prescription drug program for the pharmaceutical industry, none of which were paid for.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”
Paragraph 22 from Washington’s Farewell address.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#20
Both parties are more interested in their own power than the good of the nation. Washington told us we would create this problem for ourselves if we allowed the parties to dominate us in this way.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
@dsawy — u need to look a little more closely. Senate Repubs have put holds on almost every single appointee that has to be confirmed. Nearly 300 bills that have passed in the House since the current 111th Congress took office 14 months ago have been blocked in the Senate by Republican filibusters.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/12/84487/senate-republicans-filibuster.html
The Repubs have no clue on how to govern and this and the prior 8 years or Republican rule are evidence enough for me. They are much worse than the Deomcrats.
August 29th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I have not doubt about it. Does anyone really think the leaders of the modern Republican Party want to see the economy take off and the country do well? If so, they would have to concede on some level that Obama’s policies worked. This is the very last thing they want to see happen. They want an anemic economy with high unemployment until the fall of 2012 so they can regain power and reinstate voodoo/trickle-down economics. Their ultimate goal is to shift all taxes onto labor and have all income based on capital tax free.
Bruce Bartlett knows this group well and how they think.
August 29th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I don’t know if it is actually happening, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true. I have often believed the Democrats and Republicans put their parties ahead of us. My first experience with this was in 1960, when in the small precinct where I grew up and where my father was an election judge, a handful of people voted for Nixon. I was shocked, having just finished a section in my junior high school on how wonderful America was because of it’s private ballot system, to hear my dad and the other judges talking after the polls were closed about who were the bastards that had voted for Nixon. We are naive if we don’t think these parties are chauvinistic.
When President Clinton was in office he was accused of all sorts of things by the Republicans…and when President Bush was in office there were many friends and family members of mine that were hoping he would fail.
As individuals we must try to be just and put aside these wishes for failure of those who don’t agree with us.
Currently Democrats can take heart because they control everything. Until the Republicans win either the Senate or the House they can’t block anything unless some Democrats are willing to move against the President.
August 29th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Did the Republican efforts to block extension of unemployment benefits do them any substantial harm? Nope.
This is a winning tactic. After 8 years of unmitigated deficit spending and pork, the Republicans are now donning the robes of fiscal prudence and conservatism, and will wear them up until they are back in power.
They are eager to destroy what little remains of the middle class.
And the sheeple are eating it up, even as they are being herded toward the abattoir.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
– H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
– John Adams, US diplomat & politician (1735 – 1826)
There are times when one would like to hang
the whole human race, and finish the farce.
— Mark Twain (1835-1910)
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
Herbert Stein — economist (1916-1999)
August 29th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Barry, thats a rhetorical question right?
August 29th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Rather thick with partisan hackery in here but I suppose that was the point of the post.
Why are the very States and Congressional districts that swept Democrats into power poised to tilt the other way? Simple. Voters don’t like what their leaders are doing. The people are about to vote overwhelmingly for more “blocking”.
August 29th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Do any of you buy it?
Some people clearly are politically motivated, politicians for sure. But not everyone.
August 29th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=False+Left-Right+Paradigm
“At the root of the political circus of the western world, at the root of our dysfunctional and corrupt electoral system is a very clever little lie that prevents the people from regaining control over the government. Once you see that lie for what it is you will never be fooled again, and you may find yourself insulted by the audacity of the proponents and maintainers of this lie. I am of course referring to the paradigm of Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs. Democrat.
The most effective lies have an element of truth. A little truth gives the lie a foothold in the mind and prevents the less vigilant from looking deeper. The false Left / Right Paradigm is no exception. The power elite of this country and the world over have capitalized on common points of contention among world views of the citizenry and have managed to polarize them into two political categories : Liberal and Conservative. This is not to say that these disagreements aren’t real. It should be obvious that some people are fiercely for abortion while others are fiercely against it. However, what may not be so obvious is that these points of contention, these wedge issues are little more than distractions that prevent us from uniting…”
http://www.waitingforthestorm.com/breaking-down-false-left-right-paradigm
August 29th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
This has been the playbook for the past 5 years, none of the “libertarian/republicans” were paying attention, they were too busy county their capital gains that vanished in 2008. Now they are mad, and have convinced themselves that they are the majority.
The sound and the fury of the republican noise machine is very impressive. Will that translate into votes in the fall? I have my doubts. I contend most people are about as sick as I am of listening to the self righteous tripe they spew at high velocity and volume.
It comes down to two choices- The party with the proven bad economic policy, or the party without any coherent economic policy.
August 29th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
All candidates should be asked “Can your votes be bought with campaign contributions?”, and then “Do you support campaign finance reform?” They should also be required to list who has given them the most money.
August 29th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
No doubt about it – why do you think they are spending all this effort to frame the deficit as the biggest problem? That way they can appear to be the heroes who are blocking the ‘out of control spending’ of democrats (read: stimulus).
They don’t mind growing the deficit one bit – as long as it’s financed by decreasing taxation, rather than borrowing or taxation. As soon as Republicans realized the American attention span was so short that they could – amazingly, even to them – blame Obama for the recession by framing it as his ‘largest tax increase in history’ and ‘businesses are too scared of increased taxation to hire new workers’, they went right back to whoring for wall street and pimping out the American worker.
And the next election cycle will reward them for it.
August 29th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
BR — if you weren’t being impish by throwing out this paraphrased “accusation” with the intent of causing the above outpouring of bile, then your own political bias is too much.
~~~
BR: I thought thats what he meant — and once I got his email, I posted the update as soon as I could . . .
August 29th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
What do you call politicians who take an oath to protect the citizens, then put their parties welfare above the best interests of our country?
You call them traitors.
Protect yourself and the future, do not reelect incumbents.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
@FrancoisT:
“Newsflash asshole! Check the DATE of passage of the stimulus bill. Obama was not even in office!”
Really? Let’s take a look at the events and facts, shall we?
Obama takes office on January 20, 2009. Here’s the President’s Inaugural Address, from the WhiteHouse.gov’s copy of same:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/
Dated January 21, 2009, referencing his speech “yesterday.” That means Barack Obama was sworn in as POTUS on 20 January, 2009.
Now, pay attention closely. There’s going to be a little bit of thinking required next:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka Public Law 111-5, aka “the Stimulus” which was the act to which I was referring, was passed by the Joint Committee of the Congress on February 12, 2009, and signed into law by President Obama on February 17 2009.
That’s right, signed by Obama. You see, January 20th came before February 17th, 2009. That’s how calendars work.
I have the facts at hand for you who are too stupid or too lazy to look them up:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/content-detail.html
And here’s the White House press release on the signing, which occurred in Denver, CO:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/17/signed-sealed-delivered-arra/
So… what was that again? Obama wasn’t even in office or some such? I’m sure it would come as news to President Obama.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
A mama bear loves her cubs and protects them, never leaving them for long. A mama bear can catch a fish and give it to her cubs, but prefers to teach her cubs to fish. Do you want mama bear to give you a fish? …while the rodents and weasels are in the cave? No, you want to wait your turn, then work hard, then when your long day on the job is over, shit in the woods.
– Sarah Palin
August 29th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
@ Darmah:
If we examine the Senate record of cloture votes, we see that there were a lot of cloture votes, but the bills eventually got through:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/111.htm
The cause of this is Harry Reid. Unlike most of you here, I’ve met and talked with Reid extensively before he became majority leader. I thought he was a poor choice for majority leader in the Senate when the Democrats chose him, and my hunch has been proven right. Reid is a pretty common political hack in the west, a guy who uses his influence to profit off land and water real estate deals, and he has his entire family in on the operation.
He gets re-elected by bringing home the bacon and keeping Yucca Mountain from being made operational. That’s about it, really.
But a leader, he is not.
August 29th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
I wish that I could have got in earlier on this debate, but better late than never. I seem to feel that we are looking for a White Knight to lead this country out of this depression. The American people were hoping for someone with enough courage and foresight to guide us in the right direction.
The problem isn’t spending so much, as what do you spend it on and that my friends is the answer to the riddle. The government has spent a tremendous amount of money via fiscal policy and even more via monetary policy. The problem I believe there has been too much reliance on monetary policy over the last 30 years (The Greenspan Put) and no true measure of prudent fiscal policy. Greenspan’s willingness to lower the federal funds rate during challenging economic periods, such as the 1987 stock market crash, the 1990-1991 recession, LTCM, The Asian Contagion, the unwinding of the nasdaq bubble and the period following the September 11 attacks created the perception that, so long as Greenspan remained chairman of the Fed, monetary policy would come to the rescue – hence, the “Greenspan put.” So we have relied on the Chicago School of economics to guide us through the last three or four recessions using this method to secure prosperity, and every single American President went along with this ideology. If we would have had clearly defined fiscal goals as we did with like putting a man on the moon, then I believe this economic situation would not turned out this way. I also believe there are solutions to fix what ails us as a nation, but it will not come from conventional means. We must be prepared to embrace a wild card that will choose to use non-traditional methods. In the past we have chosen status quo from supposedly the most knowledgeable among us, but they have proven to be wrong to a large degree. We must seek a leader who has the courage to do what must be done. Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities… because it is the quality which guarantees all others.
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat is the Democrat is a cannibal they have to live off each other, while the Republicans, why, they live off the Democrats.
Will Rogers
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln
Time and money spent in helping men to do more for themselves is far better than mere giving.
Henry Ford
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
Winston Churchill
August 30th, 2010 at 7:20 am
No, that’s absurd.
The Democrats need one republican vote in the Senate to pass any bill. What keeps them from doing so is the recognition on the part of Democrats with vulnerable seats in the house and senate that if they pass another stimulus it will cost them their jobs.
Plain, simple self interest on the part of the D’s.
The reason it will cost them their jobs is because almost anyone who’s studied the issue and look at the history of how the stimulus was crafted and spent last time realizes that the money did not create a multiplier effect over the cost. In fact, it was a net loss to the Treasury. Spending to make the economy grow is a risky business, and it’s even riskier when the economy is in a deep recession brought about by excess credit and bad debt.
August 30th, 2010 at 7:56 am
Yes I believe that the Republican political class is more than willing to impose misery on the public at large in the service of its tactical AND ideological interest. Professional Republicans and hard core conservative voters have cut loose from traditional ideas of compromise in the name of good government and the public interest, and have adopted a policy of chronic, unremitting political warfare. If the Democrats want stimulus, the merits of the policy do not matter. What matters is depriving the Democrats of the opportunity to do something that may be popular. In the zero sum thinking of the Republican political class anything that benefits the Democratic party – the un-American enemy in much hard core conservative rhetoric — must be implacably opposed.
On the issue of deficits there can be little doubt of the insincerity of the Republican position. Since the “Reagan Revolution” no Republican administration has come close to balancing the budget. The Republicans justify this conduct by a policy known as “starve the beast” and is a central tenet of the Grover Norquist/Club for Growth faction of the Republican Party. The “beast” is the federal government, but especially the part of federal government that provides a safety net to the public. “Starving the beast” running means running deficits intentionally in order to create a perception that social services are too expensive. Of course the “tax cuts good, spending bad” mantra of Republicans is also good client service for the business owner/investor class that is its prime constituency. Moreover, if social services are degraded in the process, the Democratic base is less motivated, so it’s two-fer.
The insincerity of the Republican Party on deficits is also shown by the fact that no Republican ever proposes any cuts in the defense budget. Bush 2 conducted two unpaid for wars and cut taxes at the same time, and was cheered along by all Republicans every step of the way.
August 30th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
i almost always bet on the selfish interest first for both parties.
But the economy 2 years away is not going to drive the Rs now. its too hard to know needs and results. they are of course generally against spending.
the key is right now. The Ds are not actually going to pass anything before the election, they would get blamed for not having fixed jobs by election time, yes the electorate is that stupid. but Ds will say its bad, we need to do something. Then pretend they are trying, except those bad Rs (and the 40 vote blocking bloc they allow) frustrated them.
After the election, we desperately need govt action. the combination of AMT expiring, tax cuts expiring, and stimulus “expiring” will generate a contraction force of 2 1/2% of GDP if they dont do something. ADD a possibly bad economy to that. Fortunately the election wont matter a damn for this year end lame duck decision.
I am hoping they fix at least two of these and do something else, even if its all tax cuts, say payroll for the Ds and something for the Rs? We will see then if the Rs are thinking 2 years later. Appalling. even the tea partiers should be concerned we need some positive govt action and go for all tax cuts plus the others?
August 30th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Well Republican John Boehner said in the house that the stimulus “choked” the economy. They will indeed block any more stimulus spending. They are about winning and nothing else. This is not governance.
August 30th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Some of us replied before BR’s update response from Bartlett.
Quite chilling is Bartlett’s comment: “You f&%ed up. You trusted us.”
Bartlett may turn out to be an incredible fortune teller.
————
UPDATE: August 29, 2010 6:00PM
Bruce Bartlett writes in to clarify my interpretation:
I don’t actually believe that there are any Republicans intentionally blocking policies that they know would help the economy just so that their party would benefit.
But on the other hand, there is no denying that a bad economy is good for the out-party, especially in presidential elections. So what we have is a situation in which Republicans can’t lose. Insofar as they actually believe that their policies would be better for the economy than Obama’s, and insofar as Obama’s policies are in fact bad for the economy, Republicans benefit politically from gridlock either way.
The only way Republicans can lose is if Obama suddenly gives them carte blanche to enact whatever policies they want and we get a 1937-type double-dip from inappropriate fiscal tightening. But then it would still be Obama’s fault for listening to them. As Otter explained to Flounder in Animal House, “You f&%ed up. You trusted us.”
August 30th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
kstills,
“…almost anyone who’s studied the issue and look at the history of how the stimulus was crafted and spent last time realizes that the money did not create a multiplier effect over the cost.”
Prior to the stimulus.
4TH QTR ’08 GDP: -6.8%
After the stimulus.
1ST QTR ’09 GDP: -4.9%
2ND QTR ’09 GDP: -0.7%
3RD QTR ’09 GDP: +1.6%
4TH QTR ’09 GDP: +5.0%
August 30th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
BB just sayin in different way they are happy with a disaster,
Benefitting from gridlock? yes thats right.
Personally i have loved gridlock in the past. But gridlock now an economy disaster, as detailed above. Saying “bring it” will work politically . So we can quote BB as in effect saying lets trash the econ the next two years.
fortunately the lame duck can do whatever it wants, election irrelevant.
if it has the balls not to concede the filibuster.
August 30th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Question:
Would the Republicans Deliberately Harm/Endanger the United States, for Political Reasons?
Answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
August 30th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Barry,
Why do so many of your articles come down to complaints and accusations against the Republican party and not the Democratic party? You do not appear to understand that both parties are run by elites who do not always have the best interests of this country at heart.
August 30th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
blocking-stimulus-for-political-gains .. how about by money for a solution .. like say a war – civil will do .. REALLY .. a civil war would work .. status quo holds ground .. tear IT up because ya gotta rebuild IT someday .. and with your own money not insurance money .. a real answer you can count on . imo … maybe this is the wrong thread . but ITs so interconnected . and a REAL possibility . maybe even engineered
August 30th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
[...] quote from the day, via Barry Ritholtz from Peter Goodman, NYT: “Now I’m looking at the political system turning itself into a [...]
August 31st, 2010 at 11:54 am
I don’t care what reason the Republicans block it, as long as I do. Any one here who thinks that a massive deleveraging doens’t need be done, and hasn’t already started is a fool. And any endorsement of further untold billions of debt (for our kids to pay off) to throw at the states to protect their public salaries and pensions is a bigger fool yet.
Any stimulus has as much chance of working against this delevereaging as standing at the bottom of a hill with a shovel while a landslide hurtles at you thinking “I got this, I can stop it”.
Are the Republicans doing it out of the good graecs of their hearts as champions of Americans everyehwere? Not hardly. So what, thats how sausage gets made in DC. Dems would do the same thing if the tables were turned, and more power to ‘em if they did.
Stimulus is a lie. It would never reach the people it needs to, nor provide any incentive for small to medium businesses to hire. It would merely help kick the state budget shortfall cans further down the road, much like last time.
The states need to start taking notes from Christie in NJ, rather than hold their breath and wait for a stick save by Obama and Reid.
August 31st, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Lugnut says: “Stimulus is a lie”.
That is pathetic. You wouldn’t acknowledge the earth is round if you looked at it from space.
My brother, who works in a civil engineering firm, nearly lost his job 2 years ago. Then stimulus money started coming in, and he has been working overtime since.
A sane person can’t possibly deny that there would be another half million unemployed if the stimulus aid to states hadn’t kept that many firefighters, cops, nurses, teachers, etc. on the job.
But Mitch McConnell says it didn’t work, so I guess it didn’t, hard evidence be damned.
Oh, and to your question Barry: Duh! Obviously that’s been their ploy all along. They have zero interest on the well-being of the country. They have 100% interest in regaining power.