RSS Feed MenuLet’s pause to absorb the radicalism of what President Obama and congressional Democrats have just done. Their stimulus plans will raise the baseline of federal spending by $1.2 trillion (counting interest) and raise the federal share of GDP to 28% (from a recent low if 18% and a current level of about 20%). They have ballooned the federal deficit in the next fiscal year to more than $2 trillion, in percentage terms the biggest deficit since World War II.. We have also taken on nearly $10 trillion in federally secured “bad” private sector loans and assets to be de-federalized… when? Maybe never…
For the past 18 months, we heard incessantly how centrist and moderate Obama and his agenda were. On that basis, many genuinely centrist and moderate voters supported him. My question to them: Did you ever imagine that you were voting for this?
Whatever the case, we will not soon turn back from this. I don’t think the nation had an honest debate and honestly chose to transform ourselves forever, but it’s happening anyway.
Most remarkably: This revolution is happening without anybody much commenting on it. Before we make this turn to a vastly larger, costlier, more powerful federal government, shouldn’t somebody somewhere ask: Is this really what Americans want?
dendup // Feb 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm
OK this is just silly. We heard incessently that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, we heard how he palled around with terroists and we heard that his tax plan was class warfare. The Rebublicans got their message out. TARP was a Republican plan. The Congressional Republicans certainly are asking “Is this what Americans want?” The questions are and have been asked, and everywhere I go this is all anybody can talk about.
larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The question “Is this what Americans really want?” is being asked every day. The last time I looked, about 57% said “yes.” Where were you when George W. Bush was running up the national debt? Oh – you were his Special Assistant for National Security Affairs. You must have been too busy with illegal spying or special rendition to notice.
sinz54 // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm
larryo: When Bush and Paulson called for the TARP program, only the House Republicans put up any organized opposition to it. They managed to get the first version shot down, remember? It failed by about 30 votes, as I recall. But TARP, flawed as it was, represented a serious attempt to refloat the financial markets. Obama’s stimulus package isn’t going to do much to stimulate the U.S. economy. Your left-wing friends in the environmental lobby, and the community organizers who make up any NIMBY campaign, are going to delay any large infrastructure projects for years and years to come. As a Massachusetts resident, I got to see that stuff first hand with the Big Dig and Cape Wind projects. (The Cape Wind project filed their first Environmental Impact Statement in 2001. It’s 2009 and we still don’t have that wind farm built.) While any proposed large engineering project is tied up in the courts while the National Resources Defense Council or the local NIMBY activists from the local neighborhood work to cancel it, the stimulus money will get reprogrammed, to 2010, to 2011, to 2012–till a shovelful of earth gets turned, if ever.
JJWFromME // Feb 11, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I have yet to hear a fair discussion of Keynes on this site. And how about these statistics? http://speaker.gov/img/jobsrecessionsSM.jpg
larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:18 pm
sinz, you wrote: “When Bush and Paulson called for the TARP program, only the House Republicans put up any organized opposition to it.” I think Wyden opposed it, didn’t he? I’m not so sure about the house, but I agreed with whoever opposed it because any large financial institution bailout without outright nationalization – at least on a temporary basis – is a ripoff. “TARP, flawed as it was, represented a serious attempt to refloat the financial markets.” No, it was a straight ripoff. That much, at least, is clear now. “Obama’s stimulus package isn’t going to do much to stimulate the U.S. economy . . .” We will know soon enough if you are correct. “Your left-wing friends in the environmental lobby, . . .” I am not much of a joiner – besides, for all you know my friends are mortgage brokers. Where do you get this stuff? Where, in all the posts I have published, can you find anything about leftist environmentalism? Or was this just one of your pet peeves – something that gets your goat that you just decided to haul out whether it was pertinent or not? The environmentalists don’t want anyone putting strychnine in your water, and neither to I. But I could be persuaded otherwise.
larryo // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:19 pm
JJW – those are not convenient statistics, so they will be ignored!
surumita // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Please. We expected something far more radical than what is currently being passed. And the public has been commenting and discussing this for about a year now. We want green energy independence and we want health care and we want excellent schools. This stimulus bill is a conservative start.
surumita // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm
nealjking // Feb 12, 2009 at 1:55 am
You have to decide whether you think a stimulus will work or not. If the answer is “yes”, then your point of view is that more is better; if the answer is “no”, then your point of view should be “don’t do it at all.” What doesn’t make sense is to say that a stimulus is needed, but that it should be small. That’s like trying to cross a river by jumping over it – but only half-heartedly. Unfortunately, the GOP philosophy seems to be “better to land in the river than to work up a sweat in the jump.”
sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:09 am
Larryo: Nationalization was impossible, because it wasn’t just “banks” that were collapsing, it was Wall Street investment houses and even multinational companies. The lines between banks and investment companies that invested in securitized mortgages had been blurred long ago. Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns went bankrupt from their investments in these worthless securities and their derivatives; do you think the Government should have nationalized these investment houses too? How about AIG, a multinational insurance company, went bankrupt by investing in worthless credit default swaps, you’re going to nationalize it too? How?
sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 7:23 am
Surumita: Thank you so very much for admitting the truth here, a truth which Obama and the congressional Democrats won’t admit. This bill has very little to do with stimulating the economy this year or next year. “Excellent schools” (which you liberals equate with shiny new school buildings rather than new methods of teaching) isn’t going to stimulate the economy until those “educated kids” grow up and get jobs, maybe in 10 or 15 years. Rather, this bill is a grab-bag of liberal proposals to turn America into a left-wing society reminiscent of western Europe, over the long term. It just got a “STIMULUS PACKAGE” label slapped on it in hopes that Americans won’t understand what the real purpose is. Truth In Labeling would require that the bill be called “GREAT SOCIETY 2.0″, an attempt to recreate the welfare-statism of the Lyndon Johnson administration.
sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:17 am
JJWfromME: I looked at your chart. But I don’t consider it relevant to setting policy. Most economists agree that the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of the economy. The economy could be bottoming while unemployment continues to rise; the economy could be recovering while unemployment remains stubbornly high for a while. The real numbers to look at are the Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI). Those are indicators that have been shown to actually lead what’s really happening in the economy. And the LEI for December was not that bad. The economy may really have bottomed out. The Democrats’ obsession with the unemployment rate produces bad policy, just like driving a car by looking only in the rear view mirror can cause accidents. In the past, the Democrats’ attempts to focus on jobs rather than private sector growth has given us stagflation. Unless you really want to turn America into a socialist country, it will always be the private sector that is the real engine of economic growth. And that’s where we conservatives put our emphasis.
gospelance // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:19 am
the elitists Democrat Regime cares not for what we want. I have tried over and over to write my Senators. All I ever get is “thank you for your concern.” as said by famous radio show host: “watch out when they say that- we have to get this passed right now!” red alert! red alert! But the electorate is asleep— make sure they get their converter boxes, so that they will not wake up! Oh, and don’t forget to train the children to be good liberals.
yeah, pretty soon we will see the DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS look in the faces of the Obama voters–once they see what they have wrought.
gospelance // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:24 am
there’s a difference in running up $3 trillion in 6 months, and running up $5 trillion in 8 years. of course, Sen. Boxer didn’t mention that the other day in her BASH BUSH speech.
sinz54 // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:29 am
gospelance: Those of us who are in our fifties or older, got to see the hard way how liberalism turned America into a welfare state reminiscent of Western Europe. And we rejected it and embraced economic freedom. And now, the younger generation who have no memory of this, and weren’t taught this by their left-wing teachers, are going to have to learn the lesson all over again. We will take back the “commanding heights” of the economy. Don’t worry about that.
JJWFromME // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:47 am
The opinions in this article range from the Cato institute all the way to the AEI:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Economy/idUSTRE51B1DE20090212?virtualBrandChannel=10112&sp=true
Republicans make their own reality. Just like this Bushie said:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/149156.php
God help us all.
larryo // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:28 am
“do you think the Government should have nationalized these investment houses too? How about AIG, a multinational insurance company, went bankrupt by investing in worthless credit default swaps, you’re going to nationalize it too?” No. AIG and the investment houses should have been permitted to fail. Nationalizing the federal reserves system, albeit temporarily – long enough to oust the managers, audit the books and begin the issuance of greenbacks – would have done it. But with this caveat: I know that the path I would have preferred, had it been mine to take, would have been fraught with peril – the problems are hideously knotty and unbelievably complex. Deregulation has brought us to the place where all paths are fraught with peril, I fear. I agree wholeheartedly with nealjking, when he says that if we are to do a stimulus – and the need to do so is supported by the better of the arguments I have surveyed on both the right and the left – then we should do it right.
larryo // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:31 am
“the elitists Democrat Regime cares not for what we want.” How much did the truly elitist Republican regime care for what anyone else wanted, or for our laws, treaties or the Constitution for that matter. And why should anyone listen to you cry about it, gospelance, now that the shoe is on the other foot?
haloagain // Feb 12, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Gallup are pretty reliable guys, as far as polls go. Polling for the stimulus has been all over the place, but if this trusted name in polling is any indication, this IS what the American people want: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx
to quote Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight.com:
“Most of the increase in support has come from among Democrats rather than Republicans or independents. As I argued the other day, I don’t think that Obama needs to be worried about maintaining an approval rating in the high 60s or low 70s. Instead, he can stay in the high 50s or low 60s by maintaining the support of: (i) Most — ideally, almost all — Democrats; (ii) A clear majority of Democrats; (iii) a handful of sympathetic Republicans. That’s roughly how Gallup has support breaking down on the stimulus, with 82 percent of Dems, 56 percent of independents, and 28 percent of GOPers now approving.”
And to paraphrase Mr. Silver — Obama is selling, and the people are buying.
I think this “were we expecting THIS?” argument doesn’t have many teeth.
dstern // Feb 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm
If a little stimulus is good, why wouldn’t an even larger stimulus have been better? It is unfortunate that the stimulus wasn’t larger because it would have made it more obvious how good or bad an idea it was and accelerated the occurrence of the consequences of it’s institution. Also, Republicans ought to have stepped aside and allowed the Democrats to institute whatever stimulus they deemed necessary. In this way, Democrats would get full credit for the reaction produced by their stimulus. I believe that only a massive economic collapse (which is inevitable under the growing and massive burden of socialism) will allow us to rebuild our country upon the foundation of the original prinicples of our republic – rugged indvidualism and liberty. Until this collapse occurs and the eltiology of its occurence made clear, we cannot rebuild our country.
larryo // Feb 12, 2009 at 9:38 pm
The Republicans opposed the stimulus package precisely because they were afraid it would work, and then how would they look! If American corporations were required to pay their fair share of taxes to do business here, were prohibited from offshoring profits and were required to act like good corporate citizens (no Love Canals, no more of the kind of “accident” that happened in Tennessee, etc no more outsourcing jobs and factories), we would be well on our way to recovery. You didn’t say whether “rugged individualism and liberty” means we all go back and live on the frontier somewhere, but they weren’t the only “original principles of our republic.” In fact, “liberty” appears only in the preamble to the Constitution, and “rugged individualism” is not mentioned in the document anywhere. Nor in Madison’s Journals of the Constitutional Convention, if I recall correctly. However, if you agree that at least one of the “original principles” includes immediately nationalizing what passes for the National Bank – the Federal Reserve – so that we may again print our own money, eliminate the national debt and control the money supply for the best interests of everyone instead of some bankers, then I am with you on that 100%.
dstern // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Perhaps Republicans did oppose the stimulus because they thought it would work, but that is not the issue the point I wanted to make is that Republicans should have allowed the Democrats to do exactly as they wished to test the socialist hypothesis that government is responsible for the health of the economy, and that government intervention in terms of more government spending and a larger welfare state is the answer to the economic problems that we have. I appreciate you scolding me for my loose use of liberty and rugged individualism as original principles; nonetheless, I do think you would agree that a system of government mandated and mediated redistribution of income such as the welfare system, social security system or health care system was not specified by the Constitution. I take the absence of such Constitutional provisions to mean that the founders thought that people ought to make it on their own, or at least without government assistance in these matters; thus, I interpret this to be consistent with the principle of rugged individualism. Likewise, I think you quibble when you deprive me of the right to say that liberty, or our individual rights, were not a part of the Constitution, unless I am wrong to think that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution. As far as the National Bank is concerned, I am not knowledgeable enough to argue with you as far as original intent. Original intent or not, I think we both believe the banking system as it stands is unsound. But it was my understanding that the Federal Reserve was under government control and in turn does print our own money etc. etc. Perhaps this is why we are in so much hot water.
larryo // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:32 am
“I think you quibble when you deprive me of the right to say that liberty, or our individual rights, were not a part of the Constitution,” If you equate liberty with the Bill of Rights, I agree; The Bill of Rights was certainly intended to protect individual rights from government incursion. “it was my understanding that the Federal Reserve was under government control and in turn does print our own money etc. etc.” That is the impression we have been given from the beginning. The truth is that it is a private consortium of banks in business for profit. It will not open its books for inspection, it loans us the money it prints at interest through a mechanism involving t-bills, and it does so in collusion with both Republican and Democratic members of the political class. Its manipulation of the money supply is what produces the boom-bust business cycle. This is a great deal of what is wrong with the economy. I agree wholeheartedly with your primary premise that the Republicans ought to let the Democrats run with the ball on the stimulus package – then we would see what’s what.
sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:19 pm
larry claims: “The Republicans opposed the stimulus package precisely because they were afraid it would work, and then how would they look!” Sir, that makes no sense whatsoever. The congressional Republicans knew they didn’t have the votes to stop the stimulus package. Thus if they thought it was going to work, their best strategy would be to at least not seem to play a useless obstructionist or spoiler role. That way they wouldn’t look short-sighted and reactionary after the stimulus package succeeded. (That is, in fact, precisely what David Frum had suggested.) The congressional Republicans opposed the stimulus package, because they really believe it’s going to flop (and so do I). Thus they want to be able to say to the American people in a few years, “See? We warned you it wouldn’t work.” Which is exactly what I’m going to say to you, as the November 2010 congressional elections draw near.
sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm
larryo sez: “Deregulation has brought us to the place where all paths are fraught with peril, I fear.” The original principle behind deregulation was sound: Remove barriers to competition and innovation, where those existed. And I supported that. Deregulation was not supposed to mean laissez-faire, anything-goes capitalism. And it was especially not supposed to mean corporate welfare for the politically well-connected. Unfortunately, some in Congress wrote in special favors for their favorite industries, and stuck a “DEREGULATION” label on it to disguise its real purpose. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, co-sponsored by Phil Gramm, was a perfect example of deregulation gone berserk. It included the “Enron loophole,” which exempted commodity futures trading from regulation. That loophole was specifically put in there by Phil Gramm, at the behest of lobbyists for Enron, who rewarded Gramm by putting his wife on their board of directors. And we all know how that turned out. For deregulation to be done fairly, it needs to be done in a way that is open to public review, and is largely divorced from political pork. I draw an analogy with the Base Realignment and Closing Commission (BRAC), which is a process for closing unnecessary military bases that produces a list that first goes to the President (with all of the visibility that produces), and only then to Congress.