Karl Rove criticizes the President in the June 4 Wall Street Journal for citing a specific number of jobs “saved,” especially in light of how little of the stimulus bill has been spent. He then brings up a much more important point:
If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy than just growing government, the stimulus would have been front-loaded into this fiscal year.
Rove’s logic is standard Republican thinking – Democrats want big government! After all, what other motivation could they have for spending money?
Even Keith Hennessey thinks the explanation for the time-lag between the stimulus bill and the actual effect is ignorance, or even just distaste for any Republican solutions, regardless of how quick or efficient they may be.
By focusing on typical talking points or assuming ignorance, Rove and Hennessey ignore the political explanation. Take a look at that line again: “If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy…”
I’d argue the Obama administration isn’t serious about growing it this year. It’s serious about growing it next year, when Democrats face elections at a national level. And history strongly suggests that when the economy does well, the incumbent party wins.
Think about it. Does anyone actually think there was a problem with finding programs to spend money on?
If the Obama administration really wanted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars this year to “jump-start the economy,” it would simply ask the Senate, the House, and state governments for requests for projects. There would be trillions of dollars of proposals.
It’s incredible that this hasn’t been brought up. Perhaps Republicans don’t think Democrats are that crafty. Democrats succeeded in making the issue about the merits of tax cuts versus spending when attempting to get the bill passed, not about when the spending would affect the economy. It’s quite ironic that they argued that tax cuts are longer-term and go toward saving, while spending affects the here and now (the national savings rate has shot up from 0% to 5%).
The need to be re-elected informs most decisions politicians make. President Obama started out with a lot of political cover on the economy. For a few more months, the country will continue to allow him to blame everything on President Bush. And for a few more months, very little of the stimulus bill will be spent. Then popular opinion will change and President Obama and Democrats will finally be assigned credit (or blame) for how things are going. And that’s when most of the spending will occur.
7 responses so far
1 Tenek // Jun 5, 2009 at 7:45 am
A politician? Trying to boots his party’s standings? Pull the other one.
2 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:02 am
The stimulus bill consisted of various elements: tax cuts, assistance to state govts to support programs and infrastructure projects. By definition the first two are fairly immediate and the latter takes a little longer and will play a vital role in cutting unemployment, a lagging indicator, which although showing signs of bottoming is still rising. The right have now moved from a stance that the stimulus program was goiing to be huge failure to one of well maybe it’s going to work but it’s all a huge conspiracy to ensure the election of democrats. These folks get crazier by the day. The success of the Democrats was always going to hinge on the success of Obama in turning around the economy by the spring of next year. Now that shows signs of happening as actually was inevitable given the skill with which he’s managed the crisis and the natural workings of economics, they are reduced to bleating about the fact he’s going to be successful. It is truly pathetic.
3 balconesfault // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:32 am
Had the stimulus bill forced too rapid spending, before plans and designs could have been worked out for how the money would be spent, the criticism – and a rightful criticism, I’ll add, would be that our money was being wasted by just flinging it around with no methodology.
On the other hand, as someone who does work for industries which will be greatly affected by the stimulus, it is ignorant (intentionally or unintentionally is the question) to say that a plan for government spending $$’s down the road does not provide immediate stimulus.
Because of the slowdown in the construction sector, the rapidly plummeting tax revenues to local governments which fund infrastructure projects, and the drying up of major investment dollars impacting planning for large renewable energy and energy transmission projects, and the collapse of the auto industry – you had across the country steel plants looking at a need to cut back or even close plants, quarries and cement and asphalt manufacturers ready to idle capacity rather than risk big surpluses, engineering firms shedding employees, construction firms ready to lay off experienced workers (and lose them potentially to other sectors) rather than to try to hold onto them for a short period waiting for a resurgance of contracts.
You don’t need to start pouring concrete on a project today for it to have an economic impact. That wholly ignores the supply chain, the workforce, the design and planning process – everything.
The main question here is whether Karl Rove is really that stupid, or whether he just believes that his audience is that stupid.
4 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:52 am
balconesfault
wrote 2 minutes ago
“The main question here is whether Karl Rove is really that stupid, or whether he just believes that his audience is that stupid.”
……….I’m afraid Rove and Church think the latter. During the last election the only major ethnic/gender group in which McCain/Palin won a majority was white males without a college degree. Which is not to say all non college degree white males are stupid but one of the things a university education does is encourage you to question. For the first time in modern electoral history a majority of the college educated (men and women) and the upper middle classes voted Democrat. There’s a reason for this. I’m a member of this demographic and most of my milieu is and has traditionally voted Republican. Over the past eight years I’ve seen this allegiance albeit grudgingly in many cases basically collapse. The reason is simple. The Republicans continue to insult the intelligence. They say and do crazy things without any basis in empirical evidence, commonsense or human reality. This little bit of nonsense is a totally typical Rove invention that no one outside the movement right is going to believe for a moment. Leaving aside the fact that Rove is one of the most despised men in the country. All the signs are pointing to a recovery. Obama was incredibly lucky in his timing but he and his admin acted intelligently as well. His actions were basically a no brainer which the Republicans unanimously apart from Spector and the Maine girls rejected and forecast would end in disaster. This is all on the record. These guys are going to be starring in a host of democratic congressional commercials next year as the recovery gains momentum. And the response is this.
5 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
balconesfault: Karl Rove correctly points out that of the $787 billion “stimulus” package, only about $185 billion (23%) is going to be disbursed this fiscal year. That’s a tiny figure, compared to the size of the U.S. economy, and can’t possibly have much stimulative effect.
The other 77% is going to be disbursed over the next three or four fiscal years. That means it’s going to be spent after the economy has recovered and it’s no longer needed.
That’s what happens when you try to stimulate the economy with Government make-work projects. Once started, they can’t be stopped, even after the economy has recovered. You can’t build 1/5 of a highway and then stop because the economy has recovered.
That’s another reason why it would have been far better to have just injected a $787 billion one-time tax cut into the U.S. economy instead. It could have been spread over just two fiscal years (this year and next), after which it would automatically sunset.
6 ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm
sinz54
12:43 PM
Sinz….tax cuts don’t stimulate economic expansion in a recession….they are broadly neutral….. that is all they do is stop the rot…..you need to spend money on concrete to create jobs…..and if you think this recession is going to take 9 months to dissipate and produce full employment you are in dreamland…it will 2011 or 2012 before the the economy starts to seriously grow again.
7 ltwpolitics // Jun 5, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Employment is a lagging indicator. Cheer up! There will still be plenty of unemployed people in 2010.
You must log in to post a comment.