We’re getting to know the Obama administration, and what we are seeing is not pretty.
President Obama came into office with two urgent priorities.
One priority was urgently needed by the country: save the banking system.
The other priority was loudly demanded by his party: spend a lot of money on Democratic constituencies.
A tough choice! But of course no choice at all. Obama went with his party.
Result: Congress has just voted to spend almost a trillion dollars on bailouts for (mostly liberal) states and infrastructure projects that will not start until 2010. Meanwhile the bank bailout is a shambles after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s disastrous performance on Capitol Hill this week.
Rumor offers this reason for Geithner’s poor performance: He was politically sandbagged.
He was told at the last minute to go slow on offering details of Treasury plans lest their cost frighten Congress – and weaken support for the stimulus spending plan.
But we don’t need the rumor to see the choice.
A spending plan the country does not need has been voted by Congress. The bank plan the country does need is still on the drawing board.
When the plan finally emerges – and the Obama administration has to ask for another trillion or two trillion or three trillion to finance that plan – Congress may balk. They will say: If only we had known this earlier, we’d never have wasted that trillion on an ineffective stimulus plan!
Well we do know – and the administration certainly knows. And if this recession deepens and broadens, blame Obama for his decision this week to do party payback first, national rescue later.
51 responses so far
1 gblittle // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:30 am
Well David just everyone wait til he puts out his first budget. If that doesn’t drop everyone’s jaws to the floor nothing will. I read somewhere that if just the junk spending in the current so-called stimulus bill was inacted for ten years that adds up to 3.6 trillion dollars. That on top of TARP, Geithner’s additional upcoming request for 2 trillion, ect, ect. He (Obama) is going to make Carter look like a financial wizard here very soon.
2 Kaz // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:41 am
The MSM’s reporting of this stimulus bill has confirmed my belief that any remants of unbiased, balanced journalism died in 2008. Government spending under Obama will make Bush’s deficits look like child play. The Republican party would do well to a) repent for their fiscal sins AND b) tell the American people the ugly truth for a change. Our national debt is out of control and the days of free lunches has to end soon.
3 mikedbike // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:12 am
Yeah, Frum nails it, here. Now if only Obama can show enough courage to demonstrate a willingness to proceed with CHANGE.
We’ll never know if Obama could have gained enough wisdom through at least another political cycle had he remained in the Senate instead of going for the gold and getting it in 2008. But it’s clear he was not out of Chicago long enough to build new relationships to form his own coalition of sorts that would give him the support to proceed without the influence of the Rahm Emanuels of the world (Chicago).
Maybe there wouldn’t be a difference, but one thing we know is that it is virtually impossible for a first-term-mid-term-junior senator now elected President, to be able to run the country without the help of those who put him in office originally being extremely influencial and bringing along all the other old faces from previous administrations, simply because you don’t otherwise have the bodies.
There is nothing new under the sun and that includes this administration.
4 Oneon1isto // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:32 am
I must live in another world, read totally different news stories and read totally different economists because “spend a lot of money on Democratic constituencies” isn’t the other option. It’s whether Keynesian economics is or isn’t the way to stop the bleeding just long enough for some regulatory fixing to occur. Washington is operating in crisis mode, and we all know how Washington operates when it’s in crisis mode–shoddily–no matter who’s in power. Unfortunately, it seems the minority opposition’s entrenchment started before the new Presidency even began, and now less than a month in we have everyone screeching “see! see! they left us out!” or “socialist spending!”. 380 billion in tax cuts people…only in America would 50% of a stimulus bill and an administration defiantly AGAINST nationalizing banks would we screech socialism or party politics. You know what’d be sweet? If NM conducted a post on each major measure of the bill, and we all debated its merits. Then we’d get to see where we stand on the actual bill, rather than with all this rhetoric. And for goodness sakes, can we get support for paragraphs soon, PLEASE?
5 JJWFromME // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:37 am
A Republican accusing Democrats of putting party before country after the last 8 years is like an AA member standing up at a meeting and saying, “Therrsh a poblem wid djinking in dish couhntry, an gosh durm it…”
6 JJWFromME // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:39 am
Or as Rush Limbaugh put it: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/02/12/paranoid-style/
7 JJWFromME // Feb 13, 2009 at 10:09 am
Not to mention the fact that the “constituencies” are ones like working families and green energy. Oh the horror!!!
8 larryo // Feb 13, 2009 at 11:37 am
No one except the bankers prioritized saving the banking system. The priority was to save the economy and, to the extent possible, the people victimized wholesale by Republican monetary and fiscal policies, which is to say nearly all of us. “The banking system” has been an integral part of the Republican juggernaut, and its preservation in its present form is not required. David Frum blatantly sets up a straw man and then knocks him down smartly, only to be praised by the yea-sayers. It’s like Bush claiming to be a product of intelligent design.
9 larryo // Feb 13, 2009 at 11:40 am
Unfortunately, it seems the minority opposition’s entrenchment started before the new Presidency even began, and now less than a month in we have everyone screeching “see! see! they left us out!” or “socialist spending!”. This is what is astonishing – it reminds me of what Hunter Thompson said about Ed Gurney during the Watergate hearings: “A sensitive man would be embarrassed.”
10 larryo // Feb 13, 2009 at 11:45 am
“it is virtually impossible for a first-term-mid-term-junior senator now elected President, to be able to run the country without the help of those who put him in office originally being extremely influential and bringing along all the other old faces from previous administrations, simply because you don’t otherwise have the bodies.” Would you say the same thing about a 2-term governor of Texas who had failed at every previous task undertaken in life?
11 CherFlamingo // Feb 13, 2009 at 12:25 pm
$70 billion of the so called tax cuts are from yet another AMT patch- money the government was never going to collect anyway. The rest of the tax cuts are so pitiful they are bound to have absolutely no effect on the economy, exactly the results the Democrats want.
12 fact based // Feb 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm
yup the dems put party before country unlike say the repubs who (based on their individual conscience and analysis) vote virtually unanimously to oppose the plan and instead propose the same policy of the last 8 years…tax cuts. In fact they refuse to acknowledge even what conservative economists acknowledge…large scale govt spending is need to pump up the economy. Can you point to a single spending project the repubs brought forward as something they thought meritorious. ?
Oh and the sight of repubs kowtowing to college dropouts rush and sean was quite impressive
13 fact based // Feb 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm
yes, you guys should run on Rush’s agenda (note the lack of criticism of wall street, lack of regulation of the finl markets, and corp execs that manipulated earnings)
please have eric cantor give this speech panned by Rush
Well defund the labor unions, and we will fund our own people to go out and zap ACORN. And we will do everything we can to enhance anti-union employment. We will make sure that when companies lose money, that the people that get canned are union people. Were going to use the power of government just like the left is using the power of government. Were going to use the Justice Department.
Were going to go after big unions with the Justice Department. Were going to find all of the criminal activity. We are going to find all the lack of ethics. We are going to find every bit of corruption we can, and were gonna sic the attorney general and the justice department and the US attorneys on you people just as you have been doing to the people of the right and the Republican Party for 50 years. And then were going to find George Soros and other concentrations of left-wing power and wealth. And were going to focus our attention on him, so that the American people will finally learn just who thel paid for the bastardization of the United States, just who thel paid for the destruction of the American way of life.
14 Oneon1isto // Feb 13, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“The rest of the tax cuts are so pitiful they are bound to have absolutely no effect on the economy, exactly the results the Democrats want.” — Much of Obamas legitimacy rests on the efficacy of this bill. You mean to tell me the Democrats baked in tax cuts to help the economy fail? You’re actually telling me they want the economy to fail?
15 fact based // Feb 13, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I have no idea what you are talking about
“One priority was urgently needed by the country: save the banking system.
The other priority was loudly demanded by his party: spend a lot of money on Democratic constituencies.”
are you saying the priority should have been shoveling money into the banks that bankrupted themselves (as they got drunk and gave us a hangover under W) before spending on stimulus for employement
the truth is banks like citi bofa and a long list of others are bankrupt Paulson knew it and kicked the can down the road for a year. Eventually it will cost trillions to rescue the system and the best solution is some variant of nationalization. But the american people “cant handle the truth” and rush et al will scream “socialism” when the bailout plan is announced (in the spirit of bipartisanship and care for the natl inrterest of course)
I thought this site was supposed to discuss policy alternatives from the conservo side not another dem bashing site,
What is the repub proposal for the financial sector. So far all i have heard is suspending mark to market which is akin to blaming the scale for being overweight.
16 sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Once again: The unemployment rate is a LAGGING indicator of the state of the economy. So you don’t fix the economy by focusing on reducing unemployment. That’s like trying to cure cancer by focusing on reducing pain. Unless you really, truly want to turn America into a socialist country, in which the Government employs the majority of the citizens, the way to fix the economy is to restore the health of the private sector. And the best way to do that is to get money flowing again–through an SS payroll tax cut (perhaps a total tax holiday). You could put thousands of dollars of extra spending power in the pockets of every American, for the cost of this stupid “stimulus” bill. And then market forces would determine where this money goes and why. But that’s not what the Dems want. They want to spend lots and lots of money on pet projects like building nice shiny schools for the same juvenile delinquents that used to infest the old schools. This won’t do a thing to stimulate the economy in the immediate future–if ever.
17 sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Oneon1isto: The Democrats really think that you grow an economy by the Federal Government being the employer of last resort. That was how they thought, right up until the stagflation of the 1970s. I had hoped that the Dems had been disabused of their errors by more recent events. But Obama seems to be intent on ignoring everything that’s been learned in America since 1973, and turning the clock back to the economics of 1933 and 1965. He can do this, because he has a cult following of youngsters who are too young to remember the 1970s and 1980s, and whose left-wing teachers and professors didn’t teach them those lessons. So now, these young Americans are going to have to learn all over again how runaway liberalism turns this beautiful country into a pesthole reminiscent of Calcutta in its worst days.
18 JJWFromME // Feb 13, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“So you don’t fix the economy by focusing on reducing unemployment.” According to Keynes, you do: “Keynes’s theory… was simple, intuitive and practical: firms will hire more labor only if they believe they can sell the extra output; consequently, if demand as a whole declines, they will cut back production and lay workers off . However, by laying workers off, the income of potential customers decreases and thus demand as a whole will be even lower. Thus, as firms do not see demand rise again, they have no incentive to rehire. The economy, in short, is caught in a vicious circle of high unemployment and low demand. This is where an exogenous agency, such as a government, can step in and, by increasing demand, push the economy into a virtuous cycle of high demand and high employment.”
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/keynes/publicpolicy.htm
19 JJWFromME // Feb 13, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Of course, Keynes theories mean government can do something, which causes conservatives to go into convulsions. So they’ll dream up some pretty spectacular examples of pretzel logical to discredit Keynes.
20 JJWFromME // Feb 13, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Keyness genius a very English one was to insist we should approach an economic system not as a morality play but as a technical challenge.” http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/keyness-difficult-idea/ But a technical challenge that the government can address! Oh no! say the ideologically stuck Republicans.
21 buzzricksons // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm
As the comments on this thread alone show, this web site and “New Majority Project” is already a failure. No way to avoid trollers, so why bother with comments at all? Seriously, saying “yeah, but Bush was a moron/failure too” and/or “Republicans were irresponsible/bad actors when they controlled things” is not an argument. It’s an admission. Besides, how is that “point” even worth raising in the wake of an electoral victory based on “post-partisanship” and “a new politics”? Either we’re here to discuss ideas and plans to resuscitate the GOP, or at least a portion of the traditional coalition, or it’s a waste of time. I’ve been stopping by to watch this train wreck in slo-mo, hoping I was wrong, but it’s looking more like a waste of time to be here than anything constructive. Frum, you should’ve stayed on at NRO.
22 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I am confused. Is this the same David Frum who told us yesterday that the GOP mismanagement of the stimulus bill? Is this the same David Frum who said that the GOP got rolled over and should instead just in and nibble at the margins?
23 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 4:06 pm
buzzricksons. I agree. I was very excited when this site first appeared because I though it would be a vehicle to rebuild the party. Instead, too much time is taken up with the Kos crowd re-arguing the lead up to the Iraq War. Paranoid posts about the “Neo-Cons” taking over the world. And, of course, the old reliable “Bush destroyed everything” post. I think the problem is that Frum himself has not developed a vision of what this new majority will look like. This site has no point of view. No guiding principles. My impression is that Frum thinks that the reason we lost was because we didn’t embrace global warming andy marriage.
24 oenolicious // Feb 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think Frum is overworked. After all, this post is only half as intellectually lazy as his piece on Mexico.
25 ChevesLigon // Feb 13, 2009 at 4:44 pm
David, I think you’re right.
The other side of this coin (no pun intended) is that, ineffectual though is will be, there’s always a chance the economy somehow recover sooner rather than later, and then POW!, Barack looks like a financial genius and, worse, unrestrained spending hiding behind Keynes’ ideas will be the go-to plan any time the economy goes soft.
26 sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Chekote sez: “Frum himself has not developed a vision of what this new majority will look like. This site has no point of view. No guiding principles.” The guiding principles seem to be center-right economic conservatism, and a healthy distrust of Islamism. But beyond that, the whole point of this blog was to encourage a bottom-up discussion of possible ways the GOP could move forward. There are plenty of other blogs where Herr Moderator hurls his daily thunderbolts from on high. And where every poster must agree with him, and possibly outdo him in extremism. And where anyone who dissents, even honorably, is promptly labeled a “troll” and banned from the blog. Thank goodness it’s not like that on New Majority. There has to be a forum on the Internet where ideas for the GOP can come from the grass-roots, bottom up. As for the Democrats and liberals on this blog, David Frum also said that you learn a lot by listening to what the other side has to say. I’ve learned a lot that way. Their posts are far from valueless, and they help keep us on our toes. If we can’t defend our ideas on this blog, we won’t be able to defend them before the powerful and well-oiled Obama machine either. So by all means, let them have their say. We are no longer in a position to ignore them and just do our thing.
27 sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:17 pm
ChevesLigon sez: “there’s always a chance the economy somehow recover sooner rather than later” The probability of that is so low, that I wouldn’t worry about it. With the collapse of the worldwide financial system and the U.S. debt-fueled spending binges, the entire G-7 group of nations may take a hit lasting a decade or more. Americans will no longer be able to cash out their homes to buy stuff from the Far East, and all those exporting nations are going to take a hit. Japan’s “lost decade” of the 1990s may now give way to the Planet Earth’s “lost decade” of 2008-2017.
28 HollywoodBill // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Come on now. As good as David is, the New Majority PAC has been around in California for a decade or so. the goal is to win elections and to form a New Majority. They regularly endorse candidates. NM wins some and loses some. It is a social/political group who is very open about its goals. And it is great to have a site where no subject is forbidden. This might give you some history to it: http://www.thenewmajority.com/ca/about/history/?_adctlid=v%7Cxbfc3e9a4tlfnv%7Cxpgvknsh57le2e
29 sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:39 pm
ChevesLigon sez: “there’s always a chance the economy somehow recover sooner rather than later” The probability of that is so low, that I wouldn’t worry about it. With the collapse of the worldwide financial system and the U.S. debt-fueled spending binges, the entire G-7 group of nations may take a hit lasting a decade or more. Americans will no longer be able to cash out their homes to buy stuff from the Far East, and all those exporting nations are going to take a long-term hit.
30 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Sinz. Sorry but one day Frum is critical because the GOP chose to stand its ground on the stimulus suggesting that they should have instead opted to nibble at the margins. Today, he is accusing Obama of putting his party ahead of country. I just don’t see how this bipolar approach is constructive. Time will tell.
31 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Hi, Chekote! I’m not sure which post by Frum you’re referring to. I know he put up one quote from an emailer that said something along those lines, but he didn’t endorse that viewpoint exactly.
32 Robert Graves // Feb 13, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Well said, buzzricksons. I agree completely.
33 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Hi Joe! Check out the “Let’s Make a Deal” post by Frum.
34 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Gotcha. Only thing is, he did say in “Let’s Make A Deal” that “on the stimulus, these losses were unavoidable.” I interpreted him as saying, not that we should have done much different on the stimulus. Rather, we should do different on future bills that have a nominally longer time frame and have a greater need for bipartisanship, like health care.
35 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:24 pm
And a brief note on reading comments threads: normally with a site like this, you’ll learn pretty quick which commenters will say what about any topic. If you don’t like someone’s take, just skip that commenters comments. Or, if you don’t like comments at all, just read the articles. But give it time.
36 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Joe. David Frum wrote: “On the stimulus, we stood our ground and got rolled right over. That will happen again and with much more disastrous effect with health and climate. Its a new time and a new situation, and it calls for new methods.” I took this to mean that he was critical of the GOP’s approach to the stimulus bill. So what does Frum want the GOP to do? Make a deal or stand up when Obama puts party above country.
37 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:02 pm
When it comes to health care and climate change, he wants us to make a deal. Keep in mind that we can stand up all we want, but if Specter, Snowe, and Collins vote with the Democrats, then the bill will pass. As soon as they made the deal, we were toast. We need to keep them from making the deal, by preempting them.
38 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:03 pm
And I hope you agree with me on my comment-reading policy.
39 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Thanks, Joe. That was the best laugh I had all day. How are we going to preempt Snowe, Collins and Specter? By agreeing to a more liberal bill. I think the contributors here at New Majority have their hearts in the right place. But I am surprised at the political naivete. This is what Obama and Dems are going to do. They are going to write the bills as they wish and then throw in a couple of sweetners to pick off the 3 amigos. They have no intention to compromise or work on a bipartisan basis. This is hardball politics. The only thing the GOP can do is stick together, put pressure on the 50 blue dogs, and start peeling them off.
40 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“This is what Obama and Dems are going to do. They are going to write the bills as they wish and then throw in a couple of sweetners to pick off the 3 amigos.”
That’s actually one of the two fears that keep me up at night; that they’ll just do this legislative move over and over again. That seems to be Rahm’s plan going forward. But he should try it when/if Obama’s approval rating hits 50. It gets harder from that point on, especially if the stimulus turns out to be unpopular in implementation.
41 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I’ll also add that if the generic republican/democrat congressional poll looks stinky, we’ll have more wiggle room. But, I’m still waiting for Rasmussen’s continued poll-testing of timeworn Republican tropes. That Buckley phone book question was classic, but we must know if the public believes that ideas, in fact, do have consequences! Or if students today believe only that truth is relative! Or if conservatism is the paradigm of essences towards which the phenomonology of the world is in continuing approximation!
42 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:54 pm
(yes, I memorized that last phrase, and darn it if it isn’t the best definition of conservatism I’ve yet come across)
43 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:55 pm
All we can do is put pressure on the blue dogs. Pick off some conservative Dems in the Senate, and try to stall the agenda as much as possible during the two years.
44 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Since we’re throwing out ideas, we may want to find some conservative Democrats to run against Specter. Worked for Buckley, against Lowell Weiker.
45 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I say we get someone like Tom Ridge to run against Specter in the primary.
46 joemarier // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:46 pm
And I say the Washington Nationals should totally make a trade for A-Rod. It’s approximately as likely. What’s wrong with trying to get a Blue Dog to run against him in the general? Are we really going to need that 51st vote in 2010? That’s a 9 to 1 shot according to Intrade right now.
47 HollywoodBill // Feb 14, 2009 at 9:28 am
According to the PA article that was posted on this site and is still available a couple of pages back, there are presently 1.2 million more registered Dems in PA than Republicans. Those are tough numbers to work with. Any bitter GOP primary could fatally wound Specter, who at 79 and with two bouts of cancer hasn’t announced his reelection campaign yet anyway. Pennsylvania voters have already rejected the third term incumbent “Man on Dog” Santorum so knuckledraggers from the extreme far right need not apply. 2010 promises to be a difficult year for the GOP already with 6 vacant seats. A Pennsylvania open seat would make it 7. The GOP is in no position to ban heretics now
48 Cforchange // Feb 14, 2009 at 9:43 am
Hollywood Bill is 100% correct – reacting with an extreme will not work – Tom Ridge may. Listening to GOP’s from the xburbs will not generate a electable candidate . If you mingle with the masses here you would realize there has been alot of long term economic pain – pushing yesterdays rigid agenda won’t fly. That game is over. Further, these voters(majority) realize that it took us a long time to get in this mess, they will not judge the White House quickly.
49 larryo // Feb 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“There are plenty of other blogs where Herr Moderator hurls his daily thunderbolts from on high. And where every poster must agree with him, and possibly outdo him in extremism. And where anyone who dissents, even honorably, is promptly labeled a “troll” and banned from the blog. Thank goodness it’s not like that on New Majority. There has to be a forum on the Internet where ideas for the GOP can come from the grass-roots, bottom up. As for the Democrats and liberals on this blog, David Frum also said that you learn a lot by listening to what the other side has to say. I’ve learned a lot that way. Their posts are far from valueless, and they help keep us on our toes.” Well said, sinz.
50 sinz54 // Feb 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm
joemarier: You’re right, but what tactic the GOP should take with Obama also depends on what Obama’s clout with the electorate will be in the future. The “fight, fight, fight” angry GOP base doesn’t seem to get that Obama has a vast amount of political capital saved up with the public right now: He won a national election handily and fairly (no significant recounts); he’s the first African-American president; he was just inaugurated last month; we’re in an economic mess for which the public looks to the President (not to any senators or congressmen) for leadership; and his approval rating reminds high (around 60%). This is not, frankly, a good time for the unpopular GOP to take him on, tooth and nail; he holds a better hand of cards than the GOP does. Down the road, the public will start to take a more skeptical look at Obama. Then they might be more receptive to a reworked GOP message. That will come with longer-term issues like national health care.
51 sinz54 // Feb 14, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Chekote: Right now, the “Blue Dogs” have no incentive to desert their own party, which won a great victory, and caucus with the GOP, whose brand has been tarnished. What’s in it for them? They would only do that if they sensed that the country is turning to the right once again, and/or starting to listen to the GOP again; in which case they would have some political cover to turn their backs on Reid and Pelosi.
You must log in to post a comment.