[The centrists have] done absolutely nothing to widen the terms of debate about what should go into the bill, and they've shaved off just enough money to reduce its effectiveness if Paul Krugman is right - but not nearly enough to make it fiscally prudent if the stimulus skeptics are right.More.
I agree with Ezra: end the filibuster.
So consensus means failure? What would have been enough spending?
ReplyDeleteI think were damned giving more money: to people who couldn't manage it in the first place and to local governments who will fumble and misallocate it. Damned if it goes to companies who couldn't manage it either. Damned if we do nothing...Damn!
The problem is that there were essentially three ideas, each of them with its theoretical merits:
ReplyDelete- $1 trillion in federal spending (this number wasn't pulled out of the air; it represents calculations by many economists)
- a smaller package of mostly tax cuts
- do nothing; it's expensive and won't work anyway
Instead we got a hybrid, and there's no argument that it's BETTER than the above options--instead of picking an option and committing to doing it right, we're doing none of them well, but still spending almost $800 billion...
I'd love to see what those many economists who didn't pull $1 trillion out of the air recommended the money be spent on.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if they would recommend spending it on whatever Nancy and Harry could come up with on a weeks notice.
I wonder if they would've recommended it be pushed thru before anyone can read or debate the contents.
The big problem with this stimulus bill is that it will stimulate the part of the economy currently needing no stimulus. That being the government and contractors doing government work.
I know its not trendy or cool to think the American people would be able to get things going again if they got to keep more of their money. (Thanks Citibank and Wall Street) But a payroll tax holiday would've given us a chance to dig out on our own and as happened after the Reagans tax cuts, tax revenues would've increased. And since payroll taxes are matched by the employer, all businesses (not just failing) would be stimulated as well.
Gotta love the calls for ending the filibuster now that its working against Dems.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't doubt the filibuster will be done away with now that the Democrats are in power.
They'll probably even use examples of misuse by themselves as reasons it should be done away with.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteMaybe Paul Krugman was right and we should have spent $1 trillion on infrastructure spending, etc.. (I think so.) Or maybe you and others are right and we should have invested in tax breaks instead. The point the post I linked to is making--a post written by a conservative who agrees generally w/ you, not me--is that we're not going to get a chance to see which of those ideas is better, making it seem pretty pointless to go on debating them. Instead, due to the Senate's rules, we have a compromise plan w/ absolutely no evidence suggesting that it will work as well as either of them--only that it can get 60 votes.
Which is why I support ending the filibuster in general, not just when my party happens to be in power. While I'm a committed Democrat, I'm also someone who believes that both parties have some good ideas. But the kind of compromise that can get 60 votes often doesn't represent any kind of consensus or moderation--just a cobbled-together series of incomplete and neutered proposals, representing the worst of both worlds. I'd rather let each party govern when it has the mandate of the people--i.e., when it's in the majority--and leaving it to the minority to persuade rather than simply obstruct. And I say this knowing full well that the Democrats won't be in the majority forever.
The title of your initial post was "appeasing the incoherent center".
ReplyDeleteI think it could be easily argued that most of the spending in the original "stimulus" packages was incoherent.
That being there was no grand plan to make sure the money was being utilized to effectively stimulate the economy. It was a hodge podge of spending and social policy meant to stimulate the special interests currently represented by the majority.
As an example, how much is being spent on armor for humvees, equipment and weapons used by our soldiers.
How much is being spent on our national defense.
Typically defense contractors are not favored by Dems and this "stimulus" bill is no exception.
A week or so ago, Obama held a press conference where he said "the point of stimulus is to spend money". If thats the case then who cares what the money is being spent on. On the other hand if the point of the stimulus is to stimulate the economy, get people working and stop the lay offs, then what the money is spent on is important.
I could respect the Dems $1 trillion spending plan if it had a coherent plan to stimulate. But the way it went down with the plan being to spend money and rushed thru before informed debate was possible, I'm glad it was neutered.
And regarding the filibuster, I don't think the minorities current plan is to simply obstruct. Those senators in the minority won their elections to represent a group of people. They've got an ideology and represent voters that do not agree with this spending bill. They were not elected by the same group of people that elected Obama.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have wanted the Democrat senators who represent you to simply vote for everything Bush wanted to do (yes I know he did't actually win, right?) or any other past Republican president.
Filibuster rule or not, I want the Republican members of congress to represent the voters who elected them.