Obama Continues to Push for Economic Stimulus Package

by Damozel | Back from vacation, Obama is now making a further pitch for an economic stimulus plan. 

Change.Gov has the full text. Among much else he says---and I for one believe he is right:

There is no reason we can’t do this.  We are a people of boundless industry and ingenuity.  We are innovators and entrepreneurs and have the most dedicated and productive workers in the world.  And we have always triumphed in moments of trial by drawing on that great American spirit—that perseverance, determination and unyielding commitment to opportunity on which our nation was founded.  And in this new year, let us resolve to do so once again.

As we all know, and as we specifically discussed a few days ago, Congressional Republicans---who bear significant responsibility for our current troubles---are taking a "skeptical" view of his economic stimulus plan.  In this case, "skeptical" means "obstructionist." 

Or, as Philip Rucker puts it:

Obama wants to put the finishing touches on the stimulus plan quickly so it can be signed into law soon after his Jan. 20 inauguration. But the proposal must first pass Congress, where Republican leaders have said they want time to scrutinize the plan.

In Saturday's address, Obama sought to frame his stimulus package as a bipartisan proposal.

"However we got here, the problems we face today are not Democratic problems or Republican problems," Obama said. "The dreams of putting a child through college, or staying in your home, or retiring with dignity and security know no boundaries of party or ideology."

Obama aides had hoped to have the plan approved by the House and Senate before he takes office, but it looks as though Mitch McConnell, disingenuous as always, has decided to take the call for swift action as "the rush to get (tax dollars) spent."  Coming from Bush's party, this makes me laugh out loud.  But Republicans, as we know, are gullible little souls. 

They may see this as a long-deferred stab at "fiscal accountability" instead of obstructionism.  Never let it be said that McConnell ever put the country's best interests before politics, though it's a bit late in the day for the GOP to start worrying about whether measures of the last resort will really be optimal. 

On the other hand, I'm not surprised in a way by the kicking and screaming, since Obama's plan really would represent a significant change from what we've had for the last eight years.  The country slid so far to the right under Bush that even a pragmatic approach looks radical, I guess.

At The Washington Monthly, Steve Benen comments:

Obama continues to advocate an ambitious, progressive agenda using middle-of-the-road language....Obama continues to tout an "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" focused on energy independence, infrastructure investments, improvements to the health care system, and a renewed emphasis on improving public schools.

The not-so-subtle goal, it seems, is to present a liberal agenda as the obvious, consensus approach on which everyone can agree.

It reminded me of something Atrios said about a month ago, when he mentioned how satisfied he'd be if Obama's team convinces people that Obama is "a sensible centrist who wants to do sensible centrist things like build SUPERTRAINS, get out of Iraq, not torture people or invade random countries, strengthen labor protections, reduce income inequality, improve education, provide health care for people, and reduce poverty."

It's all about changing -- or more accurately, moving -- the definition of "centrism."

I suppose.  It seems to me that it's more about questioning exactly what it is that Republicans hope to "conserve".  Everything for the current crop of Republicans is about articles of faith, bumper sticker slogans and rickety aphorisms they learned at Ronald Reagan's knee.  "Progressive" is a dirty word because it implies that they can't conserve certain beliefs about reality which have been contradicted by reality.  Somebody needs to tell them that the map is not the territory.

Speaking of maps,  Krugman saith:

One thing that’s been bothering me about the discussion over fiscal stimulus is the virtual absence of fully worked-out models, with all their t’s dotted and eyes crossed, or something. Not that a rigorous model is always better than a rough-and-ready but more realistic approach, but I like to have both on hand. So I’ve tried a very rough sketch of a full, intertemporal maximization yada yada analysis of the fiscal policy issue.....

[H]ere’s what the model says: when monetary policy is up against the zero bound, the optimal fiscal policy is to expand government purchases enough to maintain full employment. (emphasis added)

Speaking as an ignorant layperson, I'd argue that we should at all costs avoid any economic model that has its eyes crossed.

Otherwise, Krugman is quite right that I can't understand his analysis.   But the ensuing comments and criticisms are worth a look and must surely convince the ignorant layperson that sooner or later, our Ruling Oligarchs are just going to have to pick a strategy, take a deep breath, and jump. 

Speaking again as an ignorant layperson, I'd argue that since the Bush administration and its minions have been shown to have been consistently wrong, the wise ignorant layperson would opt for something that they haven't tried.  I'd further argue that we should look to the people who turned out to be, you know, right about the real-world consequences of GOP economic policy under Bush.

Disasters such as the current crisis are also opportunities to rethink one's fundamental assumptions about the way reality works.  Somebody notify McConnell.

More at Memeorandum.

RELATED BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTING

Obama's Economic Stimulus Package vs. GOP Obstructionism---oh, sorry: "Skepticism"

OTHER RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

Israel Gears Up for a Ground War in Gaza (News Round-Up & Commentary)

Progressive Blogger Greg Sargent to Leave TPM for New Washington Post Site
Burris Sought Death for Innocent Man -- Despite Other Prosecutor's Objections

Congress to Get Raise: Bad Political Imagery or Good Strategy?

Media Puts Questionable Number on Shareholder Losses in 2008

Minnesota Recount Update— Coleman Campaign Tactic Skews Absentee Count
Justice Department Needs to Investigate Post-Katrina Killings

Zbigniew Brzezinski to Joe Scarborough (Re: Mideast Crisis): " "You Have Such a Stunningly Superficial Knowledge of What Went On That It's Almost Embarrassing to Listen to You"

Alberto Gonzalez Promises a "Tell-All" Book, Though He Still Can't Remember Doing Anything Wrong

Comments

[Robert]

In brief, your portrait of the Republican minority in Congress, and its motives in seeking a thorough debate on a mere $1 trillion expenditure, is superficial at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

The very nature of congressional government is "obstructionist." The Democrats now have big majorities--let them pass their program. The idea that Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans should just shut up and get out of the way of the Big Fix sounds more like the PRC Congress than the US Congress. I hope that's not what you mean by "progressive."

[Buck Naked Politics]

HI Robert,

Yes, the Dems seem to have big majority in the House, but when I think of a "big" majority in the senate, I think of a filibuster-proof majority. The Dems don't, at this point, have such a majority.

As for debating and obstructionism, where were the Senate Republicans when the $350-$700 billion bailout was up for a vote?

I didn't see them filibustering. In fact, Mitch McConnell was all for it. (I know, so were a bunch of Dems -- I'm not happy with how they handled the legislation, either).

[Robert]

Thanks for your reply. I would just say, in general, that having legislation of this magnitude take a little while to go through the usual processes is the best idea. With the new "Pelosi rules" in place it should take about one day for the stimulus to pass the House; three weeks instead of three days in the Senate won't make much difference for the economy, in the longer term.

Except in a true life-or-death situation, I think the legislators should always have time to at least read and understand a bill before voting on it. Remember the PATRIOT act?

It sounds like Obama's trip to the Hill yesterday already produced enough goodwill and feelings of inclusion and compromise that something will go through smoothly.

If this keeps up Congress's approval ratings might even break 20 percent!

[Buck Naked Politics]

Hi Robert,

I've heard that Pelosi promulgated new rules, but I'm not familiar with them.

Given the rider process -- which is so often used for pork -- I don't think you'll have to worry about Congress getting into the habit of passing bills quickly. I could be wrong, though.

Last year, I looked at polls going back some years: Congress always had a significantly lower approval rating than the President.

To me, this makes sense: there are 535 members of Congress that make tons of decisions: a survey participant who is angry at one Congressman or one decision would likely give Congress the thumbs down.

I have no clue how things will look in six months. I look forward to seeing.