One thing people are disagreeing about when they disagree about the stimulus is about the value of public sector activities.
So true. The “OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM RECESSION MONSTER” rush to pass the deficit spending package is a travesty of democracy because we could really use a serious national debate on the value of various forms of public spending. But that was summarily preempted. This bill is a transparent vehicle for an immense amount of new public spending, much of which will have no effect other than to benefit certain political constituncies and make most of us poorer. I find the debate over what kinds of government spending are and are not conducive to broad prosperity really interesting. It’s too bad we couldn’t have passed a responsible Rivlinesque stimulus bill, leaving open the possibility of increasing the value of public sector activities by better identifying which of those activities actually have value. But when a political party has a chance to pay off their hungry clients after years of famine, it’s a bit much to ask for a pause for intelligent public deliberation. I guess that’s why it never seems to happen!
It's probably worth asking how much intelligent and productive debate can actually be expected at the level of the national legislature. It's a body that isn't merely intended to devise policy but also to implement policy. And since no policy will ever please everyone, implementation requires not only compromise, but power and leverage as well. And the opportunism created by crisis provides a great deal of political leverage. It ain't pretty, but it works.
Furthermore, where one places oneself on the liberal/conservative/libertarian spectrum signals, to a large extent, how one answers those questions Yglesias poses about what does and doesn't constitute valuable public spending. I think it's fair to say the view of most conservatives/libertarians is that the spending in the bill, as spending, isn't very valuable at all. I also think it's fair to say that most liberals would disagree vehemently with that assessment, even if everyone agreed that much of the bill is plain spending rather than stimulus. So even if the we had two bills dealing with stimulus and spending separately, that disagreement would remain and everyone knows it. So if the liberals have the wind of both the election and the economic crisis at their backs, why shouldn't they be opportunists and employ that leverage?
I was really annoyed when Obama said:
“…the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care; that we can somehow deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject those theories.”
He rejects doing this in a piecemeal fashion, where there can be deliberation and consideration of the costs and benefits of each of these expensive and potentially destructive items. He explicitly insists on not allowing congress to do its job, and just shut up and pass the bundle of changes.
I thought McCain was supposed to be the candidate who represented a Bush third term.
The…rush to pass the deficit spending package is a travesty of democracy because we could really use a serious national debate on the value of various forms of public spending. But that was summarily preempted.
If your goal is to utilize a large amount of capacity that would otherwise sit idle, these sorts of considerations are just so much hair splitting. The fact that most people disagree with you about the advisability of utilizing this capacity is really not a travesty of democracy, but rather the thing itself.
But when a political party has a chance to pay off their hungry clients after years of famine, it’s a bit much to ask for a pause for intelligent public deliberation.
Unbelievable. What color is the sky in the world you're living in, Will? Oh, and how's the economy doing?
Here on Earth the answers are (a) blue and (b) crappity crap crap crappy. Crappy in a way that may have somewhat more to do with the stimulus bill than Democratic venality.
Apologies for the atrocious phrasing. That should have read:
Crappy in a way that perhaps better explains the impetus behind the stimulus bill than Democratic venality does.
Sure, discuss the value of various forms of public spending, but don't let that be a blind to “special circumstance.”
Indeed, railing too much against “OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM RECESSION MONSTER” might be a blind to special circumstance.
The people demand a debate — preferably by diavlog — between M. Yglesias and W. Wilkinson on the stimulus bill, demand stimulation and in general, and, if there's time, the role of actually existing politics in demand stimulation as soon as humanly possible. We realize this may be too much snark for a human being to bear, but we demand it.
Should read “demand stimulation in general.” We don't know how that extra “and” got in there, but we did attend public schools.
You can say that again! It's nice to know that *someone* can see what's going on.
“The American people really don't care (about those little (?) porky amendments).”
-Chuck Schumer
Maybe Chuck is right. Maybe as a whole, we, the American people don't care.
I think it's fair to say that the little porky amendments is what the Republicans are “concerned” with. Let's balance that with the fact that when those Repubs had the (brief) majority, they spent like drunken sailors. Also, Mr. Bush did not use the Bully Pulpit to bring anything to light (specifically) as far as waste and serving special interests.
The little porky amendments would be why the Democrats did rush this through with very little reasoned debate. They have the opportunity to serve some special interests and they are serving them.
“The American people really don't care (about those little (?) porky amendments).”
-Chuck Schumer
Maybe Chuck is right. Maybe as a whole, we, the American people don't care.
I think it's fair to say that the little porky amendments is what the Republicans are “concerned” with. Let's balance that with the fact that when those Repubs had the (brief) majority, they spent like drunken sailors. Also, Mr. Bush did not use the Bully Pulpit to bring anything to light (specifically) as far as waste and serving special interests.
The little porky amendments would be why the Democrats did rush this through with very little reasoned debate. They have the opportunity to serve some special interests and they are serving them.
I would be up for that.
I think we all agree that the economic crisis is a necessary condition for the passage of the bill. That alone doesn't imply that a giant batch of deficit spending is needed for a recovery.
I think there's every reason to think that philosophically the Obama administration is coming from pretty much the same place Rivlin is. Here, e.g., is Rivlin on Geithner's press conference yesterday : “His plan is bold. It's comprehensive. It isn't very detailed. But I think it is a courageous try to use a lot of different tools to fix the problem. And I think it's likely to have success….”
So while it is a shame we won't get a “Rivlinesque” anti-recession pacakage, but perhaps we get the least bad alternative: Rivlin economic policy + Political realities on the ground = “Stimulus,” such as it will be.
The people demand a debate — preferably by diavlog — between M. Yglesias and W. Wilkinson on the stimulus bill, demand stimulation and in general, and, if there's time, the role of actually existing politics in demand stimulation as soon as humanly possible. We realize this may be too much snark for a human being to bear, but we demand it.
Should read “demand stimulation in general.” We don't know how that extra “and” got in there, but we did attend public schools.
You can say that again! It's nice to know that *someone* can see what's going on.
“The American people really don't care (about those little (?) porky amendments).”
-Chuck Schumer
Maybe Chuck is right. Maybe as a whole, we, the American people don't care.
I think it's fair to say that the little porky amendments is what the Republicans are “concerned” with. Let's balance that with the fact that when those Repubs had the (brief) majority, they spent like drunken sailors. Also, Mr. Bush did not use the Bully Pulpit to bring anything to light (specifically) as far as waste and serving special interests.
The little porky amendments would be why the Democrats did rush this through with very little reasoned debate. They have the opportunity to serve some special interests and they are serving them.
“The American people really don't care (about those little (?) porky amendments).”
-Chuck Schumer
Maybe Chuck is right. Maybe as a whole, we, the American people don't care.
I think it's fair to say that the little porky amendments is what the Republicans are “concerned” with. Let's balance that with the fact that when those Repubs had the (brief) majority, they spent like drunken sailors. Also, Mr. Bush did not use the Bully Pulpit to bring anything to light (specifically) as far as waste and serving special interests.
The little porky amendments would be why the Democrats did rush this through with very little reasoned debate. They have the opportunity to serve some special interests and they are serving them.
I would be up for that.
I think we all agree that the economic crisis is a necessary condition for the passage of the bill. That alone doesn't imply that a giant batch of deficit spending is needed for a recovery.
I think there's every reason to think that philosophically the Obama administration is coming from pretty much the same place Rivlin is. Here, e.g., is Rivlin on Geithner's press conference yesterday : “His plan is bold. It's comprehensive. It isn't very detailed. But I think it is a courageous try to use a lot of different tools to fix the problem. And I think it's likely to have success….”
So while it is a shame we won't get a “Rivlinesque” anti-recession package, but perhaps we get the least bad alternative: Rivlin economic policy + Political realities on the ground = “Stimulus,” such as it will be.