About a month ago, the New York Times' Frank Rich, commenting on the Republican Party's approach to the economy, said, "The nightmare is that we have so irrelevant, clownish and childish an opposition party at a moment when America is in an all-hands-on-deck emergency that's as trying as war."
As "trying as war" strikes me as the key point that seems to go overlooked. The ongoing crisis is, by most measures, the economic equivalent of a 9/11-style terrorist attack. "Everything changed" in September 2001? Everything should change now.
Except there's ample evidence that helps prove just how little has actually changed, at least in the minds of some policymakers.
President Barack Obama's economic advisers are increasingly concerned about the U.S. Senate's delay in confirming the nominations of Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Without Senate confirmation, the two economists are barred from advising the president as the administration tackles the worst financial crisis in 70 years and tries to advance the spending plan Obama submitted to Congress last week.
"It's frustrating," said Christina Romer, who heads the three-member CEA. "These are hard economic times and we desperately want to get them through the Senate and definitely on the job."
"They are both superb economists," she said. "I can't imagine what the holdup is."
The holdup, alas, is not a mystery. Goolsbee and Rouse were poised to be confirmed by the Senate on Jan. 20. Senate Republicans delayed the committee process, and have pushed off confirmation. Apparently, the GOP believes anonymous holds and delaying tactics are warranted because, as they see it, some of Bush's nominees for the White House Council of Economic Advisers were mistreated by Senate Democrats.
Everyone agrees that Goolsbee and Rouse are qualified and ready to get to work, but Republicans are looking for some cheap payback.
Democrats were (falsely) accused in recent years of having a "pre-9/11 mindset." It's time the political world comes to terms with the fact that Republicans are guilty of a "pre-recession mindset."
Imagine if, in late 2001, George W. Bush were putting together a team of national security advisors, and Senate Democrats put anonymous holds on his well-qualified choices because of something that may or may not have happened during Clinton's presidency. Most political observers would consider this crazy, and they'd be right.
And yet, here we are.
Republicans are pushing the same tax cuts they wanted before the recession. They're making the same arguments about spending they offered before the recession. They're engaged in the same petty games they enjoyed before the recession. In the midst of "an all-hands-on-deck emergency that's as trying as war," and in "the throes of a catastrophic economic crisis," the failed minority party, ignoring the election results, public opinion, and everything we know about economics, have the same approach to the economy that they had at this point a year ago. And the year before that. And the year before that.
Under the circumstances, we can't afford a pre-recession mindset.
Personally, I like the idea of spending on green technologies. I also like the idea of mass train transit across the country (European style).
The stimulus bill should be the governments last shot at solving this crisis. Some would say, and I wouldn't aruge, that the government already did all they really can by lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply. The reason that President Bush failed was that he somehow thought cutting taxes and increasing spending was a good idea. Would anyone here quit there job and then go max out their credit card? It doesn't make much sense but it's tantamount to the actions of the previous administration.
The US as a country able to defend itself against outside attack is actually a pretty d@mn good mindset, when you think about it.
Why were no government officials allowed to fly after Bush received the august 15 memo? Why did Dick Cheney order all East Coast air defense scrambled for War Games on the 11th of September, leaving New York and DC undefended?
We need a special prosecutor for treason and war crimes.
those ideas aren't necessarily bad ones, but tax cuts without DRASTIC spending cuts will screw us. Cutting a few earmarks, i'm afraid, isn't good enough.
if republicans want their tax cuts to actually work. we need to end our empire, like, tomorrow. democrats OR republicans aren't willing to do that, so our only option left is big spending.
our spending is out of control, and its not because of our regulatory agencies.
The ill-conceived Simulus package was crafted by Rep Pelosi with almost zero input from any Republicans. The stimulus package had a lot of pork and special projects that had no business being in the stimulus package. Although, we need to provide a stimulus package to spur job growth, repair/expand infrastructure, and promote energy independence from foreign oil., the gross lack of fiscal contraint practiced by President Obama will lead to doubling of the national debt in 4 years. The lack of a credible energy independence policy and economic policy could end up sending us into the first depression since the Great Depression.
40% of the earmarks were repub, 60% dem. When the repubs were in power, it was the opposite.
Obama should have said - cut the earmarks or I will veto..
1)The inflation rate and the defict are both higher in the next 3 years.
2)The Obama administration will use the power of the gov't to try to hold power.(By that ,I mean card check to push workers into becoming dues paying chattels,trying to use fairness arguments to ensure opposing views are neutered,and trying to push gov't bailouts towards allies.
The Democrats are in the unenviable position of having control of the governmental levers and not being competent to fly the jet.And,some of you still are blaming the GOPGet ready for a fun four years
Abnout 6 months ago,when I became convinced Barry O was going to b.Should I apologize for being prescient?e our next president,I got out of the market.Now for som specific comments
Cucu-the"Markets'" is an aggregate term for the judgement of millions of individuals aabout their specific economic future.It/they/I don't respond to Pres Obie telling me to but or El Rushbo telliong me how badly things are.Still,if I see someone jumping on thin ice in late winter,I would think it's a dangerous situation.That's how I interpret Pres Obama's economic policy.(Actually,I can't discern a policy.It seems to resemble the sailor's chant;"When in danger or in doubt
Run in circles,sceam and shout."
Lizt-some of us might conclude the president is giving excuses.How else can one interpret his "Create or save x million jobs".How does one differentiate the saved vs created?I'm serious abouty this.I'm not an economist,but have read Von Neumann's and Morgenstern's text.(AS have most of you).I don't see a thread
So here we are. An emergency, and the ones in the senate and congress are pretending there is no problem. People like Schwarzenegger, by contrast, are Governors with actual direct management responsibilities that don't have the luxury of sitting around with their thumb up their ass and hoping that things improve all on their own if 'gubmint don't go in and mess it up like they always do.'
Somehow, there's this thought that Reagan-esque 'less government' means standing back and letting everything collapse...oh, and then revert to the old playbook and blame the liberals.