The Republican Calculus on Obama's Economic Plan

This "finding our voice" stuff is all well and good for a few true believers among fiscal conservatives, but the political calculus motivating most of the Republican party is--yet again--deeply cynical.

When even Joe Biden is admitting that the chances of failure for the stimulus packet are at 30% you can bet that reflects real trepidation in the Obama administration.

The fact is that all these economic experts are making it up as they go along and no one has a diagnosis, let alone a prescription, that is more than guesswork guided by ideological inclination. The rest of us follow some but not others because of those ideological inclinations. That's all most of us can possibly do on an issue as vast and arcane as the economic meltdown. Take me, for example. I'm inclined to believe Paul Krugman when it comes to matters economic. I tell myself that he predicted the crisis would occur - which he did - and he won a Nobel Prize and so that means he knows what all those numbers and acronyms mean (I certainly don't) and so, I hope, he also knows what we should do.

But the simple truth is that I agree with him about some things I do understand, like Bush in Iraq. My leftie tendencies coincide with his and so I follow him on economics. But all expert economists are right sometimes and, hell, Milton Friedman won a Nobel prize. The truth is that I (with a PHD and 2 hours a day reading the news) don't really have my own rational understanding of this economy thing.

So what the Republicans are banking on is this: when elections roll around in 2010, people won't really understand whatever situation we find ourselves in then, just as we don't now. If the economy is bad enough for them to claim that Obama has failed (and the chances are it will be), they will point with pride to their own prescient and principled opposition. If things are better, or if things are really good, their voting record will have evolved in the intervening years. No one will remember the stand they took this last week. Plus there's sure to be many ways to change the subject by then. So they have nothing to lose by opposing Obama on the economy. Or so it seems to them right now.

All this puts Republicans in the position of wanting America to fail. I am, of course, counting on Bill O'Reilly and his pals to press that question with their Republican guests the way they did with Democrats in relation to Iraq.

Comments

[dustyoh]

As Dumbledore said in the 3rd Harry Potter movie, at times like this I find it best to retrace my steps. Re-regulate the banks, let housing prices fall until homes are in line with wages, let the stock market fall until stock prices reflect market values of companies, tax the crap out of large corporations and give tax breaks to small businesses to level playing fields - stop giving tax breaks to corporations to off-shore employment and hopefully I'll be able to understand the customer service rep helping me fix my computer, get rid of no child left behind and fund the schools to actually teach, stop building up weapons and start funding renewable energies so we are not supplying Saudi terrorists with our petrol dollars, put the usury laws back in place, rewrite the bankruptcy laws to scare the bejesus out the banks so they have some motivation to not let consumers get overextended, make head start a priority again to spare us the pain later as children fall behind in school increasing the drop-out rate, and finally - my favorite, take the student loan debt back to 2% like it was in my day so these kids trying to pay off school loans at 7 - 8% are not spending 30 years paying for school and allowing them to actually save up a down payment before they buy a home.

[momof3inGA]

One thing's for sure: Americans aren't stupid. Bush helped to snap people out of that funk. They're paying attention.

[Fremon]

I agree with the commentary, but I kind of figured this out some time ago. It seemed so logical that this was a cynical based opposition based on the percentages that the nation was in such trouble that maybe, just maybe, the recovery act would not be all what would be hoped for. When it was looking that some kind of package would past, the smaller the better as now an even better chance of failure would come about. In either case the Republicans would say "we told you so, tax cuts would have been better". Remember, the Republican party is not about working for the benefit of all (that is akin to the dreaded socialism). The republicans think that it is all about capitalism and entreprenuership and that is warped into favoring the wealthy. We, they say, will keep in power to deliver this favoratism by additionaly peeling off those that will respond to our wedge issues of God, guns, gays, racism, and anti-abortion (in some cases they will get two and three-fers).

[DoTheMath]

You're right about their cynical calculations, which means we have a great opportunity to expose their ploy. They are betting against America. They are on record opposing specific efforts which will end up helping specific Americans - besides helping our economy recover. Regardless of how all this shakes out, if we do not hold them publicly accountable for the stand they have taken in opposition to recovery, in opposition to specific measures to help real people, in opposition to America, we are not holding up our end of the bargain.

[noneIn2008]

Do Harry and Nancy have enough faith in our new President to give him the line item veto? Obama would cut the ridiculous and keep the essential. It is time for change.

[indyleftist]

The line item veto has been ruled (properly) unconstitutional by the supreme court
It would take a constitutional amendment to change it.

And it shouldn't be changed, because its an even more flagrant abuse of executive power than signing statements

[newshawk14]

While in some respects liking the line item veto, in that congress seems unable
to restrain its appetite for pork, if it is abused, it could easily become a weapon
against any congressman that said no. I think it would be safer if congress
tightened their own rules on earmarks, riders, and amendments.

[Wiserone]

We are in for a decade of difficulty, unless, there is a new idea for recovery of personal wealth lost. Right now, as is always the case, the markets go down about 10 times faster than they return. It is impossible for all the baby boomers to recover what they thought they earned and saved until now. That is because they cannot invest as they once did; they have no income to invest. And the baby boom generation is growing old fast. So they will not invest, unless it is in health care for themselves. In five or so years, the baby boomers will represent the largest part of our society. In other words, the majority of our society will have nothing to invest with, nothing to buy essential goods and services. All of us are at fault. Not just our 'leaders' because we have no true leaders. We as a populace decided to milk our housing equity, second mortgage, and expect all the money to be there. We bought cars we didn't need, homes too big for our basic needs, threw money at frivolous things like expensive clothes, and, never put money away. We have .6% savings average per household since 2001. It's our own mistakes in largesse. We did all this to ourselves, as a populace. We all know people who thought they were getting madoff money from their investments only to see the money go downhill fast.

[sabbeloka]

No leadership & no accountability!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-fraud-bigger-than-madoff-1622987.html

[serena1313]

The Republicans alternative stimulus plan that consist of 100% tax-cuts would cost the government $3.1 Trillion. Yet they refer to the stimulus bill as "generational theft." Let's not forget they knew the true cost of the Medicare bill that cost hundreds of billions more than they were willing to admit. What about the $12 billion dollars that went missing in Iraq and the weapons that disappeared costing billions, too. The Iraq war is approaching $1 Trillion on top of a half trillion deficit.

How did their fiscal stewardship work out:

2001 tax-cuts: cost $1.35 Trillion

2009 stimulus plan: $800 billion

2001 unemployment: 4%

2009 unemployment: 7.6%

2001 - % living in poverty: 12.7

2009 - % living in poverty: 17%

2001 foreclosure rates: .48%

2009 foreclosure rates: 1.19%

2001 # relying on food stamps: 17 million

2009 # relying on food stamps: over 30 million

The stimulus measure is to avoid a deflationary spiral and prevent unemployment from getting out of hand. It is difficult to know what the economy will look like in 2010, however according to a lot of different reports across the political spectrum warn that doing nothing would be much worse.

For instance without a recovery plan by 2010:

* over 12.4 million more would be living in poverty

* over 3.8 million more children would be living in poverty

* 6.8 million fewer jobs

And the GOP wants more tax cuts. Talk about generational theft!

[tenzenz]

Boy did he hit this on the head. When you think about three American Oil Companies garnering over 100billion dollars in profits over the past 2 years, & then the Wall St. CEOs stealing other people's money to the tune of another 50 billion dollars while their companies Failed, it is no wonder this nation & the world are in such a dire state of affairs. Freeze the assets of all of them. They all conspired to sidestep regulations or lobbied to eliminate the regulations that had been in place to prevent these very problems from taking hold. Don't blame Barney Frank for the Mortgage Mess... He had nothing to do with the predatory lending practices that were became a normal part of the business & greed of the mortgaage brokers & lending institutions. any one that blames him or any other legislator that was pushing for fair lending to more working families does not have a clue as to what went wrong with the housing market.

[bassface49]

You are right... when 50% of my retirement accounts disappeared in the last year, that 'wealth' wasn't 'lost', it was 'transferred' to the 'hedgefunders' who 'bet' against our economy...the new world order headquartered in Du Bai.

[bassface49]

When your 'base' BRAGS that they are 'dittoheads' or 'hannitized', being PROUD that they have allowed themselves to be BRAINWASHED, WE are talking 'Jonestown Syndrome'...you know, 'koolaid drinkers'...The Ottmeyer Studies after WW2, answered the question, 'if the manipulation of the 'conservative without conscience' could happen again......Well. here we are again, to the point, the 'headdittohead' is the spokesman for the 'locksteppers'.
They don't 'debate' they 'frame'
When 'engaging' cons, simply ask..... Let's say they work for IBM...... So, con, if when you interviewed for your job you came in and said,' I , con, believe that the 9 most dangerous words are ' I'm from IBM and I am here to help! Do you think they would have hired you?......You 'elected' that man to run the country!
30 years later, after a failed attempt at a ‘permanent majority’, using ‘big lie’ politics, to ‘protect the homeland’, a ‘descendent’ of Prescott Bush oversees the ‘draining’ of the treasuries of the richest country in the history of the world and anyone still defending it, is in need of rehab, if their income is less than 250k/yr.

[Gidster]

He is also a descendant of Franklin Pierce. Who was such a bad president his own party endorsed another candidate!!!!

[newshawk14]

I liked your article, and pretty much agree with it, the republicans are acting like spoiled petulant
children and could be digging their own grave. I hope Americans won't be fooled again.

[dwright]

The ultimate hypocrisy.
Obama gets razzed because he didn't have a flag pin, McCain never wore one
Obama gets razzed because he didn't have his hand over his heart during the Star Spangled Banner, something no one does
Obama gets razzed for trying to do "something" for the American people, and gets attacked as being a socialist, while Lindsay Graham talks about nationalizing banks (ultimate socialism)
Obama is against the war in Iraq and is denounced as unpatriotic, Many GOP say they hope the economic recovery plan fails and are looked at as good republicans.

Obama is a metaphor for all of us who voted for him and have felt this type of attack by the GOP for years, since Reagan for me.

[JonW]

Simply put--The rethuglicans who hope the stimulus plan fails for politcal reasons are simely traitors!!

[talyn530]

I don't believe that America will forget the intransigence demonstrated by the G.O.P. this time around. I, for one, can't wait until 2010. Whether the economy has recovered or not, the G.O.P. must go!!!!
-or-
to put it another way.

"Recovery or no...the G.O.P. must Go!!!!

Now that's catchy!!!

[anelder]

In total agreement Thomas. Have you noticed however how many experts there are in the blogs and than again in those who comment.
It seems that many have crystal balls - those who know what the future will hold. So many of them.
I too have decided to pay most attention to Krugman; although I accept that Obama may have to deviate some in order to get Congress to affirm.
I also will tatoo the republicans mantra on my forehead so in the future when revisionist begin I will not forget. Maybe bumper stickers would be good or just saving all these pompous ideological positions I can find in print.
I hasten to include all the extreme lefties in my camp but too rigid for my taste. All or nothin, for me or against me, are positions I cannot admire.

[justoverit333]

It's really patriotic to hope that America fails.
Forget bipartisanship. They want nothing
to do with it.

[WritusMaximus]

Don't overlook the dems' desperate attempts at getting repub support for the monstrosity known as the stimulus package, which is just a shot gun approach/spend for spending's sake "solution."
Instead of targeted approach, we have "spend on anything because it will do the trick" mentality. If the dems were sure that such a "plan" would work, they would be savoring such "victory" over the obstructionist repubs. Makes you think that the dems, bamboozled into approving another bailout without reading what they were voting for (just like the previous bailout) are afraid, very afraid that what they said YES to will come back big time to haunt them, so they wanted a lot of repub votes as cover. Heck, don't be surprised if a lot of them decide NOT to read what they voted for, for fear of finding out. At least they are in good company, because the then-senator from Illinois and now prez Obama didn't read the first one, and most likely hasn't taken the time during his three-day vaction to read the current bill before he signs it tomorrow.

The TRUTH, regardless of political affiliation.

[anelder]

It seems this blogs author should have consulted you. You have all the answers even some which could only be perceived with a crystal ball.

[ProudLiberalDemocrat]

If you looked at an analysis of the stimulus plan, there are potentially more tax cuts than ever. Yup, more tax cuts than Ronald Reagan or George Bush ever proposed. The difference with Democratic cuts vs. Republican tax cuts is targeting them to stimulate demand.

Republicans offer capital gains cuts as if they are manna from heaven. Democrats, on the other hand, offer cuts that will have folks demanding more cars (no slaes tax if you buy a new car), demanding more houses (up to $15,000 tax credit), demanding more energy efficiency (credits for wind, solar, new windows), etc. Read the bill and you might learn why we should all vote Democrat. The spending and tax cuts as currently proposed will at least stop the bleeding created by 8 years os a negligent Republican Congress and President.

Instead of looking at the modest pork that is part of any bill, look at the amount of TAX CUTS that Democrats have put into this bill. When the mainstream media starts discussing the meat of the bill, Republicans are going to sound even more ridiculous.

And by the way, the most recent Republican President, George Bush, took more vacation time than any Preseident ever. Did you complain about that or just fellow you obviously did not vote for. You must be a Republican, you're a hypocrite.

[Gidster]

Writus....

The previous bailout was introduced by the Bush administration, assured of no oversight or legal challenge by the Bush Administration, how is that going to be the Obama Administrations fault?

Your truth unfortunately is relative. It is a lightle light in facts and or evidence to support your truth.