Republicans oppose a waste-filled, untimely stimulus because it won't do what the lay person hopes and expects...even before one talks about the massive price tag.
Problem: the federal government can do precious little to proactively solve economic problems - though by policy action that can incentivize behavior that improves economic conditions or which helps correct past government mistakes (example: a "conservative libertarian" averse to government intervention defends TARP as a necessary stop-gap to the chaos created by government's gross and excessive stimulation of Fannie & Freddie).
Nonetheless, the media establishment - still riding the euphoria of hope-n-change, will earnestly insist that a stimulus is necessary...believing that if Obama says its a "stimulus" it should, uh, stimulate...right?
No, it won't, especially with an emphasis on infrastructure jobs that will never live up to the impact elected officials proclaim (let alone doing so in a timely manner).
The challenge: take a principled position, be pragmatic where possible (the stimulus is going pass after all, in some form or another), and ultimately affirm conservative principles without putting oneself in a position to be pounded as uncaring about the economy...which is how some in the MSM will construe opposition to the One's stimulus plan. That balancing act won't be easy.
Evergreen state comparative: the Legislature may have a tricky debate on its hands with Randy Dorn's somewhat bold proposal to replace the WASL. Can legislative Republicans weigh in constructively on this debate, demonstrating passion for improving public education while advancing ideas that are not automatically discounted outside of conservative circles (see the history of charter school debates in Washington state)?
A number of successful legislative candidates showed a capacity to talk education effectively on the campaign trail, but more progress needs to be made on this topic across the ranks of the Republican caucuses.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 26, 2009 02:29 PM | Email ThisIt was not that long ago when a company got too big we made them break up. Now we hand them cash and say have a good time with our money.
If these companies have done things that make them bankrupt they deserve to fail. There are plenty of other people out there that run an ethical business that will step up and fill the void. Problem is they did not contribute to the right campaigns.
Posted by: Vince on January 26, 2009 03:19 PMNancy Pelosi really made me scratch my head over her "let's spend hundreds of millions on contraception" idea to 'help' the economy. Apparently she sees people themselves as the problem, here. This, from a woman with five children herself. Simply amazing. The woman has no credibility left (if she ever had any)
The federal govt. should stop spending more than it takes in, cut back spending, and start paying down the national debt. Simple stuff. But it would help. Private sector improves the economy, not the government. These pols are rather pathetic. NO to the silly Obama 'stimulus' plan.
Posted by: Michele on January 26, 2009 04:51 PMAfter explaining several ways in which the Obama economic plan would not actually be beneficial to the American people, you write: "The challenge: take a principled position, ..."
That would be to oppose the counter-productive, harmful Obama economic proposal.
You continue: "... be pragmatic where possible (the stimulus is going pass after all, in some form or another), ..."
From a mathematical point of view, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid don't need a single GOP vote to pass their economic plan. Rather, they want GOP votes in favor of the plan so that it can be stamped "bipartisan." That way, looking ahead to 2010 and 2012, the Democrats seek to avoid being held responsible for any failure, which would then be "shared with" the Republicans.
Nothing could be less pragmatic than Republican senators and congressmen voting in support of the Obama economic plan.
You continue: "... and ultimately affirm conservative principles without putting oneself in a position to be pounded as uncaring about the economy...which is how some in the MSM will construe opposition to the One's stimulus plan. That balancing act won't be easy."
The Republicans will be punded as uncaring about the economy no matter what. That is how the mainstream media and the liberal elites will portray the Republicans, regardless of whether they vote for the phony stimulus plan or stand up in principled opposition against it.
It's not a "balancing act." The Obama economic plan will not "stimulate" the economy, but it will greatly increase spending, lead to higher taxes, and greatly increase the national debt.
Also, it will further legitimize expansion of government, and government control of more and more of our lives. It will decrease liberty.
Of course, the Republicans should try to amend the bill to shrink it as much as possible, and to propose massive tax cuts of various kinds. It's not very likely, but some of these amendments might be part of the final bill, and the bill might be slightly less harmful.
But, as you point out, the bill will pass, one way or the other. Aside from minor nibbling around the edges, it will be a massive, harmful, unnecessary, counter-productive expenditure of about one trillion dollars.
The final bill itself should be opposed. Intelligent, articulate, and effective arguments can be made to explain why the Obama economic plan is counter-productive, dangerous, and not really able to stimulate the economy. Perhaps more important, effective and sensible education can be done with regard to the dangers to liberty posed by the encroachment of expanding government.
While such a view would now be outvoted, it would look better and better as reality unfolded in 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Technology can help advance these ideas, and so can attractive, young, articulate candidates. However, that is dependent on the message being itself principled and conservative.
Voting "yes" on the Obama economic plan would negate even the possibility of advancing the debate on the core issues involved. And if the majority, or even a substantial minority, of Republicans vote "yes," it will severely diminish the chances of holding the Democrats responsible for the likely failures.
Look at the votes on last year's $700 billion bailout. Obama and the congressional Democrats favored it, while congressional Republicans opposed it in the majority.
But because a substantial minority of congressional Republicans voted "yes," and because both Bush and McCain supported the bailout, it is seen as "bipartisan" - and therefore blame is (wrongly) placed primarily at the door of the Republicans (and not Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Barney Frank, Obama, etc.)
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 26, 2009 05:14 PMIt's very easy. Newt Gingrich shows the way.
Posted by: pudge on January 26, 2009 10:47 PMnow--i dare say again--ask yourself why do the pol's NOT run their OWN checkbooks and side consulting & lobbying businesses the same way as OUR government?
freakin hypocrites; never ran a lemonade stand; never met a payroll; never laid off a favored employee in a difficult choice of small business fiscal balancing;
we should tie their salaries to RESULTS; barney frank--thanks for the "oversight" of Fannie and Freddie--and I don't mean your rendezvous pals; you're fired;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 27, 2009 06:30 AMRemember ( Hope & Change)
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 27, 2009 06:31 AMSecond, I disagree with your point that infrastructure spending is not a wise approach to take. If the government has to spend money to kick start the economy, then spending on durable infrastructure that can benefit the economy for years to come (e.g., projects will payback many times over), then this is a wise investment. It is feeding the goose that grows the golden egg's so to speak. Unlike the fear and falsehoods spread by the far right, the projects chosen are not a laundry list of pork barrel projects. May there be a few in there? I don't doubt it, but what percentage are we really talking about. The goal should be not to kill the stimulus but to only strip out those projects that don't have an economic payback. If the Republicans concentrated on this, then they could come out winners in this. By opposing the package and calling for more of the same old policy that got us into this mess, they are setting themselves up on the losing side of the battle. I have no problem if they want to exclude projects that do not have economic payback, especially if they have better projects that can be immediately started (one of the criteria that went into choosing the projects).
Remember, there are tax cuts in the package for small businesses and individuals. Also, remember, the issue is one of jumpstarting demand and not spurring investment by businesses. Businesses are not going to build factories and increase jobs if there is no demand for products.
Posted by: tc on January 27, 2009 07:35 AMcondoms, colleges, hybrid cars, monuments, and art.
At least this is the talking points of resistance that Boehner is encouraging Republicans to use to oppose the stimulus. Apparently what he is promoting is a new generation of dour unstimulated pregnant single women giving birth in inefficient cars on bumpy roads. Or maybe he just prefers arguing about condoms instead of acknowledging that the parents of the fools who got us into this mess could have spared us by knowing when to use them - and that should justify the family planning element by itself.
Second, if you go here, which is a semi-live blog from the meeting Obama is holding with House GOP, you should note a figure quoted by Obama. I have seen this elsewhere, also, but can't immediately put my finger on it. The figure is for every dollar of direct spending the return is 1.5 dollars. For every dollar of tax cuts, the government will only see 75 cents in return. This is the multiplier effect of actually spending, much like used by businesses (like Boeing, Microsoft, etc.) to equate their impact in the community. You are free to dispute these numbers with sound numbers on your own. Until such time, I will believe these numbers because they fall in line with past economic numbers I have seen through the years.
Remember, as I stated in my response to Eric, we do not have a "supply" side problem. We have a demand problem. Businesses are not going to spend the money building products that have no demand. You have to jump-start the demand side of the economy. By most all analysis of last year's tax rebate only stimulus package, most taxpayers did not spend the amount to buy new goods. Most used it to pay down debt, which isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't increase demand for goods. You are assuming if one builds it then the buyers will come. You are living in your own field of dreams.
Posted by: tc on January 27, 2009 11:43 AMObama succeeded in convincing Democrats today to drop a provision in the bill that would expand family planning funding, something Republicans had objected to.
It is item priority 2 in a list of 20 "Fast Facts" about the stimulus plan released by GOP leader Boehner. This placement on the list of what is most objectionable should tell you plenty about what power the forces of reason have.
I still don't quite understand why Reagan didn't want Mexicans to have access to American condoms.
Posted by: Acid Brain on January 27, 2009 03:33 PM