Oregon Elephant

If the stimulus was nothing but tax cuts...why it still wouldn't be a conservative bill

Let's say the stimulus bill was nothing but tax cuts (no "public investment"...in other words, spending)...let's say the $250 billion or so in tax cuts was all that was in the bill...would it then be a bill conservatives could support?  After all, tax cuts is what we're about right?

No way.

Tax cuts are like dessert...we all like them, and certainly we can agree we pay too much in taxes.  But for a conservative, the meat and potatoes of their philosophy is limited government.  If you finance a $250 billion tax cut by increasing your debt, what's the point of that?  The conservative answer is to first trim the size and scope of government (so that government only does what it must).  Then, as the size of government shrinks, there is less revenue needed to keep it solvent.  Then, taxes go down as a matter of course, because you need less money. 

The big problem with the tax cuts under both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is that spending, instead of going down, went up precipitiously.  In the case of Reagan, it was in spite of his best efforts.  You can't say that about Bush. 

Pinnacle Bank in Beaverton closing, seized by regulators

See the story here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2009/02/09/daily67.html

Do members of Congress EVER read the whole bill?

The arguments Republicans have been making about not getting to read the bill and Arlen Specter's admission that he didn't actually read the bill he was voting for got me thinking...is this typical behavior?  I actually (unlike other Republicans) don't have a big problem with it...if they're going to have to read the whole thing, why should they even have staff?  They may as well do it all themselves.  

I think it's unreasonable to expect a single congressman to be an expert on all the aspects of a bill as big as this one, and to expect them all to read the entire bill before they vote on it, would mean it would take months to get anything passed (since many bills are quite large).

Bottom line:

I agree with opposition to the stimulus, and even with the idea that there wasn't time to review it, but the "you didn't read it yet you voted for it" argument might get people fired up, but seems to me to be without much merit.

Thinking of Reagan...

I'm not usually one to look backwards, but I was listening this morning, to Ronald Reagan's famous "A Time for Choosing" speech, given in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater. In speaking about the greatly-expanding government and rapidly higher levels of taxation occuring at the time, he said:

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations.

• For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism."
• Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.
• Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best.
• And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

So the next time someone says "this is just a time when the government needs to be more involved"...think of this.

Mr. President, we disagree

On the sidebar to the right, is a widget displaying a message from 300 leading economists taking issue with President Obama's statement that:

There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.

In fact, this is clearly not true. Over 300 leading economists, from places like Stanford University and Columbia University, took issue with Obama's statement and wrote an open letter to Obama, published in leading newspapers.

For the complete letter, click here.

Obama's press conference, and the art of straw man building

Well, I watched most of the press conference...most of it was pretty much what I expected, Obama re-reciting the talking points of his proposal. He is defiinitely getting good at creative distortion. Some examples:

But as we learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone cannot solve all our economic problems – especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it has only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.

OK, this part isn't a straw man, as much as it's just plain wrong. Does he seriously think that unemployment is at 7.6% and the stock market is in the tank because of tax breaks? Not because of banks making bad loans? Not because of lack of government oversight of the mortgage business? But because of tax cuts? This is just insane. I'm going to give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he is just playing politics here. I am struck by how he has turned the building of straw men in attacking Republicans to an art form. Look at this quote:

First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history.

"Folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt"? Democrats were in charge for six of those eight years, and there was a junior Senator from Illinois for four of those eight years...voting for many of those programs that increased the debt. I'm not for looking backwards, but if you're going to do it, Mr. President, don't do with with such, dare I say it, partisan eyes. There are more examples...dare I say it, I tended to disagree with much of what he said. We'll see how it plays out.

Unemployment - some long-term perspective

The unemployment rate isn't good (and if you just lost your job, it doesn't matter at all)...but it IS interesting to look at how it fits into the last 40 years or so. Here is a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows the rate since 1970:

As you can see, the rate is somewhat high, but not unprecedented. As Clueless Emma notes, one-third of the months since 1970 have been worse than now.

Moral of the story: let's all just take a breath.

Labels: Economy, National, Oregon

Sen. Collins won't support the final stimulus bill if it grows in size...

Maine Senator Susan Collins, one of the moderate Republicans to craft the stimulus compromise in the Senate, just said on Fox News that if the bill balloons above $800 billion or contains more spending projects in it in its final form, she won't support it (which would mean that Reid would have to maneuver politically to break a filibuster).

Interesting...