Say It Is So, Joe

Joe and I are pretty much alike. We were at Amherst College at the same time, and his Nobel Prize is, so far, only preceding mine by nine years. And I know as much about our economy as he knows about removing your gallbladder.

About Time/I Don't Get It

Couldn't decide which title to use. It is about time, and I don't get why it took so long.

President Obama is announcing a jobs program aimed at rebuilding infrastructure. Seems to me it's what lots of people, myself included, have argued the original stimulus should have been much more about than it was. (In my case, I admit, I don't what the hell I'm talking about. Biology major. But not completely devoid of non-biological thought.) Too little to do much good, I fear; too late to get it passed. Rs will see to that.

Of course there already has been money going to infrastructure: I've driven past (or have been bogged down in) several highway projects decorated with signs proclaiming as much. And I get that not all stimulus should be short-term, and that it's reasonable to have used money for such things as energy projects, and to save state government jobs, teachers and cops. But how short-term would it be to repair and rebuild roads, dams, plants, bridges? We've ignored them for decades; there must be decades of work. And what of the downstream (is it trickle-down?) effects of people having money to spend, buying stuff, which re-opens shuttered businesses, who hire more people, who have money to spend...

The problem -- among many -- with the administration's caving to Rs in the beginning, adding too much in tax cuts to the stimulus and not enough spending (and yes, devoting too much to needed but not top-priority job-creating spending, larding it with more than a lot of pork), is that it's played right into hands of the most cynical. Namely, by sabotaging recovery congressional Rs can now point to the stimulus and say, as John Boner (who's about to give new meaning to the term "nothing rhymes with orange") just did, that it all proves "we can't spend our way to prosperity."

That's like saying the Donner Party proves you can't pack for a trip.

Graphic

Jobs/Month/Bush ................... Jobs/Month/Obama

I'm no graphy economicsy mathy guy, but this seems to mean something.

Calling Jimmy

Think the Senate Republicans might filibuster the stimulus bill? A part of me hopes they do; assuming, were it so, that the Democrats would have the guts to make them actually do the thing. Bring in the cots, the Jimmy Stewart impressions, and carry on day and night, round the clock. Let them read the phone book. Let the data roll daily, about layoffs, economy shrinkage, let the President fire up a little of his patented rhetoric and call them out.

I can only assume the reason the dangerously daunted Dems have let bill after bill fail over the mere threat of filibuster is that they figure sooner or later they'll be in the minority again and would have to go to the mattresses themselves.

Pussies.

Because this is real. This is fly or fail for the economy. If they can't find a way far enough to the middle, and if the Republicans won't go past -- or, as it turns out, anywhere near -- the middle (given the recent failures of everything of which they're demanding more), then let it rip. See who the voters side with, those who put forth a bill or those who reject it.

Fair is fair. Elections have consequences. Country first. That sort of thing.

[As to fixing the stimulus package: Here's an opinion piece by a conservative (but Harvard!) economist that makes a lot of sense to me, especially his comments about what sort of tax breaks might actually work. He seems more enamored of defense spending than I am, but much of it rings true. I wonder if our esteemed Senators read it.]

.

Two Thoughts

Being brief, here: my laptop hard-drive crashed, with the potential for ruining my marriage as it takes with it a couple of years' worth of photos. I'd been meaning to get the latest OS and set up automatic backup... So, as I fight for online time, I may have to yield gracefully.

Meanwhile, this: first, I really wish the Obama recovery plan included MORE infrastructure spending and LESS tax cuts. Why? Because tax cuts don't work and spending does. Or is it the other way around? Anyway, the amount going to individuals hardly seems enough to affect much change. What did you do with your previous "stimulus" check? If tax cuts were the panacea the Republicans keep claiming they are, why are we where we are? It needs to be said loudly. In this, bipartisan ship means the R's can join in and share the glory, or they can dig in and share the balcony.

Second: Lots of Republicans are suddenly likening Obama to Reagan. But wait a minute: did they hear the part of his inaugural where he said something about the question not being whether government is too big or small, but whether it works? So I'd like to hear an overt repudiation of the slow disaster Reagan began when he said government isn't the solution, it's the problem. Since then, Republicans have done their best to prove him correct, by screwing up every governmental action they took. Obama hinted at it. Now he should say it: government isn't the problem, BAD government is the problem. And we've had just about enough of it. Put Reagan and Bush where they belong, quoting the Republican diety one more time: in the dustbin of history. 

Where It Is

Just a thought: in this economy, as millions are losing their jobs and millions more are taking pay cuts or working reduced hours, those who continue to retain large incomes are, by comparison, even more flush (not to mention fortunate) than a year ago. Money is scarce, prices are down. Bargains are out there, for them as has.

So. One could argue (and, by golly, I am) that getting rid of the bushian tax cuts for the wealthy makes even more sense now, urgently. De facto, the rich are even richer than they were. How much feeding at the trough of ill fortune do they need?

As he promised, Barack Obama is playing it down the middle, trying to get broad consensus even at the expense of some supporters. He still plans significant tax cuts to most people, an idea my warmth for which is luke, depending on the final details. (In that, it would appear, I'm not alone.) But he's also, evidently, planning to hold off on re-establishing pre-disaster tax rates for those making over 250K. To me, the only argument in his favor is gaining a few Republican votes. I don't discount that; and Obama's commitment to reaching out is something that drew me to him (even as most detractors failed to see it, or willfully ignored it.) Still, the deficit handed to him by Bush is already 1.2 trillion -- a number that would scare the shit out of me, except that it's beyond comprehension. And that's BEFORE any Obama plan.

There are indications that Obama will be looking at Social Security and Medicare as areas for savings. It's ballsy. And, as I've said many times, necessary. Probably doomed, too. Yet, given future projections, it's the responsible thing to do, and will likely alarm the left more than the right (until, perhaps, it comes down to indexing benefits for the wealthy! Also the right thing.)

But there's an obvious need for balance. The unneeded and overly generous tax cuts of Bush are a large part of why we're where we are. There's only so far one ought to go to gain favor with those whose ideas torpedoed the boat in the first place, and then threw an anchor to those in the water. People who continue to make a quarter million bucks a year are doing very well indeed: better than ever. (Might that have been the whole point?) Take away a little of it (and, really, it IS comparatively little), and they'll STILL be way better off than they were. And most assuredly better than everyone else. (Okay, yeah, like the rest of us lots of them must have lost money in the market. But having a big income makes it a hell of a lot easier to take. I was never at the 250K mark, but I was working during the last three recessions and the pay check eased a lot of worry.)

Hey, Rush? Sean? Bill? Mitch? Newt? Patriots of the first order?

Money. Mouth.

.