An old phrase “fiddling while Rome burns”—with its allusion to fully-muddled, imaginary history—is suddenly relevant. It means, of course, being irresponsible or concerned with trivial matters during a crisis. That describes Congressional Republicans precisely.
When President Obama’s economic stimulus package was first announced, some Congressional Republicans praised its balance. That must’ve been before they got the memo because within days they were all marching in lock step in their opposition to the plan. To me, it’s pretty obvious they’re just playing political games—just as they did for the past eight years.
There’s no such thing as a perfect stimulus package: Someone, somewhere, regardless of where they are on the political continuum, will complain about something in the package: Perhaps it’s too much here or not enough there. But everyone except the far, far right and self-described libertarians agree that the federal government has a duty to stimulate the economy. It’s a conclusion shared by developed countries around the world.
So what’s the Republicans’ problem? Contrary to their constant media posturing, it has absolutely nothing to do with principle or fiscal responsibility. After eight years without either, they’re hardly likely to start now. Instead, what the Republicans are scared to death about is that the plan will work. They’re terrified of any sort of renewed New Deal because they know it will show that, in contrast to their propaganda of the past 25 years, liberal programmes and policies actually work. Once American voters see that liberals are good for America, Republicans are doomed. That is why they’re digging their heals in: Pure partisan gamesmanship.
In opposing the president’s plan, Republicans attacked Democrats with lies and distortions, just as they did when they controlled Washington. They’ve deliberately misled Americans about what’s in the package (that’s called lying), and they played up minor parts of the package that they think would be unpopular (that’s called distortion).
If the Republicans want to continue to fiddle as the crisis grows worse, that’s their business. But how many months does America have to lose a half million jobs, and how high does the unemployment rate have to get, before the obstructionists on the right understand that helping the American people is more important than their political games?
Update 10/02/09: Today I saw a US News & World Report story via Yahoo News looking at 15 companies that, based on ratings from Moody's and other data, the magazine thinks could fail in 2009, risking more than 350,000 jobs. Many of those 15 are companies that depend on ordinary people spending money, which isn't happening. And, of course, this isn't counting plenty of other companies, large and small, that may go under this year, taking their jobs with them. Just one more indication of the urgency.
3 comments:
Well,
On the other hand,
How much debt can America put itself in, and how fucked is America if throwing money at the problem doesn't pay off?
And what if it's more of a panic problem and not an actual economic horrid downspin and throwing tons of cash at panicked people doesn't have the result they want (they bury it in the back yard or gamble with it...)
I understand that the Republicans are being nit picky and probably a bit pissy that they don't run things anymore and are now (probably a bit unfairly) essentially being blamed for being at the helm while things started really going haywire... but it's their prerogative to sit there and go "but where is this money gonna come from?" and be a stick in the mud when the answer is "taxes on profitable businesses and rich people" and/or "China".
I think what annoys me is that FINALLY Congress is actually using its perogative in the legislative process. Where have they been for the last 8 years?
Epilonious: How much debt? Well, I could say a whole lot more if the Bush/Cheney regime hadn't screwed America so badly. But that's too obvious.
I obviously believe that the stimulus package will work. I also believe that urgent action is required. I'm not alone in that: Economists as well as politicians and leaders of countries around the world all hold that view.
I'm not aware of a single economist who says that the US and the world aren't in "an actual economic horrid downspin". In fact, there are plenty of economists who say we're all vastly understating the problem, that things will get far worse. Some also say that the US needs to spend perhaps three times as much as it's planning on. So if there's panic, it's based on reality, and that's why politicians must act.
You're quite right that it's Repubicans prerogative to sit around and obstruct what the majority is trying to do, and I said thatin the post. The role of the opposition, however, is not merely to obstruct for its own sake but to hold the majority to account, and that's the difference here: The Republicans aren't being noble in opposition, looking after the people's business, they're playing political games that, as usual, the media lets them get away with.
About this whole notion of blame: It's been said that all members of Congress are equally responsible (excluding, perhaps, those who voted responsibly). That ignores that for the past 25 years the Republicans have been in control far more than not, and in the past 8 years in particular they virtually shut-out all Democrats (and no, I don't include their poodle, Joe Lieberman). Even after the 2006 elections, Republicans managed to keep the Democrats from reasserting Congress' authority (because the Democrats didn't have big enough majorities).
For 8 years, the Bush/Cheney regime refused to use its existing regulatory authority to control the excesses that led to the meltdown. During that same time, Republicans in Congress refused to assert Congress' oversight authority, preferring to let the Bush/Cheney regime rule as it wished. That is why so many of us hold the Republicans especially responsible for the mess we're in. Yes, things should have been done better in previous years, but the past 8 years really screwed it all up.
You refer obliquely to the constant conservative mantra about taxes on "rich people" and "profitable businesses" as if they're the only ones taxed. The Bush/Cheney years saw an increase in benefits given to the top incomes—human or corporate—and an increase in the tax burden faced by moderate and lower income taxpayers. The last time we saw this was during the Reagan years and that regime's obsession with the fairy tale of "trickle down" economics.
Despite right wing propaganda, nothing in this plan makes things worse for the rich or big business (which is what the right means by the term "profitable businesses"). Not making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent is not the same thing as actually raising them. At the same time, there will be tax relief for struggling families on more common incomes—the people who do most of the buying of the stuff that the big businesses produce.
Debt owed to China is another matter entirely, and clearly a risk or even threat. But that's a topic in itself.
I guess the most obvious and self-evident thing I can say is the policies of the Bush/Cheney regime and the Republicans have been a colossal failure. It's time we tried something else, and that's what this plan is all about.
Roger: The real question is probably, why are the Republicans suddenly enthused about Congressional oversight when they showed zero interest for the past 8 years? I argue that it's just political games they're playing. I could add—but didn't in the post—that there's a hard right core in the Republican Caucus that would likely oppose anything Democrats came up with, since many of them opposed their own party's attempts in the old Congress. That doesn't excuse the game playing of the rest of them.
Post a Comment