Stimulating
Obama team looking at $700 billion in total stimulus. You should probably think of that as something more like $350 billion with a promise that there may be more, since they’re talking about spreading it over two years.
This seems appropriate to me, though obviously it’s much better to spend $350 billion (or $700 billion) on stuff that’s mostly worth doing on its own terms (useful infrastructure projects, etc.) than to waste it on pointless stuff (as much current infrastructure spending is) so the folks in charge of hammering out the details here are going to have an important role in determining the future of the country.
Note, however, some perverse political incentives. If the Senate GOP minority blocks needed stimulus and the economy fails to recover, I think the odds are good that the Democratic president and congressional leadership will be the ones to pay the price at the polls. Voters are pretty good at identifying who the incumbent party is, but not very good at assigning specific blame for specific policy outcomes.
33 Responses to “Stimulating”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 24th, 2008 at 9:51 am
That’s why Harry Reid needs to get smart and grow a pair. Make ‘em REALLY filibuster, the old-fashioned way, and let people see Republicans on TV reading the DC phone book aloud while the country goes down the tubes.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
You mean it’s actually the Republicans who would put politics over the good of the country? But we just spent four months hearing about how that’s what Obama would do- it’s almost as if they were lying.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
One interesting thing is that the Senate calendar for 2008 is 19R-15D. So Democrats will have an unusually high level of insulation from voter wrath for a party with a big majority.
I’m not as worried as some people about Harry Reid. The guy was working with the flimsiest Senate majority ever in ‘07-’08 — it depended on a generally untrustworthy member of the Lieberman for Connecticut party. I was quite impressed with his performance in the 05-06 Supreme Court fights, where he knocked the GOP around enough to generate the Harriet Miers nomination. May not have panned out, but it’s a closer shot at getting Bush to waste a nomination than I expected to get.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:11 am
DTM got to the shutdown of the government before I could. When it comes to a full impasse that prevents the government from delivering essential services, especially in a recession, I think it will be easy to pin the blame on the stonewallers.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I agree with the above, I don’t like the idea of filibuster, but if its going to be there at least make them man up and get some public attention for who is filibustering, and make them put their time where their filibuster is. Can you imagine Coburn actually getting enough people to filibuster with him to block the series of bills that he has? Nope. Time to end the undemocratic rules of the Senate that permit stuff like that.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
“That’s why Harry Reid needs to get smart and grow a pair. Make ‘em REALLY filibuster, the old-fashioned way, and let people see Republicans on TV reading the DC phone book aloud while the country goes down the tubes.”
Nonsense. I keep hearing this trope about “just let ‘em filibuster,” but it makes absolutely no sense.
The famous Civil Rights Act filibuster only ended once they found the requisite number of VOTES to invoke cloture, by appealing to moderate Republicans. If they hadn’t been able to rustle up the votes, the Southern Democrats could have blocked the bill forever without even that much effort.
As for this case, stimulus bill can be forced through the budget reconciliation process, so Democrats won’t need any Republican votes. That’s how Clinton passed his 1993 budget through the Senate with only 50 votes. Republicans know this, so their incentives to filibuster this bill are reduced.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Obama would have to take a page out of Truman’s book and go out barnstorming (electronically of course) against “the do-nothing” Republicans in Congress–preferably naming names.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:08 am
If Senate GOPers try to obstruct, the Democrats ought to revisit the nuclear option (in the name of national security) and jettison the infernal filibuster once and for all.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The famous Civil Rights Act filibuster only ended once they found the requisite number of VOTES to invoke cloture, by appealing to moderate Republicans. If they hadn’t been able to rustle up the votes, the Southern Democrats could have blocked the bill forever without even that much effort.
And they could do that because their constituents wanted a distinct lack of civil rights enforcement. Most Republican Senators govern in states where the citizenry wants the economy saved pronto.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
In a Panic brought on by a massive pile of debt, along comes even more debt. One should expect a repeat of the long “New Deal” that scholars have shown was extended by FDR’s programs and finally ended by WWII. Should we all be now hoping for WWIII ?
November 24th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
What mightygodking said. The point of “make ‘em really filibuster” isn’t to make it impossible for obstructionist senators to gum up the works. It’s to make them do it obviously. The problem with the more abstract withholding of unanimous consent is that the Senate simply fails to make it to sixty votes, and all anyone notices is that Congress failed to pass something. For instance, right now, most people (who don’t avidly follow such things) have no idea that Tom Coburn has been such an tantrum-throwing little shitbag. Make specific senators stand up and declare that they will not yield to provide assistance to their own constituents, and the whole dynamic changes. Make them own their obstructionism, or they don’t get to obstruct.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Just looked at the INDU .. it was up 334 when “The One” took to the TV to introduce his economic team .. but only up 220 when he was done .. a 110 point loss on the effort.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
People who draw conclusions based on hourly stock price changes can generally be safely ignored when they opine about economic history.
New Deal denialism is the new Global Warming Denialism.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:02 am
‘The 15% Solution”
One possible approach to dealing with the auto crisis — The federal government would give any one who buys a fuel efficient car from the Big 3 US automakers a 15% instant rebate back on the selling price. This program could have an 18 month time limit. The total of the rebate dollars might then constitute a loan the auto makers would have to pay back.
If effective, this solution would immediately jump start US auto makers by giving them a huge advantage over the competition while they work on the remaining legacy issues. Auto makers would stay employed and no money would go directly to the car makers. I realize there may be issues in that the auto maker don’t get a big infusion instantlt
and that they may not be able to produce enough fuel efficient car because of the need to retool (and because of poor planning)
The feds might also think about underwriting an extended car warranty program for this period. Again, the total dollars to do so, could constitute a loan to the auto makers.
If the dollars don’t proof out or if this approach does not infuse enough cash into the US automarers quickly enough because the pacing of sales and/or retooling not yet in place some concept is we worth exploring.
Joe Hare
Hingham, MA. 617 755 0898
More…..
A quick direct “15%” instant government rebate (say averaging around $3,000) from the Dept of Treasury paid to consumer with purchase of a US auto maker lower mileage car might make these cars especially attractive.
The problem with the fed using IRS tax return deductions is you only get indirect value (a lower tax payment) and but once a year (April 15)….and higher wage earners get more real dollar benefit.
If you could buy a Camry priced today at $20,000 for $20,000 versus a Malibu priced today for $20,000 for $17,000 (plus get a100K mileage warranty), which would you buy?
Giving a bailout just keeps them from going bankrupt while they try to get a higher % of americans to buy their cars. They have not suceeded in doing that over the last 20 years. Assuming Americans were motivated to buy fuel efficient Gm-Ford-Chrysler cars, the biggest stumbling blocks might be that the auto makers could not retool fast enough to produce enough low mpg cars to get profitable, that they could not get rid of their gas guzzlers, and that they can not work out union entitlements.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Especially Voinovich and Specter, who are both from Rust Belt states Obama carried in 2008. Do they really want to see campaign ads charging them with blocking the President’s plan to help the economy, let alone Obama campaigning for their challengers?
December 15th, 2008 at 8:30 am
NEW YORK (Associated Press) – Ford says it will offer employee pricing, zero percent financing and cash incentives on a variety of its vehicles. The Dearborn, Mich.-based company’s move comes amid a continued industry wide drop
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:45 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Incredible site! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Thanks for the review!
viagra