On the War Supplemental
IMF Headquarters (Wikimedia)
We can all recall the days when voting against an emergency war supplemental bill was the most evil and un-American thing ever:
For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops. [...] But Republicans say this year is different. Democrats have included a $5 billion increase for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations affected by the global financial crisis. Republicans say that is reason enough to vote against the entire $106 billion spending bill and are certain voters will understand.
Beyond the pure hypocrisy play, it’s worth observing that this is a really bad reason to vote against the bill. Nina Hachigian did a brief piece for CAP about this but suffice it to say that the world economy continues to be in a very perilous situation. It now looks like things might start getting better. But it’s possible that some “other shoe” or two may drop—most likely the meltdown of an Eastern European country—and the IMF exists to stop that kind of thing from happening.
As with TARP, the net fiscal cost is likely to be dramatically lower than the headline appropriation (because money gets repaid) and the macroeconomic impact of collapses is much more severe than the cost of ponying up the money.
19 Responses to “On the War Supplemental”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
The war supplemental deserves to be defeated on the merits. The war was BS when it was Bush’s war and it is still BS.
Also, the IMF money is meant to bail-out European banks. Let the banks take the hit they so richly deserve.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Not giving money to the IMF sounds like a truly wonderful reason not to vote for a bill to me. The IMF has brought ruin to far more countries than they have ever helped.
But, as with TARP, Matty never met a give away to the wealthy elite he didn’t like. Amazing how he’s perfectly willing to sell out left-wing interests because of political reality, but he’s never willing to acknowledge that bank baillout might be slightly politically toxic.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“Amazing how he’s perfectly willing to sell out left-wing interests because of political reality, but he’s never willing to acknowledge that bank baillout might be slightly politically toxic”
Really it’s mostly rightwing Republicans voting against giving the IMF money to give Obama a hard time and because they are isolationists. And we all know they hate the wealthy elite.
I heard someone this morning discuss another reason for giving money to the IMF which lately has been pushing coutries to do stimulus spending which is weird.
The global savings glut is in part a result of developing nations making sure they have enough reserves in case of emergency. It’s insurance. But a better funded IMF would be able to provide insurance.
We need more democracy at the IMF with developing nations getting more of a say, and more money to the IMF would go down better if the US had social democratic reforms also.
More money at the IMF would allow a better automatic stablizer for this crisis or the next. I used to be anti-IMF but have changed my mind.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
And to Matt’s point, yes the Republicans are so hypocritcal it’s impressive. At one tiem voting against the war supplemental was the most evil and un-American thing ever, but now it’s to prevent a global reserve currency and is patriotic. Depends on who the President is.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Debtor nations pay back the IMF by instituting austerity programs, i.e. spend a lot less. That is opposite of what is needed now.
Better to write off enough debt that paying the balance still allows for non-austere life. The banks were like the credit card companies (they were often one and the same). They lent recklessly – they should take the biggest hit. That way, the lost wealth comes out of excess of the wealthy, not the food budget of the poor.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Being in charge is hard work.
Quit whining.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Poptarts, maybe YOU changed your mind. Somehow, I doubt South America or Asia have. I’m not really interested in crippling eastern Europe too. If you really think bank bail outs are popular, there’s probably no talking to you.
Hell, you don’t even appear to have a reason for changing your mind. You just have. Like magic! Nothing changed but the President. As long as the IMF instills cripping anti-deficit measures (gutting every social program on the books), then it’s always going to hurt more than it helps.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Bubba don’t like the IMF, ergo GOP will attack the IMF, because no one but Bubba likes the GOP anymore. This sort of thinking is the source of most current Repub strategy and tactics. We’ll see where it gets them.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
[...] Everything else about the supplemental aside, it is delicious to see the Republicans get slapped around for voting against the troops. [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The IMF might be one of the worst (and often silent) arms of American imperialism. While the Republicans are hardly voting on principle and are merely try to make political hay out of the situation, it does not mean voting to increase the IMF sans serious reform is a good idea.
From Latin America to Africa to Russia, the IMF’s draconian austerity programs have wreaked absolute havoc. Anyone who sings the praises of the IMF is either illiberal or ignorant – or more likely both.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias remarks: “We can all recall the days when voting against an emergency war supplemental bill was the most evil and un-American thing ever.” [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Flip-flopping: IOKIYAR.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The U.S. should risk $108 billion in dark transactions so that bets placed by European banks in Latvia and other countries in E Europe can be made whole while the subject populations suffer under the inevitable austerity demands? How’s that a better use of funds than, say, bailing out California?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I think the criticism’s of the IMF are fair and right and it does need to be changed. The fact it has been pushing for stimulus is a sign of change. I think past criticism’s have helped change it.
My view of it is like my view of Bush’s TARP, very unappetizing and easy to demagogue but the alternative is worse. Much worse.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
The Dems have enough votes to pass this thing outright. Why is what the GOP plans to do even an issue? Let Pelosi and her team stand up for what they claim to believe in, even if what they believe in is the IMF.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
It’s that world ‘international.’ Makes ‘no’ the way to go every time. Maybe it makes sense to separate the IMF money from the military funding, but that would be a bit logical.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Well, the GOP was wrong before. It is patriotic to vote against military funding. The GOP will be unaffected by this, and the Dems will still be afraid to do it when the time comes, as it will, when a rightwing jerk prez gets the U.S. into another unjust criminal war. So the import of post should be: why have the dems been such cowardly shits?
June 16th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
[...] some progressives, like Matt Yglesias and the Center for American Progress have echoed President Obama’s exhortation in support of [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias is absolutely beside himself, possibly having an apoplexy, and really should lie down before the vapors get to him: Beyond the [...]