Nelson: Bad Economy Means We Should Wreck Economy, Destroy Planet, Let Health Care Languish
I suspect we’re going to be hearing a lot more of this sort of thing in the weeks to come:
Democrat Ben Nelson, a Senator from Nebraska, said the slumping economy and rising joblessness will be factors as Congress considers climate change and health care legislation. They are also driving concerns about the budget deficit, which widened to a record $1.42 trillion in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, he said.
“When the economy’s not strong there’s a lot of interest in controlling spending,” Nelson said.
This really makes no sense. If Nelson thinks the health care and climate legislation before congress would have a ruinous economic impact or something, then of course he shouldn’t vote for either bill. But that’s independent of the current state of the labor market. In reality, neither bill will have much of any impact on a 12-18 month time horizon since their provisions take time to phase-in. Both are aimed at long-term problems—the economic devastation wreaked by an out-of-control health care system and the environmental devastation wreaked by out-of-control greenhouse gas pollution. There’s never a perfect day to tackle a long-run problem, but delaying action doesn’t help the economy in the short-run and only makes it harder to tackle the problem.
On controlling spending, this is nuts. With the economy weak Nelson wants to do . . . what? Lay off teachers? Halt infrastructure projects? Make sure that kids whose parents are unemployed end up malnourished? The economy is suffering from a catastrophic collapse in overall spending with households, businesses, states, and municipalities all pulling back. If the federal government pulls back too we’re going to go down the drain.
43 Responses to “Nelson: Bad Economy Means We Should Wreck Economy, Destroy Planet, Let Health Care Languish”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
As others have said, Ben Nelson wants to sit on his hands — voting only for giveaways to Nebraska corporations, or to keep ones like the private college loan subsidy.
What a piece of work.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
If the federal government pulls back too we’re going to go down the drain.
The recession is over, Matthew, so we have to return to being stupid now.
max
['So we can restart it.']
November 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I think ole Ben may have a point. Maybe we need to reduce the deficit.
So how about we apply a 80 percent surtax on sales of beef? I’m sure Omaha Steaks wouldn’t mind. We could wrap it into the global warming bill as a measure to reduce all those Nebraskan cow farts that are dumping excessive methane into the atmosphere.
Of course, we need a footnote in the Bill clarifying that “Nebraskan cow fart” does not refer to speech given in Congress by the Distinguished Senator from Nebraska.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Ben Nelson wants to give soundbites that make him sound like a serious, “centrist” Senator who’s focused on deficits and jobs.
But give me a single example where his actions, not his words, actually showed that he was willing to sacrifice legislation at the altar of “moderation.” Just cause a Senator says something doesn’t mean (s)he believes it. Sure, he’ll demand some concessions so he can back up his soundbytes with some tangible votes, but it’s Harry Reid’s job to build a trophy into the bill the moderates can put on their wall. Let Ben say what he wants to say, don’t judge him till he votes on it.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Nelson is begging for a primary challenge so he can lose and get on with his new job as a health insurance lobbyist.
He’s suffering from Tauzin-Breaux envy.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:20 am
ben nelson can’t make sense: he’s too stupid a person to make sense.
i do, however, like don williams’ suggestion….-
November 6th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Remember when Brave Ben Nelson boldly supported reconciliation to pass both rounds of the Bush tax cuts and explode the national debt? He apparently doesn’t. Supposedly Nelson is rather dim so perhaps Reed can convince him that the health care legislation is actually a magic tax cut that pays for itself several times over.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Howard @6 has it nailed: Nelson is a very dim bulb and he doesn’t understand the difference between a family’s response to hard times and a national government’s response.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Nelson’s from Nebraska. Democrats from Nebraska have to say bullshit like this because it makes them sound like they’re fiscally responsible moderates. Nelson’s going to vote for cloture (both times) on health care, just as he did on the stimulus. Give him credit where credit’s due for just talking gibberish and not torpedoing anything like he could do.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:37 am
“When the economy’s not strong there’s a lot of interest in controlling spending,” Nelson said.
This is completely, 180 degrees, wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried for a week.
The economy is not strong because of insufficient demand: nobody wants to make products that nobody else can afford to buy. Nobody has much money and nobody can borrow as much as they used to — except the government. That’s why government spending is how the economy gets stronger again. If the Nazis are trying to take over Europe you can spend enormous amounts on the military and nobody will mind, but right now they’re not, so we have to spend on something else. Infrastructure, health care, and education come to mind.
Somebody please whack this man with a clue-by-four.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I’m becoming convinced a lot of people on some level associate higher deficits with higher taxes and therefore more burden on economy (even though if anything the exact opposite is the case, at least in the short term).
November 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’ll bet if the economy were doing great Nelson would think of another excuse to oppose health care reform and climate change legislation. It’s pretty obvious that the real reason he opposes these provisions is that he is happy with 42 million uninsured Americans and he either doesn’t believe the science of global warming or doesn’t care much about the consequences of it.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Nelson is begging for a primary challenge
Yes, please!
November 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am
In addition to Nelson’s economic theory wrongness, you have the following:
1. If the deficit is too big, why did Nelson insist on a bunch of large tax cuts in the stimulus package that made it bigger than it would have been otherwise?
2. If there aren’t enough jobs, why did Nelson insist on shifting a bunch of the stimulus package from actual spending on job creation to tax cuts, which don’t create jobs?
3. If the deficit is too big, why is Nelson so anti the public option in health care reform, which the CBO sez would make the deficit smaller?
But these really aren’t questions for Ben Nelson. They are questions for Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews and the other windbags who put Nelson on their shows and can’t ask him tough questions because they’re going down on him and their mouth is full.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I myself think Keynesian spending can be harmful to the economy in the longer term, as well as helpful. It all depends upon how the money is consumed vs invested.
If a community is in bad shape, throwing a drunken party only leaves everybody broke and with a headache –although the bartender may buy some stuff from the local merchants and pass the money along.
Far better to invest the spending into things which yield a return — into things which encourage business growth in the community. Support for small business entrepreneurs, marketing to outside firms,etc.
But such spending does not give the near term jolt that the politicans wants — a dilemma that came up last January.
It is still an open question whether that stimulus — much of which was laudable in income support and infrastructure improvements — is going to lift us out of this slump.
I am disappointed that Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to change the US Tax laws that encourage export of American capital to investing in China.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Is there any evidence that economic conditions will be better in 12 – 18 months? Americans, including Nebraskans, aren’t stupid. They know that we my be in for a tough five or ten years, and they are wary of new, massive government spending programs that could hike their federal taxes.
Considering that unemployment stood at 19% six years after FDR took office, it’s no wonder that Americans have little faith that increased government spending will lead to increased prosperity.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
It is, of course, two-faced and deceitful for Ben Nelson to complain about federal debt. Ole Ben voted to increase the federal debt by $2 TRILLION when he voted in favor of George W Bush’s tax cuts for the rich back in 2001.
I’m sure some Progressive groups would be happy to point that out to the voters of Nebraska, but are afraid that Rahm Emmanuel would bankrupt them by twisting the arms of the donors.
So Ben can spew bullshit in the calm conviction that he will not be challenged by the Democratic Leadership.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Is there any evidence that economic conditions will be better in 12 – 18 months?
Um, yes, quite a bit of it at this point.
Considering that unemployment stood at 19% six years after FDR took office, it’s no wonder that Americans have little faith that increased government spending will lead to increased prosperity.
Given that the Recession of 1937 was caused by misguided attempts to impose fiscal discipline prematurely, your implied claim that Americans have failed to learn the lesson of that episode would be depressing if it were true.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Here is Ben Nelson’s vote to run up $2 Trillion in Federal Debt back in 2001 (would be around $2.5 Trillion today counting inflation and interest) by the tax giveaway to the Rich:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00165
Maybe someone can ask ole Ben why he has a problem providing healthcare to the common citizens -at a cost of around $1 Trillion over 10 years — but he has NO PROBLEM with throwing $2 Trillion to the richest people in the country.
And he can’t say he did it to create JOBS. If any jobs were created by that 2001 giveaway, they were created in CHINA, not in the USA.
What’s those strangled, muffled sounds? Rahm got the Progressive bloggers locked up in the basement again?
By the way, any truth to the rumors that Jennifer has put Matthew’s manhood into the Social Security lockbox?
November 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am
If you’re addicted to heroine, you will eventually die. Unless, of course, you stop using heroine.
Unfortunately, just “quitting” heroine is extremely difficult, and it brings lots of hurt, sleeplessness, anxiety, hallucinations, depression, and a host of other painful-as-hell symptoms.
Matt seems to be saying that those painful symptoms make withdrawal too costly. It’s better to stay on the drug and die.
(In case you’re not good with metaphors, ‘heroine’ here represents easy money and bad debt [which go hand-in-hand]. The withdrawal symptoms are negative GDP numbers, high unemployment, and a bunch of other difficult, but unavoidable, bullshit.)
Unrelatedly, India bought 6 billion dollars worth of gold from the IMF on Tuesday, at a record high price-per-ounce. Does that make Pranab Mukherjee a paranoid teabagging goldbug?
November 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am
They know that we my be in for a tough five or ten years, and they are wary of new, massive government spending programs that could hike their federal taxes.
The foregoing sentence only makes sense if one accepts the premise that “all government spending = p*ssing money down a rathole,” which is simplistic to the point of stupidity.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Ben Nelson is just a straight up idiot. I don’t know why people talk to him; he’s stupider than many Republican senators. And they don’t believe in evolution!
November 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
If you’re addicted to heroine, you will eventually die. Unless, of course, you stop using heroine.
“heroine”= a woman admired and emulated for her achievements and qualities.
“heroin” = a strongly physiologically addictive narcotic C21H23NO5 that is made by acetylation of but is more potent than morphine and that is prohibited for medical use in the United States but is used illicitly for its euphoric effects.
Also, your metaphor has no necessary correlation with the US economy.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
@18 Is there any evidence that economic conditions will be better in 12 – 18 months?
Um, yes, quite a bit of it at this point.
Mind sharing with the rest of us? (Nothing to far over Econ 101 works best for me.)
November 6th, 2009 at 11:25 am
James Gary @23,
Thank you for fixing my typo. How embarrassing.
As for the accuracy of the metaphor, well…we’ll see.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am
[...] the response that we’ve seen from Congress has been fearmongering about deficits or using the unemployment rate as a nonsensical reason to kill health care reform. Neither of those [...]
November 6th, 2009 at 11:51 am
The depression era proves the value of government spending. When FDR took office in 1933, unemployment was about 22%. Over the next 4 years, with plentiful stimulus spending, it dropped to 14%. After being convinced by advisers wetting their pants over the deficits, FDR had spending cut, and unemployment shot back up to 19% in a single year. He boosted spending back again, and before the Pearl Harbor attack, unemployment dropped to around 10%. In the period from his inauguration to the Pearl Harbor attack, GDP more than doubled, averaging over 9% annual growth.
I think having 9% annual growth and cutting unemployment by more than half might be considered a good thing today.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Awesome. So I get addicted to heroin, quit, then I’m immortal!
On a marginally more serious note – when in great pain, painkillers can allow you to function. Provided you quit using them when they are not needed, they are a net plus.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
And everyone ought to remember that Nelson used to be an insurance Co. CEO. Makes you wonder what kind of CEO the jerk was.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
It is not just Nelson. From the same story that Matt links to:
“The recession has made it more difficult to move ahead,” said Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat. “The recession has turned out to be a deeper, more protracted recession than anyone predicted.”
I guess Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, and Nouriel Roubini (just to name the big 3), don’t count as “anyone.”
Please, stop the Stupidity, it hurts, it hurts.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Shlaes, seriously, if you’re going to comment here, don’t use such a godawful moniker as “Roader”
PS: Whoever you are, you’re a fucking idiot.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
This morning on the beeb I saw some French babe weeping about the potential for ruining the view near Mount Blanc if they go ahead and put windmills out in the ocean.
Non. Sorry. Moving forward, there will be windmills, and solar farms, and god knows, whatever else we need to cope with our own excesses.
Lets just get on with it, shall we, and stop dreaming of some wild frontier, where ol’ Daniel Boone could walk out in the morning and hunt bear. Big problems like this economy can be righted with big spending on alt energy- it’s a two-fer.
And it doesn’t involve killing people.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Why not simply reduce all Federal wages (that includes yours, Senator) by 20 or 30 percent across the board until the economy recovers? Nobody’s going to leave their government job for a spot in the unemployment line.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This is really dumb, but also not surprising. Is this guy really saying we should be blowing out the deficit during good economic times and balancing it during the downturns? It’s just demagoguery. Or maybe he’s that dumb. It doesn’t really matter. You already know what you’re going to get from a Nebraska Democrat. The only interesting question is whether the Dems are going to let these guys set the agenda or not.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I just called Ben Nelson’s DC office to complain about his statement. Instead of a person, I got a voicemail message saying that Ben Nelson’s voicemail was full. The guy cannot even run an office.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Oh, and I forgot the Administration already admits that Stimulus II has pretty much shot its wad
And we really don’t care because we’re busy trying to raise your electric bill with cap & trade. Ouch
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-95E_TCyqYX0CBZ5xQAV_V3VWyQD9BG9ULO0
The government’s economic stimulus spending has already had its biggest impact and probably won’t contribute to significant growth next year, a top White House adviser said Thursday.
Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the initial jolt of the $787 billion stimulus expanded the economy in the second and third quarters of this year. But she said the remaining spending will simply keep the economy from slipping.
“By mid-2010,” she said, “fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to further growth.”
That assessment underscored the fragility of an economic recovery marked by stubbornly high unemployment.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
[...] in Congress, Daily life, Democrats at 12:48 pm by LeisureGuy Steve Benen: Matt Yglesias flags this item, which is a reminder as to why conservative Democrats so often stand in the way of [...]
November 6th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
regarding heroin/heroine upstream:
I was remembering the funny Andy Kaufman bit in TAXI where the confusion was between bicycles and bisexuals.
In the heroin/heroine mix-up, I was hoping that there was no confusion because it IS addicting to keep using a heroine.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Re Jeffrey at 38: “I was hoping that there was no confusion because it IS addicting to keep using a heroine.”
————
If you’re talking about Hayden Panettiere I could see why:
http://www.starswelove.com/rss/view/imageid/43318
“Save the Cheerleader, Save the World”
November 6th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Your criticisms of the distinguished senator seem to assume that he is not a hopeless moron, and so his statements raise puzzling questions. If you simply drop that assumption then eveything falls into place, as only a hopeless moron would say things like what Ben Nelson says.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:36 am
[...] that, the reaction of some in government to demand troop increases, speak out against further stimulus spending and to want to slow down on major legislation is sickening. Let [...]
November 7th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Perhaps we could make Ben Nelson a gift to the republicans. It would be like killing two birds with one stone.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
If you want to see consumer confidence, do the right thing.
Stop letting the selfish needs of the rich and powerful get in the way of
real progressive change. That means Americans out on the streets and using
what ever public forums that are available to insist on change — regulation
that is sensible not more costly then deregulation; reasonable commitments on thepart of lawmakers and industry to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere as well as to protect the environment generally; tax laws the place a fair burden on all income groups; a desire to create democratic policies re health care, transportation, infrastructure; an immediate ceasing and desisting of our war efforts and a willingness to shift much of that expenditure to domestic needs as well as real third world needs.