How Many Jobs Is 80 Votes Worth?
That's the question that the Obama team should be asking as they court Republican support for a stimulus package. We would all like to get beyond the partisan rancor of the last 16 years, but there are real issues at stake here. If the effort to court Republicans means switching from spending to tax cuts, which will create fewer jobs per dollar; and from tax cuts for low and middle income families to tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, which will create even fewer jobs, then President Obama will be paying a big price in jobs lost for those Republican votes.
It is understandable that President Obama would want to reach out to Republicans on the first major initiative of his presidency. But the price of this gesture should not undermine the goal of the policy. We need growth and jobs more than we need 80 votes in the Senate.
If this is what we can expect on every big issue, it's going to be a long 4 or 8 years.
But he'll always be remembered for his tepid respect from Mitch McConnell.
January 6, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm afraid of is not the 4 or 8 years, but a whole Generation who will become slaves.
Because we failed to act decisively, and squandered what little we had, all we had, and produced misery for eternity.
With no one to ransom us from the bondage.
January 6, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still believe the way out of this mess is to reduce the interest rates on homeownership.
As long as WE fear the loss of our homes; every cent we make, we’ll insure that we keep a roof over our families head..
.
We’d like to buy different furniture, but we won’t spend the money.
We’d buy a big screen TV but we won't spend the money.
We’d buy a new vehicle, but we won't spend the money.
And the reason we won't spend the money on non-essentials is; that it is more important that we have set aside a reserve, for the house payment, for the essentials. Water, Food and shelter.
Lower my cost of living, not my standard of living and I'll have disposable income.
Lower my cost of utilities and I'll have more disposable income.
Lower my cost of healthcare and I'll have more disposable income
We wouldn’t need credit, if we could afford to live without it..
Until we address lowering the cost; all other attempts to solve our problems are chasing the wind.
Ecclesiastes 2:10-11 (New International Version)
10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my work,
and this was the reward for all my labor.
11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun.
Having done all other things and finding nothing gained, but more costs in the form of deficits, and the problem still with us.
A Trillion is a lot, and we really can't afford to mess this one up.
Who will rescue us, when we find out that building roads and parks will not have lowered the cost of living?
January 7, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with you more about the mortgage issue. Unfortunately, none of our "betters" in the Democratic Party are even discussing such a beneficial move despite the fact that it a) would be profitable for the Federal government meaning it costs us all less in the long run, b) would provide the most immediate and effective ongoing stimulus they can devise, and c) the entire public would benefit. Keep beating the drum in any event. Perhaps we'll get lucky and one of the oh so smart DC Dems might actually pay some attention and start working for something that would benefit our people and our economy.
January 8, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again Baker makes the point with great precision. One wonders if the past 30 years of Democrats making this very same mistake hasn't been enough to teach them that this is a pointless, nay, a counterproductive excercise. The partisan "rancor" in Washington has come from the hopped up right wing Republicans. It certainly never came from the cowardly Democrats who have been bowing and scraping before the threats, insults and derision of the Republican swine for decades now. We have lost more precious time and progress in the past generation attempting to make this pipe dream of cooperating with our enemies a success than I care to think about. It does not work. It has never worked. Never. Plain and simple. And it isn't worth wasting any time or political capital on now.
The right wing of the Republican Party jerked and cajoled our government to the extreme right for 8 long years during this past Bush regime. If the Democratic response is to incrementally move back to the left then the best we can hope for at the end of 8 years is a right wing government. The only sensible response is to jerk the government back on course to the center where it ought to be. But the entire political discourse has been pushed so far to the right that we think William F. Buckley's conservatism is pretty appealing.
The pantywaist Democrats who seem to run the party are terrified of the right and will do anything to placate them which only confirms for the electorate that what the Republicans have said all along is true: Democrats are a bunch of pussies who play political games and try to hide what they're really for under the cover of political smoke and mirrors.
Now is the time for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to raise it's voice very loudly and object to any policy that is essentially an attempt to appease the Republican right wing. If we don't object now, it will be far too late 30, 60, or 90 days down the road when all the critical decisions have already been made and any revisions would require Republican support to amend or alter.
January 7, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
we think William F. Buckley's conservatism is pretty appealing.
Clinton made me nostalgic for Nixon! He would have cut off his hand before signing the "Gut welfare and put children on the streets Act" or the "End Habeas Review and Kill more Innocent and Poor Defendants Act".
The horror....the horror.
January 7, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
good post.
January 7, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes anyone think Obama's pandering to the Republicans rather than to his core constituency?
January 7, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama appoints Mary Schapiro, Chairman of FINRA (formerly NASD) and beloved of Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, and all the boys on Wall Street, SEC Chair(person).
Famous quote: "If you're on Wall Street and you're big, we don't fine you. I love you boys!"
January 7, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jobs aren't sacred.
Reasonable partisanship is REQUIRED for survival. Rancor is vaudeville.
Switching spending to tax cuts is going from bad to worse.
If political capital means anything, it's the Republicans who should be courting Obama, not the other way around.
January 7, 2009 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think of it this way.
The Republican Party is based in the South. The South has suffered from a case of ressentiment since at least 1746. Revenge is sweet, and the South would bite off its nose to spite its face if the result were the fall of all those Boston, New York, LA, and Frisco aristos. The South may not rise again, but it would be happy to drag everyone else down to its level.
Bottom line? The Republicans in office, now, won't suffer from opposing these arrogant plans to save the North.
January 7, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are quite right about this, Ellen... unfortunately. The only positive in it is that a party confined to the old south in its constituency is not destined to win majority control, but they can sure make life (and any progress) difficult by being obstructionist twits!
January 7, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
truly.
January 7, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, I don't see how this applies to my comment. Are you saying Obama should court the diehards from the South despite their likely intransigence? Or are you perhaps agreeing that Obama can afford to treat them like clowns?
I confess I don't get the 1746 reference - a parallel?
Shelby had plenty of motive to oppose Detroit bailout besides plain ressentiment. But I don't dispute it's existence.
January 7, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears to me that the Republicans always hold the upper hand because they always strike first, putting the Democrats on the defensive.
The idea of seeing a Republican Party being portrayed on TV every night and in newspapers every day as obstructionists to Obama's attempt to bail us out of a perceived Republican economic tsunami is just so appealing to me.
January 7, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... and from tax cuts for low and middle income families to tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, which will create even fewer jobs..."
How is this statement correct? How do tax cuts for low income workers create more jobs than tax cuts for businesses? You can argue about a lot of things but that really makes no sense?!?
January 7, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Discuss.
January 7, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Touche.
January 7, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elen,
esoteric.
January 7, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That took a few stripes off the old Sarge's sleeves. I do hope he has the mental faculties to understand the facts.
January 7, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beetle,
I wonder what Army OldSarg served in since he seems to spell Sergeant with an A.
January 7, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The money flowing through working class pockets due to tax savings and/or reduced costs of living is a more direct stimulus. Such money flows both more quickly and more locally back into the economy, moving into and through local businesses.
Unsurprisingly, increased economic activity is the lifeblood of those businesses. If they feel they can count on that economic activity, they tend to hire staff, or invest in equipment to help them run their businesses. Either way,
Jobs. Work. Opportunity.
Compare that to tax cuts to deeper pockets. Such savings tends to go where they can maximize their returns, from a selection of choices that is more diverse both geographically and structurally. So the tax savings sent to deep pocket players has a far greater chance of moving offshore or to economic segments that limits its benefit the local economy. Even in cases where such money is used to invest somewhat locally, its rate of flow toward the bulk of the population is slower as it trickles downward through the capital supply chain. So its stimulative effect is both weaker and slower.
January 7, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC,
to say that tax cuts for business creates jobs prompts the question;
does business create jobs without tax cuts?
January 7, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind the circumstances. Businesses are in trouble, making less profit or taking losses. Demand is down. Tax cut for a business taking a loss is nothing, there is no income to tax. Tax cut for a marginal business doesn't stimulate demand and because profit is low tax is already low. Tax cuts don't encourage businesses to add jobs when they are already cutting back due to decreased demand.
January 7, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tennessean Andrew Jackson finds a dogsbody, Roger B. Taney, who will do his bidding and is prepared to withdraw federal deposits from the Second Bank of the United States and appoints him Secretary of the Treasury.
Result: Bankruptcy of the Second Bank, the unleashing of a credit boom, the Panic of 1837, and the rewarding of Roger B. Taney as Fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Which results in Dred Scott and the Civil War.
Same old, same old. Mitch McConnell IS Roger B. Taney Redux.
January 7, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will it ever occur to anyone in the White House that if taxes are always reduced, but never raised, the day has to come when the government has only borrowed money to spend? That is one way to destroy our country slowly, which may be the long delayed victory of the Confederate States of America.
January 7, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love these Israel Firsters. Is there any information that they have on the Middle East that they didnt learn in Hebrew school?
Are any of them NOT Jewish (not counting Members of Congress who, as we all know, are a special category).
So you have settler-supporting Jews, Russian Jews, former Russian Jews, rightwing Israelis and people from Long Island who spent a week in Israel versus, say, the likes of Daniel Levy (the son of a British Lord, ferchrissake) who emigrated to Israel as a kid, served in the military, is an Israeli citizen and is the leading opponent of Israel's current policies.
Why?
Because.....HE"S A SELF-HATING JEW.
The only amusement I'm getting during this war is seeing the pain it is causing its supporters. They are out there alone, just like the tiny minority of TPMers who cry and weep that the rest of us are off the reservation.
In the Rasmussen poll, Republicans are all gungho for this war while Dems oppose it. The handwriting is on the wall.
If you love Ehud Barak, vote for Sara P in 2012!!!
January 7, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies. I hit the wrong key!~!~
PS Dont even get me started on Taney and Jackson. Hell, I like "W" better.
January 7, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink