Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes (an open letter to John McCain)
Dear Senator McCain:
In an interview on Sunday with CNN, you and Senator Lindsey Graham strongly criticized the President Obama for "breaking his promise" to "sit down together" with Republicans on economic recovery legislation.
I detect some disagreement, inside the Beltway and around the nation, on just what constitutes "sitting down together" or, to use today's term of art, bipartisanship. Now I may be tone deaf to nuance, and I'm sure I have a Pollyannaish view of how Democrats and Republicans might join hands to solve the many problems we face.
To help clear the air, I propose a thought experiment.
You maintain that the President is not fulfilling his commitment to seek bipartisan solutions. So I ask that, as difficult as it might be after a tough loss last November, you walk a mile in his shoes.
What would you have done differently, if you were the President with a Congressional majority? It is safe to assume that your favored approach to economic stimulus would have been tax cuts. You have said as much yourself.
Yet you often describe yourself as a maverick, open to seeking a third way.
So what would you have done, to reach across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship? What concessions would you have made to the Democratic minority? How might the negotiations have transpired? What might the final bill have looked like? What about the ratio of tax cuts to spending?
Thanks in advance, Senator, for your time. The President values your experience and may find your response instructive. So will I.
Only problem is, McCain doesn't read the internets.
February 16, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if we put the letter in a tube?
February 16, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was sweet.
February 16, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just imagine where we would be right now if McCain and his trusty sidekick Palin were in charge? The thought should be enough to make even the strongest Republican with any working brain cells quiver in fear.
And how about Lindsey "Graham" Cracker as Secretary of Defense or financial advisor to the Prez? YeeGads!
Looking at McCain and Graham on TV causes me to think these fools just really ain't got a clue.
February 16, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't help you with this one. It took therapy, but I was able to stop those vicious nightmares after Nov. 4.
We should ask Jason. Don't know if he's a strong enough Republican, but at least his brain cells are working. I suspect he is quivering still.
February 16, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Maybe somebody on his staff does. Inquiring minds really want to know.
Come to think of it, though I'm sure McSame still spends countless hours daydreaming about what might have been, I doubt he envisions himself in the Oval Office acting bipartisan.
Oh well. It was just a thought.
February 16, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, this was meant for Old Grouch.
February 16, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
One problem. McCain has forgotten how to read.
C
February 16, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then we'll have find out how he gets his talking points.
Man, you guys are a tough crowd. I was trying not to let facts get in the way of a good story.
February 16, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Blue. The mainstream media doesn't letting anyone speak long enough to answer your question.
But here's what I would have done if I was Obama. Get in a conference room with Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell. Nobody is allowed to leave til they reach a compromise on a good outline for a stimulus bill. That would be bi-partisan.
That's my suggestion. The only thing I see from other posts is useless bashing - "McSame", "can't read", "letter in a tube", etc.
Did any of you actually listen to his speech or read the transcript? There was a lot of detail in that bill. You don't need to agree with it but it's shocking that people seem to imply that he just criticizes without proposing an alternative solution. That's just not consistent with the facts.
February 16, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a courtesy to those of us who want proof of alternate solutions, please post links.
Thanks
February 16, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just go to mccain's website and read the transcript of his speech
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=3e1425fc-b94f-93ce-1660-fb71bb441eb6
February 17, 2009 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, there's a lot of detail. Very little of it suggests that he is interested in a solution that is acceptable to the majority party -- or that reflects his party's own past experience.
To noone's surprise, McCain's plan is a tax-cut plan. Reduce lowest individual tax rates. Cut corporate tax rate. Payroll tax holiday. There is no evidence that these tactics would generate significant economic activity in the short run. Or the long run, either, if the past eight years is any guide.
McCain would invest in in shovel ready infrastructure projects, but his plan would stop spending as soon as the economy begins growing. In other words, it would address none of the underlying structural imbalances that got us to this point in the first place. Productivity gains, but, low private sector investment, no net job growth and wage stagnation.
He would calls for repeal of Davis Bacon Act provisions that place wage floors under federal construction projects. I know this is anathema to Republicans, but unless you create jobs that pay decent wages, you're not creating sustainable growth.
In short, this is neither mavericky nor bipartisan. He lambastes Democrats for wasteful spending, but his alternative is (surprise) tax cuts. It's just another riff on the same old tired story.
February 17, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like name-calling and generally try to avoid it, but I'm sorry -- this is McSame.
February 17, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't sound like you would have approved of his plan no matter what he said.
I disagree with you on the tax cuts. There's plenty of evidence that tax cuts can provide short term gain. But people don't want to listen to that. You can look at the early 80s or early 2000's to see that. But people claim that the '01 and '03 tax cuts were failures because we now have high unemployment. That's like saying the indigestion I had last night is from the dinner I ate two weeks ago.
February 17, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The indigestion is from last night's dinner. The '01 and '03 tax cuts were failures because they didn't perform as advertised. Instead of stimulating business investment and job creation, all they did was reallocate wealth that was never productively deployed.
Real investment growth after the Clinton tax increases of 1993 was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001. The yearly growth rate after 1993 was 10.2 percent versus 2.8 percent between 1981 and 1992, and 2.7 between 2001 and 2008.
Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was also stronger following the tax increases of 1993. Average annual growth was 3.9 percent from 1993-2001, 3.5 percent betweem 1981 and 1992, and 2.5 percent following 2001.
Obama has said he welcomes better ideas than his and will use them. He just doesn't think re-running supply-side theory constitutes a better idea.
February 17, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you account for the job growth in 2004? What do you mean all the tax cuts did was reallocate wealth? How do you know that for sure?
Why are you picking the periods 1981-1992 and 2001-2008? Lots of things happened during those time periods.
Which period showed greater growth, the years following Clinton's tax hike in 1993 or the years following his tax cut in 1997?
February 17, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know anything for sure, just as you can't claim job growth in a single year was the result of tax cuts in the prior year. Job growth (3.0 million) during Bush 43s two terms was the second lowest of the last eight administrations; only Ford (1.8) Bush 41 (2.5) were worse.
You're right; I was inaccurate in defining the periods. I should pay more attention to what I'm doing. The growth numbers correspond to the two seven-year "supply side" periods following significant tax actions: 1981-1988 and 2001-2008, and Clinton's term following the '93 tax increase. I would argue that growth between '97 and '00 was a direct result of the Internet technology boom and would have occurred whether taxes were cut or not.
February 17, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
To your original point: job growth during Reagan's two terms trailed only Clinton's, but I didn't vote for Reagan then and I wouldn't today.
February 17, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can argue that but it's your opinion. You don't have much to stand on but you say the '01 and '03 tax cuts were failures. You can't look at the job growth over an entire administration and say because it was so weak that the tax cuts must have been failures. That doesn't make any sense.
2 million jobs were also created in 2005. This followed terrible job losses in 2002 and 2003 I think was flat.
I get tired of people spewing things like "all it did was reallocate wealth and it didn't stimulate job growth". Then when you ask someone to prove it (or even just give reasonable theory) they say well I really don't know for sure. You sounded sure when you said the tax cuts were failures.
Somehow people say the tax cuts were failures because the administration had a poor 8 year job growth record.
Again - I go back to my analogy of blaming the dinner I had two weeks ago for last night's indigestion - it's a stretch.
February 17, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, but I can't how lack of conclusive evidence that they failed constitutes an effective argument for their use.
Citing both liberal and conservative economists, Daniel Gross of Slate recently argued that the tax system is already so flat that further reductions are unlikely to make much difference.
February 17, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Slate is one opinion. If I quoted something from the WSJ or IBD I'm sure you'd discredit my sources.
You can always say things like the late '90s growth was due to the Internet instead of the tax cuts. You can say that the 2004-2006 job growth would have happened naturally because of the business cycle. And you could say that the increase in tax receipts as a % of GDP in 2004-2006 was also just a coincidence. But then you start having a lot of coincidences as to what drove that expansion.
February 18, 2009 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. I'm getting in over my head. There are people who devote their lives to tax policy analysis and I ain't one of them.
One discussion worth having is whether Republican tax policy has any real intended economic impact, or whether its ultimate objective is to shrink receipts and ultimately starve entitlement programs. But that's one for another day.
Thanks, Bill. Always a pleasure.
February 18, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a republican versus democrat argument. But when people start talking about tax cuts and spending increases all of a sudden it becomes a partisan issue.
Since you raised the topic, tax cuts are supposed to create the overall size of the pie. There have been times when tax cuts actually increased the absolute dollar amount of tax revenues collected by the government. But again, I don't think this is a R vs. D issue, it's just economics.
February 18, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
He and Lindsey are just same o same o. Those two boys could have taken the bull by the horns.
They are mad because they were out maneuvered. Nobody asks Linsey how bipartisan he was during the impeachment of a moderate Dem.
Meanie, I do not think that 95% of repubs are capable of empathy, capable of putting themselves into somebody else's shoes.
February 16, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on you. Walking a mile in anyone's shoes is one of the many things that straight-talking war hero John McCain cannot do as a result of being tortured for his country. (But don't ask him about his heroism, because he hates talking about it.)
February 17, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink