Reading Paul Krugman’s column from this week makes me wonder if we would have been better off with a Republican in the White House trying to fend off the Great Recession. I say this not because I think the party’s platform is better. Instead, I think what they implemented might have been better. Here is why.
Under a Democratic president, especially with the current opposition party, anything the President tries will be opposed because they don’t want him to be successful. So no matter how moderate - or even right-of-center - the policy is, it is and was opposed.
Now consider a Republican, like Reagan or even McCain (maybe even Romney). They would do whatever is in their power to end the recession so they could stay in office. This would mean not pursuing austerity yet. It would probably also mean stimulating tax cuts, which Republicans have mostly refused this time around.
The point I am making is that Republicans are opposing anything Obama calls for with the hope of keeping him a one-term president. They would however enact some of these same policies if they were in power.
The question is whether Democrats would be as obstructive as Republicans were. I doubt it; I can't see Democrats preventing a stimulus - even tax cuts only - if it would help with unemployment. Also, Bush was successful at passing a stimulus with a Democratic Congress.
Of course, I don’t think the answer is to let Republicans lead just because they are unwilling to support good policies if it comes from a Democrat. But it is a sign of the ugliness of the party and how it affects the country - especially the unemployed.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Economy: Sustainable Growth?
Just a quick update on the economy. The jobs report on Friday was pretty good. However, there is apparently some concern over the disconnect between the jobs numbers and the GDP numbers:
Fed officials have been surprised unemployment has fallen to 8.3% from above 9% in just a few months despite very modest economic growth. Usually it takes much faster growth to move the jobless rate so much. That could mean the unemployment declines aren't sustainable, or it could mean the economy has more underlying strength than recent data indicate.Some of the economists I follow think this might mean that the era of jobless recoveries is over. I hope so. But I am worried about whether the growth is sustainable. Just want to put that out there.
Just Sad
The whole Rush Limbaugh situation has made me really angry. But it goes beyond how disgusting and offensive his comments over three days were. What gets me is how clearly politics is really team sports and point scoring. What gets me is the continued realization that there isn't much objectivity and reason out there.
I don't see any way of justifying how disgusting Limbaugh's remarks were. But the right won't fully acknowledge that because he is on their team. Instead they downplay his remarks (The NY Post called it a gaffe instead of the repeated and deliberate attack that it was) or even attack the media for showing appropriate appall (as Newt Gingrich did) or accept his untruthful apology (as Newt Gingrich did) or say it doesn't matter since he is an entertainer (as Santorum did). Mitt Romney apparently ducked reporters initially - which makes sense since it would have required him to show some spine one way or the other. Sarah Palin called the media hypocrites - this is the person by the way who said it was appropriate for Gingrich to call liberals "retards" but not appropriate for Rham Emmanuel to do so.
The few decent responses came from George Will and David Frum.
What I wish we could agree on is a set of standards of decency and stick to it no matter what. Why can't we all be appalled at the gross mysogeny of calling someone a slut, whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher? And why if some Democrats aren't sufficiently appalled at Maher does that mean Republicans are free to be as despicable and not be appalled at Limbaugh? Won't someone take the high road and be consistent?
Of course, I can't talk about Limbaugh without also talking about Andrew Breibart's passing. I don't think the two things are the same. But we can in this situation as well seek common standards of decency.
We should not celebrate anyone's death, even if that person in life didn't respect that standard. But there is some gray area here. I don't think that means we have to say only nice things. We can and should reflect on the person's life and the impact it had. Because of grieving family, we should air on the side of respectful, but not avoid all of the negative.
To be honest though, setting standards isn't so hard. I think we would all agree what they are if we thought about it with no context. The problem is living up to the standards and doing so objectively. After witnessing the last couple weeks, I don't think we'll ever get there.
I don't see any way of justifying how disgusting Limbaugh's remarks were. But the right won't fully acknowledge that because he is on their team. Instead they downplay his remarks (The NY Post called it a gaffe instead of the repeated and deliberate attack that it was) or even attack the media for showing appropriate appall (as Newt Gingrich did) or accept his untruthful apology (as Newt Gingrich did) or say it doesn't matter since he is an entertainer (as Santorum did). Mitt Romney apparently ducked reporters initially - which makes sense since it would have required him to show some spine one way or the other. Sarah Palin called the media hypocrites - this is the person by the way who said it was appropriate for Gingrich to call liberals "retards" but not appropriate for Rham Emmanuel to do so.
The few decent responses came from George Will and David Frum.
What I wish we could agree on is a set of standards of decency and stick to it no matter what. Why can't we all be appalled at the gross mysogeny of calling someone a slut, whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher? And why if some Democrats aren't sufficiently appalled at Maher does that mean Republicans are free to be as despicable and not be appalled at Limbaugh? Won't someone take the high road and be consistent?
Of course, I can't talk about Limbaugh without also talking about Andrew Breibart's passing. I don't think the two things are the same. But we can in this situation as well seek common standards of decency.
We should not celebrate anyone's death, even if that person in life didn't respect that standard. But there is some gray area here. I don't think that means we have to say only nice things. We can and should reflect on the person's life and the impact it had. Because of grieving family, we should air on the side of respectful, but not avoid all of the negative.
To be honest though, setting standards isn't so hard. I think we would all agree what they are if we thought about it with no context. The problem is living up to the standards and doing so objectively. After witnessing the last couple weeks, I don't think we'll ever get there.
Rethinking Bush
I never thought I would say this, but I now think President George W. Bush was kind of moderate - at least as compared to the current Republican party. I really thought that his party might see him as a failure, but I didn't think they would see him as not conservative enough.
If you listen to the debates though, his big policies are liabilities for current GOP candidates. Rick Santorum had to awkwardly distance himself from No Child Left Behind. No candidate will touch Bush's immigration policies. And it seems that Medicare Part D is unpopular among some of the candidates (depending on whether they are trying to be consistent or would rather pander to seniors).
To be clear, Bush and Rove were trying to craft a permanent majority by going to the middle on these key issues: education, senior's health care, and immigration. The current Republican Party instead seems uninterested in building a majority and would rather focus on ideological purity. (Hopefully this means they won't get a majority.)
It scares me to say that I actually long for the days of Bush's perhaps somewhat disingenuous "Compassionate Conservatism" if only because the current GOP is so far from compassionate. They fight for tax cuts for the rich and cuts to programs for the poor. They are opposed to spending on sensible programs that are good for long term economic growth, like education and infrastructure - the former of which is also compassionate and would help people escape poverty.
On foreign policy, I thought Bush's embrace of the neo-conservatives was as far right as anyone could go. And yet some of the candidates are determined to go farther. They are calling for putting troops back into Iraq (after Obama followed Bush's withdrawal timeline). And their talk of war with Iran seems even worse than Bush would have allowed. But worse than all of that, they are moving away from Bush's support of freedom and deciding that some countries are too Muslim for freedom.
So yes, I am admitting that I wish the GOP were more like the way Bush envisioned it. I hate even saying that. But that is how far the GOP has moved - it makes me long for President Bush. In fact, if Jeb Bush were to become the candidate through a brokered convention, I would breathe a huge sigh of relief.
If you listen to the debates though, his big policies are liabilities for current GOP candidates. Rick Santorum had to awkwardly distance himself from No Child Left Behind. No candidate will touch Bush's immigration policies. And it seems that Medicare Part D is unpopular among some of the candidates (depending on whether they are trying to be consistent or would rather pander to seniors).
To be clear, Bush and Rove were trying to craft a permanent majority by going to the middle on these key issues: education, senior's health care, and immigration. The current Republican Party instead seems uninterested in building a majority and would rather focus on ideological purity. (Hopefully this means they won't get a majority.)
It scares me to say that I actually long for the days of Bush's perhaps somewhat disingenuous "Compassionate Conservatism" if only because the current GOP is so far from compassionate. They fight for tax cuts for the rich and cuts to programs for the poor. They are opposed to spending on sensible programs that are good for long term economic growth, like education and infrastructure - the former of which is also compassionate and would help people escape poverty.
On foreign policy, I thought Bush's embrace of the neo-conservatives was as far right as anyone could go. And yet some of the candidates are determined to go farther. They are calling for putting troops back into Iraq (after Obama followed Bush's withdrawal timeline). And their talk of war with Iran seems even worse than Bush would have allowed. But worse than all of that, they are moving away from Bush's support of freedom and deciding that some countries are too Muslim for freedom.
So yes, I am admitting that I wish the GOP were more like the way Bush envisioned it. I hate even saying that. But that is how far the GOP has moved - it makes me long for President Bush. In fact, if Jeb Bush were to become the candidate through a brokered convention, I would breathe a huge sigh of relief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)