Left In Lowell

On Bipartisanship.

12 Responses to “On Bipartisanship.”

1. Josh Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

   Oh my God, can you believe those Republicans?? Refusing to roll over and allow the Dems to push through almost a trillion dollars worth of pork projects… dissent is now un-patriotic!

   On a similar note, $5 if you can tell me what rightwing reactionary said this:

   “Organized public works, at home and abroad, may be the right cure for a chronic tendency to a deficiency of effective demand. But they are not capable of sufficiently rapid organisation (and above all cannot be reversed or undone at a later date), to be the most serviceable instrument for the prevention of the trade cycle.”

2. Christopher Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

   I don’t know whom you quoted above, but I suspect you’re going to tell us that it was actually someone we would identify as a liberal.

3. ems Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

   I’ll take $5 in fiscal stimulus. The answer is John Maynard Keynes. Krugman elucidated a strong response to the “time lag” argument already in his blog today. Summary is: even if the recession ends according to economic measures, joblessness will continue to be a problem so stimulating demand will have longer-term value.

   I take it this Keynes quote is making the rounds in conservative circles.

   Funny thing is, the quote from Keynes says investment in public works is the right cure for demand (the source of the liquidity trap driving the current downturn) but not for trade imbalances (which isn’t something we are really concerned with right now). So, I don’t get the point.

4. Lynne Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

   Hey Josh: You lost.

5. Lynne Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

   Oh, and since when does “reaching across the aisle” mean “hey you can have everything YOU want even though you are on the losing side, Republicans! No, that’s OK, we weren’t actually elected with a mandate…”

   NOW you want to be bipartisan??? Excuse me while I guffaw…

6. Josh Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

   ems: I owe you $5. But Keynes was indeed refering to what we call the business cycle. He was writing back in 1942 though when it was commonly refered to as the trade cycle. I should have clarified that.

   I’m not for bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship and and I’m obviously not anti-Keynes for the sake of being anti-Keynes. Let’s assume for a minute that this is indeed a demand-side problem. As Keynes correctly points out, public projects may not be the proper avenue for fixing the problem.

   The 2nd paragraph from the (Democratically controlled) Congressional Budget Office gives us some really telling information about the current “stimulus” bill:

   “Assuming enactment in mid-February, CBO estimates that the bill would increase outlay by $93 billion during the remaining several months of fiscal year 2009, by $225 billion in fiscal year 2010 (which begins on October 1), by $159 billion in 2011, and by a total of$ 604 billion over the 2009-2019 period. That spending includes outlays from discretionary appropriations in Division A of the bill and direct spending resulting from Division B.”

   Let’s also assume that Obama is right and we need swift action, so the Republicans roll over and end all opposition to the bill. It’s then passed in next couple weeks. Only a small chunk will be spent in the next year. Appearently its going to take them TEN years to spend it all.

   And I’m not really convinced by Krugman’s argument either. When dealing with employment problems, supply side solutions (tax cuts to spur investment and job creation) would still be better for their immediate effects.

   Of course you won’t hear a lot of that kind of debate in public because politics isn’t ever about discussion and compromise. Lynne, remember how you felt when you were watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore was asking if any politicians actually read the Patriot Act? I doubt you do because the same thing is happening with this stimulus bill and you’re leading ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees.

   Funny how “change” looks an awful lot like the status quo.

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

   Krugman has noted that the levers of fiscal policy would be more preferable thing to turn to for this kind of a thing, but as he explains to panelists below, that option is effectively off the table.

8. ems Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

   Keep the $5 Josh. We’ll consider it an investment in America’s recovery. Just make sure you spend it at a fine local establishment rather than pay down debt!

   Now, I apologize in advance for my long-winded comment on bipartisanship. I just find this stuff fascinating.

   I perceive two primary reasons to forget the past and at least make a good faith attempt at bipartisanship: one is based in a political argument and the other is based on policy efficacy.

   Political rationale for bipartisanship: The Republicans only chance to make gains in the 2010 mid term elections hinges on winning the argument over economic recovery plans. The more stark the differences between the two Party’s approaches the better for them. Therefore Republicans have no political incentive to back-down on anything. Additionally, achieving cloture in the Senate will require some Republican support, which, without a bipartisan bill emerging from the House, will require the allowance of earmarks and sweeteners to draw over GOP Senators - something Obama is trying to avoid in the package. If the firewall against Senate earmarks breaks because of a party-line House bill then the President will have to show weakness on the centerpiece proposal of his first 100 days. It is also central to the aura of the candidate’s (President’s) personality. Changing the way Washington works implies a break from the way Bush and Repubs did business when they had a unified majority. It is part of the reason he won over voters that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. This cannot and should not be forgotten for expediency’s sake - or to get payback.

   Policy rationale for bipartisanship: Success of the recovery requires buy-in from political stakeholders. House members are the closest federal representatives to their constituents. In some ways, they will be implementing agents of federal recovery efforts in their communities. The President wants and needs an appearance of unity in approach to economic recovery because it benefits the nation. Additionally, attempting to ram-through a partisan bill in the Senate may ultimately slow the process down, delaying needed stimulus, as deals are cut to get to 60 votes and avoid a filibuster. Right now the Dems only have 56-58 sure votes for cloture.

   The President can probably win along straight party-lines. After all, this issue at this time represents the biggest and best mandate he’s ever going to have. But, he doesn’t and shouldn’t want to do it that way if possible. That’s precisely why the President is on the Hill today making the rounds with Ray LaHood (a fmr GOP House Rep and current Transpo Sec). None of this should be viewed as a betrayal by those of us on the left. It’s just smart politics.

   And yes, when you have a strong, unified majority bipartisanship is a one-way street. Republicans have no reason to accommodate. But, it’s not about their needs - it’s about ours. One might get the feeling Repubs are going to get their stuff included and then vote against it in the House to achieve both their policy and political objectives. Republicans are still smart!

9. Ryan Says:
   January 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

   I [heart] Paul Krugman.

   Also, why do we keep propagating Mrs. HP? She almost ran that company into the ground and has been repeatedly wrong about, well, pretty much anything that matters. Still, in this day and age, we balance 1 liberal (who’s a freaking nobel prize winner) with a table of people who have been wrong and are mostly conservatives or buy conservative spin. We haven’t done infrastructure stimulus in decades… and they speak as if that’s all we try to do, our ‘only tool.’ What dweebs. Throw those bums off tv, give me the full 5 minutes with Krugman. LOL.

10. waittilnextyr Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    “Only a small chunk will be spent in the next year. Appearently its going to take them TEN years to spend it all.”

    So we get 10 years of jobs from it, not to shabby.

    Pork aside, the Republicans are wrong on this one. It is the Bush tax cut preference for the wealthy that contributes to his failed economy by adding to the already disparate income of the consumers. We don’t need round two of that to prove it is the wrong approach. And the 2008 tax rebates were effectively transferred to the mid-East through the Oil companies, or China through Walmart. We don’t need that either.

11. Josh Says:
    January 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    Ryan: I was waiting for someone to mention Krugman’s Nobel Prize.

    That’s why I was glad to see this today:
    http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

    Because it’s signed by three Nobel Laureates (would have been four if Friedman was with us today).

12. Bob Forrant Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    If all of the economists and pretend-economists knew what they were talking about and doing we would not be in the mess we are in today. So why now, someone please tell me, do we search out these same people and the collection of idiots thta sit in Washington to fix the mess. Congress, with a handful of exceptions is exactly the same as it was in 2008 - and one guy -sorry - can not fix the pile of smoldering horse bleep that is stinking up the room. Wall St gives itself $20B in blood money bonuses with the bail-out dollars to slap everyone upside the head one more time. And why, on why are we trying to find solutions to an economic collapse that is unprecedented with models from, in a technology sense and global economy sense, the ’stone age’. To top it all off, in a great disappointment at least to me, the new president has put economists around him who in reality helped to cause the housing bubble/foreclosure mess with deregulation of a lot of the financial markets under the love doctor, Bill Clinton. Rubinomics is as much to blame here as anything George Bush forgot to do! Sure would have been nice to see a handful of people take positions in DC that did not drink the samne kool-aid at Harvard and Yale!

Leave a Reply