by Leigh PomeroyIt's fascinating to me how the Republican Party, after eight years of financial and regulatory mismanagement, can come back with a straight face and criticize the current emergency measures President Obama must take to keep the country from sinking even further into the recessionary tar pit the Bush White House and Republican Congress have created.
It is even more amazing when one of their spokesmen — and I don't mean Rush Limbaugh — has by many accounts committed treason — e.g., by revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, among perhaps several other offenses.
Yes, the lengths to which Obama and Congress must go to free up capital as a means to revitalize not just the country's but the world's economy is indeed scary. No one wants to go into this much debt and no one would prefer to take such extreme measures. But what are the alternatives?
Sadly, the Republicans haven't offered any solutions except more of the same: tax cuts for the rich. Didn't such policies help lead us into this morass?
I don't know whether I'm happy or sad to say that I was one of those arguing against tax cuts and in favor of capital and infrastructure spending as a means to pull out of the economic downturn triggered by 9/11. But I'm definitely sad to say that I and others who argued the same got nowhere amidst the "cut taxes" frenzy coupled with the wasteful spending on the Iraq war.
But "I told you so" doesn't deal with today's problems.
We are indeed in the midst of a huge economic experiment, but one that has some basis in history. As has been eloquently explained by Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and many other prominent economists, one's first choice is not to borrow and spend our way out of economic stagnation. But when all other means have been exhausted, including reducing interest rates to near zero, what other alternatives are there?
If Karl Rove and Republicans of that ilk had spent their formidable skills towards bettering the country instead of attempting to create a permanent Republican Party majority, then perhaps they would not have have been so successful at destroying both.
And if they had acted accordingly — who knows? — they may have succeeded in putting both themselves and our nation in a much better position than either one is today.
Obama Gives the GOP an OpeningThe rest of the Rove article is here.
By KARL ROVE
Wall Street Journal
President Barack Obama and his West Wing lieutenants are playing on the world's largest stage, yet act as if no one is watching them when they contradict their campaign promises. That behavior is unwittingly giving the Republicans an opening.
For example, Team Obama thinks the president, having spent a good portion of the campaign decrying the $2.9 trillion in deficits during the Bush years, can now double the national debt held by the public in 10 years. Having condemned earmarks during the campaign, the Obama administration now believes it can wave through 8,500 of them in the omnibus-spending bill, part of the biggest spending increase since World War II.
Leigh, I believe you missed the point of Rove’s piece … it was right there in the title “Obama Gives the GOP an Opening”.
ReplyDeleteIf we learned anything from the GWBush years, it should be that public pronouncements of intentions are not the real story. For Bush it was a “Home Ownership Society” that produced a great soundbyte but in reality the home ownership during the Bush years ended exactly where it began. Just six years ago, an invasion began under the public intentions of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction yet underlying that was the desire of establishing a unified Iraq with a pro-US government that would ensure oil supply for domestic consumption while forming a springboard for further US pressure on Iran and Syria. The tax cuts were promoted for how it would benefit low-income families with children, would boost US GDP, employment, incomes, and federal tax collections … all of which can seriously be questioned today.
Rove’s piece is just part of the never-ending election campaign. Rove knows that 2010 is not a Presidential election year and that the battle will be in each congressional district …and they have just the ammunition they need with his discussion of earmarks. Facts are irrelevant for people like Rove who promote perception … hence the outrage over NCAA bracket pools and Leno appearances.
And to prove my point, listen to Congresswoman Bachmann attack AIG for its political influence yet fails to mention that she received contributions to her reelection campaign and on St. Patrick’s Day was honored at a luncheon ... which included a suggested contribution of $1,000 for a PAC; $500 from an Individual; $2,000 to be considered a PAC Co-Host; or $1,000 Individual Co-Host ... and the only reference on the invitation was that Bachmann was on the Financial Service's Committee.
Rove’s instincts are probably correct. I doubt that it would impact someone like Congressman Walz who voted against TARP, but will provide the fiscal conservative message needed by potentially vulnerable members like Congressman Paulsen.
For Rove, it is Politics101.