Skip to main content

President Obama right and wrong

Here is the key paragraph in President Obama's WaPo Op-Ed today:

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis. [emphasis added]


Here's the problem: Swift does not equate with rushing lemming-like over a cliff. Back in October the Congress passed the first TARP bailout that then-candidate Obama supported. Problem: they passed a bill so flawed that it handed money over to banks and other financial entities with virtually no requirement to ever lend the money, and contained such dramatic opacity rules that the Federal Reserve either will not or cannot tell American taxpayers (a) who got their money or (b) what was done with it.

Here's the problem: Strong, even as the President conceives it, means strong relief and strong stimulus. Bluntly speaking, I suspect that getting out of this bill with 10-15% pork is the unavoidable overhead of any such legislation. But most analysis has suggested that as much as one-third of this bill is pork....

Here's the problem: Wise means well-considered, examined, with due diligence, etc. etc. Thus far, that due diligence has been severely lacking. Yes, I want unemployment benefits extended as immediately as possible, but instead of an absolute, that's a dynamic against which other factors have to be balanced.

It was never possible to pass this bill in the first two weeks of a new administration without doing so purely on party line votes, and--for better or worse--President Obama himself chose to sacrifice a certain amount of swiftness for greater consensus, a certain amount of boldness for fiscal prudence, and a certain amount of strength as the inevitable cost of doing business in our political process.

Want to know the worst irony? The House GOP wasn't holding out over principle. Had Nancy Pelosi given them $50-100 billion of their own pork to play with, they'd have lined right up at the trough.

President Obama is correct: for such a bill to work, it has to be done expeditiously.

In fact, to borrow a line from Brown v Board of Education of Topeka KS: it needs to be done with all deliberate speed.

But we can't afford the speed without the deliberations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...