January 09, 2009

1/9: Selling The Stimulus

Liberal bloggers gave positive reviews to Barack Obama's economic speech. They were particularly impressed by his rhetoric about the need for swift government action to address the economic crisis, which they're describing as "an inescapably liberal message". Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, were not convinced by Obama's argument. They're calling his proposed stimulus bill "the Obama Generational Theft Act of 2009" and are urging congressional GOPers to oppose it.

OBAMA: Making Government Cool Again?

Liberal bloggers gave positive reviews to Obama's economic speech:

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "[Obama's] speech sounds an unabashedly liberal note in its insistence on the role of government in coordinating programs to lift the country out of the economic crisis, and in the call to recognize the 'promise and paradox' of this historical moment. Echoes of FDR can be heard in some of its passages. [...] After a couple of decades of hearing government bashed at every turn as evil incarnate, it's more than refreshing to hear an unapologetic argument made that a vigorous and active role for government is not only a legitimate option, but absolutely necessary for recovery."
• dday: "I watched Obama's speech on the economy this morning, and I thought he laid out the scope of the problem and the consequences of inaction pretty well. He also cited the source of the crisis -- 'profound irresponsibility' and the final judgment on failed laissez-faire policies. And he's signaled that he's perfectly willing to let the package's total grow as it makes its way through Congress."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[Ronald] Reagan told us that government 'is the problem.' [Bill] Clinton told us the 'era of big government is over.' And Obama wants America to know that government is the 'only' institution that's capable of addressing an economic crisis of this severity. For all of the talk in recent weeks about the president-elect's ideology and partisan fealty, this speech was a reminder of the importance of government activism in a time of overwhelming challenges. And that, at its core, is an inescapably liberal message."

The New Republic's John Judis worries that Obama's proposals don't go far enough: "Does Barack Obama understand the seriousness of the economic crisis? Yesterday, he laid out his economic agenda, and it was filled with all sorts of important exhortations and proscriptions. He appropriately condemned the 'anything goes' policies of the last administration. He declared that government is now the solution to our woes, not the problem. Still, I worry that the president elect is underestimating the problem he and the country faces. [...] Over the past six decades, policymakers have used some tactics from the Great Depression to quell recessions -- such as spending on roads and bridges to create jobs, transferring payments to raise consumer demand, and infusing money into the credit system. But these stopgap measures, which are at the heart of Obama's recovery program, may prove inadequate."

OBAMA II: The Rightroots Revolt

Conservative bloggers are urging GOPers in Congress to oppose Obama's economic stimulus bill:

• RedState's Directors: "There seems to be a lot of happy talk surrounding Barack Obama's recent trip to Capitol Hill, and his attempt to sell his stimulus bill to Republicans by adding a few 'tax cuts.' But bipartisan bonhomie notwithstanding, there's no more reason to embrace Barack Obama's stimulus plan today than there was a week ago. It is still a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars, will do nothing to help the economy, and will blow an even bigger hole in a deficit that has risen from $162 billion to $1.2 trillion annually since Democrats took control of Congress. What Obama is selling and what he's offering are two different things. While the economy needs a genuine stimulus, Obama is offering to 'spread the wealth.' [...] If the Democrats will not make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, the GOP should not even hint at supporting the Democrats' plan."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[I]t's his own pessimism that explains why [Obama]'s been so conciliatory towards the Blue Dogs and the GOP: It's not about 'changing the tone,' it's about knowing that the ship's going down and wanting Republicans on deck with him so that they don't capitalize in the midterms. For reasons that escape me, the GOP's evidently going to play along even though they're powerless to stop the stimulus anyway. Maybe [Senate Min. Leader Mitch] McConnell realized that opposing it is now semi-officially unpatriotic."
• Michelle Malkin: "I need to wear a safety helmet to cover the Republican incompetents trying to muster up a response to the Obama Generational Theft Act of 2009. Mitch McConnell, if you are not going to be able to stop this disaster, please just shut up."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson unloads on McConnell in a post entitled, "Mitch McConnell Lost His Testicles and Now Infects the Senate GOP With a Cancer": "The idea that Mitch McConnell is protecting us from the Democrats is bullcrap. We should collectively rip off his jaw and shovel the crap back down his throat that he's been serving us. [...] Mitch McConnell is privately screwing us just like Obama is doing to the left, but because he makes [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid cry on queue, people love him. It's almost like Reid and [IL Sen. Dick] Durbin know it and are happy to cry on cue if it means conservatives stay rallied to McConnell."

OBAMA III: Facing Pressure From The Left

Although liberal bloggers want Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill as quickly as possible, they don't mind that Dem Sens Tom Harkin (D-IA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and John Kerry (D-MA) are voicing concerns about Obama's proposal:

• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I think this is a good thing. This is healthy. They are debating actual ideas, and there are disagreements, and hopefully they will work them out and come to a healthy endpoint. [...] At any rate, I don't think of this as the Democratic circular firing squad. When I think of that, I think of the kind of idiocy we have experienced the last few weeks, when DiFi gets butthurt about [Leon] Panetta because her ring was not kissed enough and says things that she will have to walk back from in the future."
• Benen: "It's important for policy makers to act as quickly and effectively as possible, but there's nothing wrong with a collaborative process in which an administration and leading lawmakers engage in some back-and-forth. If senators hoped to alter the Obama rescue plan out of pettiness or spite, with some ideological axe to grind, or out of a desire to protect their personal, parochial concerns, this might start to look like a circular firing squad. But as far as I can tell, yesterday's concerns were not only sincere, they were also legitimate. It's called 'governing.'"
• digby: "[T]his actually may be good news. It seems very unlikely to me that Kerry is acting out of school, but is rather playing the role of the liberal stimulus spending obsessive who will (hopefully) balance out the tax cut fetishists in the senate negotiations, giving Obama some space to compromise at least somewhere to the left of The Club For Growth. [...] It's all just a guess, of course, but I simply don't believe that Kerry and Conrad are out there running at Obama from the left on their own. They just don't have it in them. They are staking out this position for negotiating purposes on his behalf. Obviously, we don't know how far any of them will go to fight for it, but at least the liberal economic argument looks like it will be made."

Open Left's Chris Bowers is upset about reports that the Obama team is ignoring the concerns being expressed by Harkin, Conrad, and Kerry: "Tom Harkin doesn't feel as though widespread Democrats concerns over business tax cuts in the stimulus package are even being addressed in meetings with the Obama economic team. This worrying suggests that progressives aren't even invited to the conservation over the stimulus [...] And here is the kicker: it is highly likely that while progressives are being snubbed, the business tax cuts were added to the stimulus in order to attract unnecessary, and entirely symbolic, support from a significant number Republicans. Symbolic bipartisanship for the sake of symbolic bipartisanship is valued more than even listening to progressives. [...] If Harkin, Conrad and Kerry are the people expressing progressive concerns over the business cuts in the stimulus package, then it is probably time that we get their backs."

Like digby, conservative blogger Pejman Yousefzadeh suspects that this is just a negotiating ploy: "I don't mean to get unnecessarily conspiratorial, but I find it more than a little interesting that Barack Obama's stimulus package is getting fire from Democrats for not being sufficiently New Dealish. [...W]hat if all of this outrage is just a clever trap, a feint that is meant to make the Obama stimulus package seem moderate in comparison to the wishlist of Capitol Hill Democrats? I have no proof that this is the plan but it seems a reasonable possibility and it wouldn't be the first time such a feint was carried out. In my view, Republicans would be best off if they assumed that this was indeed the plan and reacted accordingly by ensuring that the stimulus plan is defined on Republican terms, and not on Obama vs. Capitol Hill Democrat terms."

OBAMA IV: Negotiating With Terrorists?

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama after the Guardian reported that his incoming admin. "is prepared to abandon George Bush's doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation":

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Why not go ahead and have Obama directly chat up Hamas? He did promise unconditional negotiations with the world's bad actors, didn't he? In any case, Hamas is a terrorist group, not significantly different than Al-Qaeda. So, what exactly is there to talk about with them? Maybe Obama can negotiate how many Jews they're allowed to murder before we have to start cutting back on their aid."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "Only a genuine dunce would endorse an outreach to Hamas, at any level. If there is any truth to the Guardian report, those dunces should be escorted from the transition offices and sent back to their university and think tank posts asap."
• NRO's James S. Robbins: "Whether one agrees with the notion of the U.S. opening a direct diplomatic channel to Hamas or not, talking about it right now is very poor timing. If nothing else it makes it appear that Hamas is being rewarded for its behavior in the past month. [...] What are these Obama leakers thinking? Amateur hour continues, as John Roche used to say."

DEAN: Where's The Respect?

Several liberals are upset that Obama reportedly snubbed outgoing DNC Chair Howard Dean by not inviting him to yesterday's press conference announcing VA Gov. Tim Kaine's appointment as the next DNC Chair:

• Bowers: "Howard Dean, an important figure for the progressive grassroots, appears to have been intentionally snubbed at Tim Kaine's press event."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "There is a real problem when [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman is treated better than Howard Dean."
• Benen: "Someone's going to have to explain to me why Howard Dean isn't treated better. [...] Look, Dean has earned some genuine respect. He was a successful five-term governor, the chairman of the National Governors Association, and a ground-breaking presidential candidate. He then became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, faced massive institutional resistance, but instituted a wildly-successful national strategy, which helped bring the party to its strongest position in decades. Even his critics, even some Republicans, are giving him his due. With that in mind, if you're going to have an event to introduce a new DNC chair, the least you can do is have Dean around and sing his praises."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz doesn't believe that Obama deliberately snubbed Dean: "Dean's absence at the press conference has been taken by some as an intentional snub -- dare I say, a slap in the face -- as people close to him say he would have been there had he been asked. I find the snub angle a little hard to believe, since Obama hasn't even snubbed his former enemies, much less an uncomfortable ally, and spent a good deal of the press conference lauding Dean and his ideas."

MyDD's Jerome Amstrong thinks the snub was committed by Obama's staff members, not by Obama himself: "I doubt that Obama himself knew that Howard Dean was not invited to attend the introduction of incoming DNC Chair Tim Kaine. Obama shows up, someone else does the scheduling. But between Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel, there is enough hostility toward Dean for that person to get the cue for this type of childish act. And yes, the blow-off was intentional."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dear Class Of 2009: Go To Graduate School!

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"I got an email yesterday from a reader concerned about the impact of the recession on people who graduated from college in 2008, and possibly in 2009 as well. He was mostly interested in the short-term effects, but it's in some ways the long run effects that are more interesting. The short-term effects are bad -- few places are hiring anyone and you're competing in the job market with older, better-qualified, recently-laid-off people. But the long-run effects are surprisingly bad. [...] Research from Paul Oyer and Philip Oreopoulos, Till Von Wachter & Andrew Heisz suggests that the negative impact on earnings of first entering the labor force amidst a recession lasts anywhere from ten years to forever. And that's research based on relatively mild recessions. [...]

So for my part, I think members of the class of 2009 ought to be looking seriously at applying to graduate programs. But even here there's trouble. When I was a colllege freshman in 1999-2000, there were nutty dot-com firms handing out huge salaries to people for no reason. Consequently, it [was] relatively easy to get into a prestigious law school's class of 2003 and guarantee yourself a nice salary when you finished. But by my junior year, those kind of offers had vanished so more people wanted to apply to law school. And those applicants were competing with various 23, 24, and 25 year-olds who'd had a year or three of experience working in the bubble sector, so a lot of members of the class of 2002 wound up getting into less prestigious schools than comparable candidates scored in 2000. And, again, that kind of thing can have a life-long impact on your earnings.

Long story short, life is cruel and unfair, which is one of many reasons why we need economic and social justice and why talk about the infinite justice of market outcomes shouldn't be taken too seriously."

LEST WE FORGET: People In Commercial Having More Fun With Camera Than Humanly Possible

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- According to sources, the people in a commercial for the Canon PowerShot S1100 IS digital camera have expressed a degree of pleasure that far exceeds the enjoyment that any known consumer electronic device could possibly provide. 'Despite what we're seeing in this commercial, no existing camera is capable of producing the increased release of serotonin and dopamine that these people appear to be experiencing,' said Dr. Otto Hauser, a brain and cognitive sciences professor at New York University. 'Features such as red-eye reduction and night display would perhaps trigger a very brief elevation of mood, but...oh, come on! They just high-fived, for Christ's sake.' At press time, Hauser said the level of fun that the camera is providing has outstripped what would be even remotely attainable with a Jet Ski–brand watercraft and a 12-pack of Samuel Adams premium ale."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 9, 2009 12:51 PM