You would think...

You would think that the Washington Post would be a good source for an evenhanded treatment of the economic policies of the incoming House majority.

You'd be wrong.

Steve Pearlstein, who's been writing such gems as full throated defenses of Fannie Mae for as long as I can remember, sums up the incoming House majority's skepticism of current economic policy, to wit:

-quantitative easing
-retaining the Bush tax cuts for households making over $250,000
-unlimited unemployment benefits

as follows:

"GOP to jobless: Drop Dead"

To be fair to Pearlstein, this is from the headline, not the column, and headlines are generally written by editors - not the person who wrote the article or column, so I'll reserve the possibility he (a) didn't write it and (b) chewed out the person who did.

The fact is, there are serious policy arguments on these issues on both sides (see, for example, a critique of the fed's quantitative easing by some of the nation's leading economists).  Pearlstein himself claims to have concerns.  Why he can voice them but others can't isn't clear.  I think there's a distinctly unparliamentary name for criticizing others for something you do yourself, but let's not go there.  The name calling obscures these honest policy differences, and reduces our chances of finding the middle ground that Pearlstein and his ilk claim to seek.

Instead, Pearlstein goes on about William Jennings Bryant, and only cites economic authorities that fit the Post's preconceived preferences for big government.  If the big government policies are the right ones (and I have defended some, e.g. TARP) they certainly need better defenders.

McConnell and Earmarks

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that despite his longstanding support for earmarks as a member of the Senate appropriations committee, he was going to support a ban on earmarks.

I've written about my views on earmarks before.  In short, I view them as a bad practice in that their existence (a) politcizes spending and (b) incentivizes more of it than would otherwise occur.

Critics note that "earmarks account for just three-10ths of 1 percent of federal spending."  Yet, they're the tail that wags the dog.  If members aren't guaranteed their share of ribbon cuttings and publicity, the allure of running up big bills their constituents ultimate pay becomes much diminished.

Here are my questions for Senator McConnell:

(1) Why the late conversion given your past support?
(2) Given that Republicans are in the minority, the Senate's practice will likely still embrace earmarks regardless.  Are you pledging that Republicans (and yourself) will abstain from earmarks even as they see their Democratic colleagues engaging in it?
(3) House Democrats were down on "earmarks" before the 2006 election that brought them to power, yet once given the majority embraced "legislatively directed spending" (i.e. earmarks).  What pledge can you give that Republicans will retain their opposition to earmarks when it really counts (i.e., when they are in the majority)?

How to Restore the American Dream

How to Restore the American Dream is one of the better pieces I've read recently on how the world really works and what it will take to get back on our feet.

"No Final Victories"

E.J. Dionne is a columnist I do not, shall we say, consider essential reading.  Today's column on tomorrow's election offers an opportunity for explaining why (to be clear, I don't believe he or anyone else I'm referring to in this post is an "idiot" - I just thought the picture was funny).

Dionne mostly relates a dinner conversation he had with a Democratic Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy, who relates how Democrats had thought that after the election of 2006, where they took control of Congress and 2008, where they captured the White House and got 60 votes in the Senate needed to prevent a fililbuster, they were some sort of "permanent majority" and that the Republicans would be in the wilderness for an extended period if not forever.

Such an attitude was on display at such entities as The New Republic:

What conservatives have yet to do is confront the large but inescapable truth that movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead.

The New York Times, no longer the "gray lady" or even, in fact, a shadow of its former self rejoiced after the 2008 election that conservatism was not only defeated, but even discredited.

I haven't been in Washington as long as Dionne, Sam Tenenhaus or the New York Times, but one thing I've learned is that there is no such thing as permanent victory in a democracy.  Republicans who spent and waged war more like progressive Democrats learned that.  Now Democrats are learning this all over again, as if losing control of Congress in 1994 wasn't enough.  Is 14 years really long enough time to forget what you've learned?

Apparently.

What Do You Call This Again?

The latest idea from Congressional Democrats is to make a one time payment to Social Security recipients.

Politically, this makes a lot of sense.  Seniors vote, and who wouldn't want a "bonus" these days?  Put your Republican opponent in the position of having to oppose it.

They're promising to push this once Congress returns after the election in a "lame duck session" (i.e. one that takes place between the election and the seating of new members and removal of old ones not re-elected).

The rationale is that Social Security recipients have not received an increase in their payments for cost of living this year. 

Why?

Because, according to the government statistics, the cost of living didn't actually rise.

Supporters argue that this is "stimulus" and that seniors are struggling, and have to deal with depleted savings. No word on why taking money from a working family of four and handing it to someone to augment their depleted savings will have an economically "stimulative" affect.



To recap: Democrats are offering seniors an additional payment that was not earned, to which they are not entitled under current law, and which has no policy rationale.

What would you call this?

TARP May Actually Make Taxpayers Money

It's been a while since my last post.  I wasn't kidding when I said I wouldn't post anything unless there was something that compelled me to write.

What's gotten my off the couch was this from the New York Times:

Even as voters rage and candidates put up ads against government bailouts, the reviled mother of them all — the $700 billion lifeline to banks, insurance and auto companies — will expire after Sunday at a fraction of that cost, and could conceivably earn taxpayers a profit.
...
 the once-unthinkable possibility that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program could end up costing far less, or even nothing, became more likely on Thursday with the news that the government had negotiated a plan with the American International Group to begin repaying taxpayers.

For all the criticism that the TARP program received, I thought voting for it was the right thing to do.  I had always thought that the media coverage of it as costing $700 billion was overblown because it obviously wasn't the case as we knew SOME of the costs would be recovered.

That we could actually be "in the black" on this thing was, I thought, a disingenous selling point.  The payoff was really keeping the financial system from going under (which as we know it didn't although we may never understand exactly how much TARP contributed to this).

Never Mind - Nothing to See Here

In an apparent end to the controversry surrounding the firing of several US attorneys toward the end to the Bush Administration, the special prosecutor has opined that:

The investigative team determined that, based on the evidence already developed by OIG/OPR and Congress, as well as the additional evidence developed through the criminal investigation, that evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias. Additionally, the investigative team determined that there was insufficent evidence to show that any witness made prosecutable false statements to either Congress or OIG/OPR, or corruptly endeavored to impede a congressional inquiry.

I'm no fan of the Bush Justice Department as it existed under Attorney Generals Ashcroft and Gonzalez.  In short, there is insufficient evidence that any of the activity related to this episode rose to the level of criminality.  We'll see if the press, which covered this story ad nasuem when it first broke, gives the story's end the same coverage it gave its beginning.