The "he didn't do enough" argument
Paul Krugman writes in the NY Times today that President Obama didn't explain his progressive policies well enough, didn't do enough (spend enough) to save jobs, and that's why the Dems are going to lose seats on November 2nd.
He and I agree on one point, the reason this is happening is because the economy has not improved. We would not be talking about double digit seats being lost in the House if the jobs report wasn't so bleak. But, I contend that the jobs report wouldn't be so bleak, if Dems weren't spending us into oblivion and promising large tax rates on the richest among us.
My husband says that they are seeing evidence that the economy is doing well. Investors are naturally more gun shy now than they were three years ago, because, well, in Sept 08 they learned that all that "wealth" they had in the stock market can disappear in an instant. So they are more reserved spenders, more reserved investors.
But companies are spending. Lewis is in a growth industry (technology), so the anecdotal evidence he reports is best case, not worst case like those from manufacturing. But many companies are spending money on infrastructure. But ... they are not hiring.
Why?
Well forget the cost of the employee, which has gone up this year compared to last. Companies aren't growing because the future is so uncertain. Consumer demand isn't returning as robustly as companies would like in order for them to grow. With uncertain demand, there isn't a reason to increase supply. No growth = no need for more employees.
But back to point ... the argument that he didn't do enough is flawed. There are some people (like Krugman) who foolishly think that if they had gone straight to single payer, that the masses would be happier. That we would have smiled, maybe ate our yucky porridge with a frown but when it was all warm in our belly we would have been happy.
The tea partiers - which I do call myself a tea partier - mostly because I think it's awesome. It's not a perfect analogy (allusion?) to the Boston Tea Partiers, but I like to think that I'm part of something that's trying to make change. It's probably similar to how Obama supporters felt in '08. Just the converse of it!
Oi, baby brain keeps me from STICKING ON TOPIC.
The tea partiers are rejecting not just progressive policies, they are mostly rejecting Congressional idiocy. No more passing bills they haven't read. No more late night, holiday meetings hoping the electorate will be too distracted to pay attention. NO MORE. No more mortgaging the future of our country for a few votes today. Right or left, they want - I want - responsible governance. I would be fine with a party that wanted to enact their own agenda, if both sides had to live within certain common sense constructs.
You can't spend more than you have. And you have to debate a bill based on it's merits, and win passage of the bill by persuading others that you are right and your bill will help people / solve a problem. I know, what utopian Washington am I dreaming of?
You can't pass legislation that 75%+ of the country hates. President Bush knew this, it's why he and McCain were not able to get amnesty passed in 07. And THAT (amnesty) is why McCain was a lackluster Republican candidate who couldn't motivate the base. He's not a conservative, contrary to anything he says now. I'd like to see him lose his seat in November, but I doubt that will happen.
But the point is (do I have a point?) that I personally do not think that if Obama had done more (first of all, how could he?) he would be in a different situation. One, I think that if he had done more the economy would be in worse shape, not better. Right now, every single American (including my son) owes roughly $45K to the government. That includes the unemployed, the unemployable (my son), the elderly, the disabled, etc. People that don't pay taxes. If you put the debt towards the only people who pay taxes, it's an astronomical number.
THAT (and unemployment) is the only reason that Dems are in trouble.
Well, and one other reason.
The "Peggy's" (to borrow a phrase / idea from Doug Powers) were expecting money in their mailboxes within days - nay - HOURS after President Obama was elected President. That didn't happen. It was never going to happen. But these folks, and college students with lots of time on their hands, were the wave that helped President Obama win.
These folks are now disenfranchised. Voting for President Obama didn't give them more money. Voting for President Obama didn't make Washington more civil. It didn't bring the country together. It didn't end either war. These folks now feel like their votes, whatever they go, won't help. So why bother going to the polls?
AND - boy I'm full of theories - this is a Midterm. It's not as flashy as a Presidential election year. The people that vote in midterms are those that pay more attention. And the people that are paying attention, they are not very pleased.
So for those reasons, the Dems are feeling a little shaky. And it would not have mattered if he had gone further with his agenda. Because the people that are voting, are not happy with the way things have gone. The people that wanted him to go farther? They appear to be staying home.
Point of Note: I do not think that this election is a referendum on President Obama. Not entirely. (It would be if this election was focusing on foreign policy or the wars or things like that. It's not, it's focus is the economy and health care - clearly Congress's fault). I think it's a referendum on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who showed such contempt for the electorate with how they passed legislation that they just assumed most Americans didn't care about. Nancy is going to lose her speaker seat, and, hope hope hope, Harry Reid may lose his seat in the Senate entirely.
This election - I feel - is a referendum on the 13% approval rating of Congress. Americans are sick of hating their representatives.
In many ways, Congress is insulated from their own constituents because so many people just blame the President for everything. I'm hoping this election starts to change that.
He and I agree on one point, the reason this is happening is because the economy has not improved. We would not be talking about double digit seats being lost in the House if the jobs report wasn't so bleak. But, I contend that the jobs report wouldn't be so bleak, if Dems weren't spending us into oblivion and promising large tax rates on the richest among us.
My husband says that they are seeing evidence that the economy is doing well. Investors are naturally more gun shy now than they were three years ago, because, well, in Sept 08 they learned that all that "wealth" they had in the stock market can disappear in an instant. So they are more reserved spenders, more reserved investors.
But companies are spending. Lewis is in a growth industry (technology), so the anecdotal evidence he reports is best case, not worst case like those from manufacturing. But many companies are spending money on infrastructure. But ... they are not hiring.
Why?
Well forget the cost of the employee, which has gone up this year compared to last. Companies aren't growing because the future is so uncertain. Consumer demand isn't returning as robustly as companies would like in order for them to grow. With uncertain demand, there isn't a reason to increase supply. No growth = no need for more employees.
But back to point ... the argument that he didn't do enough is flawed. There are some people (like Krugman) who foolishly think that if they had gone straight to single payer, that the masses would be happier. That we would have smiled, maybe ate our yucky porridge with a frown but when it was all warm in our belly we would have been happy.
The tea partiers - which I do call myself a tea partier - mostly because I think it's awesome. It's not a perfect analogy (allusion?) to the Boston Tea Partiers, but I like to think that I'm part of something that's trying to make change. It's probably similar to how Obama supporters felt in '08. Just the converse of it!
Oi, baby brain keeps me from STICKING ON TOPIC.
The tea partiers are rejecting not just progressive policies, they are mostly rejecting Congressional idiocy. No more passing bills they haven't read. No more late night, holiday meetings hoping the electorate will be too distracted to pay attention. NO MORE. No more mortgaging the future of our country for a few votes today. Right or left, they want - I want - responsible governance. I would be fine with a party that wanted to enact their own agenda, if both sides had to live within certain common sense constructs.
You can't spend more than you have. And you have to debate a bill based on it's merits, and win passage of the bill by persuading others that you are right and your bill will help people / solve a problem. I know, what utopian Washington am I dreaming of?
You can't pass legislation that 75%+ of the country hates. President Bush knew this, it's why he and McCain were not able to get amnesty passed in 07. And THAT (amnesty) is why McCain was a lackluster Republican candidate who couldn't motivate the base. He's not a conservative, contrary to anything he says now. I'd like to see him lose his seat in November, but I doubt that will happen.
But the point is (do I have a point?) that I personally do not think that if Obama had done more (first of all, how could he?) he would be in a different situation. One, I think that if he had done more the economy would be in worse shape, not better. Right now, every single American (including my son) owes roughly $45K to the government. That includes the unemployed, the unemployable (my son), the elderly, the disabled, etc. People that don't pay taxes. If you put the debt towards the only people who pay taxes, it's an astronomical number.
THAT (and unemployment) is the only reason that Dems are in trouble.
Well, and one other reason.
The "Peggy's" (to borrow a phrase / idea from Doug Powers) were expecting money in their mailboxes within days - nay - HOURS after President Obama was elected President. That didn't happen. It was never going to happen. But these folks, and college students with lots of time on their hands, were the wave that helped President Obama win.
These folks are now disenfranchised. Voting for President Obama didn't give them more money. Voting for President Obama didn't make Washington more civil. It didn't bring the country together. It didn't end either war. These folks now feel like their votes, whatever they go, won't help. So why bother going to the polls?
AND - boy I'm full of theories - this is a Midterm. It's not as flashy as a Presidential election year. The people that vote in midterms are those that pay more attention. And the people that are paying attention, they are not very pleased.
So for those reasons, the Dems are feeling a little shaky. And it would not have mattered if he had gone further with his agenda. Because the people that are voting, are not happy with the way things have gone. The people that wanted him to go farther? They appear to be staying home.
Point of Note: I do not think that this election is a referendum on President Obama. Not entirely. (It would be if this election was focusing on foreign policy or the wars or things like that. It's not, it's focus is the economy and health care - clearly Congress's fault). I think it's a referendum on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who showed such contempt for the electorate with how they passed legislation that they just assumed most Americans didn't care about. Nancy is going to lose her speaker seat, and, hope hope hope, Harry Reid may lose his seat in the Senate entirely.
This election - I feel - is a referendum on the 13% approval rating of Congress. Americans are sick of hating their representatives.
In many ways, Congress is insulated from their own constituents because so many people just blame the President for everything. I'm hoping this election starts to change that.
Comments