More details are now available about what's being proposed for the economic rescue package currently under consideration in the House of Representatives. (If you haven't looked at them, try the updated White House website.) I doubt there's any American who couldn't find something to dislike in the overall plan. Too much emphasis on this program or that, not enough goodies for one or another constituency, etc. I understand of course that this is grist for the politicians and that partisan posturing is likely to continue for a while. As for myself, I've already said there are elements here that philosophically don't belong in an effort whose priority is to rapidly resuscitate our economy.
On balance, though, it looks pretty good. If everybody can grouse about one thing, the other side of the coin is that everyone should be able to find a lot that they agree with. And that's the essence of government by consensus, isn't it?
Which leads me to recent statements by Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) lamenting that the plan is "...full of government projects which won't provide immediate relief to our ailing economy." Well, I said earlier that Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in Congress in general would need some guidance in being reasonable, but it's evident the Republican side could also benefit from some partisanship-management classes.
Let's look at some of Boehner's specifics. He claims the plan would spend $275,000 for every job it creates. Sounds expensive, doesn't it? But what about the multiplier effect? -- spending creates jobs and growth; the growth creates more jobs and income. "Cost per job" is meaningless because the spending has multiple effects beyond jobs, and beyond the jobs the Obama team says their plan will create. I don't think Boehner or his staff are ignorant of this, so I have to credit the statement to deliberate obfuscation.
How about the claim that the overall size of the package is too large? Hmm...where were Boehner and his Republican cohort when their President transformed an inherited budget surplus into a $1-trillion-per-year deficit? Then there's the complaint that the spending is not immediate; perhaps so, but when you're trying to move a whole economy, 18 months doesn't seem very long, especially in light of many predictions that the recovery may take several years. Finally, we have the suggestion that the plan doesn't address the severe lack of credit for consumers and small businesses; I too think that's critical, but it's not something we should look for in this legislation; that's the job of the second tranche of the financial "bailout" money that was approved earlier.
So, Boehner is posturing too. Understandably! It's not clear the Republicans can stop, or significantly alter, the package even if they wanted to, so a sign of resistance is only natural. But what bothers me is delay for the sake of delay. Loyal opposition is a legitimate role, but in times of crisis people have a right to expect a constructive attitude from all their representatives.
It's conventional political wisdom that a President usually has only about a year (the first year) of his term to get major legislation passed. Obama has effectively said, by way of this recovery proposal, that he's not going to put off his chances to get his legislative program enacted just because his predecessor had...er, "disappointments." The proposal is a pretty wise blend of things we as a nation need to do in the short term to get out of the mess we're in, and items that are part of the platform that Obama was elected to implement.
I'm not an economist, but since economists can't seem to agree on how to deal with our current problem, I haven't hesitated to pitch in my two-cents' worth. If you click to continue below, you'll have my random thoughts on the pluses and minuses of the Economic Rescue Plan. But seriously, you might prefer to look at the details for yourself on the White House website linked above.