Paul Krugman is an economist and a pundit, and he wants to convince people of certain economic realities, like the wisdom of increased deficit spending in the short-term to improve our budgetary situation in the long-term. It’s hard to sell people on the idea that the best way to lower the budget deficit is to make it bigger. There are many people in our media who are eagerly undermining that idea for purely political reasons, and there are many more who simply don’t understand it. So, it’s important for Krugman to repeat his call for more stimulus, and to repeat it again and again. It’s important for other economists, pundits, politicians, organizers, and bloggers to join him in this chorus. But what’s not helpful is to harp on the fact that the administration didn’t fight sufficiently for an adequate stimulus in the first place. Who cares? How does that help now?
We can argue all day about what was passable at the time. Let’s look at how David Obey describes that time:
The problem for Obama, he wasn’t as lucky as Roosevelt, because when Obama took over we were still in the middle of a free fall. So his Treasury people came in and his other economic people came in and said “Hey, we need a package of $1.4 trillion.” We started sending suggestions down to OMB waiting for a call back. After two and a half weeks, we started getting feedback. We put together a package that by then the target had been trimmed to $1.2 trillion. And then [White House Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel said to me, “Geez, do you really think we can afford to come in with a package that big, isn’t it going to scare people?” I said, “Rahm, you will need that shock value so that people understand just how serious this problem is.” They wanted to hold it to less than $1 trillion. Then [Pennsylvania Senator Arlen] Specter and the two crown princesses from Maine [Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins] took it down to less than $800 billion. Spread over two and a half years, that’s a hell of a lot of money, but spread over two and a half years in an economy this large, it doesn’t have a lot of fiscal power.
So, while Obey places some blame on the White House political shop for being skittish about the price tag, he also notes that then-Republican Arlen Specter and the two Maine senators were forcing the price tag down as a condition of their support. Even with the lower price, Specter was immediately forced out of the Republican Party when he was courageous enough to do the right thing and support the stimulus package. I think a fair assessment of Rahm Emanuel’s position at the time has to take into account the need for 60 votes and the pressure the moderate Republicans were facing to vote ‘no’ on anything, let alone something in the $1.4 trillion range. He was telling Obey that he couldn’t sell a package that big and Obey was telling Rahm that a smaller package would be insufficient. That’s a classic Catch-22, and the administration didn’t have a magic solution for solving that conundrum.
We can add into the mix the whole debate about what percentage of the stimulus would be in the form of tax cuts. That was also an issue held hostage by the “two crown princesses of Maine.” I don’t think David Obey was wrong and I don’t think Emanuel was wrong, although I agree that a stronger argument could have been made on the merits of a larger stimulus. But that is all so yesterday. Why does Krugman have to muddy his message with constant I-told-you-so bitching?
He says that politics don’t matter for electoral outcomes, policies don’t matter, accomplishments don’t matter, only economic conditions matter. He overstates his case. I could just as easily argue that the only thing that matters is the height of the candidates, since the taller man almost always wins presidential elections. The truth is that policies do matter and accomplishments matter, but only if people know about them and hear about them in a positive light. If the beneficiaries of those policies spend all their energy complaining about their inadequacy, who is going to be proud of and support what’s been accomplished? By all means, advocate sane economic policies and make the case for politicians who are seeking remedies for our economic woes. But do it in a positive way.
If liberals are no fun, who will want to be one? Who will want to vote for one?
First, Krugman’s observation that politicians – especially Democrats – pay too much attention to the daily news cycle is right on the money. I have seen it in action many times: too many reactive words based on perceived short-term needs, not enough restatement of affirmative core beliefs.
Second, Krugman is doing what Obama and every Democrat should have been doing right from the beginning – speaking economic truth again and again, slightly differently this time, an emphasis on the politics that time, more on economics the other time. This is related to the first point: Democrats think they need something new to add to the daily spin cycle and they don’t. They need to keep saying their home truths again and again and again, just as the GOP does.
But third, Krugman’s observation that economic outcomes are what matter is the key here. I am saying this again because I am certain that it is true: you begin the policy process by seeking a policy that you are certain is sufficient to get to the best outcome, not one that you think will pass as things stand now or to which you can attach a catchy message; make people vote against it; then and only then compromise where necessary.
If they vote against it in sufficient numbers — and that’s not a majority any more — it’s called a ‘loss’, and thanks to a permanent-campaign horse-race-obsessed media environment, that’s the only story that comes out of the process:
“SENATE HANDS OBAMA LOSS ON STIMULUS”
The day you see a lede “A minority of Senators, all Republicans, refused to let President Obama’s proposed stimulus package even come up for a vote today. The bill, which has the support of a majority of Senators….” is the day I win the lottery.
There is no partial credit here; there’s no beating the spread. Bills pass or fail. Zero-sum.
What is it that Yoda says? “Do or do not… there is no try.”
Win.
I mean, just take the unemployment benefits. Where’s the finesse? There is none. The headlines have been:
“Congress fails to pass unemployment benefits.”
There is no nuance.
Where were the rallies(or Obama appearances) in Maine? Don’t you remember how Dubya bullied Democrats into voting for his crap?
He was, I believe, on vacation. For the weekend.
BTW, Dubya didn’t have to ‘bully’ anyone.
Then, as now, there are at least three parties in Congress, from which a governing coalition is from time to time is cobbled together.
There are:
#4’s are extinct — see the stuffed exhibit of Jacob Javits and Millicent Fenwick in the lobby.
Bush had a coalition of 2’s and 3’s. He never needed to bully anyone — except for the sheer joy of bullying. So AUMF, the tax cuts, PATRIOT ACT got passed.
And anything the 2’s didn’t want — dismantling SS, immigration reform, for example — didn’t happen.
Obama’s got the 1’s. That’s it.
(Actually most of the 1’s — he can’t count on the realest of the real Democrats. (Feingold on FinReg, Kucinich and DeFazio on ACES…)
And that’s it. He’s lucky to be polling as well as he has been.
(Actually most of the 1’s — he can’t count on the realest of the real Democrats. (Feingold on FinReg, Kucinich and DeFazio on ACES…)
And Feingold was one of eight(Wellstone being another) to vote against the repeal of Glass-Steagall. He obviously thought the FinReg bill was weak sauce.
Against cloture or against the bill?
Feingold voted no because we didn’t break up the banks, or limit their size. Once again, stupid policy, unworkable, doesn’t stop TBTF.
Feingold weakened the Volcker rule by giving power to Scott Brown, in my opinion, so he can fuck himself as far as I’m concerned (same with Maria Cantwell) 🙂
TPM picked up on that, as did PCCC:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/wall-street-reform-backers-seek-feingolds-support.php?ref
=fpi
Something will pass; will Feingold allow it to be weaker by giving the powerplay to Tea bag hero Scott Brown, or will he strengthen the Volcker Rule and take the power for himself?
With all due respect to my good friend, Atrios, the “rallies in Maine” solution is sub-optimal at best. It is possible for a president to intimidate a congressperson in a vulnerable district who has a credible opponent. But it is not possible to intimidate overwhelmingly popular senators who aren’t up for reelection for two to four years and have no credible opponents on the horizon. Plus, Snowe and Collins have delivered critical votes repeatedly and will continue to do so provided that the president doesn’t paint them as villains and go do rallies against them in their home state.
Leave your so-called ‘logic’ out of this, Boo-Man…
Mike (Blue Dog) Michaud is the US Rep in that part of Maine (ME-2). Union member, paper worker, pro-life. Wins general elections 65-35. In other words, a housebroken Bart Stupak.
Pretty much fireproof. You could primary him, but it’d be better economics to take the $300,000 and give it to various anti-poverty agencies in Washington and Aroostook counties.
I’d like to see him get tea-bagged. Might drag him leftwards a notch or two.
And all he got out of the deal was watered down stimulus. And sarcasm about “President Snowe” and “President Collins.” And you’ll keep talking about pragmatism and stuff. I know all that. But as a Philly area resident, you should know this. Even in a “West Coast Offense” don’t they at least make a few attempts down the field to keep the defense honest? When has Obama attempted a down the field pass on legislation?
One very underappreciated aspect of the Party of No strategy is simple procedural delay. The GOP will make it take two weeks to pass a bill 98-0. The reason they do this is mainly to protect themselves from the strategy you advocate: making them vote against something before it is pared down. They chew up so much of the calendar that the Dems are not willing to sacrifice whole bills in order to have the time to fight over, fail, and then pass lesser legislation. This is also why so many nominees have not been confirmed. They don’t have the days to spare to dedicate to them.
I think the timing issue is also much overlooked. there are only 24 hours in a day and 7 days a week. The public option is one example. Yes Obama wanted it, but yes he came to the view – rightly or wrongly – that it wasn’t going to pass and that it was therefore not worth upending the rest of reform for. As President, I imagine, you make a decision and move on to the next “bad or worse” decision you have to make. You don’t have the luxury in constantly re-litigating the decision and questioning whether a different judgment might have had a different result. If people want to supplant their judgment for the President’s that’s fine – all they have to do is garner upwards of 60 million votes in the next election.
Roosevelt suffered a major rebuff from his own Senate on his court-packing plan, after four years of pretty amazing successes.
It was necessary — the Supremes were throttling the New Deal — he went in spikes high, with a tough bill, wound up negotiated it down (adding only two judges) and lost anyways. The bill never made it to the floor, even as amended.
Deaths, and reversals by the Court, addressed the immediate problem, but Roosevelt’s ability to push an agenda suffered, and together with the results of the ’38 elections*, spelt the end of the New Deal as such.
Doing something similar with the first major legislative initiative of a new administration doesn’t strike me as something particularly wise.
* In ’38, the seats that were lost weren’t especially numerous — the Dems still had 69 seats — but the losses were mostly in the Northeast, strengthening the hand of the Southern Democrats…)
The GOP is permitted to gum up the Senate for two weeks on 98-0 votes as you say because Harry Reid is a nice man and Democrats are terrified that the daily spin cycle will say they are ramming legislation through and that prospect terrifies them. It doesn’t matter because the spin cycle doesn’t matter to the vast majority of voters, and because the Republican chorus is saying it anyway.
The point of losing a few votes early on legislation that is popular and necessary is twofold: to identify and shame obstruction and opposition to popular legislation, and to avoid having to do it again and again. Reagan used this very effectively and enough Democrats became terrified of PUBLICLY opposing him that he got legislation passed later that wasn’t especially popular.
When Reagan came to power the South was Democratic. He did not face a perfectly polarized Congress and could easily scrape together Democratic votes for many of his priorities. One reason is obvious in retrospect. The South was about to become Republican and all Democrats down there were vulnerable to the president’s vast popularity in the region. Nothing is remotely comparable to the situation Obama faces where the only southern senator who appears vulnerable at the moment is Richard Burr, and no southern reps are in any danger whatsoever.
Also, on your first point, it doesn’t matter whether Harry Reid is a nice man or not. The reason the GOP can gum up the works is because the Senate adopted rules at the beginning of the session (rules that have remained largely constant over a long period of time) that cannot be changed mid-term without a supermajority of 67 votes. Therefore, the GOP can place holds, force week-long delays on committee votes, filibuster everything by denying unanimous consent, force procedural delays in the floor, and use other machinations simply to slow the pace of legislation (including legislation they unanimously support). There isn’t a damn thing Reid can do but complain about it, which he does almost daily. The rules can be changed by a simple majority in the next session and I think the only thing Reid could do, but isn’t, is to raise the decibel level of his threat to change the rules if the Republicans don’t relent on their obstruction. I’d note that he has talked about it and that Obama has raised obstruction in recent speeches and two recent Saturday addresses.
Except .. Reid is an idiot. Are you telling me he didn’t forsee this happening? What planet was he living on? Is this going to be another example of the “No one thought there was any way this could happen”?
I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Are you saying that Harry Reid should have gone to the president in December of 2008 and asked for permission to rip up the filibuster and wipe out the other prerogatives of the Senate as a preemptive matter? I mean, what are you suggesting?
That would have been a lovely little power grab but it wasn’t going to happen. To do something like that you have to first demonstrate the need for it, or have the need for it demonstrated to you. Either way.
Are you saying that Harry Reid should have gone to the president in December of 2008 and asked for permission to rip up the filibuster and wipe out the other prerogatives of the Senate as a preemptive matter?
Reid needed permission from Obama to rip up the filibuster? Seriously? But yes, Reid should have ripped it up. Or were you not paying attention once Democrats regained control of the Senate in Jan. 2007? What other prerogatives are you talking about? The only one I(or anyone else really) are talking about is the filibuster.
Obama ran a campaign based in large part on rising above partisanship and coming together to solve problems. Now, that presented some unrealistic expectations, but he would have really jolted people if he immediately ripped up the Senate rules and threw out the protections for the minority. Harry Reid could not have done that without the president’s permission and megaphone explaining why. And the Senate wouldn’t have gone along with it.
So, once again, you’re joining a chorus who’s critical of the president for not trying and failing to do something.
So I guess the better question is, why didn’t they see the coming obstruction? If it wasn’t obvious before the general election, it should have been obvious by November.
If recall correctly, most of the left, myself included, did not truly anticipate how uniform the Senate obstruction would be. For example, remember how optimistic folks were about EFCA? In retrospect, getting deeply progressive legislation like that passed in this Congress was an absurd pipe dream. But the fetishism of Senators for the prerogatives of the Senate being what it is,you were never going to have filibuster reform until the GOP not only demonstrated that it was abusing the Senate rules, but that it was impossible to have a functioning Senate (and thus Congressional government) at all without reform. Not just EFCA getting killed (which plenty of Senators, GOP and Dem, probably see as an acceptable use of the filibuster). But basic stuff like unemployment benefits failing, low-level Presidential appointments getting stalled for years, and of course the health insurance reform nightmare.Those are the sorts of extreme abuses that will, hopefully, get a majority of hoary old Senators to muster the will to change the rules next January. And only extreme, consistent abuse could have the chance of spur what plenty of Senators probably see as an “extreme” reform response.
I don’t remember EFCA, specifically EFCA-with-card-check even having a pulse. Maybe two weeks of radio ads — all against — on sports radio.
I do remember some extremely optimistic whip counts for various iterations (public-option, Medicare buy-in…) of health care reform.
http://openleft.com/diary/9851/
For example, remember how optimistic folks were about EFCA?
Why, because people like Blanche Lincoln voted for it when it had no chance of passing(meaning Bush would veto)? Look what happened when it had an actual chance at passage. Lincoln and other DINO’s bolted and the GOP’ers would have filibustered it.
Exactly. But as far as I can tell, neither the Dem rank-and-file nor most Dem Senators realized how consistently the GOP would use the filibuster like that to its own advantage. Not until it actually happened in front of their faces, over and over again, in the present Congress.
not unless they follow politics closely. I am pretty sure Digby and Atrios saw it coming.
“He found a formula for drawing comic rabbits:
This formula for drawing comic rabbits paid.
Till in the end he could not change the tragic habits
This formula for drawing comic rabbits made.” Robert Graves
I don’t mean ‘paid’ in any financial sense — I don’t think Krugman can be bought per se — but he has a franchise….
Yeah, there are way too many people pursuing that market share. Way too many.
Here, here…..Booman. Tell it like it is, brother.
Krugman’s position is that doing a weak-sauce stimulus was worse than not doing it at all, because it wouldn’t work and more importantly it would poison the well for any subsequent attempts to put through a stimulus that was big enough to do the job properly.
Thus he said at the time (as he never tires of telling us if you follow his blog) that as soon as the stimulus package got nickel-and-dimed to below the magic threshold by congressional horse-trading, the smart thing to have done was for the administration to walk away from the table, wait for things to get worse and then come back to Congress with an even bigger stimulus package.
Politically (and in terms of the media spin-cycle) this would have been painful in the short-term, without doubt; but Krugman would averr that this short-term hit was survivable (and could be counter-spun as an attack on the ‘party of no’ once the crisis deepened), whereas the long-term hit of being saddled with a failed-to-work stimulus (and with no way to correct the error) will turn out to be fatal for the administration. He could be wrong on the political consequences of course, he’s not a political operative after all, but his economic analysis seems to have been pretty astute – the stimulus does seem (to this economic layman) to have been too small and poorly targetted to establish a well-founded recovery.
As for Krugman not being helpful, I don’t think he cares any more. By his lights he was being helpful when he was shouting that the stimulus had no clothes 18 months ago; what’s the point of being helpful to a bunch of dead-men-walking who are in that state because they ignored your advice back when it counted?
Regards
Luke