creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
24 May 2012
Where's the ‘Beef'? Clinton's Answer to Romney Snark

For Mitt Romney, the president's greatest vulnerability seems to be that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton … Read More.

17 May 2012
The Only True Way to Save Marriage From Obama

For honoring his conscience on the issue of marriage equality, President Obama earned angry rebukes from all … Read More.

10 May 2012
What the China Crisis (and His Gay Crisis) Revealed About Mitt

Just as aspiring judges ought to possess the quality known as "judicial temperament," a would-be … Read More.

Show Us the Money

Share Comment

So often are the certitudes and pronouncements of the chattering class simply mistaken that they must always be treated with deep skepticism. That is especially true when anything important is at stake — from the arguments for invading Iraq several years ago to today's economic stagnation. Whatever the conventional wisdom tells you must be true is almost certainly false.

The choral complaint emanating from every mainstream-media outlet — and the mouth of nearly every mainstream pundit — is that the federal government is spending too much and that the public will not stand for it anymore. "We must bring deficits under control!" they tell us. "The American people distrust government because spending is out of control!" they cry. Rick Santelli, the loudest mouth on the CNBC business cable channel and a revered figure in the tea party movement, put it most succinctly the other day when he screamed, "Stop spending!"

Cutting spending is not just bad economics; it's bad politics, too.

Demands for the government to stop spending usually come with an asterisk and a footnote: stop spending on everyone except me. A self-styled conservative in Congress who supposedly hates spending will vote against extending unemployment benefits, then turn around and protect federal subsidies to wealthy corporate farmers. Other conservatives will fight against increased spending on mass transit, new schools or infrastructure, while promoting bloated weapons programs that the Pentagon doesn't even want — because the contractor has donated to their campaign or operates a manufacturing plant in their districts. Cut spending, but don't cut spending on my priorities, no matter how wasteful.

Even if hypocrisy were not so rampant, however, the demands to slash government spending at this stage in the economic recovery are profoundly in error. While one pundit after another warns of the risks of growing deficits, none of those potential risks is imminent. Instead, the nation and the world face the risk of a renewed recession, worse than the last — just as the country sank into recession again in 1937, following the first signs of growth after the Great Depression.

Corporate investment and consumer confidence aren't nearly strong enough to provide the number of new jobs needed — and only when employment begins to move sharply upward will revenues begin to grow and deficits start to shrink.

Cutting spending is not just bad economics; it's bad politics, too. The Obama administration's stimulus spending last year was just enough to prevent the Great Recession from deepening into another depression, but not nearly enough to lift the country toward a broad and full recovery. Lacking the courage of their traditional convictions, the president and his Democratic majorities in Congress tried too hard to please the Republicans, the conservatives and the Washington press corps. Trimming the stimulus too much and refusing to push hard for a second round this year has made the Democrats look weak — and left too many working families in distress.

The noisy Santelli and the publicity surrounding the tea party movement have fostered the misleading notion that most Americans oppose spending to put the country back to work. In fact, as Michael Lind pointed out recently in Salon.com, the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that a substantial majority favor more spending rather than less. Published last month, that survey reported 60 percent support "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy," with fewer than 40 percent opposed.

For Democrats hoping to stem their expected midterm losses in November, that poll contained an important message. Fully 83 percent of Democratic voters and 52 percent of independents said that they support a second round of stimulus spending — while 61 percent of Republicans were opposed. The Republicans who favor more spending, nearly 40 percent, are most likely to be white working-class males who have lost their jobs or fear losing them. Why are Democrats in Congress and the White House missing the opportunity to motivate their own base, while appealing to independents and disaffected Republican workers?

They are listening too closely to the conventional wisdom, that's why — and as always, it is leading them in the wrong direction.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Based on Keynesian economics and our clearly smarter, superior President, staff and Congress, I cashed in all my bonds, spent all of my savings, took a second mortgage on my house, applied for several new credit cards, maxed out all of the cards and still could not spend my way out of debt. I am now in need of a stimulous bailout. Where can I apply?
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Wed Jul 7, 2010 10:04 PM
"A self-styled conservative in Congress who supposedly hates spending will vote against extending unemployment benefits, then turn around and protect federal subsidies to wealthy corporate farmers." Yep, those bastard farmers that employ people are far less deserving of federal subsidies than those proud, noble unemployed people, many whom chose to go on unemployment instead of work because they make more money that way, what with welfare and food stamps available as well. Yeah, we should reward those people. MORON. What's next, giving 100 billion dollars of our tax payer money to Illegals every year for food stamps, welfare, health care, education, and other social services? Oh, wait, that's already happening and Senior Hussein ObaMao wants to give them even more...

David - Couldn't have put it better myself. Sheik Karl ObaMao, Nanny Pelosi, and Fishy Reid sure know economics. What was it Pelosi said the other day? Oh yeah, "Let me say that unemployment insurance… is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic) to our economy." There she goes again, making up economics and even words in an attempt to lie, bold faced no less, to the public.

"The Obama administration's stimulus spending last year was just enough to prevent the Great Recession from deepening into another depression, but not nearly enough to lift the country toward a broad and full recovery." Wait, I could have sworn that 10's of Thousands of years of economics have proven something quite unequivocally... If you don't have money, you can't spend it. If you can't spend it, you can't grow. If you have to borrow, there is always an interest penalty. That interest penalty gets worse when you never make payments. Eventually the loaner will a) break your legs or b) take your stuff. What, exactly, does this stimulus bill do for anyone BESIDES the politicians. You are right about one thing, Joe, cutting spending is bad politics. We don't need politicians anymore, we need leaders with a firm grasp in the real world. Let us not forget that Heir Joseph ObaMao has never held a job or owned a company in the private sector. He is the worst type of corruptocrat imaginable. He fancies himself the next Stalin/Chavez/Hussein. IE, he has all the answers and therefore he should have all the power. Soft tyranny is what we have right now, but thankfully American's (well, the smart ones, unlike you Joe) are waking up/have woken up to the fallacy that Liberals are the answer, and Imam ObaMao, Nanny Pelosi and the rest of the demagogues are destroying the Democrat, and more importantly the Liberals/Progressives/Morons (or whatever they call themselves these days) for the next few decades (just like Carter did).
Comment: #2
Posted by: Charles
Thu Jul 8, 2010 7:40 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

8 Nov 2007 A Phony Social Security Debate

25 Mar 2011 Paradox and Principle in the New Mideast

24 Feb 2011 Yes, America Still Needs Unions