Claire McCaskill Versus Paul Krugman
Over the weekend, Paul Krugman wrote a blog post attacking the new stimulus package just agreed upon in the Senate, arguing that the spending cuts that downsized the plan could have disastrous consequences.
“My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years,” Krugman wrote.
That prompted Senator Claire McCaskill, one of the new plan’s most vocal defenders, to respond to Krugman on her Twitter feed:
Just saw Krugman’s comments on reduction in recov act. Question for him. Would no stimulus act be better than one thats 800 B instead of 900
Whether you favor the current plan or think it falls short, McCaskill’s response to Krugman — would no plan be better than the current one? — seems pretty weak. The premise here seems to be that we shouldn’t judge the plan on its merits, simply because it has the necessary support to pass. But people in all camps would probably agree that it would be nice if elected officials backing the plan stated clearly whether…
1) They backed the current proposal because it’s good enough on the merits; or …
2) The plan isn’t good enough but they backed it solely because it can pass.
If the answer is the latter — the plan isn’t good or big enough but it’s all we can get right now — then we can all look at the actual process that led up to the current plan’s creation and figure out what should have been done differently in order to build political support for something better, in order to, you know, do a better job of it next time. Simply patting oneself on the back for securing a compromise bill leaves us in an eternal situation where no political lessons are ever learned and the sole goal is compromise rather than better legislation.
Yeah. Before that she said “Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill.Many Ds don’t like it, but needed to be done.The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT.”
She’s so so proud she helped cut “silly” stuff for women, children and students that would provide jobs, like expansion of Head Start, or be immediately spent, like Pell Grants, to placate obstructive Republicans, to give huge tax rebates to people who are well-off enough to buy a house right now and probably would be tucked away in a nice savings account. Nice.Thanks, Claire. Glad you have your priorities straight.
Twitter / Claire McCaskill: Proud we cut over 100 bill …
Compromising on this stinker of a bipartisan plan is equivalent to someone with a life threatening infection deciding to make a compromise with Christian Scientists by taking half antibiotics the doctors prescribed. A losing strategy.
Here’s a list of what Claire is so “proud” of. Mostly construction, education, energy, and environment jobs and cash aid to States. What got cut from the stimulus bill – CNN.com. Claire must think that jobs are “silly.” I guess they are, we’ve lost more than a million of them the past two months.
greg, I am here off topic as always, but check out the new Gallup numbers. The country sees the republicans for what they are. Obama’s numbers are still super strong.
Clare McCaskill needs to answer how 70 billion dollars for AMT tax cuts do ANYTHING to stimulate the economy. This really is throwing money down a rat hole.
Sen. McCaskill’s weak tea self-justification aside, I simply love that the political debate is taking place on an economist’s blog and a Senator’s twitter feed.
Change we can believe in, indeed.
I have a question for McCaskill. What happens if we pass a plan of that magnitude that doesn’t work?
Does she really think the Rethugs will give her a pass because she cut 100 billion off the bill? HELL NO.
If this bill had $1 in it the Rethugs would still be pointing and screaming “The Dems just want to spend and look it didn’t even work. They threw your money down a rabbit hole”. What she and others in the Senate fail to realize is they are signing their own political death warrant if they pass a bill that big and there isn’t a major move in a positive direction by 2010. And by pulling out stimulative spending they are basically putting their head in the noose and ensuring it won’t work
Put it to you this way, check out how every candidate in thise runoffs for vacated House seats use the TARP bill to tar and feather their opponent. That will show you just how this stimulus bill will be used against the Dems in 2010. It will be 1994 all over again all in the name of “bi partisanship”
thanks for the tip on the Gallup Poll. posted:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bipartisanship/poll-obama-beating-republicans-in-stim-battle/
g
I hope Krugman responds to McCaskill. She needs to be set straight.
Man it’s irritating that Obama had dinner with the likes of Kristol, Krauthammer, Will, etc. yet AFAIK hasn’t met with Krugman for so much as a coffee in a styrofoam cup. I sure hope Obama is playing some brilliant eleven-dimensional chess game, because so far his post-partisan schtick has consisted of reaching out to the right and relatively ignoring the left, thereby helping legitimize the former and stigmatize his own side. As I think it was Digby who pointed out, as the first African-American president he has to be a little extra careful on the partisanship “charge”, but Obama seems to be taking that way too far IMHO. At least so far.
Danp:
Clare McCaskill needs to answer how 70 billion dollars for AMT tax cuts do ANYTHING to stimulate the economy.
.
Tax cuts do stimulate the economy. Just not as much dollar for dollar as spending. To say nothing of the humanitarian case for say food stamps or the environmental case for mass transit over tax cuts.
Here’s a better idea for Ms. Claire: Eliminate that silly welfare for wealthy white men, i.e. TARP. Now that’s something we could be “proud of.”
Paul wrote on his blog yesterday:
“Stan Collender offers the most cheerful assessment I’ve seen for a while — not about the economy, or about the disappointing stimulus plan, but about Obama’s prospects for getting more on a second round. Collender says that in the months ahead there will be several opportunities to introduce new spending in a way that isn’t subject to a filibuster.
I hope he’s right, and that Obama has not shot his bolt. Because what’s coming out of the current deliberations is really, really inadequate. I’ve gone through the CBO numbers a bit more carefully; they’re projecting a $2.9 trillion shortfall over the next three years. There’s just no way $780 billion, much of it used unproductively, will do the job.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/happy-stan/
It’s silly to expect anyone to outright back claim 2 (it’s not good enough, but it’s the best we can get) -that’s a recipe for getting flogged when you’re an actual decisionmaker (as opposed to commenter).
That said, might it just be the case that the problem w/ the process and politics is simply this: compromise necessarily ends at the capitulation line. Better question: If quality, responsible compromise has failed- is it a ‘failure’ or was one side negotiating too near capitulation territory?
“Charlie Crist Joining Obama At Pro-Stimulus Event”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/charlie-crist-joining-obama-at-pro-stimulus-event.php
Very cool. This is the sort of thing that helps marginalize the more vocal Republican extremists.
Great analysis, Greg. I couldn’t agree more. The glad-handing over this from the Senate is a bit much.
And then, there’s Lieberman’s take on the bill, which some of you might find rather perplexing:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/09/lieberman-moderates-medal/
I agree with Greg that there needs to be consideration given to why the bill wasn’t better crafted in the first place, but Sen McCaskill’s question is a very legitimate one. I don’t understand why she should be mocked for it. Apparently she and the President and many others feel that doing something *now* is more important than doing the absolute best thing.
And this is what happens when one is up against a deadline: it sets up the possibility of a hostage situation. “Do X or we’ll keep you from moving ahead — and if you can’t move, according to you, you lose” So, do you give in on X in order to make some movement in time? … or …. say “I won’t be held hostage” and turn around and walk away, giving up your deadline?
If it weren’t for the time factor, I’d personally make them filibuster … the real-life version. Let the American people see how intransigent they are being, how little they are offering as an alternative. But I’ve got my job (so far) and my house (so far), so that’s easy for me to say.
The President and the Senators, however, have to think about and accept responsibility for the families that losing jobs and homes and some even living in cars. I don’t think it’s shameful or weak for any of them to say “we got the best bill we could in the time permitted”