Of course, the titular phrase comes from the President-elect's proposed Iranian policy, but he appears determined to apply the concept to Republicans as well; evidently, one breed of fundamentalist equals another. In what appears to be a coordinated set of leaks this morning, most prominently in the Wall Street Journal, the Obama team announced that their stimulus package will hit about $775 billion over two years and that $300 billion--about 40%--will be individual and corporate tax cuts. That's right, fellow Democrats. President Obama plans to cut taxes by more than President Bush.
I'm not an economist, but it strikes me that there are some important consequences. First, we know from our experience last year that tax cuts don't provide the same bang for the stimulus buck as public spending. Most Americans (like most of you, I'll bet) got their checks last spring and paid down some bills, saved some, and spent a bit. When the government gives tax cuts or rebates, people don't spend all of it. When the government spends money, it gets spent. Second, as Rachel Maddow would cry (it's her current obsession), our infrastructure needs LOTS of work; a dollar spent on tax cuts is a dollar not spent on bridges. Third, a dollar spent on these tax cuts is not a dollar spent to offset tax increases that we need. For instance, a big boost in gas taxes, while the price is low, would encourage energy conservation and could be offset by, say, payroll tax cuts, an idea floated by that notorious liberal, Charles Krauthammer. I was disturbed to hear on NPR this morning that SUV sales rose above car sales for the first time in a year in December. That needs to stop. Now. In light of these problems, why do this?
There appear to be three reasons, two of which make sense. First, there aren't enough "shovel-ready" (a lovely new phrase) projects to provide enough economic stimulus fast enough, so there have to be some tax cuts. The money needs to get out there now and tax cuts or rebates may be the only way to do it. Second, Obama's tax cuts are not Bush's tax cuts; they are aimed primarily at low to middle income workers--who are also far more likely to spend them. Bill Gates likely didn't need to spend the 800 bucks he got last spring; Joe the Plumber, shall we say, did. I'm still not sure I buy so many tax cuts, but I see the sense behind these two reasons.
The third one? Obama seems to think that, by including such tax cuts in his initial package, "it may make it easier to win over Republicans." Oh for God's sake. For those of us who supported Obama throughout, the high-minded, good government, bipartisan aspect of his character has always been the danger. Yes, those lovely qualities are a danger at this moment. Put simply, he's not going to win over Republicans.
Why? First, they haven't been beaten badly enough nor are they scared enough. The Congressional Republican Party, particularly in the Senate, has been mostly reduced to its safe strongholds--the south and the prairie west. Right now, the vast majority of these folks rightly don't fear for reelection and they hate everything Democrats hold dear. They want to oppose Obama and they will.
Second, the biggest cowards in politics over the past couple of decades have been those Republicans not from such areas--I'm looking at you, Senators Snowe and Collins--and those who claim to be moderate--I'm looking at you, Senator Specter. They claim to be bipartisan and they always run away from the southern wing of their party come election time. They vote with that wing most other times and particularly when it actually matters. If Obama is counting on them, well, he'll soon be enlightened as to their collective profile in courage.
Finally, recent events have led Republicans to cling even more fiercely now to small government and low spending. Why? They've violated those principles for eight years. Disaster has resulted. In other words, they have sinned. Their apostasy, they're convinced, has led them to dire straits. They seek redemption by resort to first principles. It is, Kenneth Burke might say, an effort at a symbolic rebirth, an effort to provide a noneconomic interpretation of economic ills. This political and economic crisis has come from the sin of embracing big government, big cities, loose morals, Minneapolis restrooms and DC madams; only confession and redemption can save them and the nation. The President-elect thinks this debate will be about economic policy. It's not, not for them. It's about sin and redemption.
In short, the mainstream Republican Party is currently less rational than Iranian mullahs. If a President Obama wishes to negotiate effectively with the Republican leadership, he needs some preconditions.
Comments