Hope, Security, and Freedom
It’s been about a month since the historic inauguration of Barack Obama, and already we have added another trillion dollars to our national debt.
A product of Keynesian thought, the exorbitant spending initiative is the largest since FDR’s New Deal. Oddly lacking from the stimulus discourse is any discussion of its goals. With all of the many Republican criticisms, the one which would actually force Obama and the Democrats to actually say what their intentions are is curiously absent. In his recent press conference, the question wasn’t even asked — let alone the diversionary rhetoric intended to obscure such axiomatic questions.
Only a few months since the bank “bailout,” the stimulus package has been billed as an “investment.” The irony shouldn’t be lost. Whereas the “bailout” or TARP actually was an investment in the nation’s financial sector, the stimulus invests in very little. Contrarily, it presumes that there is nothing to really invest in the US economy. Rather than attempt to broaden the US economy, it attempts to diminish it and make the government a sort of protector of it. In its diminished state, the government will assume an indispensable role for individuals and businesses. The security of dependence rather than the freedom of entrepreneurism has become through the stimulus the dominant political and economic philosophy.
This is all very odd. A nation built upon the premise of self-reliance is embracing statism. What is truly disturbing is a lack of context or perspective with the stimulus. It would be understandable that the government would intervene to “soften” the economic downturn. But rather than see the current recession as a part of a natural boom-and-bust economy, it supposes that there are fundamental defects to the free-market and that the only safe model is the one which ultimately relies on the state. Now are we to believe that America’s prosperity comes from the government’s propensity to print money? When the history is written and whatever successes and fulfillments are noted, it seems doubtful the government’s injection of nearly one trillion dollars into the economy will be one of them. And yet this is how the stimulus is being sold — a major success, a fulfillment to the drones of “change” and “hope.” This is what Obama (both the man and the myth) represent? — simply the diminished self-containment of the economy.
We will never know if the stimulus succeeds or fails – its stated intentions mentioned with a cough and a few inaudible syllables. Obama most likely does have the best of intentions. He probably does hope that this will “solve” our economic problems. But at the same time it would be safe to speculate that he sees this also as — ala Rahm Emanuel — an opportunity. Liberal ideas now have a chance to flourish. Expect the new administration to cast social programs through the prism of economic recovery — education, health care, social security. And in the same way Democrats objected to the Bush administration’s reliance on a national crises to justify policies, Republicans will probably follow suit. However, the GOP would be wise to recognize the nature of our times. They should be self-confidant in the country’s history of self-reliance — this will always be the case despite economic downturns. They should see that the US has faced economic problems before and the American people are usually capable in discerning proper economic policy in keeping with our democratic values. What they must watch out for and where the call of true leadership must be met are the demands of freedom. Only a few days ago a large area in Pakistan known for its ski resorts called Swat was just offered up by the Pakistani government. The beheadings, torture, and intimidation was too much for the beleaguered government to handle. They gave up; Obama must not. The true global crisis didn’t start last September, it started eight years ago – we can’t forget it. Republicans can’t forget it. The stimulus can’t become a rallying call for unrestrained opposition to the government, but rather the inconsequential action of a President defined by his promotion of freedom abroad.
And ironically enough its the Republicans who can make it happen.
Glen said,
March 1, 2009 at 6:20 pm
In the middle searching old friends, found your website.Just passing by.By the way, your website have great content!
_______________________________
Don’t pay for your electricity any longer…
Instead, the power company will pay YOU!
Rob_N said,
May 26, 2009 at 6:41 pm
The TARP program was a purely Bush-led initiative. His Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, essentially wrote the bill that Congress debated and passed.
In essence, the TARP funds (the half that Bush doled out) was a no-strings-attached windfall for the financial sector. No oversight. No goals. No rationale. And even so few qualifications as to be laughable (indeed, many a late night comic had fun with the literally 1-page application form).
That’s not an investment. That’s a winning lottery ticket.
By contrast, both Obama’s second half of the TARP funds and his Stimulus package (Recovery Act) have clearly identified goals, oversight and rationales in place. Heck, if you want oversight of a plan you can’t do much better than the Federal government literally listing exactly what projects have been requested for funding, which of those projects made the cut, and exactly where the Stimulus money is going. It’s all online — completely transparent.
Perhaps the reason no one asked “what their intentions are” is because the answer is obvious: put Americans back to work and get the economy rolling again.
You may not agree that Obama’s plans will accomplish these things but it’s curious that you’re unable to recognize that.
jakjonsun said,
May 26, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I have to disagree. TARP was not a “no-strings-attached windfall”; as I wrote, it was an investment. The US bought troubled assets stock and provided capital through loans. These financial will have to return this money and at some point interest will have been earned. The idea behind TARP (which Sen. Obama voted for) was to prevent the collapse of our financial sector, which most economists agreed was imminent. This goal has, by all accounts, succeeded. (This success should be credited to both the Bush and Obama administrations and congressional Democrats, who largely favored TARP although their rhetoric suggested otherwise).
I suppose I’ll take the goals for the stimulus you posited as representative of Obama’s stated goals. Hmmm, “put Americans back to work and get the economy rolling again.” Call me fickle, but I would like to see — oh, I don’t know — actual figures, like unemployment rates and GDP growth. I think, when we’re dealing with a trillion dollars, a few specifics isn’t an unreasonable request.
To leave these goals vague is precisely the strategy. The best thing for Obama/Democrats would be that economy doesn’t come back all the way. Then the argument can be ‘Oh well, we’ve made progress, but we still have to “invest” more’ As I argued, the actual goal is to make the economy and society dependent on a regular dosage of government intervention. In end, Keynesian economics has never really worked; whereas supply-side economics has had demonstrated success.
But as I noted in my blog, Obama won’t be remembered for a momentary economic blip in US history, but rather his decisions in opposing terrorism and supporting democracy abroad. And on this account, so far so good.