Month: December 2009

Jeff Frankels proposes ten ways to fix the budget. Bruce Bartlett challenges alleged fiscal conservatives:

Any member of Congress who wishes to be considered a fiscal conservative should be willing to endorse a plan as detailed as this one and of the same order of magnitude or come up with one of their own.

Today on the Dish we continued to collect commentary on Obama's speech. Andrew delivered another lengthy assessment, Greenwald gave measured praise, Fred Kaplan focused on the timeline, Steve Coll worried about the timeline, Marc Lynch examined the role of fellow skeptics, Crowley read Obama officials, Yglesias worried about financing, and readers responded here, here, and here. We rounded up some thoughtful conservative critics here and noted some toxic commentary here, here, and here. Palin facebooked her response between paid photo shoots with supporters. Meanwhile, we caught news that the proposed timeline could have had a big effect on Afghans already.

In GOP death watch, James Joyner kept hope alive, Frum seemed overly optimistic, a reader dialed him back, and so did Andrew. Sully also elucidated the philosophical core of Oakeshott's conservatism and applied it to the president.

On a disappointing day for marriage equality, a prominent cardinal nudged the Church toward the Dark Ages, Douthat isolated Irish Catholics within the rape controversy, and a reader vented over the Church's involvement in public policy. To cleanse the palate, we watched some soft-core, animated elf-on-elf action.

— C.B.

A reader writes:

Frum doesn't just sound naive, he sounds confused. When Bush was talking about the surge in Iraq, Obama and other Democrats disagreed with the strategy. Of course they didn't support Bush — they thought he was wrong!

By contrast, Frum is encouraging Republicans to support Obama because they agree with his strategy! It's a bizarre attempted equivalence.

Blumenthal studies public opinion around the Afghanistan war:

[T]he most likely impact of last night's speech will be downward pressure on Obama's overall job approval rating if only because of a phenomenon political scientists call "priming." All the stories on the Afghanistan speech will prime the importance of an issue that is an Obama weakness, so for the next few days, expect Obama's overall approval rating to fall slightly, even if the speech helps bump his Afghanistan approval numbers up a few points.

A reader writes:

"Worked" is an interesting word.  Simply citing employment and GDP data as evidence that a public policy "worked" implies that there is no cost-benefit analysis — that infinite spending and debt can be considered to have "worked" if some threshold levels of employment and GDP are achieved.  But a look at what those jobs and what that additional increment of GDP cost us — or more precisely, cost future generations — reveals a different story.

According to Recovery.gov, $234.2 billion of the stimulus money has been spent.  Assuming CBO's jobs estimates are correct, that means that each job cost somewhere between $146,000 and $390,000.  Does spending almost $400,000 to save a job sound like a policy that "worked"?  Not to me.  And on the GDP numbers, 1.2% to 3.2% translates into a range of $170 billion to $453 billion of additional GDP.  Given $234.2 billion in costs, that suggests a multiplier of between 0.73 and 1.94.  So it's not even clear that we've achieved a break-even multiplier of 1.

Another reader:

Based on that report, the CBO does not like tax cuts or bribing seniors as stimulus.
 
Check out the table on page 12 and 13 of the PDF.  The CBO itemizes the low and high estimates of output multipliers–cumulative impact on real gross domestic product over several quarters for each dollar of spending or reduction in tax revenues–for various ARRA "activities".  The CBO liked when the ARRA called for the federal government to buy stuff or provide services (low: 1.0, high: 2.5).  They also liked when the federal government provided cash for infrastructure (1.0, 2.5).
 
Tax cuts?  Notsomuch.  The one year tax cut for higher-income people (.1, .5) and provisions for corporate cash flow ledger trickery were the worst (0, .4).  The first-time homeowner credit?  Nope (.1, .5).
 
And bribing seniors?  Sorry (.2, 1.2).
 
The CBO report is the ARRA's estimated impact as of September 2009 so there's some time to go for some of those underperformers.  The corporate cash flow ledger tricks may actually payoff later.  The rest of the tax cuts and senior bribes are likely to fizzle as their effects were temporary or will end in a year or so.
 
Still, not good for cheerleaders of the homeowner tax credit or anyone who may call for more tax cuts in a possible second stimulus or jobs program.

Mike Crowley rounds up some reaction from top Obama officials, including the defense secretary:

Asked by John McCain whether July 2011 amounts to an "an arbitrary date" to begin a transition, Gates replied that the national security team concluded "that we would be in a position, particularly in uncontested areas, where we would be able to begin that transition." Note the emphasis: particularly in uncontested areas. Yes, one would certainly hope that America can withdraw from areas the Taliban aren't even contesting within eighteen months. But there won't be many American troops in those places to begin with. People hoping that this war will come to a swift end beginning in the summer of 2011 would do well to understand that now, or risk severe disappointment down the road.

Steve Coll worries:

[A]n honest accounting of the decision to name the 2011 date should acknowledge that the specific date will certainly encourage some in the Pakistan Army to persist in their belief that the U.S. is headed to the exits in Afghanistan and that they, therefore, should persist in their hedging strategies toward the Taliban, to protect their interests in the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal.

 Von at Obsidian Wings puts the date to begin withdrawing troops in context:

A lot of Republicans support Obama's plan, but are pushing back against his deadline for withdrawal in 2011.  I understand the argument against the deadline, but I think these Republicans miss the bigger picture.  There is no popular support for an open-ended commitment, either in the US or abroad. Without a deadline, there is no surge and no chance to convince allies to aid us. Obama's surge does not exist without a deadline.

Accused Nazi criminal John Demjanjuk arrives at the court room on November 30, 2009 in Munich, Germany. 89 year old Demjanjuk is charged with 27,900 counts of accessory to murder for his part in the gassing of prisoners taken to Sobibor concentration camp. The trial is likely to be the last major Holocaust trial. By Miguel Villagran/Getty Images.

A reader writes:

What I find most troubling about the Stupak Amendment debate is the way that the Catholic hierarchy has elevated matters of fiscal and tax POLICY to a matter of morality.  I can’t be a Catholic in good standing if I have a legitimate public policy disagreement about the allocation of public dollars in a state supported health insurance system?  If I believe public dollars can co-exist side-by-side with private dollars in an insurance pool that offers abortion insurance coverage, with public dollars covering everything BUT abortions, I am not welcome at the communion rail?  Come on!  Really?!?

As a matter of public policy, where does this end?

Is state sponsored sewer and gas hook-up (public dollars) for abortion clinics now a matter of morality?  How about the building a maintenance of access roads (often paid for with Federal dollars) to abortion clinics?  How about regulating the business practices of clinics that accept Medicaid (public dollars) but also accept insurance plans (private dollars) that cover abortions?

This cheapens the legitimate moral discussion about abortion in my opinion.  No longer are we debating fundamental questions about life and the role of the state in the regulation/restriction/prohibition of the practice.  Now the debate has devolved to one of abortion’s proximity to other things.