What Now?
So, the stimulus will clear the Senate. Not a surprise…but my own view is unchanged. I don’t have a problem with Senators Collins, Snowe, and Specter crossing over to support a Democratic bill. These are tough times, and a stimulus is needed.
However, I’m still going to call them out. Why? Because I promised I would call out any Republican who voted for protectionism – and this bill still contains protectionism. Yes, the “Buy American” provisions have been watered down – but they have no place in the bill at all.
My hope – a very dim one – is that Obama will intervene and convince the Democratic leadership to eliminate all protectionism from the bill that comes out of conference. Otherwise, I’ll continue to oppose this bill, on principle (it’s a damned important principle).
So mark me down: in favor of a stimulus, even a big stimulus, but opposed to protectionism…
UPDATE 10:24 p.m.: Obama had time to take a question from the Huffington Post (gag!) in his press conference tonight, but not a single question or answer was directed towards the odious ‘buy American’ provisions. Not a good sign that neither the press nor the president sees a potential trade war as worthy of discussion…
I am afraid you are going to be disappointed.
He campaigned on protectionism. His union
masterssupporters demand protectionism.I agree with Peter Beinart and the fellas at Powerline, to wit: the stimulus is, politically speaking, irrelevant. If the economy improves, as I fully expect it will and regardless of the stimulus package, between now and 2012 then President Obama and Congressional Democrats will win big, if not, not.
Are you implying, Mark, that Obama knew the questions that would be asked and chose not to take any on the Buy American parts of the bill? Is that true?
Some things I just can’t reconcile:
If, as is now argued, any spending is stimulative then why didn’t the massive increase in government spending during the Bush years prevent the current economic crisis from occurring?
Which is correct: Obama and the Congress who argue this package will stimulate the economy or the Congressional Budget Office that say the package will do more harm than good? Is it possible it will do short term good and long term harm?
How is the fear mongering approach employed by Obama (warnings of “catastrophe”) different from that employed by Bush in arguing for war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and against “Terror”?
Fargus, I’m not implying that Obama ducked an imaginary question – I’m saying that it’s a sad commentary that neither he nor the press found the matter worthy of discussion in all that time, as it is a disastrous (even fatal) flaw in the whole idea of this bill being a net gainer for jobs…more on this protectionist crap later in a new post…