Informed Speculation

My last post talked about the erroneous idea that opposition to the Democratic stimulus bill (with just three Republican votes in the Senate, and none in the House, and given that Democrats control both houses and the presidency, I think that’s an accurate description) equates to a desire to do nothing about the economic crisis.  Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina, in a column at CNN, takes umbrage at this claptrap:

First, dispense with the notion that there are simply two options here: Support the stimulus package or do nothing. The Washington Post debunked that idea quite convincingly earlier this week.

In truth, there are a variety of options outside a spending bill of unprecedented scope available in this time of considerable economic distress, including, but not limited to, cutting the payroll tax, opening foreign markets through an expansion of our trade agreements, and reducing our corporate tax, which is among the highest worldwide.

Second, we should all be skeptical of any argument centered on the idea of doing something for doing something’s sake. We can’t focus on the why and simply ignore the what. And what does this particular rendition of “doing something” actually do?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the effects of the bill on job growth as early as 2011 would be miniscule. More distressingly, CBO’s long-term projections estimate that due to “crowding out of private investment,” the package will result in a reduction of our GDP as early as 2019.

As for the jobs created in the short-term, what’s the cost? The Heritage Foundation crunched the president’s own numbers and came up with this startling figure: for every single job the bill creates, American taxpayers will spend $223,000.

Now, I part ways with most of my fellow Republicans in that I do think a stimulus needs to consist primarily of new spending on infrastructure (both for the sake of job creation and for the sake of our aging infrastructure).  But Sanford’s commentary is notable for two reasons:  one, it spotlights the blindingly simplistic logical fallacy that to oppose this bill is to embrace doing nothing, and two, it shows how ridiculous is the notion, floated in this blog’s comments recently by our good friend Peter, that Republican are opposed to free trade and that’s why this bill contained protectionism (it’s hard for me even to type that with a straight face, so ludicrous is the thought).

Let’s make one thing as clear as we can:  if the Republicans push for a stimulus consisting primarily of corporate and personal tax breaks and expanded trade, you can honestly disagree with them.  You can even say that these are the policies that got us into this mess.  But you CANNOT, with any degree of honesty, accuse the Republicans of wanting to do nothing.  They just don’t want to do what you want them to do.

Elections have consequences.  So be it.  The Democrats won, and they have their bill.  But there’s no reason why Republicans have to support their policies if they disagree with them.  And to suggest, as Paul Begala did in response to Sanford’s column, that states whose elected officials opposed the stimulus should not accept any federal funds, is the height of impetuous, childish nonsense (how about the Democrats in that state?  Is it only Republicans who should give up the dough, or are we going to be ‘representative’ in our anger?).  Do we live in a free society or not?  Is Sanford (and my own governor, Rick Perry) entitled to his opinion?  And does the voicing of that opinion carry a penalty clause?

Grow up, Begala…I don’t support the measly $13 a check Obama’s middle-class tax break amounted to, but that doesn’t mean I’m giving the damn money back…this is the bill we are stuck with, and for the sake of us all, I sure hope the darn thing works…because I am pessimistic doesn’t mean I’m rooting against a recovery…