Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Economic Panic Makes GOP Bipartisan

Posted by Scarecrow , Firedoglake at 6:32 AM on January 18, 2008.


It helps greatly that the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, appears to be an intelligent, non-ideological adult
bernanke
bernanke

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

All last year, Republicans obstructed and defeated virtually every progressive initiative the Democrats proposed, even going so far as to uphold Bush's veto of health insurance for 4 million uninsured children. But yesterday, the Republicans began to line up behind a progressive economic stimulus approach, and the only way to explain it is near panic.

To be sure, it helped greatly that the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, appears to be an intelligent, non-ideological adult -- in stark contrast to the disingenuous ideologue he replaced. Bernanke, appearing before a House Budget Committee that has been considering possible elements of an economic stimulus plan, essentially endorsed the key components of the Democratic view:

(1) An economic stimulus plan was needed/worthwhile, and somewhere in the neighborhood of $100-150 billion is okay;

(2) It should be designed to get cash quickly into the hands of those most likely to spend it immediately to boost the economy; and

(3) It should be temporary and not have some permanent ("structural") adverse impact on the national debt.

The last two points appeared to deflate the hopes of Bush Republicans who had hoped to make a permanent extension of the Bush era tax cuts the center piece of the stimulus plan. Democrats would have strongly opposed that condition, and had they tried to get a stimulus plan through without them, we'd have been back to the obstruction and stalemate of last year.

Bernanke claimed he was taking no position on whether any of the Republicans' dream proposals should be pursued in the long run, but his insistence that the stimulus be immediate and focused on those who need cash now pretty much doomed the Republican hopes. Extending the Bush tax cuts would have no effect until 2010, when they are set to expire.

Our President, fresh from his visit to the Middle East's wealthiest dictators who feted him in the most sumptuous splendor (e.g., read MoDo's description of the opulence for the contrast with what ordinary Americans are experiencing these days) will condescend to speak to us later today to announce his own stimulus package. I could be proved wrong in about two hours, but with Bernanke hemming in the White House and Republicans, it now seems less likely the President will again poke the country in the eye, and his Republican allies are not likely to follow Bush even if he does.

With the stock market reeling, new home construction facing it's worst slump in 27 years, major investment firms showing record losses, and virtually every economic indicator that matters to voters looking awful -- check out Blue Texan's post for the Bush straight-Fs economic report card -- the Republicans who were quite willing to obstruct children's health care can't afford to be seen obstructing an economic stimulus plan designed to head off recession in an election year -- especially a year in which they are already expecting to get battered.

Economic stimulus when a recession approaches has a history of bipartisan support, but the Republicans put bipartisanship in the deep freeze during the Bush years. Their sudden abandonment of obstruction politics is a clear sign of fear, near panic. Or to give them credit, it's a sign they realize that if you have to go to the polls after the worst economic performance in decades, it's better to have embraced bipartisanship so that if the stimulus plan doesn't work, you can at least share the blame with the Democrats.

We appear to be headed towards a set of proposals that include tax rebates -- they're talking somewhere between $300 and $800 -- for low and middle income tax payers, extensions of unemployment insurance, and possibly additional support for food stamps, low-income energy bills and other programs that deal directly with people most in need. The Republicans will get a few breaks for businesses to help them expense near-term costs and investments that could also provide some stimulus. But thanks to Ben, I hope, we won't have to fight the Bush tax cut extension battle just yet.

Update: Paul Krugman has more on how we got to this point.

Digg!

Tagged as: republicans, economy, bernanke

Scarecrow is a regular blogger for FireDogLake


The Evilest of Evil CEOs Swiftboating Health Reform
This guy's a creep with millions to burn.
Post by Digby. July 10, 2009.
More Right-Wing Whining Over Media's Coverage of Sarah Palin
Ho-hum, the poor misunderstood woman.
Post by Eric Boehlert. July 10, 2009.
Hey Netherlands: Fox "News" Hates You! (VIDEO)
Oh, it's not just the pot and the hookers ...
Post by PZ Myers. July 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
mike griffin
Posted by: eldoradoman1953 on Jan 18, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
its the cost of fuel stupid

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what?
Posted by: warrior woman on Jan 18, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
$300 to $800 dollars per middle class household or individual will do literally nothing. Why bother? So that they can get good press? Giving this guy a good mark because he will give away a few hundred bucks is selling us out, I'm not ready to pat them on the back yet. Why should we? They need to show real impact, not this debatablely weinerish package.

A person would be better off taking this "rebate" and using it to defray the cost of their gas bill or credit cards and try to get a jump on that than more spending on things they don't need. Food, on on the other hand, is another thing.

Let's not give them credit when they're still spending $12 billion a month on Iraq, 47 million without healthcare, education funding in the negatives, corporate welfare skyrocketing (which this package is when intended to be spent), etc. This stimulus package is a drop in an ocean of fraud. Keep that in mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I forgot
Posted by: warrior woman on Jan 18, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read these articles, then consider this so called package:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24890.html

New Inflation Data Explain Middle-Class Squeeze

Why is Iran Still in the Cross-Hairs?
Clues from the Project of a New American Century

by Dr. Ellen Hodgson Brown

Global Research, January 12, 2008

webofdebt.com http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7783

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Incorrect.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 18, 2008 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We appear to be headed towards a set of proposals that include tax rebates

Last I heard, the proposal was likely going to be for a combination of tax rebates and tax credits (or possibly payroll tax slight-of-hand), so that folks who have zero income tax liability could still get cut checks, which taxpayers will still have to return to the government coffers.../waves hand at future...

...sometime.

Plus interest.

Credit card nation; credit card government. Makes sense--credit does indeed seem to unite us in unhealthy bipartisan matrimony:

"Just keep spending, and everything will be ok. Go consumptors, go!!! More flat screen televisions shall deliver us from the demon of stupidity!!!"

No thanks. Too many warning signs. If they do send my wife and I a damn check that we're just going to have to damn well payback with a damn tax hike later, my wife and I will use it to buy another damn CD while we wait for the price of our damn dream home to hit absolutely rock bottom, then cash in and buy the damn thing.

These politico's with their junior economics badges make me ill, and together with our war spending are whipping our country full-speed over a cliff.

Buy land. And non-Monsanto seeds.

/curmudgeony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

State of the Union
Posted by: master09 on Jan 19, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iam waiting for the state the Union speech wanna take bets on what will be the main topic.Iam also taking bet Chaney wont be there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: State of the Union Posted by: Lauren
Bipartisan? Doesn't Seem So to This Progressive.
Posted by: Urgelt on Jan 25, 2008 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bernanke isn't talking about the structural reforms in the finance industry that would be needed to prevent speculative bubbles, risky financial instruments, or predatory lending. He's talking a much shallower, mostly hands-off, purely ideological line. Supercapitalism has nothing to fear from good ol' Ben; he's a member of the club.

I'll call him "non-ideological" when he starts calling for regulating the financial sector other than toothlessly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]