Congressional Republicans Need Lessons in American History and Politics
Stuart Nachbar
January 29, 2009
Today I read the news about President Obama's economic stimulus package and I have to wonder if Congressional Republicans ever took courses in twentieth century American history or state and local government and politics.
The Republicans didn't even need to take academic classes. They could have rented a copy of Deep Impact or any other natural disaster movie, or they could watch an alien attack flick such as Independence Day or War of the Worlds (the Tom Cruise version, not the 30s radio broadcast) to see why they should have done more than simply propose an alternative plan with only tax cuts.
They'd see people who have a difficult time evacuating from the disaster, and that emergency management is perceived to be a federal (and often a military) responsibility. If nothing else, the defense hawks in the party should support increased manpower for the National Guard to aide in emergency management at home and fill-in for their comrades who have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president is Commander-In-Chief of the full-time armed forces, the National Guard can be activated by a state governors in the event of emergency. I would see this as a win-win for the states and the military. The manpower at home can be trained to be deployed, if necessary, and those already deployed can have shorter deployments.
In addition to job creation, President Obama's main selling point for the stimulus, there are other pragmatic reasons that the House and Senate need to pass a bill that includes public investment as well as tax credits and incentives.
First, the capacity of state and local governments to borrow is far less than the federal government, and the federal government can't allow a state or major city to fail. Approximately $49 billion of the stimulus legislation that passed the House subsidizes bonds for other levels of government to pay for infrastructure and schools. Those governments work with financial institutions (aka: investment banks) to sell those bonds, which are now higher rated, thanks to the federal government. Similar financial firms buy these bonds and resell them. So, it's possible this one aspect of the stimulus may help, not hurt, the financial markets.
Second, the president cannot allow transit agencies to fail, especially in a transit-dependent city such as New York. Highway authorities can sell assets and collect tolls which are unsubsidized by any government agency. Transit fares must always be subsidized; the ridership never pays the full cost of their commute, just as parents who send their children to state-supported colleges never pay the full cost of tuition.
There has been considerable talk about potential job losses from the collapse of the Big Three automakers. But last year, the subway system averaged more than 5 million trips every weekday (see: http://www.nylcv.org/ecopoliticsdaily/20080207_subway_ridership_at_highest_level_since_1951.) Then suppose the agency went belly-up. How would those passengers get to work, shop or visit family and friends? It's easy to see why there are no Republicans in the city's Congressional delegation; they would be cutting their throats if they voted against a stimulus package that included mass transit.
Third, the lower the household income, the less tax cuts matter. The $500 individual cut is going to be offset by something: an increase in property taxes, a health insurance policy, the cost of commuting to work. I know that President Obama promised a tax cut, but maybe he should have waited until unemployment went down. He could have implemented a tax cut in a stronger economy, which is a better time to cut government spending.
Fourth, if college students were forced to withdraw from college because of aid or loan cuts, they would have to compete against working men and women with families for jobs. They could not collect unemployment and, if I were to believe the stimulus math, the cost of keeping students in college full-time is less than the cost of creating a job to help them save to finish college later or pay to go part-time.
Obama's $819 billion bill is more than just old-fashioned, pump-priming government spending. To signal out costs of sodding the national Mall or family planning as reasons to oppose the bill are simply lame. Maybe we should send the Republicans back to college to catch up on those classes they missed. I'm sure they can afford to go to Harvard for refresher courses in history and politics at their own expense.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on thought and fiction in education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com
The Republicans didn't even need to take academic classes. They could have rented a copy of Deep Impact or any other natural disaster movie, or they could watch an alien attack flick such as Independence Day or War of the Worlds (the Tom Cruise version, not the 30s radio broadcast) to see why they should have done more than simply propose an alternative plan with only tax cuts.
They'd see people who have a difficult time evacuating from the disaster, and that emergency management is perceived to be a federal (and often a military) responsibility. If nothing else, the defense hawks in the party should support increased manpower for the National Guard to aide in emergency management at home and fill-in for their comrades who have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. While the president is Commander-In-Chief of the full-time armed forces, the National Guard can be activated by a state governors in the event of emergency. I would see this as a win-win for the states and the military. The manpower at home can be trained to be deployed, if necessary, and those already deployed can have shorter deployments.
In addition to job creation, President Obama's main selling point for the stimulus, there are other pragmatic reasons that the House and Senate need to pass a bill that includes public investment as well as tax credits and incentives.
First, the capacity of state and local governments to borrow is far less than the federal government, and the federal government can't allow a state or major city to fail. Approximately $49 billion of the stimulus legislation that passed the House subsidizes bonds for other levels of government to pay for infrastructure and schools. Those governments work with financial institutions (aka: investment banks) to sell those bonds, which are now higher rated, thanks to the federal government. Similar financial firms buy these bonds and resell them. So, it's possible this one aspect of the stimulus may help, not hurt, the financial markets.
Second, the president cannot allow transit agencies to fail, especially in a transit-dependent city such as New York. Highway authorities can sell assets and collect tolls which are unsubsidized by any government agency. Transit fares must always be subsidized; the ridership never pays the full cost of their commute, just as parents who send their children to state-supported colleges never pay the full cost of tuition.
There has been considerable talk about potential job losses from the collapse of the Big Three automakers. But last year, the subway system averaged more than 5 million trips every weekday (see: http://www.nylcv.org/ecopoliticsdaily/20080207_subway_ridership_at_highest_level_since_1951.) Then suppose the agency went belly-up. How would those passengers get to work, shop or visit family and friends? It's easy to see why there are no Republicans in the city's Congressional delegation; they would be cutting their throats if they voted against a stimulus package that included mass transit.
Third, the lower the household income, the less tax cuts matter. The $500 individual cut is going to be offset by something: an increase in property taxes, a health insurance policy, the cost of commuting to work. I know that President Obama promised a tax cut, but maybe he should have waited until unemployment went down. He could have implemented a tax cut in a stronger economy, which is a better time to cut government spending.
Fourth, if college students were forced to withdraw from college because of aid or loan cuts, they would have to compete against working men and women with families for jobs. They could not collect unemployment and, if I were to believe the stimulus math, the cost of keeping students in college full-time is less than the cost of creating a job to help them save to finish college later or pay to go part-time.
Obama's $819 billion bill is more than just old-fashioned, pump-priming government spending. To signal out costs of sodding the national Mall or family planning as reasons to oppose the bill are simply lame. Maybe we should send the Republicans back to college to catch up on those classes they missed. I'm sure they can afford to go to Harvard for refresher courses in history and politics at their own expense.
Stuart Nachbar blogs on thought and fiction in education and politics at www.EducatedQuest.com