Obama with an editorial in WaPo throws short term stimulus under the bus

Rick Moran
Barack Obama took to the pages of his hometown paper to try and sell his stimulus package as "The Action Americans Need:"

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.

Bu-bu-bu but I thought we were spending $900 billion to "jumpstart the economy," and "create 4 million new jobs," and "save the economy from catastrophe."

Since when did the stimulus bill become "a strategy for America's long term growth and opportunity?" Does that mean we can stop calling it a "stimulus" bill? If most of the money is not for the purpose of getting us out of this economic crisis, how can the president insist on calling it a "stimulus bill?"

The fact is, this is 4 or 5 separate bills that have conveniently been folded into a piece of legislation under the rubric "stimulus" because that is the only way a lot of this bill will ever be enacted. Taken by themselves, many proposals in this bill that don't have an immediate impact of helping the economy would have tough sledding in Congress due to the porky nature of the spending. But Obama has deliberately fostered the notion that not passing this monstrosity would cause economic "catastrophe" hence, he is using the admitted economic crisis to pull the wool over the people's eyes and enact legislation beneficial to the Democrats by stealth.

Now that he has "redefined" the goals of the bill into one that will help us in the long rather than the short term, it may be an easier sell for Republicans to present their own package of tax cuts and targeted infrastructure spending. At least, it will be easier for the GOP to remain united in the face of Obama's pressure to pass this white elephant.

With support for the bill tanking, Obama is in danger of making a gigantic stumble with his first real legislative effort. His efforts to save something of the situation will be instructive as to how he will govern in the future.

 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

 

Barack Obama took to the pages of his hometown paper to try and sell his stimulus package as "The Action Americans Need:"

This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.

Bu-bu-bu but I thought we were spending $900 billion to "jumpstart the economy," and "create 4 million new jobs," and "save the economy from catastrophe."

Since when did the stimulus bill become "a strategy for America's long term growth and opportunity?" Does that mean we can stop calling it a "stimulus" bill? If most of the money is not for the purpose of getting us out of this economic crisis, how can the president insist on calling it a "stimulus bill?"

The fact is, this is 4 or 5 separate bills that have conveniently been folded into a piece of legislation under the rubric "stimulus" because that is the only way a lot of this bill will ever be enacted. Taken by themselves, many proposals in this bill that don't have an immediate impact of helping the economy would have tough sledding in Congress due to the porky nature of the spending. But Obama has deliberately fostered the notion that not passing this monstrosity would cause economic "catastrophe" hence, he is using the admitted economic crisis to pull the wool over the people's eyes and enact legislation beneficial to the Democrats by stealth.

Now that he has "redefined" the goals of the bill into one that will help us in the long rather than the short term, it may be an easier sell for Republicans to present their own package of tax cuts and targeted infrastructure spending. At least, it will be easier for the GOP to remain united in the face of Obama's pressure to pass this white elephant.

With support for the bill tanking, Obama is in danger of making a gigantic stumble with his first real legislative effort. His efforts to save something of the situation will be instructive as to how he will govern in the future.

 

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky