I subscribe to the mindset that government can do virtually nothing to meaningfully improve the economy. Where government may be able to rarely take credit for (what appear to be) short-term improvements, one can expect many more problems to wait down the road.
I’m not even sure anymore how much government can wreck the economy. Don’t misunderstand me: government gets in the way and does harm. What I mean is that I’m going to guess that capitalism (even when it’s in hiding or being oppressed) — and the resulting entrepreneurism and innovations — are more resilient than I appreciate.
What we know:
- There are regular economic cycles. Ups and downs. They’re difficult to predict, but we know that they happen, and we know that there’s little we can do about them.
- The current economy will improve.
- Obama’s wasteful “stimulus” isn’t going to do anything to improve the economy.
- In Western democracies, whether the economy is good or bad, voters give far too much credit or blame to their leaders for the current condition of the economy.
What we don’t know:
- When will the economy improve?
To use a phrase from Chris Cillizza at The Washington Post, some of “The Most Important Numbers Today” are 51 and 43.
- According to a recent Rasmussen poll, on the question of which President is blamed by likely voters for the present economy: “Those not affiliated with either major party are more evenly divided — 51% blame Bush and 43% say Obama.”
- Interestingly, Democrats blame Bush more than Republicans blame Obama: ”Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Democrats point the finger at Bush while 65% of Republicans say Obama now bears responsibility.”
If the economy remains weak, Unaffiliated and Republican voters will increasingly blame Obama.
Larry Kudlow asked a good question yesterday: ”Are Republicans too pessimistic about the economy?”
But the fact remains that numerous signs are now pointing to economic recovery. And the GOP needs to craft a smart political response to this. Obama and Biden will surely take credit for the better economic news, just as any White House would. It’s the way the political game is played.
I’ll only add: with some degree of success, will Obama attempt to take credit, if the economy improves under his watch (it’s very likely to improve at some point while he’s President).
Only the most extreme partisan Republicans do not want the economy to improve, in order for it to damage Democrats as much as possible in 2010. The rest of us look at two situations — the economy, and the state of the GOP — as independent situations, and we want the economy to improve as soon as possible.
But we do want the Republican party to succeed, as well, and the best way for the Republican party to be strengthened in the long-term is not to sit around and wait for the Democrats to completely implode, but to focus on reforming the Republican party. Of course, reforming the Republican party will mean a principled, conservative/libertarian agenda, and this will, in turn, benefit the American economy.
To conclude:
- Life isn’t fair. If the economy improves, the Democrats will successfully claim some credit.
- The GOP is going to perform better in 2010 than in either 2006 or 2008, regardless of the economy. I have little doubt of that. But if the economy improves soon, that makes it significantly less likely that there will be 1994-like numbers for the GOP.
- Remember that, after 2010, there’s that re-election thing for Obama. The economy will most likely look better by then. If the elected GOP Congress is afraid or ashamed of conservatism, as much of it is today, Obama will win re-election.
A non-exhaustive list of solutions for the GOP, in my opinion:
- Be bold. Speak truth.
- Change leaders, if necessary.
- Don’t be afraid to say “no” when bad ideas are simply bad ideas. Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander appear impotent, not intellectual or courageous, in supporting the activist Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. To use a recent phrase from Obama, this could be a “teachable moment” for Republicans. Alexander is the 3rd-ranking Republican in the Senate, and that’s a problem.
- Balanced budget amendment. What happened to that?
- Get rid of at least one branch of government — the in-name-only Department of Education. What happened to that (Reagan campaigned on it in 1980; Gingrich in 1994)? Also, I can think of 1-2 more cabinet positions that seem less-than-critical.
- Term limits. What happened to that?
- Raise money privately to fund the DC voucher program. I think I read somewhere (probably Redstate) that it costs a whole $15 million/year. Romney alone could pay for that.
- End earmarks.
- Make itemized spending mandatory, for just about everything under the sun.
- Immigration: I haven’t heard anybody who will attempt to justify how we can simultaneously have open borders and our generous, costly welfare programs. Nor have I met anybody who can justify why we should be unconcerned about the national security risk of our open southern border. There are only so many options here: enforce the border, and/or prohibit most federal funding going to sanctuary cities, and/or make welfare more of a welfare program and less of an entitlement program.
- Nuclear energy.
- Until we have nuclear plants: Drill, drill, drill.
______________________________________________________________
Benjamin Hodge publishes the Web site KansasProgress.com, based in Johnson County, KS, in the Greater Kansas City area. Hodge is a delegate to the Kansas GOP, a former state representative, and a former board member at Johnson County Community College. You can join Hodge’s efforts on Facebook, through his personal Web site, on Twitter, and through his PAC.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:17 am
Recession eases; GDP dip smaller than expected
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_bi_ge/us_economy/print
July 31st, 2009 at 10:41 am
Balanced budget amendment. What happened to that?
Get rid of at least one branch of government — the in-name-only Department of Education. What happened to that (Reagan campaigned on it in 1980; Gingrich in 1994)? Also, I can think of 1-2 more cabinet positions that seem less-than-critical.
Term limits. I’m dreamt of this for a long time. I think putting limits in place would by itself solve all kinds of problems.
Immigration. A)It’s impossible to close the southern and northern borders. B)Republicans seem obvlivious to the fact that many of them are driving away immigrant and immigrant-descended voters in droves.
Nuclear energy.I’ve dreamt of this one for years as well…
July 31st, 2009 at 10:42 am
Balanced budget ammendment. I’m dreamt of this for a long time.
Term limits. I’m dreamt of this for a long time. I think putting limits in place would by itself solve all kinds of problems.
Immigration. A)It’s impossible to close the southern and northern borders. B)Republicans seem obvlivious to the fact that many of them are driving away immigrant and immigrant-descended voters in droves.
Nuclear energy.I’ve dreamt of this one for years as well…
July 31st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Huckpac numbers are in: $300K, less than half sarah and a small fraction of free and strong. No wonder he was holding out.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am
Huckabee says his political action committee has raised $300K this year
http://www.kfsm.com/sns-ap-ar–huckabee-fundraising,0,4511802.story
July 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
If the economy improves our shot at the whitehouse the next time around goes way down. That said, I still hope it does.
I think our gameplan should be deficit, deficit, deficit, spending, spending, spending, budget, budget, budget.
Americans understand this and hate the pace in which Obama is driving it into the ground. We all can understand that if we spend what we don’t have eventually we go bankrupt.
Here is the approach: yes, the economy has turned around but only temporarily thanks to world record deficit spending. And thanks only to world record, unprecedented spending of money we don’t have. Now our children are faced with a problem almost impossible to solve and that will surely doom us economically in the future. We need responsible economic solutions that don’t entail spending money we don’t have, we need to balance our budget and lay a permanent groundwork for a prosperous future. yes, maybe the democrats stopped a temporary recession but in doing so have strapped us with debt and created an even larger long term problem.
Okay so I am no expert, but I think the deficit needs to be pounded.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:05 am
Not suprised at Huck’s numbers. He will never be a big fundraiser.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:23 am
I think the party should pre-emptively reject Romneycare, and the man who came up with it.
We can’t compete with the Dems when it comes to big government. Shame on Mittens for trying.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Barack Obama Approval/Disapproval Rasmussen
Overall: 48/51
GOP: 17/81
DEM: 77/21
INDY: 42/57
White: 41/58
Black: 89/4
Other: 49/51
July 31st, 2009 at 11:34 am
GO RUDY!!!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Rudy_Shut_Up.html
July 31st, 2009 at 11:44 am
I’d add to those bullet points we also know that de-regulation has never, ever been good for the general public. So in that sense, the government can at least mitigate corporate disasters.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:46 am
‘We Have to Stop It’
Rudy Giuliani sounds off on consequences of nationalized health care
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=7580535&referralPlaylistId=playlist
July 31st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Maureen Dowd: “I Love Sarah Palin”
“I love her more than anyone,” Dowd says of Sarah Palin. “As a journalist, she is the best story ever. It’s like Hollywood casting,” she concludes. Dowd goes on to say that Palin plays the role of Dick Cheney. The New York Times columnist says Palin could be the Republican nominee for president in 2012 because she plays to the “darker impulses” of the “bitter” GOP.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/30/maureen_dowd_i_love_sarah_palin.html
July 31st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Good column Ben
I am working on a column that addresses this issue myself and what I see as a very low ceiling on this stock mkt rally and any economic growth, but let me address some particular assertions in the column that I think need to be placed in a larger context.
Yes, Americans will use what remains of their freedom to squeeze all the income/profit out of the economy as they pursue happiness and just now, the prospect of cap and trade and health care reform being defeated or watered down is spurring some optimism and risk taking.
Moreover, the prospect of higher taxes and burdens on business to hire employees since the dems took over in 2007 and esp since Obama, and the recession has spurred technological applications to replace employees, i.e. creative destruction.
There is also some profit taking in particular housing markets due to price drops. Too bad Obama won’t let the market fall to the bottom completely…
But, given the great loss of wealth since 2007, Americans must save money for a time before they have confidence to consume and take risks. Moreover, given the massive debt of the Obama budget, stimulus and the Fed’s loose money and the assault on investors by Obama and the prospect of a devalued dollar via inflation, investors remain on strike and so are the reason this rally and the GDP have very low ceilings.
No, government as a PARTICIPANT in the economy can’t cause growth, but its policies surely do greatly affect how much growth and wealth creation takes place in the private sector.
more later
July 31st, 2009 at 11:51 am
First of all, taxing and spending take about a year to have their economic
effects proceed through the economy. The economy is still entirely due
to Bush. Some programs are having limited success. Cash for clunkers is
all the State of Michigan can talk about. They are loving it.
Addressing your points:
Be bold. Speak truth.
Speak civilly. Calling Obama a socialist just makes the party look
like no one has ever taken a political science or economics class. And
tell the Birthers to shut the fuck up, they are making everyone look nutty.
Change leaders, if necessary.
Fire the ones who can’t speak civilly or tell the Birthers to STFU. Quit
giving the fat guy from KC the microphone.
Don’t be afraid to say “no” when bad ideas are simply bad ideas. Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander appear impotent, not intellectual or courageous, in supporting the activist Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. To use a recent phrase from Obama, this could be a “teachable moment” for Republicans. Alexander is the 3rd-ranking Republican in the Senate, and that’s a problem.
No, its not. Sotomayor will likely be more like O’Conner than Ginsburg or Souter
(except she will be like Souter by voting with Kennedy rather than Ginsberg).
Learn enough about history to shut up about the “Activist Judge” meme. It is linked
so thoroughly to anti-civil rights counter-revolutionaries that it needs to be
stopped or the GOP will be a Mormon/Southern party.
Balanced budget amendment. What happened to that?
George Bush and tax cuts. The best way to balance the budget is to enact
some form of business or consumption tax (really the same thing) to fund
all domestic discretionary, military and entitlement spending and have the
income tax fund wars, deployments, sea operations and debt repayment and interest.
Keep income taxes high enough to pay down the debt (including the portion held
by the Fed so it can then be abolished) and bring the boys and girls home. Then
you can cut taxes on the rich.
Get rid of at least one branch of government — the in-name-only Department of Education. What happened to that (Reagan campaigned on it in 1980; Gingrich in 1994)? Also, I can think of 1-2 more cabinet positions that seem less-than-critical.
You mean Department, not branch. The Branches are the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.
Take an American Government class so that you sound like you are more informed than
Sarah Palin. While you are at it, take away her microphone too.
Getting rid of a Department or two does nothing. This is a place to be bold. May I suggest:
Pull procurement, finance and civilain personnel from all agencies into a consolidated
Department of Administration, and include GSA, OPM and OMB within it. Have only one system
for each function, not one per Department.
Consolidate Departments similar to the way Nixon suggested. Create a Department
of Science for Commerce, Energy, Health, Urban Development and Transportation.
Create a Department of Human Resources for Education, Labor, Veterans Affairs,
Housing, and Human Services. Vacuum up indepedent agencies and bureaus and put
them in these Departments. Don’t even dream of changing the Agriculture Department,
since Congess won’t let you. Nixon’s plan foundered because he tried to combine
EPA, Interior and Agriculture. The best you can do is move EPA to Interior or Science.
The other thing you can do is regionalize. This is really bold. Reshuffle
the regions so that they have roughly similar electoral vote strengths and so that
there are seven of them and appoint regional vice presidents for each region. In
later years, have them elected by the electoral college – meaning the nominee appoints
them and if a party wins the region the RVP designee is elected from that region
no matter who is POTUS. Devolve most of the government, especially DoD, to the
regions. Anything that requires big bucks should be a regional activity, with
the natural exception being military deployments and the Navy. The House and
Senate should also have regional caucuses and pass regional appropriations and
regional consumption tax rates (for both a VAT and Business Income Taxes).
Regional budgets must be balanced.
Term limits. What happened to that?
Old Dinosaur Republicans. Unless you want your legislators to be dependent
on both their staffs and the executive branch, let this bad idea die. Look
what it has done for California. Term limits produces lobbyists, since this
is what former members do. Lobbyists produce big government.
Raise money privately to fund the DC voucher program. I think I read somewhere (probably Redstate) that it costs a whole $15 million/year. Romney alone could pay for that.
Give up on the Voucher program. Inner City Catholic Schools were spun off to become
Charter Schools, since the parishes could no longer support them, even with vouchers.
Religously sponsored charter schools are the wave of the future. Ride the wave.
End earmarks.
Dumb idea. The alternative to earmarks are unelected bureaurcrats making contract
decisions. Either political appointees (all those term limited ex-legislators) or
civil servants.
Make itemized spending mandatory, for just about everything under the sun.
I thought you wanted to end earmarks? Earmarks are itemized spending. See comment
about taking an American Government class.
Immigration: I haven’t heard anybody who will attempt to justify how we can simultaneously have open borders and our generous, costly welfare programs. Nor have I met anybody who can justify why we should be unconcerned about the national security risk of our open southern border. There are only so many options here: enforce the border, and/or prohibit most federal funding going to sanctuary cities, and/or make welfare more of a welfare program and less of an entitlement program.
The justification is that the anchor babies are born here. As Americans, they are entitled.
Oddly enough, they don’t use welfare as much as the native born. If you want to reform welfare,
which was curiously left off your list, quit sending black men to jail and allow both parents
in a poor household to go to school and pay them to do it, even if the father is at home.
As far as Immigration – with the economy like it is and with the new fencing, there isn’t much
illegal immigration. The one thing Bush did right is stop the flow (although he was all
for legalizing). Of course, he had to wreck the economy and let Sensenbrenner, et al
permanently alienate the Latino vote to do it, but still, Mission Accomplished.
In other words, let the Democrats own immigration and STFU about it. I can see where the
attraction to the issue is, of course. In right to work states, illegal immigrants
are particularly nice employees to have. Republican manufacturers and farmers can exploit
them with bad working conditions and lower wages and they really can’t do anything. I can
see why some don’t want legalization, since by exploiting them you drag them into
the Democratic Party, which is bad news for the GOP in the South.
No time in history has a political party been so bent on self-destruction and done
it so well!
Nuclear energy.
The GOP cut fusion. That is really where the answer lies.
Until we have nuclear plants: Drill, drill, drill.
Gas prices got too low again. I am sure by buying some of the financial institutions
that got into speculation, ran up gas prices and fell like a house of cards
when price collapsed due to congressional hints at regulation are now federally owned.
If you really want to embarrass Obama, call for an investigation onto whether
bailed out financial institutions are trying to run up gas prices again. Of course,
it may be the ones that were cut loose who have gotten back into it. A little
market regulation might be a good thing here. Call for it if you can link
bailed out firms to energy market speculation – as this will embarrass the President
with the public more than any other thing.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:56 am
6. Much of this year’s deficit is asset backed. The US is borrowing, but
it is getting stuff in doing so. Round about 2012, Obama will sell
all of these assets at a profit and balance the budget. Unless you can
get him for letting bailed out firms speculate on oil, the GOP is screwed.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:59 am
#15 The economy is “totally due” to lots of factors, that yes, do include Bush policies, most all of which Sen Obama voted for.
But the economy is also affected greatly by the dem congress since 2007 and the expectations effect of their policies on investors.
And today’s economy is affected by the affect of Obama’s proposals on investors, who remain on strike due to his policies.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Aron,
Just sent you an e-mail.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Off topic, I know, but an interesting Pew Research Study on Mormon demographics and political/religious views.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=109260594050&h=lrncl&u=HITm6&ref=nf
it was from a few days ago so forgive me if it has been discussed already.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Jeff,
Full thread:
http://race42008.com/2009/07/27/the-mormons-the-most-conservative-religious-group-in-america/
July 31st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
thx Tommy Boy
July 31st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Senator Chris Dodd has been diagnosed with Prostate Cancer, he will have surgery in August.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32237475/ns/politics-capitol_hill
July 31st, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Palin is not speaking at the Reagan Library, after all. This is the 3rd time she’s either sent mixed messages about attending an event, or flat our changed her mind,leaving folks hanging. Add that to the Big Quit, and it doesn’t look good for Palin. She is either unrealiable (her rep in Alaska) or she’s unsure about what to do.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Gallup: Seniors Most Skeptical of Healthcare Reform
More seniors think reform law would be harmful, not beneficial, to them
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121982/Seniors-Skeptical-Healthcare-Reform.aspx?version=print
July 31st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Huck barely raises only $300,000.00?? His supporters may ignore it but that is a problem. Especially as he is raking in 30,000.00 to 40,000.00 for an appearance, has a TV and Radio gig, and his supporters are giving their widow’s mite. So far, that number is not going to get it done if something doesn’t change.
Even Huck’s Army disussion forum seems pretty quite. Any Huck fans concerned or just wishful thinking on my part?
July 31st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Good article here on Pawlenty…neither positive or negative I guess.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country
July 31st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Hmm… so I take it you don’t work in finance…
July 31st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
House Race Rankings
The Hotline’s Tim Sahd assesses which House seats are most likely to switch party control in 2010.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090730_8104.php
July 31st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Hmm… so I take it #27 is a liberal…
July 31st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Kris, that’s a pretty safe bet young man.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I couldn’t figure out why Pawlenty went after Romney and the MA Health Care earlier this week until I read that He is a devout Evangelical.(link above).
The Pastor of his church(Leith Anderson) is President of the National Association of Evangelicals who was given an appointment on the Climate Change Advisory Group,and became active at the request of Pawlenty in the 2008 Election in getting the Evangelicals to vote for McCain.
At least Pawlenty was caught lying about Romney by giving wrong facts and figures. In a very underhanded way saying that Romney lied about his Health Plan.
I don’t want to think that Pawlenty will play the Religion card, but what he did to Romney this week made no sense especially since Romney hasn’t even said if he will be running. I guess it’s never too early to pull the Evangelicals away from Romney just in case.
If Religion becomes an issue and makes its way into the 2012 GOP Primary, a lot of people will probably leave for the Independents.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:46 pm
On the Sotomayor nomination, let’s not make that a purification test. There is really no point in fighting hard on this issue. She is going to get confirmed, she is a liberal replacing a liberal, and we got her sufficiently uncomfortable about her “Wise Latina” comments. There really isn’t much of a reason to get too excited about it.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:23 pm
#29 & #30
Don’t go to vegas…
I was referring to Hodge’s article, not Illinois. I thought some of Hodge’s assumptions on the economy were a bit too simple.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:54 pm
lkv
Just because someone is evangelical doesn’t mean they are going to go after Romney because of religion. Pawlenty may have gone after him because he thought that he did a better job as governor than Romney.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
#34
Texasconserv:
Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that Pawlenlty would use Religion, I just meant to say that everything is in place for him to use it and I hope he doesn’t. It happened in 2008 and if it happens again, people would recognize it. American’s don’t like any kind of bigotry, if it is being used and becomes known, they will turn on the person using it.
I still don’t know why he went after Romney the other day, it was way off base especially since there isn’t even a primary going on, it was kind of strange for a Republican to go after another Republican.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Texas, do you not acknowledge it was flat out wrong for Pawlenty to lie about the Massachusetts plan. At the same time he was sitting there talking about how good a friend Romney was, whyile he was trying to stab him in the back. And to think he had to lie to do it. It seems that some pople on here think that the end justifies the means. I hope you’re not one of them. What he did either showed an ignorance of facts, or flat out lies, one or the other.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:56 am
8. Fliper. You got anything else? How’s that docudrama coming on Romney care your making with Michael Moore? I find it odd that you won’t even look at facts, but spout your own made up stuff on a constact basis.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:03 am
Flipper. So, your ‘game’ is to discount someone who actually TRIED to do something to fix this problem? Lets see… in Mass, they had a democrate controlled house and senate. They were getting health care come hell or high water. Romney at least made the plan palitable. But your speil is that he should have jumped on the desks, torn off his shirt and and said “I’LL VETO”. While the state officals laugh, giggle and overide his veto. Meanwhile, the plan they want, they get. And Romney will still take the blame. Geez. It it THAT important that a mormon NOT get into the office? I can almost bet if someone like Isatook or Huntsman, or several other LDS polticans ran, you’d find something you hate about them too.