Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LESSONS (NOT) LEARNED.
In 1993, I did a pretty shabby job of covering Bill Clinton's economic plan. It was, in sum, a very good plan--it worked wonders for the economy--but I focused on the mishaps. (Clinton, for example, pulled the rug out from under House Democrats by offering a carbon tax, which they voted for...and then the President removed it from the bill.) Clinton couldn't get any Republican votes for the package. A disaster! He had trouble getting Democratic votes for it; he had to beg Bob Kerrey for his vote to get it through the Senate. His presidency was in ruins! He had lost all credibility! (Actually, those of us who had focused on some big ugly trees rather than the blooming forest were the ones who had lost credibility.)
From a PR standpoint, the stimulus bill is an almost uniquely hard sell. They're making sausage without any casings. The thing that the press has taught Americans to hate in the legislative process -- the addition of odd, seemingly expensive, random, programs -- is the very point of the bill. The thing the press knows how to do with the legislative process -- figure out where money is being spent in an apparently embarrassing way -- describes half the provisions and discredits few of them. This bill needs to do what government is usually derided for doing: Spend money for the sake of spending money.
Which makes it easy to attack. Yesterday, Michael Hirsh wrote that "Obama has allowed Congress to grow embroiled in nitpicking over efficiency when the central debate should be about whether the package is big enough." He was right that that's the problem. But no one quite knows the solution. Short of Keynesian reeducation camps, it's hard to shift public understanding that far, that quickly. People aren't used to wondering whether the government is being insufficiently profligate.
COMMENTS (9)
"...it's hard to shift public understanding that far, that quickly."
This is why elected officials should do what is best for the country, not what is best for their re-election. The vast majority of Americans know nothing about economics, and that's what the Republicans are counting on. I expect better from Democrats, even fake ones like Ben Nelson.
Posted by: Mark | February 5, 2009 2:27 PM
Here's something that might be marginally useful.
Compare this Republican effort.
To the White House webpage, which doesn't mention the stimulus anywhere and certainly doesn't market it. The info provision linking the bill to individual voters has just been really lacking. You have to go through to the "Economy" page, at which point you get a reprint of an Obama speech from last month.
The GOP is doing a really good job of isolating certain facts and framing them in an artificially embarrassing way. Nobody on the Dem side seems to be really parsing the stimulus and selling it with anything like the same personal or factual touch. It lets the GOP act like this is some nefarious boondoggle full of hidden corruption -- like some Democratic PATRIOT Act.
Posted by: NS | February 5, 2009 2:53 PM
Dunno, your post seems to assume that the public is opposed to the bill and that's why it's stalling. Instead, the public continues to support the bill. I think they get the idea of spending for spendings sake.
Instead, we have a bunch of Republicans who simply are not responding to public opinion (which probably makes sense over a year and a half before the election), and are flooding the cable-waves with rationalizations.
Posted by: Tony V | February 5, 2009 3:04 PM
Yeah complex subjects like deflationary traps and stimulus efficacy are above the pay grade of most reporters.
Let's give them immunity from anti-trust laws so that they can continue to turn out spectacularly profitable drivel.
Posted by: mark r | February 5, 2009 3:24 PM
A corrollary to the paradox of thrift, I suppose: fiscal responsibility at this times is unlike fiscal responsibility at any other time. On top of that, the only thing fiscal responsibility seems to mean politically is that the other guys spending is irresponsible.
Posted by: hoi polloi | February 5, 2009 3:52 PM
Clearly, we need money for Keneysian re-education camps in the stimulus.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | February 5, 2009 3:52 PM
Tony V, actually public support for the bill is declining, thanks mostly to GOP spin & media repetition of that spin. But it is still very necessary. The longer it takes, the more spending will be necessary to turn this turnip truck around.
We need to get this thing passed. Like it or not, this bill is just the first of many that will be necessary to get our economy moving in the other direction. The best way to refute the opposition is for each of us to see our neighbors or ourselves returning to work or seeing our jobs saved as the result of this bill.
Posted by: bob in fla | February 5, 2009 4:32 PM
The thing that the press has taught Americans to hate in the legislative process -- the addition of odd, seemingly expensive, random, programs -- is the very point of the bill.
This is water under the bridge at this point, but why would "odd...random programs" be considered "the very point of the bill?"
In the run-up to the inauguration, I kept reading about how the most effective stimulus flows from things like budgetary aid to states, unemployment and food stamp top ups, etc. I wonder if anybody even considered trying to keep the bill "clean" in this manner (perhaps combining the above with a highly progressive tax cut such as a cut in payroll tax) -- thereby rendering it immune to GOP demagoguing. I mean, was there any doubt the Republicans would take the low road? The thing of it is, the various constituency favors in the bill are a tiny percentage of the overall package, so the White House is providing the Limbaugh/Druge crowd with some choice soundbites for very little in return.
I think the White House and Congressional Dems would have been better off keeping the initial stimulus bill clean, simple and large (in total $)-- in other words a huge pile of transfer payments and aid to states (combined with the aforementioned progressive tax cut) and then following it up with a different bill covering the various shovel ready projects and money for sundry special (small scale) projects like museums, birth control, etc. (the easy sound biteable, sausage-making stuff, in other words).
Posted by: Jasper | February 5, 2009 10:46 PM
"Keynesian reeducation camps"
The dream never dies, does it?
Posted by: Greg Ransom | February 7, 2009 2:18 AM