It's Not About The Economy, Stupid
Karl Rove criticizes the President in the June 4 Wall Street Journal for citing a specific number of jobs "saved," especially in light of how little of the stimulus bill has been spent. He then brings up a much more important point:
If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy than just growing government, the stimulus would have been front-loaded into this fiscal year.
Rove's logic is standard Republican thinking - Democrats want big government! After all, what other motivation could they have for spending money?
Even Keith Hennessey thinks the explanation for the time-lag between the stimulus bill and the actual effect is ignorance, or even just distaste for any Republican solutions, regardless of how quick or efficient they may be.
By focusing on typical talking points or assuming ignorance, Rove and Hennessey ignore the political explanation. Take a look at that line again: "If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy..."
I'd argue the Obama administration isn't serious about growing it this year. It's serious about growing it next year, when Democrats face elections at a national level. And history strongly suggests that when the economy does well, the incumbent party wins.
Think about it. Does anyone actually think there was a problem with finding programs to spend money on?
If the Obama administration really wanted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars this year to "jump-start the economy," it would simply ask the Senate, the House, and state governments for requests for projects. There would be trillions of dollars of proposals.
It's incredible that this hasn't been brought up. Perhaps Republicans don't think Democrats are that crafty. Democrats succeeded in making the issue about the merits of tax cuts versus spending when attempting to get the bill passed, not about when the spending would affect the economy. It's quite ironic that they argued that tax cuts are longer-term and go toward saving, while spending affects the here and now (the national savings rate has shot up from 0% to 5%).
The need to be re-elected informs most decisions politicians make. President Obama started out with a lot of political cover on the economy. For a few more months, the country will continue to allow him to blame everything on President Bush. And for a few more months, very little of the stimulus bill will be spent. Then popular opinion will change and President Obama and Democrats will finally be assigned credit (or blame) for how things are going. And that's when most of the spending will occur.
If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy than just growing government, the stimulus would have been front-loaded into this fiscal year.
Rove's logic is standard Republican thinking - Democrats want big government! After all, what other motivation could they have for spending money?
Even Keith Hennessey thinks the explanation for the time-lag between the stimulus bill and the actual effect is ignorance, or even just distaste for any Republican solutions, regardless of how quick or efficient they may be.
By focusing on typical talking points or assuming ignorance, Rove and Hennessey ignore the political explanation. Take a look at that line again: "If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy..."
I'd argue the Obama administration isn't serious about growing it this year. It's serious about growing it next year, when Democrats face elections at a national level. And history strongly suggests that when the economy does well, the incumbent party wins.
Think about it. Does anyone actually think there was a problem with finding programs to spend money on?
If the Obama administration really wanted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars this year to "jump-start the economy," it would simply ask the Senate, the House, and state governments for requests for projects. There would be trillions of dollars of proposals.
It's incredible that this hasn't been brought up. Perhaps Republicans don't think Democrats are that crafty. Democrats succeeded in making the issue about the merits of tax cuts versus spending when attempting to get the bill passed, not about when the spending would affect the economy. It's quite ironic that they argued that tax cuts are longer-term and go toward saving, while spending affects the here and now (the national savings rate has shot up from 0% to 5%).
The need to be re-elected informs most decisions politicians make. President Obama started out with a lot of political cover on the economy. For a few more months, the country will continue to allow him to blame everything on President Bush. And for a few more months, very little of the stimulus bill will be spent. Then popular opinion will change and President Obama and Democrats will finally be assigned credit (or blame) for how things are going. And that's when most of the spending will occur.