Nolan Finley, in the Detroit News, writes:
Growing up in the House, Dingell gained an appreciation for the institution and for its rules and protocols. […]
That commitment to consensus cost Dingell his beloved job as Energy and Commerce chair. The far left wing of his party torpedoed him for striking a middle ground on environmental laws.
Dingell was booted out of his committee chairmanship for “striking a middle ground” only if you define “middle ground” as making common cause with global warming denialism. That’s why so many liberals are angry at Dingell — not because he has a “commitment to consensus,” but because his positions on global warming are, we believe, mistaken and damaging.
Dingell is actually great on many issues, but on energy and climate issues he’s substantively out of step with both the vast, vast majority of the relevant scientific experts. Substantively, Dingell’s position isn’t the middle — he’s the extreme.
Do you think that substantive policy positions matter? I do. I think that, based on substantive policy considerations, it made sense to give Dingell the boot from heading up that particular committee. That he’s willing to work with Republicans doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t face any consequences for his actual policy positions.
“I’m an anachronism around here,” he says. “I’m an institutionalist who believes the House has an importance beyond the work that it does. I believe that we ought to give the Republicans a say in the place. You get better legislation that way.”
How?
I’ve seen the compromises that were put into the stimulus bill. And they’re really, really bad. Once again, substantive policy positions matter — or they should.
For instance, encouraging middle-class people to buy new homes right now is a bad idea, because the housing bubble still hasn’t fully deflated, and new homeowners buying now will get screwed over and lose money when the value of their homes go down. There’s a lot we can and should do to help the middle class, but artificially lowering the costs of buying houses during a bubble is genuinely stupid.
Another example: We are going to have to spend money to repair schools sooner or later. No one questions that. But if we do it now, we can borrow the money at a virtually 0% interest rate; putting off this work for two years will force taxpayers to pay more for it. Furthermore, this is “shovel-ready” work, and excellent stimulus. What rational reason is there to cut this spending out of the stimulus (unless you’re against stimulus spending altogether)?
Republican ideas didn’t make the Senate bill better. They’re making it worse. And anyone who thinks these ideas are good ideas, is either ideologically blinded, or ignorant of economics.
Republicans right now don’t have any real reason to want the stimulus to work. Their best chance of regaining power is for the economy to tank; the lower unemployment gets, the worse off Republicans are. (By “Republicans,” I’m referring to powerful elected officials, not ordinary folks.) But I don’t think it’s rational to seek a compromise with people whose best interests are served by your bill failing.
I don’t think Democrats should ignore the other side with impunity. I think Democrats should ignore the other side when the other side is acting as if they want the country’s economy to fail, and when the other side not only has no rational ideas to contribute, but is contributing ideas that clearly make things worse.
When Republicans start having intelligent, constructive ideas to contribute, then Democrats should pay attention to them. Not before.
Amen. From what I’ve seen the only thing the Republicans are interested in is opposing any and all ideas that don’t involve their preferred answer to everything: Tax Cuts. Doesn’t matter what the problem is, that’s the only “solution” they’re willing to consider.
As for Dingell, he spent decades doing the bidding of the Detroit auto industry, and we’ve all seen how well that’s worked out, both environmentally and for the industry itself.
I dunno. Most middle-class homes are purchased from middle-class homeowners. So even if we can conclude (and I can’t) that the buyers are being harmed, we’d also have to conclude that the sellers are being benefitted by the same amount. From society’s perspective, it’s a wash. On the other hand, I can see net gains from simply maintaining liquidity in the real estate market: people will feel more confident buying (and selling) if they know that they can back out by selling (or buying) if need be.
I’ll quibble again, but just to say that this understates the case. Government spending competes with – and thus displaces – private spending to some extent. Thus if government must spend, the best time to spend is when the spending will compete with the least amount of private spending. Yes, “low private spending” is manifest in low (almost free) borrowing costs. But it is also manifest in low labor and commodity costs. With all those benefits, the idea that this spending might also stimulate the economy is just icing on the cake.
To put it another way, if we wait until the economy is booming to repair our roads and schools, interest rates, labor costs and commodity costs will all be higher. This will be more costly to taxpayers AND to the private parties whose own plans get squeezed out by the government spending. Who benefits from that?
Don’t buy into all these Keynesian “liquidity trap” ideas? Fine; those arguments are complex, and there are differing points of view. But what part of “Stock up on staples while they’re on sale!” don’t you understand?
I previously discussed this w/ Fecke.
The climactic scene in Leap of Faith features a faith healer professing an ability to heal a disabled kid, and the local sheriff who didn’t believe, before a big crowd. The faith healer, being a fake, was quaking in his boots, right? Nope. He knew that the public was DESPERATE for hope, and would cling to the person offering it, right or wrong. Similarly, as Iraq was imploding Democrats were left saying, “I told you so!” They were obviously right. Yet the only candidate in the 2004 election offering a hopeful plan for Iraq – even if a largely discredited plan – was Bush, and the public clung to him.
So if the economy continues to implode until 2010, I kinda doubt the public will be saying, “OK, upon reflecting I guess we were a little gullible to believe the Democrat’s hopeful stimulus mumbo-jumbo; my bad. But golly, at least we can all be grateful that Republicans were able to induce those reckless Democrats to exercise a modicum of fiscal restraint.” Rather, I expect the mood would be more like, “I still can’t find work! Why aren’t you doing more to help? Why don’t you do MORE? Why wasn’t the stimulus package BIGGER? What? You wanted to take bolder action … but someone said ‘no’? GIVE ME HIS NAME; I’ll round up all my friends who own pitchforks….”
Some people are saying that the Republicans are winning, paring back the stimulus and putting the Democrats on the defensive. And this is a moment for Republican crowing – much like the famous “Mission Accomplished” moment. Yet displays of triumphaism have a bad habit of biting their owners. See, the Democrats have skillfully played the following messages to the media: 1) We want bi-partisanship, but those PARTISAN, PARTISAN Republicans won’t cooperate with that nice Mr. Obama. 2) We wanted to take bolder actions to help the economy, but those POWERFUL, POWERFUL Republicans blocked our efforts. We’re trying to help you, but Republicans won’t let us!
So even if the stimulus package had no possibility of improving the economy, 1) it’s at least a plan, a bold gesture that will result in multiple news stories demonstrating that SOME action is being taken, and 2) to the extent that it’s deemed ineffective the Democrats will spin that as insufficient and blame the Republicans.
Against that backdrop – being sold from every bully-pulpit in government – what will the Republicans offer? While I hear a chorus of nay-saying, I don’t hear a plan. (Actually, I don’t even hear nay-saying; I just hear the Democrats TALKING about Republican nay-saying. That’s the power of the bully-pulpits.) Until I hear a bold, hopeful Republican plan – and definitely not some libertarian “let nature take its own course” inaction thing – I don’t see how the Democrats can lose no matter what the economy does.
I agree, they should. But I often favor a substantive policy position of government INaction. Try selling that sometime. The merits of the policy maybe matter to someone – but not to the marginal voter.
What an awesome and succinct explanation, nobody.really
I just wanted to add – if we repair & refurbish schools now with an eye to energy conservation, there are additional economic benefits – 2 years of lower operating costs that won’t be gained back if we do the repairs later, and whatever public savings come from not having to build extra power plants (this is true for housing repair/weatherization, also, though it’s less obvious because the public doesn’t pay your heating bill directly.)
nobody.really is right. When the economy tanks, people want government action and help. If the stimulus does not work and we go into a depression, I do not know at what point people start saying, “Well, okay, let’s ditch all these government programs to help otherwise starving people (i.e. me) so we can cut taxes for the super-wealthy to let them get the economy going again.” It won’t happen. Add to that that the REAL reason the Republicans are on the outs is their adherence to a culture war that has turned against them demographically and it’s hard to see the senario in which their refusal to participate in stimulating the economy helps get them back in power.