Killing the Stimulus Plan Key to GOP Rebound

December 11, 2008 RSS Feed Print

"It's time to ask yourself what you believe" is a line from the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's spoken by the movie's baddie to the title character just before the hero archaeologist tries to make his way through three traps that will lead him to the chalice of Christ. Toward salvation. Without faith, he will surely fail.

Republicans find themselves in a similar position right now. Back-to-back blowouts in congressional elections. A near-landslide presidential loss. A terrible economic downturn that many (incorrectly) blame on free markets and deregulation. Overall, probably as bleak a time for conservatives, who are the GOP's life force, as any of them younger than retirement age can remember.

Yet GOPers have been presented with three challenges—opportunities, really—to save themselves. Or as a motivational speaker might put it, three chances to "rebrand, reorient, and recharge" themselves as the party of free markets, limited government, and prosperity.

Opportunity No. 1: The Paulson Plan. Joe the Plumber now says he was appalled when John McCain told him that he was going to support the $700 billion rescue plan for Wall Street. "I was angry. In fact, I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him." So did a lot of grass-root conservatives. Opposing the bailout would have fit nicely into McCain's history as a deficit hawk and as a Bull Moose Republican skeptical of Big Business. McCain could have offered a pro-growth alternative such as suspending mark-to-market rules, cutting or eliminating capital gains and corporate taxes. (If the spike in energy prices was McCain's first big break, the bailout was the second.)

But McCain ended up supporting the Paulson Plan. And the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act ended up passing the House 263 to 171, with 108 Republicans voting against and 91 for it, including conservative heroes like Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and John Shadegg. Hard to blame anyone for voting for it, given that Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke hinted at the coming of the End Times if it failed. Yet in retrospect, it looks like the wrong plan and has undergone several transformations. (Even many economists who favor government action now think a plan that had helping homeowners as one of its key elements would have been better.) And with rising unemployment creating a negative feedback loop among the housing, credit markets and labor market, a bank-focused rescue seems the wrong approach. And for good or ill, it is tough for Republicans to make the case that they were the party dead set against it. Grade: Fail

Opportunity No. 2: The Big 3 Bailout. You would think that opposing the expensive quasi nationalization of the American automotive industry would be an easy task for Republicans, especially given how many members are from the South rather than the Midwest.(It also doesn't hurt that 60 percent or more of Americans have consistently opposed bailing out General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.) And it pretty much was. In the House, 150 Republicans voted against the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, just 32 for it. But remember that this was just the first step in the automakers' bailout hunt. Detroit will be back in Washington early next year looking for more cash. But smart Republicans should spend the weeks between now and then talking about union costs and CAFE standards. Grade: Pass

Opportunity No. 3: The Obama Stimulus Plan. Every day there is more evidence that an economic stimulus plan based on massive infrastructure spending is the wrong path to take to boost the economy. Economists Susan Woodward of UCLA and Robert Hall of MIT say that "proposals for stimulating state and local spending ... will end up generating employment for highly specialized businesses and workers, rather than stimulating economic activity more broadly." And when Barack Obama's pick for budget chief, Peter Orszag, ran the Congressional Budget Office, it called infrastructure stimulus plans "totally impractical" for juicing growth.

So again, conservatives have an opportunity to make the case that the best way to help the economy is by restoring confidence through improving rewards for risk taking. Time to cut taxes. Payroll taxes. Income taxes. Capital gains taxes. Corporate taxes. And if you combined tax cuts with a government spending freeze and Social Security fix, confidence in the American economy would soar. None of this is likely to happen, of course, given the huge Dem majorities. But when unemployment is sitting at 8 percent or higher on Election Day 2010 despite trillion-dollar budget deficits, conservatives can argue that they had the better plan. The question: Will the GOP vote in force against Obamanomics the way it did against Bill Clinton's healthcare plan? What does the party believe? Grade: Incomplete

Tags:
bailout,
economy,
economic stimulus,
republican party,
Congress

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Wow, the financial ignorance displayed by ALL of the previous posters is simply incredible. First, the economy is in trouble because of regulation, bad regulation by the Clinton administrations and the bought and paid for Democrats with respect to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae lowered its lending standards to appease the "anti-redlining" crowd that is the Democratic Party. The problem is that banks weren't lending to certain people because of poor credit history, not the color of their skin. And in addition to lowering it's standards Fannie and Freddie extorted banks to lower their standards as well or face a F&F boycott of their good paper. I know because I saw it firsthand as a mortgage broker in Chicago in the nineties. Banks needed loan volume in certain zip codes to keep F&F buying their paper so they paid bonuses and encouraged lending in certain zip codes no matter the credit worthiness of those loans. Of course they knew there would be problems with those loans so they packaged them up and sold them to someone else. They would have never made those loans without the pressure applied by Fannie and Freddie. So get you facts straight people.

Second, regulation is exactly part of what's killing the big three, CAFE standards to be specific. Why? Because in order to meet CAFE standards the big three had to build and subsidize little fuel efficient cars that people didn't want to buy in order to sell big SUV's, where they actually made a profit in spite of the unions, that people did want to buy and still have their AVERAGE work out. Why should the government be dictating what cars a private company builds when that companies customers tell them what they want everyday by what they buy? In a truly FREE country we as consumers vote everyday when we spend out money and I certainly don't need the government telling me what's best for me.

Third, there was no "deregulation" that caused this problem, in fact again regulation, in the form of the "mark-to_market" which was part of Sarbanes-Oxley forced banks to artificially lower the value of mortgage backed assets based on the last sale, exactly what is killing home values right now.

And forth, lower taxes, especially on the higher end and on capital gains and dividends has proven time and time again that it increases revenue to the government. It happened under Reagan, it happened under Clinton when the cap gains tax was lowered, and it happened again under GWB. The problem is spending, under Reagan the Democrats simply spent more than even the increase in revenues that came in. It didn't happen under Clinton because the Republican controlled house, where all spending originates, simply wouldn't give Clinton a budget that outspent incoming revenue, and it did happen again as both Dems and Repubs under Bush held a special interest funding frenzy.

So yes, deregulation and lower taxes do spur both the economy and government revenues and it would happen again IF government would get out of the way.

Kilroi1 of CO 8:20PM December 25, 2008

I vehemently disagree with Pethokoukis' STUPID assertions that deregulation and lower taxes will save us. Deregulation and regulators deliberately told to look the other way - that's what caused the problems we had. What kind of banking system allows banks to go down in reserve requirements and do stupid loans?

Luckily we see examples like in India and China, where reserve requirements were RAISED and bad loans were severely discouraged and penalized and banks had to do more oversight and people had to put down a significant amounts of their own money for a down payment. These regulated banks turned out to have NO financial crisis, as opposed to ur deregulated banks now getting billions in bailouts. How do you explain THAT, Mr. Pet-the-Kooky?

I agree that bail-outs will not work - too specialized, too unaccountable, and too much of a rescue of the very banks and auto companies that deserve to fail for the stupid moves they made. And they will only come asking for more money like they've been doing all along (AIG is on its 3rd or 4th bail-out, the Big 3 will definitely ask for more).

Banks that didn't need money are getting bail-outs, the FDIC's pool of money for deposit insurance is almost wiped out, and the government's stepping in for Fannie and Freddie puts us all on the line and the Fed's printing of trillions more in money and buying of rotten mortgage-backed assets will all cause problems for taxpayers.

We are seeing the worst of privatized gains, socialized losses - all because our corporations and lobbyists and magnates have Congress and the White House in their pockets.

Paul of CA 5:58PM December 25, 2008

You have a degree in Russian politics and American history. How about getting a degree in business so you don't look like such a stooge when you write drivel like this?

John Anderson of MI 12:22PM December 25, 2008

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement