Third Time's the Charm!

Today my decreasingly-ambivalent Obama-supporter friend sent me a link to an article at the Huffington Post, headed "The Fiscal Stimulus Will Pay For Itself." Gee, that took me back.

First, of course, I remembered that the 2003 war on Iraq was going to pay for itself. Paul Wolfowitz rather notoriously said, "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Not only that, Dick Cheney expressed his belief that the Iraqis would welcome the US as liberators. (Remember "Democracy, whiskey, sexy"? Those were innocent times, the 2002s and 3s. Not like today.)

Then I remembered that the Bush-Paulson-Obama-Pelosi-Frank bailout of last year was going to pay for itself. George W. Bush said, "Money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold, and we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back." As a commenter declared tongue-in-cheek at The Distant Ocean, "The $700 billion may be a little high. Actually, once the oil starts flowing again, the bailout will pay for itself. I predict people on Wall Street will greet us as liberators!" Of course, it didn't work out that way; rather like the war on Iraq, the bailout plan was actually intended as the pillage of a prostrate nation.

Obama, of course, has already been welcomed as a liberator. I think that his stimulus plan has a better chance of doing some good than either the invasion of Iraq or the bailout, but what do I know? Certainly the HuffPost chose an unfortunate title for Ann Pettifor's defense of Obama's program.

Plus Ça Change ...

At A Tiny Revolution, Jon Schwarz has posted an excerpt from an article in Time praising head of Obama's National Economic Council chairman Larry Summers:

[P]erhaps as early as March, they'll launch their biggest lift with the beginnings of a plan to reform Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that, even before the economy collapsed, were threatening the Treasury with bankruptcy. By any standard, it is a massive three-month agenda fraught with political risk. The key to getting it all done, Summers says, is entering into a "compact" with the country "that this isn't just government as usual throwing money at things." When Obama unveils his annual budget in late February or March, Summers promises that the President "is going to describe the kinds of approaches he wants to take to the entitlement problems that have been ignored for a long time." Some options might include delaying retirement, stretching benefits and lifting the cap on taxable earnings. Could one of these prevail? "Remains to be seen," Summers says...

On that front, Republicans could come to Obama's rescue. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has told Obama in person that his party favors entitlement reform and would work for passage if both parties shared the risk.

Who said bipartisanship wouldn't work? The Republicans are perfectly willing to collaborate with a Democratic President if it means getting rid of Social Security, a Republican (and elite Democratic) dream since the Thirties. Even Bill Clinton, who pushed through major items on the Republican wishlist like NAFTA and welfare "reform", couldn't manage this one. But maybe President Hope and Change can succeed where lesser men have failed.

Saturday night a friend sent me a link to Obama's video message asking for his supporters' help to pass his stimulus package. Sez our Prez:

Let's be clear: We can't expect relief from the tired old theories that, in eight short years, doubled the national debt, threw our economy into a tailspin, and led us into this mess in the first place. We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as the answer to all our problems while ignoring our fundamental economic challenges – the crushing cost of health care or the inadequate state of so many schools; our addiction to foreign oil or our crumbling roads, bridges, and levees.

I agree, but if Obama recognizes that tax cuts are a "losing formula," why has he accepted a compromise bill that is 40% tax cuts? I suppose he can argue that at least it doesn't "offer only tax cuts as the answer," but 40% is too damn much of a losing formula.

In comments under Jon's post, one person wrote that "Larry Summers is a disgrace." True. But I recall back when Obama was announcing all these disgraceful appointments, his partisans were telling us that it was okay because he was going to be boss, they were just going to be the team of rivals that would do his bidding. And I believe that. So let's not put all the blame on Summers, scum though he is; just remember where the buck stops.

update: I corrected Summers's title at the beginning of the post. What is wrong with me? I knew perfectly well that he wasn't Secretary of the Treasury.