The Politics Of Doom

When President Bush wanted to ramrod the Patriot Act through Congress with minimal debate in 2001, he claimed immediate action was necessary to ensure the nation's safety and prosperity.

Some Democratic members of Congress complained that the process was too rushed. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts dubbed it "an outrageous procedure: A bill, drafted by a handful of people in secret, comes to us without a committee review and immune to amendment."

Seven years later, after multiple court rulings striking down portions of the Patriot Act, it's fair to say that Rep. Frank had a point.

Now President Obama wants to ramrod the so-called stimulus bill through Congress with minimal debate, claiming immediate action is necessary to ensure the nation's safety and prosperity. "I am calling on the Senate to pass this plan," Obama said in his Saturday radio address.

This time, the shoe is on the other foot. Democrats are rushing to enact the largest spending bill in the history of this nation without a single hearing, and Rep. Frank now insists that complaints "are not legitimate." Republicans are the ones calling the legislative blitzkrieg an "abomination" and "an insult."

This rush to legislate was ill-advised when the Republicans did it under Bush, and it's ill-advised when the Democrats do it under Obama. Call it the politics of doom, with practitioners insisting that unless you endorse a massive proposal with plenty of unrelated amendments, they'll blame future problems on you.

Let's be honest here, folks: Our esteemed elected representatives can (and should) take some more time to get this right. Every dollar that we spend we'll borrow - most likely from the Chinese - and future generations will be stuck paying back this debt with interest.

True, layoffs are rising as house and stock prices are falling. But the U.S. unemployment rate remains at 7.2 percent, lower than where it was in 1975 and 1992 and far lower than a truly worrisome 10.8 percent in 1982. Even Michigan is doing much better than that today; this is hardly confirmation of a Great Depression 2.0.

So far, the current list of "stimulus" recipients includes $870 million for flu prevention, $6 billion for drinking water projects, and $19.5 billion for school modernization.

Lobbyists for Florida citrus growers, California wineries and pharmaceutical companies are busy ensuring their well-connected clients share in the largesse. Because much of the spending is in the form of grants, federal agencies will dole out billions. Cities and states have submitted their 344-page wish list, which has been ably deconstructed by the open-government activists at StimulusWatch.org.

(Who knew that the city of Natchez, Miss. insists that spending $600 million on an "ethnic heritage trail" is the best use of stimulus funds? Or that Austin, Tex. is demanding a $866,000 bailout for a frisbee golf course?)

Those projects may be useful. They may not be. But they have one thing in common: most of us would not call them vital elements of an emergency "stimulus" plan.

Before the 9/11 attacks, supporters of more government surveillance had pressed to give police the ability to obtain court orders allowing them to secretly enter someone's home, search it, and leave without notifying them.

They initially failed; members of Congress rejected that idea. But after 9/11 the Bush administration took advantage of a feeling of national unity by gluing secret searches and other rejected proposals onto the Patriot Act.

Today that pattern is repeating itself. Democrats over the years have developed a long list of policy goals, including spending more on alternative energy, Pell Grants, public housing and health care for the middle class. The "stimulus" legislation has become a convenient excuse to enact them at a time when the public may not be paying close attention.

There is some hope of cooler minds prevailing. An article in Wednesday's Washington Post reports that Senate Democrats don't have enough votes to enact the current version of this pork-stuffed bill.

Republicans should push to carve this already-pricey proposal, which started at $300 billion and is now approaching $1 trillion, into smaller slices. Being able to vote down some of the more execrable "stimulus" spending ideas is one small step toward rejecting the politics of fear.

---

Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. He previously was Wired's Washington bureau chief and a reporter for Time.com and Time magazine in Washington, D.C. He has taught journalism, public policy, and First Amendment law. He is an occasional programmer, avid analog and digital photographer, and lives in the San Francisco Bay area. His e-mail address is [e-mail]

[mcv57]

Its is so funny with the new circus in town. I am a Constitutionist who wonders why the Democrates are so heated-up into passing the NEW WELFARE DEAL. One Democrate Rep said that "we must restore the publics'' faith in business and investment," yet the SEC and the FBI, saturated in corruption, does not have a clue in arresting FRAUD.

Mr. Obama does not care about jobs or business, his objective is to have the Welfare Funding in the system when the financial holocaust unfolds. Hopefully, the corrupt system (whom will likely steal most of the funding) can provide more than souplines and bread lines.

[creeper00]

Obama''s relentless quick-pitch on the stimulus bill is not being made for the purpose of helping the country. It''s being made for the purpose of putting a "win" under his belt after weeks of embarrassment over tax-dodging appointees. We''re going to cough up $900 billion so Barack Obama can chalk up his first legislative victory.

For proof of this, look at the contortions he''s gone through to get Republicans on board. Passing it isn''t enough for him (though even that is beginning to look iffy.) He wants to brag about all the support he''s got. It''s all about his own ego.

It will always be about Obama''s own ego. The man has no demonstrated legislative skills. What Barack Obama does best is promote Barack Obama.

[bopp9]

Roosevelt''s secretary of treasury, Henry Morganthau is quoted as saying We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.

It is a fallacy to believe that when the Government spends money for programs that the money comes from independent sources the fact is the money comes from hardworking tax payers. Read your history Government programs not well thought out lead to greed and corruption.
Everything learned in macroeconomics in the last 60 years shows that a spending stimulus will put the government farther into debt, but it will not increase real output or income on a sustained basis.
Every state is now over budget, they all have their hands out. It is sad that the poorly run states and cities have the best case for getting the most money.
They are all crooks.

[ausus-2009]

ubrew12,

You gave the wrong hint. It was the unshackling of industry from FDR''s regulatory regime. The prosperity of the 1950s reflected this as well.

FDR was re-elected because the Republicans did not put up a viable candidate and he was still riding the wave of blame the previous regime for the economic woes even though by then they were mostly of his own doing.

[ubrew12]

ausus said: "We all know there was a crash of 1937 and the Depression did not end until the outbreak of World War II. "

Why was FDR reelected to a third term?

Why would WWII end the depression? (hint: massive government spending).

[ausus-2009]

By coincidence yesterday I read an article by two US professors of economics that said had FDR not made such a mess of the situation the Depression would have ended in 1935.

We all know there was a crash of 1937 and the Depression did not end until the outbreak of World War II.

[downsteamjm]

I wonder if Obama will do like FDR and pay people to write stories and songs about how great he and his programs are. Of course with the media''s mindless love of all things Obama, it will probably be unnecessary.

[ausus-2009]

noloyalisti,

Have you even visited the US? I must assume you are writing from your cave in Afghanistan.

If you want true fascists, you have to look no further than Burma. Otherwise there are plenty of examples in the Middle East, Sub-Sahara Africa and Latin America and even a lot of fascism in the policies of the EU.

Your "I hope they go under so we can start over" statement must mean that you want to establish a totalitarian state to YOUR liking.

[inketolstoy]

$650,000,000 for HDTV converter boxes. Me and the boys working at the converter box factory (here in China) sure are glad our jobs are safe for four more months. Meanwhile Pelosi says 500 million Americans will lose their jobs if this stimulus package isn''t passed. That means every American will lose their job, and many will be rehired to lose it again. Now that is cruel. How can you say no to logic like this?

[frankhummel1]

Actually, the Democrats are acting rather like the REPUBLICANS did in pushing through the "TARP" bill, which in reality has only served to "bail out" the FINANCIAL institutions.

With respect to the executive salary caps ---
I suggest that President Obama should FOREGO about $50K of HIS OWN pay (which is $400K), and then pointedly JAWBONE these bailout beneficiary CEOs/CFOs, etc. TO FOLLOW HIS LEAD --- VOLUNTARILY!

%u201CWe out here%u201D are all taking a huge hit --- THOSE BIRDS CAN ALL DO LIKEWISE!

Now I bet THAT would get EVERYBODY to shut up (about a LOT of things!) AND ACTUALLY GET SERIIOUS.