Responding to Rich

Frank Rich has penned a column about Republican obstructionism of Obama's stimulus package that appears in today's New York Times that I think needs a response. While I don't view Rich as much more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party his column bears closer scrutiny precisely because it reflects mainstream leftist thinking (indeed, as of this writing it is currently the second most popular item on nytimes.com) on the current state of affairs.

Let's start with the column's title -- "Herbert Hoover Lives" -- no doubt an allusion to Hoover's role in the Great Depression. In popular mythology Hoover was a free market acolyte whose response to the economic crisis of his time consisted of twiddling his thumbs waiting for the marketplace to arrive at a solution. Here, however, is how wikipedia describes his response:

In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin, conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction." Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms.

For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".

These policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken later as part of the New Deal. Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

I'll let the reader decide whether Hoover's actions more reflect today's Republicans or Democrats.

After describing the seriousness of the current recession and conceding the imperfect nature of the stimulus bill he slams Republicans for not playing a constructive role and being bereft of ideas:

The problem is not that House Republicans gave the stimulus bill zero votes last week. That’s transitory political symbolism, and it had no effect on the outcome. Some of the naysayers will vote for the revised final bill anyway (and claim, Kerry-style, that they were against it before they were for it). The more disturbing problem is that the party has zero leaders and zero ideas. It is as AWOL in this disaster as the Bush administration was during Katrina.

This is strange, because a few paragraphs later he conceded that Republicans actually did have an alternative:

The Republicans do have one idea, of course, but it’s hardly fresh: more and bigger tax cuts, particularly for business and the well-off. That’s the sum of their “alternative” stimulus plan. Obama has tried to accommodate this panacea, perhaps to a fault. Mainstream economists in both parties believe that tax cuts in the stimulus package will deliver far less bang for the buck than, say, infrastructure spending. The tax-cut stimulus embraced a year ago by the G.O.P. induced next-to-no consumer spending as Americans merely banked the savings or paid down debt.

Actually, Republicans didn't cut taxes last year. They sent out rebate checks, which is most assuredly NOT the same thing. No tax rates were reduced at all, instead the government just handed people money. Further, if you actually click on the link that Rich provides the kind of tax cuts described aren't tax cuts at all, but just more rebate-type measures. In fact, Obama's own chair of the Council of Economic Advisers wrote a paper extolling the stimulative effects of tax cuts.

I've already mentioned the GOP stimulus alternative before and you can read it yourself to determine whether it is a serious proposal or not.

Then we get this bit:

But even if tax cuts alone could jump-start a recovery, they couldn’t do the heavy lifting that Obama has promised and the country desperately needs: a down payment on a new economy to replace our dilapidated 20th-century model and bring back long-term growth. The Republicans don’t acknowledge the need for this transformation, or debate it in good conscience, preferring instead to hyperventilate over the contraceptives in a small family-planning program since removed from the stimulus bill. All it takes is the specter of condoms for the party of Vitter, Foley and Craig to go gaga.

Strawman. If STD prevention was the only absurd piece of funding in this bill then Rich might have a point, but it isn't and he doesn't. It's a cornucopia of Democratic special interests in which infrastructure plays only a small part. Indeed, according to this news story from the Chicago Tribune the amount scheduled to be spent on infrastructure is around $70 billion. For a stimulus bill that is projected to be, at a minimum, $800 billion that is less than 10% of the entire spending.

If Democrats want to have a debate about infrastructure then let's have it. But taking a bill, larding it up mostly with stuff that has nothing to do with infrastructure, and then complaining that Republicans aren't interested in America's future doesn't wash.

I suppose Rich could also be referring to the $100 billion in "green" technology but as I have written before this is a huge waste that Republicans are correct to vote down.

Oh, and I should also point out that the Tribune news story describes the stimulus package thusly:

It remains a challenge just to understand what is in the plan. The version passed by the House last week ran 647 pages; the Senate version, which may come to a vote this week, will likely be longer.

You will recall that debate on this bill was something like 8 hours, or roughly $100 billion of spending per hour.

The column then concludes with a weird non-sequitur about Rush Limbaugh's role in the Republican party being yet another sign of its demise. This is the same Rush Limbaugh whose opposition to Clinton in 1993-94 helped produce the GOP landslide in the mid-term elections. If he is such a marginal figure why is the President of the United States singling him out for criticism and why are liberal groups running radio ads against him?

But I'm sure Frank Rich offers all of this up because he has the Republicans' best interests at heart.