The American Spectator : Getting to No

Text Size

Getting to No

By Philip Klein on 1.30.09 @ 6:09AM

It’s sad that it took so long for Republicans to take a united stand against government spending, but better late than never.

For eight years, conservatives pounded their heads against the wall as Republicans not only squandered an opportunity to reduce the size of government, but used their time in power to usher in a bold new era of runaway spending.

Those on the right watched a Republican-controlled Congress vote for the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug bill, for increasing the role of the federal government in education through No Child Left Behind, and for one pork-laden budget after another. Even after being thrown out of Congress in 2006, Republicans didn’t get the message, and in his last major act as president, George W. Bush signed a $700 billion bailout that enjoyed the support of 91 House Republicans.

Conservatives were left wondering: what will it take for Republicans to finally join in solidarity against extravagant government spending? This week, they got their answer. With President Bush now out of office, conservatives and moderates alike were willing to stand up to the White House in the name of fiscal restraint, and not a single House Republican voted for the horrendous $819 billion stimulus package.

This wasn’t for a lack of trying by the new President. Eager to gain bipartisan cover for the bill, President Obama had pulled out all of the stops. He invited House Republicans to the White House, and he visited them on Capitol Hill.

When he assailed Rush Limbaugh, President Obama’s aim wasn’t to boost the radio show host’s ratings. By telling Republican lawmakers, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama was trying to brand opponents of his agenda as irresponsible and ultimately fringe characters, more fit for the freak show at Coney Island than the halls of Congress.

But House Republicans didn’t bite.

“This was a bipartisan rejection of a partisan bill,” said House minority leader John Boehner, who was a sponsor of No Child Left Behind and a supporter of the Medicare prescription drug plan under President Bush, but who helped lead the opposition to the stimulus package. Eleven Democrats also voted against the legislation.

House GOP whip Eric Cantor did an admirable job keeping Republicans united, while helping to craft alternative proposals that will enable them to go back to their districts to say they voted for something.

Opposition to the bill was a no-brainer for Republicans. Objectively, it’s a rotten piece of legislation that uses the economic crisis as a pretext to spend hundreds of billions on a hodgepodge of long-standing Democratic pet projects. Voting for it would have only strengthened President Obama without providing Republicans with any political upside.

If the economy improves and the stimulus bill is viewed as a success in the fall of 2010, it will be a good election for Democrats regardless of whether some Republicans voted for the package. If unemployment remains high and the bill is seen as a lemon, it will help Republicans — but only if they are on record opposing it.

As of now, depending on the poll, support for the legislation ranges anywhere from tepid to outright weak. Gallup found that 52 percent of Americans supported the legislation, a majority, but a rather thin one — especially considering that President Obama’s approval rating has been in the mid-to-high 60s.

A Rasmussen poll was worse, showing just 42 percent of Americans support the package, compared to 39 percent who oppose it. Perhaps more interestingly, the poll found eroding support among unaffiliated voters. “A week ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided on the plan, with 37% in favor and 36% opposed,” according to Rasmussen. “Now, 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan while only 27% favor it.”

In his briefing hours before the vote, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, tried to downplay its significance. “[L]et’s not stop after the third inning and tell us who won in the ninth,” Gibbs said. “It’s a long process.”

To some extent, he’s right. The legislation now moves on to the Senate, where the Obama administration may have a better chance of peeling off wobbly Republicans. After that, there will be at least weeks of debate and negotiations, and there’s always the chance that some GOP House members will eventually buckle. But at least for now, Republicans should be commended for their unified opposition.

President Obama will get his stimulus bill one way or another, but a strong stand now will set the stage for future battles. With a mere 177 votes in the House and likely just 41 in the Senate, a united Republican front will be necessary if there is any hope of thwarting Obama’s more ambitious legislative goals, such as government-run health care.

Republicans’ new found fiscal restraint is surely hypocritical. It comes far too late. But better late than never.

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (170) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.30.09 @ 6:28AM

Getting to “NO” you,
Getting to feel free and easy
When I am against you,
Rush knows what to say

Suddenly we’ve noticed
Barak’s corrupt and sleazy?
Because of all the pork and phew
Things we’re learning about you
Day by day.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 7:25AM

I'm glad the House Republicans voted against this pork laden bill. However, they need to go further and provide a different vision. Right now, they only stand for tax cuts and for only short term stimulus in the bill. This is a bankrupt position as tax cuts have never proved to stimulate an economy and have only served to increase debt -- which is now our PRIMARY long term problem. As principled fiscal conservatives, we should take a position that now debt IS the major issue. We should begin the process of paring down government and being more analytical and intelligent about alternatives. Since we know that tax cuts don't lead to a stronger economy, we should drop that. We should take an analytical viewpoint on all of the stimulus initiatives and grade each one on return to the economy and choose the best notwithstanding the ideology. We should drop the only short term thinking and include a good portion of longer term spending on things like infrastructure. The Democrats in the House are giving us the opportunity to take the high ground and NOT be ideological or partisan. We should grab that opportunity instead of responding with partisan, small minded, thinking.

Melvin| 1.30.09 @ 7:39AM

Ohh, horse squeeze, Bob get your head out of la la land toilet. Since when did Democrats do anything for Republicans. Nada, zilch, zero.
George Bush unfortunately with Ted on the Education bill and got his wee wee spanked.
John McCain and his gang of 14 sided with the Democrats how many times and what did it give the Republicans? Nothing.
Then the great analysis that we should focus on the infrastructure is pure bull squeeze because, during all the prosper years with taxes and infrastructure pork money flowing into the US , StatesTreasurey's mysteriously vaporized which left us with a crappy infrastructure.
This infrastructure money was syphoned off by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats and very little was directed into actual projects.
NC for years redirected highway funds into the general fund by the direction of former Gov. Mike Easely who presided over the most corrupt administration in NC history.
So please spare us the sanctimonious crap of we should reach out to the Democrats. When a Conservative reaches out to a Liberal Democrat he or she will pull back a nub every single time.

Dwight Thorne| 1.30.09 @ 7:42AM

Call it the Largest Pork barrel created by private sector - It’s official: your suspicions of Wall Street greed have been confirmed. Despite last year’s huge losses, multibillion-dollar bailouts and closings of some of the biggest names in the industry, Wall Street still gave out an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses. Indeed, last year’s bonuses were the sixth-largest on record.

I say they should be taxed retroactively and simply forced to pay this money back.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.30.09 @ 7:55AM

There are many different types of tax cuts. Tax cuts which are not accompanied by increased government spending work. The tax cuts in the Obama plan are non stimulative in the sense they go only to the working serf who will spend the piddling amounts at Wal-Mart or the like. This will not increase the economy. Here is a breakdown of the Obama plan. There is not much sense looking at previous tax cuts because most were accompanied by increased government spending which didn't help the overall economy.

This is only a short clip of the entire article.

http://mises.org/story/3309
Tax cuts have been proposed as a part of the fiscal stimulus program for the Obama administration. Obama has proposed that 40% of his $775 billion "fiscal stimulus" be devoted to so-called tax cuts. Democratic senators, like Diane Feinstein, oppose such large tax cuts.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this discussion is the failure of so many people to recognize the illusory nature of the Obama tax cuts, which would reduce the immediate tax burden for some Americans by increasing the federal deficit. A switch from tax-financed spending to deficit-financed spending does little to change the existing division of resources between the private and public sector.

Obama's tax cut does not shift resources into the private sector, as a true tax cut would. What Obama is proposing is deferred taxation. He wants to spend now and tax later. The Obama deficits will increase the interest payments by the federal government, draw money in capital markets away from private investment, and ultimately result in higher future tax rates.

Of course, the government could just refinance this debt over many years. So we might not see higher tax rates to pay this debt for a long time. But this just means that we will be crowding out private investment for a longer period of time. The more the government borrows, the less private investors can borrow. Obama wants to "jump start the economy" by deferring some of the taxes we pay to some indefinite future time period. This will stimulate some parts of the economy. The people who get these tax deferments will spend at least some of the money on things that they want now. Some businesses will get more revenue. But this will just draw money from other business investments.

Overall, the Obama plan to borrow now and tax later does not stimulate the economy; it just keeps a large part of the economy in the public sector. There is no real tax cut in his proposal. In real economic terms, the alleged tax cuts in Obama's plan keep tax rates the same.

The real cost here stems from government waste. No reasonable person would claim that the federal government operates at 100% economic efficiency. Some examples of waste include redundancy in federal Medicare spending and misuse of federal employee credit cards (Riedl 2005).

Government waste is a drain on future economic growth. Lower economic growth is a hidden tax that we all pay. That is, it is a tax that is completely unseen by people who accept the rhetoric of economically illiterate politicians like Barack Obama. Unfortunately, many Americans are ready to be fooled by Obama's mythical tax cuts and fiscal stimulus. While Obama promised change, he is changing nothing with his tax policy.

Obama has proposed some legitimate change. Obama and other Democrats also plan to increase the deficit further through increased spending on infrastructure and environmental projects. Increased spending will move more of the American economy into the public sector. This move by the Obama administration would simply raise the burden of government on the private sector. This is effectively a tax increase. The cost of this tax will only be completely obvious at such a time as actual income-tax rates rise to pay down the debt that Obama plans to accumulate. In the meantime, we will pay largely unseen taxes based on the difference between what we get from new federal spending and what we could have had through private spending.

Obama's plan for increased spending constitutes a form of change, but not for the better.

Dwight Thorne| 1.30.09 @ 8:08AM

Retirement Planning

If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.
With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of theoriginal $1000.00.
With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.
If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Air Lines stock youwould have $49.00 left.
But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of wine one year ago, drank all the wine, then turned in the bottles for the recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.00.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to Drink heavily and recycle.
Let people you care about know...and tell them to Start Now!!!

Howard| 1.30.09 @ 8:08AM

The GOP was fat and greasy during their reign, no doubt. But Bush never wielded his veto pen. So, they were co-conspirators.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 8:25AM

Melvin, I guess you did not read my post. I don't think it is a winning position to compromise with the Dems. Republicans should not have a "just say no" positioning, but have a principled recommendation based on analysis and fact. Never in our history have tax cuts helped the economy because spending has not been cut. Therefore, we should have a position on spending, not tax cuts. That's principled and speaks to the point of fiscal conservatism. We should also have a position of non-interventionism whether it is in foreign policy or it is applied to abortion or gay marriage. Interventionism costs money and rarely helps.

Robert, as you properly noted, tax cuts have never worked -- they have only served to increase the debt. If you hit your head against the wall, eventually you will stop because it hurts. Why do Republicans continue to pursue a strategy that doesn't work? Therefore, if spending is the problem, that should be the platform (or as I position it, balanced budgets), not tax cuts.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.30.09 @ 8:40AM

Bob: I never said tax cuts didn't work. I stated that there are different types and unless accompanied by a cut in government spending, they do little to decrease the deficit. But they do work. in the absence of any spending madness. Please speak for yourself. You seem to be on a mission, to nowhere. I hope you get there soon.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 8:53AM

As you rightly stated, tax cuts have NEVER been accompanied by a cut in government spending and thus have NEVER worked. Therefore, you cannot say with any intellectual integrity that they do work. They have never increased the GDP more than other strategies and have only increased the debt.

I may well be on a mission to "nowhere" here among the slew of analytical incompetents, but pursuing lost causes in my spare time is great fun.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.30.09 @ 8:54AM

Stating that tax cuts don't work because they are usually accompanied by increases in government spending is ridiculous. I'll let it go at that. You can't win a discussion with a crazy man.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 9:00AM

What is crazy is someone who claims something works but has no evidence thereto. And you are right, you can't have a discussion with someone separated from reality.

Michigan-Matt| 1.30.09 @ 9:02AM

No offense to Mr. Klein's normal standards for accuracy in reportage, but the lead-in paragraphs for this piece are pure revisionist history and flat out bunk.

The arch-conservatives inside the GOP controlled the purse strings of Congress during the period Mr Klein says conservatives were banging their heads against the wall. It was "No ModeratesNeedApply" Tom Delay & other arch-conservatives who took the GOP majority in Congress for a long, long spending spree... and a bridge to political outcasts. It was a moderate (some here even claim RINO) like McCain who said enuff was enuff when the arch-conservative stuffers were a'stuffin fast and furious.

The arch-conservatives were the ones violating GOP tenets and core values... not the other way around.

That's why the Party needs to say No to Congressional porkbarreling and it's why McCain was right when he said earmarks and wasteful spending needed to go.

Conservatives bashing their heads against a wall??? My God, that's ludicrious without the rap. Conservatives got us to this point in time, the political wilderness and outcast!

Mr Klein's revisionist claim is like Prez Obama scolding Wall St yesterday for the bonus packages they squeezed out of their ailing firms... any one of those Wall St "fatcats" could have used Obama's very words of condemnation AGAINST his Administration's latest spending spree appropriations orgy. It's like Alice in Wonderland is the script for the day.

Conservatives, take responsibility for the spending spree under Bush 43. The first step is admitting to yourself that you were addicted to pork and porn. Conservatives bashing their heads against the wall because of wanton spending??? Good God man, have you no self respect?

Axel Braun| 1.30.09 @ 9:03AM

The United States will not get away with expanding a "Buy American" protectionist measures as part of its economic rescue plan, aledy European Union officials warned about this.

The one thing we can be absolutely certain about is that if a bill is passed which prohibits the sale or purchase of European goods on American territory, that is not something EU will stand idly by and ignore..

Len| 1.30.09 @ 9:09AM

Hey Bob the issue isn't tax cuts, it's illegal government, and you if you want a government that interferes in the economy then move somewhere else, because I'll tell you right now I'll be fighting all the liberals like you to get this Federal government back within its Constitutionally defined parameters as given in Article 1, Section 8. Furthermore, this "NO" vote is misleading, and should in no way be taken as a sign of the GOP taking a step in the right direction. They voted no on this, but are still intent on having something, just not as "pork(read: illegal appropriations)" laden. The Federal DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY to do any of this kind of thing. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Read the Constitution carefully, study history, the Constitution Convention debates, the Ratification debates, and the Ratifications themselves.

john| 1.30.09 @ 9:20AM

The problem is they got to NO at precisely the wrong moment. When the country is facing the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression, scarcely a day goes by without tens of thousands being laid off and a comfortable majority believing this is largely the consequence of Republican mismanagement hardly seems the moment to get religion about opposing spending to get the economy moving. A stimulus bill has somenthing like 80% approval, the president has approval ratings north of 65% and made a conspicuous effort to reach out to Republicans. It may make us feel good but it's political suicide.

Wendy| 1.30.09 @ 9:32AM

Bob, I don't know whether you are stupid or a liar. Probably both. There is evidence all over the place that tax cuts can work and work well. It is indisputable. Here is one that even you will likely not dispute: JFK's 20% cut in the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70% led to the 1960s economic boom (which LBJ then tried to spend away).

What the Senate Republicans should do now is work not across the aisle, but across chambers, and hoist the House Republican plan. The every-man-for-himself method does not work over the long run. If all Republicans are united, they will be powerful and they will gain in public support.

Jeremiah| 1.30.09 @ 9:35AM

And so....the argument is that Republicans are saying "no" to spending only now because....they just got religion?

Nothing else is at work?

Maybe Republicans are licking their wounds in a collective tizzy.

I say, let them.

If the stimulus works, in two years Democrats will take the credit and Republicans will look like the sour trolls we all know they are.

If it doesn't work, in two years the people will punish the Democrats, as well they should.

God Bless Democracy.

Indiana Alex| 1.30.09 @ 9:39AM

Three cheers for the House Reps, and thier alternative plan.

Let the people keep more of thier money and they will prosper.

Let Bob join the realm of Geo. H. W. Bush and pass such winning propositions as "the luxury tax" in the interest of "solving the deficit".

Tax policy will never solve our debt issues. They are political rather than economic, and term limits are the only solution there.

Beyond that the GOP, and conservatives, have to stand for individuals, and promote the power of individuals to create wealth, by allowing them to keep more of what they earn.

Focusing on debt is a silly exercise. Due to our unfunded liabilites we are already bankrupt. No tax or spending policy will solve this.

frost| 1.30.09 @ 9:42AM

Another "about time" comment, and, yes, Dubya was a co-conspiritor - - a rotten president, only marginally better than Jimmy Carter. But, just sit back and see what Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins do, while, at the same time, being glad that that RINO from RI is no longer around.....
Still, it's too late. The Good-Guys have lost; we're outvoted by the "Something-for-Nothing" bunch.

Mark S.| 1.30.09 @ 10:04AM

It only took the clowns in the GOP eight years to decide that government spending was a bad thing.

Now that these idiots have brought us to the brink of disaster they are running around like like chickens with their heads cut off yelling "the sky is falling, cut my taxes."

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.30.09 @ 10:38AM

To: Robert Rosencrans
Sir,
On first take it seems that responding to “Bob” is beneath both your intelligence and dignity. But since your accomplishments and dedication to open minded discourse are legion, your participation is a point is well taken. I, for one, wish to thank you for allowing me the ability to “listen in” and also be personally exposed to your more exclusive take within the confines of this forum. Kudos, if the First Amendment had a modern footnote I suspect the name Rosencrans would appear

As for “Bob” he only says three things; everyone else is stupid (or ignorant), he is smart (code, analytical) and tax cuts do not work. (Repeat).

While I do relish his freedom of speech, his derogatory tone and condescending nature are insufferable. His discourse is boring, redundant and for that reason I no longer even bother to read what he says. On a positive note, however, his presence has unknowingly created (and I thank him from the bottom of my heart) a positive influence on our political future. Most of those who enter the American Spectator forums exchange words; discourse is well and good but deeds do speak louder. In order to perpetuate the Constitutional First Amendment rights we all cherish, and to establish in office those who will preserve those rights, I have become dedicated and personally involved. I simply scan the posters and so often and every time I come across “Bob” I send Sarah Palin’s new PAC a donation.

Michael Roush| 1.30.09 @ 10:41AM

It is good to see such a straight forward indictment of the Bush administration in the American Spectator. Mr. Klein failed to mention that the Bush administration never did account for the cost of the war in Iraq in the federal budget. If you want a true picture of future obligations, you have to add this to the entitlement programs.

The current stimulus package is flawed because it violates Larry Summers three rules for a stimulus package: it must be targeted to spending that will have an immediate effect; it must be short term; there must be an exit from the stimulus spending so the spending doesn't become a permanent fixture in the federal budget.

That Republicans still think that cutting taxes is the best answer to addressing the current crisis is wrong headed. Tax cuts will have less of an impact immediately than will well targeted spending. The unwillingness of Republicans to raise revenue via taxes in good times is a large part of the reason why we are facing such a horrendous debt. Because of Bush and the Republicans when we should have been addressing budget deficits and our national debt, we added to both. Now that we need federal spending to jump start the economy, we are looking at future debt that is truly startling.

stmichrick| 1.30.09 @ 10:43AM

Hey Bob,

This is the first of the 'teaching moments' you ridiculed a while back.

Most of the electorate realizes why Republicans hung together on this one. Hopefully it will happen again when another leftist Christmas tree comes down the chute or when something truly onerous is implemented, like bringing battlefield terrorists into the U.S. criminal justice system.

The American electorate was drunk when they elected this 'American Idol' president; they just might appreciate well-enunciated hangover prescriptions by authentic conservative leadership.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 10:43AM

Wendy, there is NO statistical evidence that tax cuts have helped the economy. GDP, a measure of economic growth, did not grow any more under Reagan or Kennedy or Bush than any other President. The stock market fared better under Clinton than anyone else. And debt fared far worse under Reagan and Bush than anyone else. The only way to consider that tax cuts helped is to have a complete disregard for the truth or just be an idiot. Please point me to some graphs which show something different. If you are right, you should be able to show me the data. And please, don't pick specific timeframes as we all know those statistical tricks. You should be able to support your position with facts, right?

The data that might support your position is to look at the unemployment rate which dropped under Reagan. However, it dropped even more under Clinton who raised taxes.

The fact is that government can't control the economy. We give far too much credit to politicians when the economy goes well and far too much blame when it goes poorly. That's my point. It is private enterprise that makes our economy go. That's why tax cuts or increases have so little effect on the economy. Monetary policy has a greater effect and that has been proven.

I don't want high taxes. Let me repeat. I don't want high taxes. But you don't cut taxes to stimulate the economy. You also don't raise taxes when the economy is in bad shape. My position is that the only way to reduce taxes is to push for balanced budgets. Low taxes without reducing spending just raises the debt and puts the burden on our children. If you as a taxpayer don't feel the strain of federal spending, then you won't elect people who will reduce it. That's my point. No politician will voluntarily push for reduced budgets. After all, they get elected to bring MORE money to their constituents, not less.

Verstehen Sie????

Mark Buehner| 1.30.09 @ 10:58AM

"But you don't cut taxes to stimulate the economy. You also don't raise taxes when the economy is in bad shape. "

Anybody else think there is a serious problem with the logic of this statement? Unless by some astonishing chance our current tax rate is perfectly ideal, this CAN'T be true.

You are also cherry picking data. The confiscatory Carter tax rates (70%+!!) led directly to the unemployment, double digit interest and inflation rates of the early 80s. Clinton would not have had the economy he had without Reagan's tax cuts, and Clinton's increases were mild compared to where Reagan started.

The logic is inescapable. Think about it, if tax rates were 100%, would it affect the economy? Of course. So if you cut tax rates from 100% to 50%, would it help the economy? Of course. So now we aren't really arguing about IF taxes affect economic activity, we are talking about HOW MUCH. That is the debate. You can argue a marginal drop will only create relatively insignificant economic growth, but you can't argue it will have no effect at all. That's illogical.

Indiana Alex| 1.30.09 @ 11:01AM

Well targeted spending will have more of an impact than tax cuts? Who is the genius we should hire to will determine the worthiness of the targets?

Even the head of Obama's CEA disagrees with this, but of course "these are extraordinary times".

Millions of people making economic decisions in their own interest, with their own money (no trasfer loss or latency here) would, in my most humble opinion, have a much greater impact than the politically charged manipulations of the permanent political class.

Chris| 1.30.09 @ 11:06AM

Can't we all agree that this "Bob" guy is a condescending, insufferable bore. And that he is flat out wrong about everything he says lol.

stmichrick| 1.30.09 @ 11:36AM

Chris; I can agree with your supposition but Bob would want more analysis and logic applied to your statement, instead of blind belief that Bob is a condescending insufferable bore.

And Chris , BTW are you college educated?

frost| 1.30.09 @ 11:39AM

It's so simple, Bob, NO NATION HAS EVER TAXED ITS WAY INTO PROSPERITY. That sez it all. Also, excellent observations from Mr. Hanschild, yea, verily even

Hera| 1.30.09 @ 11:40AM

BO is actually going to be responsible for destroying my Republic. I thought it was going to be Hillary but she is too busy running the world.
The scenario is screaming out but the media will not report it. Taking tax dollars away from working American's and giving it to Pork Projects will just destroy what little business is left in the USA after the Unions destroy any market share their companies currently have left. Yesterday BO signed a bill that did two things. Equal work for equal pay-good idea. Allowed retroactive discrimination suits so that more lawyers can get a paycheck. Big problem. Those companies that are paying women pensions may end up with their Pension Fund collapsing under the weight of so many new payouts.
BO brings no change. The Clinton Administration is in charge, the Liberals are voting PORK in and Capitalizm Out.
Be scared. Atlas Shrugged is here.

reagan| 1.30.09 @ 11:41AM

The 'tan man' better get to the peoples business instead of pulling lies out of his behind...that are caught by none other than Krugman who lays it out...Obstructionist --against the people stupidity...

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 25, 2009
As the debate over President Obama’s economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan’s opponents aren’t arguing in good faith. Conservatives really, really don’t want to see a second New Deal, and they certainly don’t want to see government activism vindicated. So they are reaching for any stick they can find with which to beat proposals for increased government spending.

Paul Krugman

Some of these arguments are obvious cheap shots. John Boehner, the House minority leader, has already made headlines with one such shot: looking at an $825 billion plan to rebuild infrastructure, sustain essential services and more, he derided a minor provision that would expand Medicaid family-planning services — and called it a plan to “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives.”

But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.

First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

It’s as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 — and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.

The point is that nobody really believes that a dollar of tax cuts is always better than a dollar of public spending. Meanwhile, it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts — and therefore costs less per job created (see the previous fraudulent argument) — because a large fraction of any tax cut will simply be saved.

This suggests that public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan. But rather than accept that implication, conservatives take refuge in a nonsensical argument against public spending in general.

Finally, ignore anyone who tries to make something of the fact that the new administration’s chief economic adviser has in the past favored monetary policy over fiscal policy as a response to recessions.

It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: the interest rates the Fed controls are already effectively at zero.

That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: it’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse.

These are only some of the fundamentally fraudulent antistimulus arguments out there. Basically, conservatives are throwing any objection they can think of against the Obama plan, hoping that something will stick.

But here’s the thing: Most Americans aren’t listening. The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: “I won.” Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost.

stmichrick| 1.30.09 @ 11:42AM

I've found some common ground with Bob.

He states, 'the government cannot control the economy.'

It can, however, damage it by confiscatory tax rates on investments and profits.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 11:45AM

Mark, I encourage you to actually study economics. You made the statement that the Carter tax rates led to high unemployment. I encourage you to go to the government site and look at the graph of historical unemployment rates. You'll see that high unemployment is related more to the business cycle than the Presidency. In fact, you'll see a high rise in unemployment at the end of the Bush1 administration and a significant drop in unemployment after Clinton raised the tax rate. Those are the facts, please do your homework before you post nonsense.

Furthermore, the marginal tax rates of Carter were just that -- marginal. They only affected a small percentage of taxpayers. The effective tax rate only varies between 20-22% over a long period of time. Again, do your homework and look it up, you'll see that I am correct.

About your logic of 100% to 50%, it is faulty logic. Let's take the reverse, if the tax rate was 0%, would it be even better? Well, you wouldn't have water, sewer, a military, policemen, etc. The economy would not run. Is there an optimal tax rate? Sure, but it changes over time and the only way to find it out is to continue to go up and down until we are able to have balanced budgets.

In terms of tax cuts affecting the overall economy, take a look at this chart of GDP and try to make your argument:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

The problem Mark is that many on this site lack the ability to think critically about the issues facing us and utilize rhetoric and ideology rather than fact. If you have non-selective data to prove your points, please post it. And again, please don't just give me selected data between two data points -- we can all play that game.

Chris, I certainly agree that I am condescending and insufferable. But I am absolutely right on the facts. If you are going to make a statement to the contrary, please support your position with the appropriate data.

Doug| 1.30.09 @ 11:46AM

I think what we see here on this board is the way it must be in congress. Plenty of ideological, knee-jerk reactions and not a great deal of thoughtful analysis.

Think through what Bob has postulated. In this economy, there is a massive move to de-leveraging, which means that many people and businesses are doing their best to shore up their balance sheets. As a result, there is a great percentage of any additional tax reduction that would be put to debt reduction, not spending that would boost demand in the economy.

People who immediately dismiss the impact of federal spending on goods and services seem to miss the point. Business revenues are shrinking due to waning demand. An infusion of federal demand as executed through direct spending on goods and services would serve to spark the economy in the short run.

Now, most respondents will likely ignore the following paragraph, which is both predictable and unfortunate, but please read these caveats.

I am not in favor of much of the spending in this bill. While some parts of the bill would go to direct federal spending on goods and services today, too much of it does not. But that doesn't mean that tax cuts will lead to the same amount of spending that federal direct purchases would.

At the end of the day, it seems that those who hate "Keynesian" programs seem to have not read the writings of Keynes himself. The runaway federal spending our politicians put in place are not what he intended. Most Democrats are not Keynesians, just pork spenders. And the Republicans have been recently as well.

While in a normal economic environment, tax cuts can be a positive influence on spending. Where we see the paradox of thrift changing spending habits in today's economy, there is an opportunity for the federal government to be a spender of last resort. However, this should be a short-term and tightly focused effort.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 11:49AM

Actually, stmichrick, I totally agree with your statement. But in order to not have those high tax rates, we much reign in spending. Since our elected representatives won't do it even if they are Republicans, we must force them to with balanced budgets. That's why I believe tax cuts have to follow spending cuts, not lead them.

Bob| 1.30.09 @ 11:53AM

By golly, Doug, you get it!!!!

Mark Buehner| 1.30.09 @ 11:55AM

Krugman makes no sense, as per usual. He is big on assertions, short on facts, although doesn't distinguish the two so I guess it doesnt bother him. Air traffic control? You find me ONE provision of this new bill that is going to keep planes from falling out of the sky and i'll concede the point. Essential services are one thing, contraception and the other nonsense being steered to favored groups that won't see the light of day for years is not stimulus.

By Krugman's logic you could spend 50 trillion dollars building cement blocks and dumping them in the ocean and it will provide more stimulus than tax cuts. Why? Because all government spending is equivalent to air traffic control. Silliness, and he KNOWS he's being silly. This is ideological for him, not economic.

Indiana Alex| 1.30.09 @ 11:56AM

Doug,

I believe a dollar of tax cuts are always better than a dollar of gov't money spent through taxation or debt.

The idea that "these are extraordinary times" and that basic economic laws don't apply is simply a scare tactic designed to get people to bend over and take whatever the powers that be design to shove.

I am against any "stimulus" that suggests that government can decide where best money should be spent.

For example, is it bad becuase "these are extraordinary times" that people would use extra money to pay off credit cards?

There goes the whole debt arguement.

Flapjack Johnny| 1.30.09 @ 12:00PM

And to sum up one of the posters, while Reagan was President everything was his fault, while Carter was President he wasn't responsible for anything.

Mark Buehner| 1.30.09 @ 12:01PM

"Mark, I encourage you to actually study economics. "

Bob, I encourage you to find some manners and stop assuming you are better educated than everyone in the room. Either you don't understand how the affect of marginal tax rates create things like capital flight or you are pretending not to. Either way I don't see much point conversing with you. You and Paul Krugman should have lunch. Apparently you are the only two economists in the world, instead of actually a minority opinion.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.30.09 @ 12:03PM

Tax cuts versus tax cuts versus tax cuts.
http://mises.org/story/649
The Tax-Cut Question

Daily Article by Gregory Bresiger | Posted on 4/10/2001 12:00:00 AM

In deciding on a tax cut, Americans must make a choice.

Will we make the same mistake as Britain's Labor government of 1945, which reluctantly cut taxes, targeting the cuts to ensure that none went to the rich? Or will we follow the route of the German Federal Republic of the late 1940s and 1950s, which repeatedly cut taxes across the board and thus triggered "the economic miracle" that led the German economy to become the strongest in Europe?

We have casebook studies of how tax cuts can actually hurt and help an economy. They can be used, not as weapon for helping regenerate an economy, but as a method of social engineering and promoting egalitarianism. This was the policy of England's first powerful socialist government, the Clement Atlee ministry of 1945. (The other Labor ministries, back in the 1920s, were weak governments in which Labor had to cut deals with other parties.)

At the end of World War II, Labor won a landslide victory and had one of the strongest governments in British history, with an overall majority of 145 seats. With little opposition from the Tories, Labor proceeded to nationalize many basic industries and to implement socialized medicine. Under the leadership of Hugh Dalton, chancellor of the Exchequer, it also offered tax policies to try to stimulate the economy.

Dalton knew that cutting taxes was essential, but his philosophy was very similar to that of today's quasi-socialists pols who complain that President George W. Bush's proposed tax cut is too big and is a sop for the rich. Echoing many of John Maynard Keynes's ideas, these socialists believe big tax cuts will not help the economy because the rich will just save more money, while the poor and middle class will consume more.

In October 1945, Dalton offered a plan that called for a 40-percent cut on the lowest tax brackets, a 10-percent tax cut on the middle brackets, and no tax cut on the highest brackets. In fact, Dalton went ahead with an increase in the already high surtax on the highest brackets. As one historian of this period wrote, while the general level of income tax went down, the level of the super tax went up, so that rich people were no better off.

It was apparent what Dalton was trying to do. He saw tax policy as another opportunity to advance British collectivism. He said his tax policies were intended "to continue the steady advances toward economic and social equality we have made during the war and which the Government firmly intends to continue in the peace."

Britain, which had many economic advantages over its continental neighbors in 1945, was headed for economic disaster—a disaster that, by the 1960s and '70s, would be called the British disease, a disease of low growth rates. One reason for these mistaken policies in 1945 was that the opposition party, the Tories of Winston Churchill, did little to oppose the puny tax-cut policy of Atlee/Dalton—much like today, when some American conservatives question if the nation can afford tax cuts.

In a reply to Labor's budget message, Conservative Shadow Minister John Anderson generally praised it, but he had a few minor complaints. Britain was on the road to more socialism through "targeted tax cuts." But there was a problem with Labor's tax and economic policies. The economy would stall. Growth was sluggish. Food rationing and other controls were still going on years after the war. People grumbled. Living under a socialist government, complained novelist Evelyn Waugh, was "like living under an army of occupation."

By 1948, Dalton's successor, who continued unsuccessful wage, price, and profit controls, was raising taxes on investment income. And because the economy wasn't recovering and because Britain desperately needed more income for its welfare–warfare state, he raised taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and sports pools—taxes that hurt more than the rich. By 1949, as the problems continued, the British pound had to be devalued by about 30 percent, to $2.80. By 1950, Labor's majority was down to only seven. Two years later, the Labor ministry was gone. The economic policies of reluctant tax cuts—tax cuts designed to further social engineering—failed.

Meanwhile, in the German Federal Republic, Finance Minister Ludwig Erhard, a student of the Austrian School of economics, took a courageous step: He ended wage and price controls without the permission of the occupying forces. In 1948, he began a remarkable series of tax cuts and tax reforms that went on for a decade. In addition to benefitting both the rich and the poor, these reforms continually redefined who "the rich" were by pushing the income thresholds up at the same time that tax rates were being cut.

Erhard apparently wasn't interested in destroying the rich. Rather, his tax policy was to encourage more people to become rich. In this period, the dividend income tax rate was dropped from 65 percent to 15 percent, something Hugh Dalton and his socialists successors would have found terrible.

In the process of trying to restore an economy, Erhard rediscovered something that helped Germany boom: Cutting taxes across the board was as successful as it was contagious. So, Erhard continued it repeatedly throughout the 1950s. Erhard became a very popular man and was able to ride his economic record into the chancellor's office in the 1960s. Dalton and his socialist colleagues, meanwhile, were not able to win office again for twelve years.

In sum, let's examine these two schools of tax cutting.

On the one hand, there are the Hugh Dalton social engineers. They resemble modern Puritans, whom Mencken once described as having an uncomfortable feeling that someone, somewhere is enjoying himself. The Dalton Gang, wherever it appears, believes it would be a sin if a tax cut were to lead to rich people becoming richer. They are suspicious of almost anyone who achieves quick wealth, so they believe cuts should be reserved only for the poor and middle class.

Of course, how one defines the latter group is a dicey proposition in a country like America, where most of us consider ourselves middle class and many of us want to become rich. Only by loading up the tax benefits for those most likely to consume--the poor and the middle class--will the economy ever become stronger, the social engineers say. These Puritans also want to use tax cuts as a way of redistributing income.

These people, either consciously or unconsciously, are usually socialists with a passion for equality. If they're baseball fans, they likely hate the New York Yankees. The logic of their thinking would be that each major league team should be allowed to win the World Series every thirty years or so. Liberty must be sacrificed to the crusade for equality, and tax policy is the Republican Guard of this socialist army of economic Comstocks.

There is more than economic thinking going on with our modern Puritans: They often hate the rich. But their crusade is dangerous and could end up killing a lot of innocent people.

Who are the rich? And who will define what is rich? And if they turn out to include people who have had some success in business or investing--a group that has taken in tens of millions of Americans over the past two decades--should we all hate ourselves?

On the other hand, there is the much larger tax-cut school. These people usually call for permanent cuts in marginal rates. They often say that their kind of fatter tax cut is not designed to promote income redistribution, nor as a form of social engineering.

What counts with these folks is that the economy grows, regardless of whether the distribution of the benefits is uneven. This is the best part of their program. Some of the more responsible of these people advocate lower taxes but simultaneously hold government spending in line.

However, some irresponsible supply-siders argue that, given the additional tax revenues generated by the stronger economy, government spending can be jacked up. For instance, the U.S. could go on a military spending binge or some other government spending drunk, as it did after the successful marginal cuts of the early 1960s under President John Kennedy, a big-government president who used tax cuts as a way to pay for his insane and superfluous military buildup.

Of course, the small-tax-cut Puritans point to these supply-side spending-binge types to prove their specious case that huge tax cuts aren't good for an economy. They also point to them to prove that tax cuts will only work if they are smaller and are used as one of their weapons of social engineering.

There is no doubt that one can criticize both the Puritans and some of the supply-siders. However, responsible supply-siders--those who want the deepest cuts possible and who don't advocate them as a way of continuing to pay for more big government, such as the ridiculous Reagan military buildup of the 1980s--are the ones whose victory would do the most good. History has proved their case time and again.

Americans must choose. Is it to be "economic and social equality" in a stagnating economy? Or is it to be the only policy that ever produces growth: huge tax cuts without a socialist agenda?

-------------

Gregory Bresiger, a New York-based financial writer, has appeared often on Mises.org. See his archive and send him Mail.

Chicago Joe| 1.30.09 @ 12:05PM

Republicans' new found fiscal restraint is surely hypocritical. It comes far too late. "But better late than never. "

Now that the Republicans are no longer in charge they are for small Government and controled spending. Once they win again they will be back to out spending anything the Democrat's could ever dream of. I am sorry you beleive the phoney clams of fiscal responsibility but the truth is that history doesnt back up the Republican claim of small government and less spending. Research shows the opposite to be true. So I dont beleive a word they say.

THE RESULT of GLOBALISATION| 1.30.09 @ 12:07PM

Spend or don't spend makes no difference to America.

When America should have not spend they were spending. That is how they aquired the 56 Trillion debt, it's a little late now. The Republicans got the country into the mess now they want nothing further to do with it.

When things gets worse, what will they say, because America is dead if they spend, and dead if they don't spend. Catch 22!

But the biggest irony, spend your way out of a hole, or don't spend and stay in the hole.
It's a matter of choice, stay in the hole and spend nothing, and the hole gets bigger, or spend and the hole stays roughly the same or there abouts.

If you are a BUSINESS man or woman your business is losing money. If you are an employee there is the worry of losing your job, so you don't spend, people hold on to their cash.

The Banks on the other hand is taking the BAILOUT while there is free money to be had, and make hay while they can.

What is the solution, is there any, could it be the world has changed and people on high did not notice it, they were too worried about, the WAR in IRAQ, Sept 11th, the world was being hoodwinked, while this major change a shift in the system and quite right the nations were distracted.

If the government wanted to BALIOUT any one they would have given the nation the money to take the pressure off people, and businesses, and people could stay in their jobs. Business people would beable to keep their staff.

But the Bank demanded their money back the ones that could stay afloat, under the mountain of debts.

To save America, the Americans needs an act of GOD. It's a shame it's not going to happen, America owes the entire globbe money, America is Bankrupt, Obama has nothing to do with it, he took over the country in a mess, it will take years to sort out before America can begin to move forward again.

Doug| 1.30.09 @ 12:08PM

Indiana,

I think you get to a point where there is a marginal return to the additional tax decrease. I'm not trying to suspend any economic laws. In fact, one problem we have trying to live by any economic law is that none of them can be proven to any extent. Economics is not physics.

De-leveraging is not bad ... it will lead to future economic prosperity. However, think through how proper federal spending can spur demand while providing a long-term economic benefit.

Ask IBM how much business it cost them when the Rochester facility went dead with the rest of the east coast when the electric grid failed a few years ago. Not enough for them to make a multi-billion investment in upgrading the grid, but certainly there was a negative impact. If the federal government took responsibility for upgrading the grid, you inject demand into the market for the goods and services required for the improvements. When you come out the other side, you could have a grid that means IBM doesn't loose a day or two of production.

It isn't that government is best at spending all our money, but they do have the ability to provide in ways that individuals or corporations can not.

Dustoff| 1.30.09 @ 12:23PM

Howard
The GOP was fat and greasy during their reign, no doubt. But Bush never wielded his veto pen. So, they were co-conspirators
__________________________

BINGO!
Hope they learned their lession?

Joe Blow| 1.30.09 @ 12:26PM

I`d feel better if these same Republicans weren`t all over the ideological map. From overseeing budget explosions under Bush to now having us believe they`re devout follwers of Hayek and Austrian economics.

Tristan| 1.30.09 @ 12:33PM

Personally I am a conservative. I don't want any affiliation with the Republican party. They doing things in a more increasingly moderate way. The Democrats go left and then the Repubicans follow. The gap between never changes.
And I agree with whoever said we need to stop congratulating Presidents who "got the economy better". It's just they happened to President at a good time in the economy.

Bush is blamed for the downturn because he was President and if Obama doesn't "get it better", he too will be blamed.

Long live conservatism!!

Rocky| 1.30.09 @ 12:37PM

Where you been Bob? You must not be old enough to remember the 70's. Nixon followed the 'Great Society' expansion of Government by LBJ with whimpy wage and price controls. That was followed by a Carter administration that sounds a lot like this current one. In 1979 the country was in a mess. Then along comes Reagan, he cuts taxes (you've probably never heard of the Laffer curve) puts the brakes on the growth of Government and vola...a 25 year economic boom with a couple of quarters of poor or negative growth.

You want to stimulate the economy AND stop corporations fomr moving overseas? Cut the 35% corprate tax rate (which is even higher than semi-socialist Europe) and cut the payroll tax and put the brakes on Government growth...ad vola...prosperity will return.

zaxtervid| 1.30.09 @ 12:45PM

Disgusting. Republicans wont flinch at spending TRILLIONS of dollars for an oil war that the public WON'T benefit from, yet they refuse to spend our tax dollars on things we actually need. DISGUSTING.

godblessusa| 1.30.09 @ 12:58PM

Report Abusive Post
GOP'ers have absolutely no problem with massive, wasteful, no-strings-attached, no-oversight, fraud-ridden government spending on infrastructure and development...in IRAQ!!

Why do conservatives hate America?

Indiana Alex| 1.30.09 @ 1:03PM

Doug,

That none of this can be proven, I completely agree.

Other than by Bob.

Cheers

Think First| 1.30.09 @ 1:51PM

I read many of the comments here and I get the same warm fuzzies I did when my Statistics teacher said when we were applying Statistics to various economic proposals and historical evidence. What he said and proved in mathematical terms with formulas from whatever economic "theory" you chose, was statistics and figures can be used to prove anything. His favorite saying was there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Does the data support Bob? Of course if you ignore all other factors around them. Data does not exist in a vacuum. Our economy does not exist in a vacuum. An economics degree means nothing because what school and what direction they use their "factual data" to point is the only thing they care to teach. I've been to 6 different schools in night classes and a few day classes and each one had a different take and different reasons all backed by "actual figures." In an effort to get first hand information, I read Paul Zane Pilzer's books to get an idea of what the major reasons, ideas and goals were for Reagan. If you don't know, Mr. Pilzer was one of the youngest economic advisors on Reagan's staff. I also read Thomas Sowell's books on Economics which helped as well.

The bottom line is Reagan wanted to cut spending big time as he knew without spending cuts along with the tax cuts it would take longer to turn around the economy and it may not even reach it's peak until after he was out of office. He also feared the determined efforts of Congress, both sides, to keep spending and increasing the size and scope of government because they would feel the improving economy would give them license to steal. Reagan feared his own party as much as Democrats because there were far to many who believed in buying votes instead of doing their job. Even then what figures they could track down Republican controlled congresses tended to increase spending more than Democrats. Reagan hoped to inspire a new conservative movement that treasured fiscal responsibility by government along with personal freedom from government interference as much as possible.

Was Reagan perfect? Of course not. Was he what we needed at the time? Absolutely. If we could learn from his mistakes and build on his successes, we would not be where we are now. Economic degrees mean nothing in the real world as it has been proven far too many times. Bush failed big time in the economy and admitted he moved from conservative principles. The strong stance he took in terrorism was not balanced with a strong stance at home where he proved to be spineless.

Taxes always kill growth. They take money away from business. Raise taxes, kill jobs. Increase spending, kill jobs. Increase minimum wage, kill jobs. Most people are aware enough to realize some taxes are needed for the government to function. However the size of that government is what is always in dispute. We see now the victim mentality and assumption of big gov to save us all from our mistakes sapping the urgency of making wise choices of our own in order to stay in our homes, enjoy our prosperity and live a happy life. It is easier to put your faith in big gov because it means you don't have to take personal responsibility for your success or your failure.

And that is where these businesses need to fail or succeed on their own. The fed has no business defining what cars should or shouldn't be. It has no business defining who mortgage companies should be making loans to. Yes Fanny and Freddie were being run by the people trying to save our economy now that ruined them when they were there. Including Mr. Emanuel. If companies are paying to much in bonuses to leaders, why don't stockholders scream louder? How the gov's money gets spent is one thing, how business spends it's own money is the stockholders.

The only economic theory proven to work in a tested environment was done several years ago and what has come to be known as Austrian economics. The economists got Nobel Prizes. They basically proved Keynesian economics never works and reduced taxes, regulation and limited govt. does. In other words, Reagan was right all along and if his plans would have been allowed to close depts., shutdown more regulations, and limit spending to income in the fed, it would have been even better and recovered sooner.

Nick| 1.30.09 @ 2:03PM

Bob,

You wrote : "The Democrats in the House are giving us the opportunity to take the high ground and NOT be ideological or partisan." Exactly how are they doing that? The house democrats didn't allow any amendments. "the one" had flashy meetings and didn't allow any conservative input.

But I actually agree with your main point. I think the national debt and deficit reduction are great politcs. Republicans should be beating San Fran Nan & Dusty Reid over the head with "PAY-GO" and "HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THIS?" rhetoric.

And they should have a PLAN to reduce the national debt by cutting all the useless programs in the budget, not just in this bill.

It's too bad your BDS & PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) and your individual autonomy ideology retards your rationality. It overshadows otherwise reasonable suggestions.

megapotamus| 1.30.09 @ 2:10PM

Stimulus spending is a crock. It rests on the putrid elitist presumption that the Big Heads in DC know what you need better than you do. Gub spending of all kinds should be on things that only gub can do, like build interstates and run the military, and that NEED to be done. Stray from this and the result is... well, what we have. Those who demand stimulative income tax cuts may have a point but rates are not (yet) at the height rectified by Kennedy or even Reagan. The Laffer curve will tell you that cutting these will have a lesser effect than those under Reagan perhaps swamping the growth encouragement. A truly stimulative approach that does NOT involve spending money we ain't got would be a suspension or flat out repeal of the capital gains tax and/or a moratorium on taxes on accounts held overseas by US corporations. These funds are economically quarantined now but they are REAL, the product of true wealth creation through manufacturing and services. Further, these funds are by definition, invested. On repatriation or release from tax induced torpor, they will be re-invested not blown at the bar or on yacht maintenance. But "spending" for its own sake will not only have zero economic benefits across the board it will lard us with a debt of such magnitude that only vigorous inflation will remedy it. That seems inevitable at this point so on we go but reality will out. It always does.
Oh, and the costs of the Iraq war are tiny compared to the costs we would incur for petroleum if the ME were in chaos or utterly controled by Iran, the two alternatives inaction would have, by unanimous declaration, been the result of inaction.

Pat| 1.30.09 @ 2:16PM

Good article if you're addicted to dreary books analyzing chess strategies in excruciating detail, but nothing more than stating the obvious when it comes to Republican Party tactics. The Republicans are banking (or desperately praying) on becoming the latest fad diet, as featured on Oprah, in the 2010 mid-terms by offering an alternative to the Democrat's binge eating. But Conservatives need to remember why Adkins, the South Beach Diet or Nutrasystems are so popular.

When Americans can no longer look down and see their feet, when their jeans are uncomfortably tight or when they've gained 3 dress sizes, it's time for the fad diet in order to drop a few pounds. But notice how well diet books consistently sell. Is it because Americans don't eat sensibly and must resort to periodic dieting to undo the damage? And notice that Americans never stay on a permanent diet, they like to eat as much as they like to spend money on social welfare programs. Sure, the Republicans are the political diet of choice after years of Democratic gluttony, but Americans, despite sincere personal vows to keep it off, never stay very long with the healthy stuff when the world is full of gastronomic temptation.

The swing voters who decide periodically to go with the Republican's Fiscal Diet haven't had a change of heart and suddenly become permanent, dyed in the wool Conservatives. Their jeans just got too tight.

Matt Churchill | 1.30.09 @ 2:31PM

Glad to see the American Spectator belatedly jumping on the "dump on the GOP" bandwagon. Where were you during all of those dark spendthrifty days when the GOP controlled congress? You would think a true conservative watchdog would have taken a few shots at them when they ran things prior to the electoral beatdowns that ensued (and prior to nominating La Raza's man in the Senate John McCain for POTUS.)

Lets try to get ahead of the curve next time (assuming a "next time" is possible) and call for a consistent adherence to fiscal and social conservatism prior to the next electoral annihilation.

If the GOP continues to go the way of being "democrat lite" then they can count me out for any election and candidate on any level. If social and fiscal conservatives have no legitimate voice in politics through the GOP, then its time to look at 3rd parties - and heres hoping that AmSpec isn't so wedded to the right wing socialist party that they wouldn't come along for the ride.

Nick| 1.30.09 @ 2:35PM

Think First,

Amen, Amen, Amen!

You put down in words my exact thoughts on economics.

Except for the taking classes part. In the army, I tried to read my roommates Econ 101 book. Didn't get past page 5. Only gardening ranks lower in boredom for me. Diffrn't strokes I guess.

That was almost 20 years ago. Since then I've done some more reading and came to the conclusion that economics is like the weather. Both are highly complex systems. And while there are certain data you can measure, there are much more you can't. Which is why no one can predict either.

And with both weather and economics, certain people with agendas will cherry pick the data to support their ideology. Economics is not so much a science as it is an art, and bad art at that.

Pat| 1.30.09 @ 2:58PM

Matt Churchill, you expressed my thoughts even better than I could. When will Conservatives stop shopping at Republican-Mart and start buying quality merchandise again? And your point about converting the Republican apologists among the so-called Conservative websites is well made, high time and right on.

Nick| 1.30.09 @ 3:03PM

Bob,

You wrote: "It is private enterprise that makes our economy go."

Hey, way to go. Now you're starting to sound like Rush!

daboss| 1.30.09 @ 3:25PM

To All –

This is a great debate about tax cuts … but in the current environment tax cuts are demonized (that dog won’t hunt).

How about REAL CHANGE – a flat consumption based tax and the repeal of the 14th amendment and abolishment of the IRS. That would be something most liberty seeking citizens can get behind.

Real change – and it puts BHO in a pickle … because its ACTUAL change.

It can work.

frost| 1.30.09 @ 4:30PM

Got a suggestion for Bob -- and others of his ilk (love that word??!). Copy it down and tape to your mirror (you do sound a tad too narcissistic), okay? Here it is: IT'S WHAT YOU LEARN AFTER YOU KNOW-IT-ALL THAT COUNTS.
Got it? Read daily, forget the aspirin and don't call me in the morning...

frost| 1.30.09 @ 4:32PM

And, daboss -- congress will never relinquish its power-of-taxation it holds over us. The Flat Tax or Fair Tax will never be passed, ever. Congress needs the power...

frost| 1.30.09 @ 4:51PM

Oh, another thing, briefly. Some liberals were jumping on the Iraqi crap back around 12:45 -- and, yes, they have a point, kinda...
In fact I wrote Dubya several hair-curling letters of protest about us fronting the entire cost of that Iraqi war (and its miserable conduct by the McClellans in the Pentagon 'til he finally got Petraeus, a few years too late...) when Iraqi oil couls have been tapped, either to re-pay us in oil itself, or the income generated from same. What a lousy president he was, nearly as awful as Carter. Still, however, I remain absolutely THRILLED that neither Gore or Kerry got in; what rotten choices we've had!

ddd| 1.30.09 @ 5:05PM

Why would iraqies want to pay the US anything?

frost| 1.30.09 @ 5:32PM

Freedom for a few million folk isn't worth a few barrels of oil? But, to answer the quest, I guess it's because Dubya accepted it as his (our taxpayer) duty to fund it, 'n didn't ask 'em...?
Actually, I don't know -- good question.

BJC| 1.30.09 @ 5:46PM

Mr. Klein, I believe your concluding paragraph's statement is wrong for situating blame incorrectly: "Republicans' new found fiscal restraint is surely hypocritical." Where party and stated principle align, there is no hypocrisy. I'd say the hypocrisy arose from George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" attempting to co-opt big government while simultaneously being putative leader of a GOP that claimed limited government is the best guarantor of individual liberty. That's a circle that can't be squared -- but what were the congressional Republicans to do when their ostensible leader abandoned them, abandoned explicit Republican principles, and cut questionable deals with Democrats to "get things done"? I'd say the Republicans have just now ceased being hypocritical. I'd have chosen differently if I'd been in elected office during the Bush administration as a conservative Republican -- I'd have bucked President Bush where he strayed from conservatism, instead of supporting him -- but then I'd probably never have been elected in the first place because I live in a "swing district" and I can't be bought or bent away from my principles.

Mike| 1.30.09 @ 6:05PM

A NO vote for the house Republicans was the biggest no brainer of all time. Were they actually supposed to vote liberal big goverment grab-bag just because it included some of BO's tax cuts for 95% of all Americans (including the 45% that pay no taxes)? There was absolutely nothing for a Republican to back in that bill. They weren't being pricipled or brave or smart. They had no
choice but to vote no.

Matthew| 1.30.09 @ 11:37PM

What a joke the Republican party has become...a pathetic group beholden to special interests (great to hear Exxon had record profits again.)
They can stand up and, wearing their 'flag pins', pass a rule to re-name French Fries to "Freedom Fries", but they can't muster enough courage to solve the crisis they created. Ok...let the little boys with the loud mouths stand of on a corner, they can kiss their leaders (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly) a$$ while holding hands and singing "Barack the Magic negro". God knows when it comes to competence or responsibility (anyone for a Oxycontin smoothie with a Loofa rub?), they're the first ones to shy away. Cowards.

Frosty| 1.31.09 @ 12:40AM

This 'Economic Stimulus' monstrosity is all about power. It's just a way for the leftist democrats to grab power by turning the majority of Americans into a welfare constituency. Welfare Queens all, Hogs at the government trough. Thank God it will fail and destroy the liberals.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 1.31.09 @ 1:15AM

Congressional Republicans only have balls when there is a Democrat in the White House. What else is there to say? Anyone who's been paying attention since the 1994 mid-term elections should be intimate with that fact. The Congressional Republicans turned into such a bunch of worthless pukes during the Bush II administration, I was actually happy to see them lose control of both Houses in 2006 (although I still voted for the GOP Senatorial nominee here in California, Richard Mountjoy; he's a solidly conservative Republican worthy of respect). But now that Barack Obama is President, I hope they take Congress back in 2010. We may have to wait until 2012 or 2014 for that, alas.

GreginOkinawa| 1.31.09 @ 7:26AM

Mathew-

"...but they can't muster enough courage to solve the crisis they created..."

The Republicans were only complicit in this debacle...the Dems own it, 'cause they created it.

TheEnforcer| 1.31.09 @ 8:47AM

Mark S.| 1.30.09 @ 10:04AM
It only took the clowns in the GOP eight years to decide that government spending was a bad thing.

Now that these idiots have brought us to the brink of disaster they are running around like like chickens with their heads cut off yelling "the sky is falling, cut my taxes."
==================================Sure, blame the Republicans for this mess.

Why don't you take a look at Barney Frank(DemocRAT), Chris Dodd(DemocRAT) and ALL the other DemocRATS who did get us into this mess?

Haven't ypu noticed that ALL was fine until 2006 (Jobs, economy, Wall St. etc).

Then, the DemocRATS got the majority of both House and Senate.

Where are we now?

Dustoff| 1.31.09 @ 9:57AM

Has anyone seen the news. Obama's health zar (Tom Daschle) has tax problems?
What's with dem's and taxes!
The rules they make for us are not good enough for them.
Now that's Hope & Change folks.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 1.31.09 @ 10:18AM

The mess we're in now wasn't created in the last two years. More like the last 20, with the GOP in control of the White House and the Congress (albeit for only six years at the same time, as compared to two for the Democrats, however) for the majority of that time. Liberal policies may have gotten us into this mess, but if it weren't for those same liberal policies being championed by the two George Bushes (especially the latter), and ratified by Congressional Republicans (especially post-Gingrich), then we'd be a Hell of a lot less worse off. Did George W. Bush ever veto anything in last two years? Hell, the last eight? I think one time. Yeah, but let's blame it all on the Democrats, who until 2007, hadn't controlled Congress since 1995, nor have they controlled the White House since 2001, until just a few days ago. The Democrats just acted like Democrats, but the Republicans have betrayed everyone who ever voted for them.

Joe amato | 1.31.09 @ 1:41PM

If 820 billion created 825 million jobs, ok. If it created 82 million jobs, ok. But, 825 billion for 4 million jobs is the worst investment in the history of the United State of America. And now the President wants to run Wall Street? It appears that we are headed for a state-controlled world and Russia is headed for capitalism. What a reversal. I can't wait till they get control of the Press. Oh, uh, they do ...

Frosty| 1.31.09 @ 2:10PM

Democrats own this economic meltdown because of their idiotic liberal social engineering. They buy votes from the poor by forcing banks to give them bad loans --they are the legislative arm of ACORN.

Dave in Indiana| 1.31.09 @ 6:45PM

The current economic situation can really be boiled down to a couple of really bad things that happened. Number One, is personal spending habits,via home equity,home loans, speculation loans, etc. I have been a professional in the finance industry for over 25 years, and I have noticed one thing, is that some people will continue to borrow money they dont have, until someone or some situation cuts them off. Alot of this was made possible by our friends in government who made it possible to buy a house with no money down, no docs, no income verification, no legal citizen status. WTF were they thinking? I sure as hell wouldn't want this crap in my portfolio. These 80/20 loans with no money down and pushing 60-70% debt to income ratio?WOW! they defaulted SURPRISE!
The other moronic move we made was in the "dirivatives". If it looks like insurance, acts like insurance, it should be funded and regulated like insurance!! duh!! dont back up something your ass cant cash!

Live within your means,save your money and get a good education.
Live well.

Matthew| 1.31.09 @ 10:44PM

The Republican party is going the way of Detroit automakers in the 70's. They've been ridding Reagan for the last 28 years, while producing a political Edsel (GW). People are standing up and saying enough is enough and moving elsewhere. All that's left are a bunch of pathetic slogans, very much like Detroits "Buy American" movement in the 80's. After producing garbage for the past 10 years, all we hear is "we're conservative, damit". Pathetic. They make a great minority party as the last 8 years taught me they no longer have what it takes to lead. They just have an empty set of shrill voices to market as ideas are nonexistent. Pathetic. BTW, I liked Reagan, Bush (41) and the real conservatives...not the babble class (Limbaugh, O"really, Malkin, Coulter...oh they reek of stupidity...Hmmm...perhaps that's just smell of stale, putrid ideas slipping out of those mouths. They should quiet down a bit more.)

save4later| 2.1.09 @ 4:31AM

You can't solve a crisis due to TOO MUCH BORROWING by Borrowing some more. Are you kidding? Tax cuts doesn't work? Are you kidding?

Get the life boat| 2.1.09 @ 9:44AM

America has become the circus clown and the trickster, now you see it now you don't.

The Bailout is the disappearing act, now you see it, now you don't.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

N.W.O| 2.1.09 @ 11:38AM

All the kings horses, and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again. The Banking system is finished, because that is what the Bilderberg Group want's, what they want is what they get. And what they want is what they get. Obama is not running America, nor was Bush. They are just front men for the TREATY of ROME.

Michele San Pietro| 2.1.09 @ 1:09PM

It's true that Bush jr. was not nearly as bright as Reagan was. It's important for Republicans to develop a common stragegy against big spending.

DEAD DOG FIGHTINGBACK| 2.1.09 @ 1:57PM

Republican or Democrats, it's a state of mine, one thinks the other is better, when both take their orders form the same people.

Till people begin to think for them selves they are lost. Who do you think Reagan was, or Bush for that matter, these people are money men who serves their master with no question, and it's not the American public, your life is yours to do as you will, as long as you keep within the law.

One man cannot solve the worlds problem if that was so why can't an individual solve his own problems. The government don't know each individuals problem in America or anywhere else for that matter.

Organisations run their companies to suit the good of their organisations. Companies will keep laying off workers because it is in the interset of their companies, not in the interest of the government. The Government is acting in protecting their country from economic collapse.

The reality on the ground is against the very economical survival of America as a whole. The problem is based the state of the worlds economy and the level of America debts, is obviously unsustainable. America has no option but to print more and more money, the more they print to give to the Banks, the worst the economy gets, because no one inside America or the outside world has any confidence in the American Broken economy.

Can America come back, perhaps but not at the same level it will be a weaker country, much like it is now. The Asians will be the leading economy from here onwards, America is reducing its reliance on foreign oil, but is the Arab world worried, "NO" because America can't pay for their oil now. The Asians can, and their economy will only grow in the coming years.

America wants to say we don't want foreign oil, the reason is they can't afford it.

An American Story| 2.1.09 @ 3:11PM

Humpty Dumpty = America
Humpty Dumpty sat on a WALL = Wall Street
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall = the FALL of WALL STREET.

All the kings horses and all the = the BLACK NOBILITY, and all the kings men = all those who worl for the kings and queens couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Dumb = the people of America.

An old nusery Rhyme for 5 year olds is what was used to destroy a SUPER POWER.

The Bully who Bullied the world, like the big bully in the playground in school finally, a small nation destroyed it.

It was David a Jewish boy who killed Goliath the Philistine. Goliath was huge he frightened every one, Daivd killed him with a sling shot and a stone.

America denotes Golaith and David denotes a small nation, the weak destroying the strong.

Reading is not such a bad thing, and History is a good thing.

All the world leaders cannot put the American system back together again. It's broken and no one can piece it together again.

A nation destroyed by the blue print of a childs nusery rhyme.

An American Story| 2.1.09 @ 3:28PM

An American Story is an idiot. As America goes, so goes the world.

An American Story| 2.1.09 @ 3:47PM

The deathe on one nation is the rise of another the EUROPEAN UNION.

El Wayne| 2.1.09 @ 4:44PM

Bob and Bob Rosencrans- Are you guys alter-egos? BR's "on a mission to nowhere...hope you get there soon" (1/30/09-8:40am)nothing absolutely less than sublime...we're not worthy, we're not worthy Mr. Rosencrans....give us more. I feel like the driveby dude who got warm tingles up his leg for Obama. Flipping outstanding.

And Bob, who begins with a B and ends with a B.....like Boob,,,maybe Obama will give you that extra "O" that your name needs...making yourself the all knowing all uberintellectual that you self-proclaim to be exposes you for nothing more than a misanthrope and the poser that you are. Obviously you've been educated beyond your intelligence. You're no dummy but PAH-lease spare us your "spare time" analysis. It appears that you have nothing but spare time which is, as fate would have it, eating into the gray matter that once occupied the void between your ears....love you man! Go watch the Stupour Bowl Bob!

The Last HORSEMAN| 2.1.09 @ 8:15PM

The last horseman is on his ride and his name is DEATH

Michigan-Matt| 2.2.09 @ 9:46AM

Wow, the nursery rhymes thing is really, really catching on with some folks. Over the DailyKos, a very farLeft, full-BDS website the use of nursery rhymes is in full force... as is the unbridled hatred of Bush-Cheney even after they've left town.

Nursery rhymes is the new cool thing for the farLeft? Maybe we need to skip asking the farLeft to put down the KoolAid and now ask them to put down the Enfamil or the bottle --better suits the condition.

rechie | 10.24.11 @ 10:38AM

Thanks for providing this good informative post and i got a good knowledge from your blog, i think most of the peoples are get good benefited from this information.

Kimmeli| 3.30.10 @ 12:21PM

Sanoi ettei tule lotrata sellaisten aineiden kanssa mistä kädet ei muutenkaan tykkää. Kynsilakan poistoaineesta sanoi että ei sais olla hoitavia öljyjä kun ne pehmentää kynttä. Sanoi just että asetoni on ihan ok... "kynnen kasvukohdan tasaiseksi tipin kanssa.." Siis minkä kanssa? Viilanko? Rakennekynsien kanssa käytetään aina asetonittomia lakanpoistoaineita (muut aineet sulattavat kynnen pinnan). Kasvurajan voi viilata pois ja laittaa päälle esim. väritöntä lakkaa. Ja tämän voi siis tehdä myös geelikynnen kanssa, mutta geelillä varsinaista täyttöä on hankala tehdä itse.

wangsir| 4.3.10 @ 3:25AM

SWF to FLV Converter shows how to convert SWF tO FLV easily and quickly

Poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 10:28PM

thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica

yanyan | 10.10.11 @ 2:44PM

This is a great blog with excellent posts and links.
Thanks for sharing.mesothelioma attorneys

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 10:26PM

What really inspired me here which give me idea to stay here and participate in the discussion, was that you wrote this while waiting for a plane.
yaz class action

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 11:32AM

You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.

silver spot price

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 11:32AM

You got a really useful blog I have been here reading for about an hour. I am a newbie and your success is very much an inspiration for me.

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.18.11 @ 1:07AM

I need to read more on this topic...I admiring time and effort you put in your blog, because it is obviously one great place where I can find lot of useful info.
fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 10:03PM

It proved to be very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also engaged! I'm sure you had joy writing this article.
Actos Lawyer

abominable putridity| 11.5.11 @ 8:34AM

your blog and wanted to tell you that I've really enjoyed surfing around your blog content. Thanks so much.

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 3:50AM

Im buying blog design thats similar so thats a common reason I'm asking.

filipina women

craige| 11.11.11 @ 2:53AM

This blog only proves that filipino people ilikes to help! i am up for the person who starting blogging this one!

paxil lawsuit

bogol| 11.16.11 @ 1:45PM

I truly do love the way you have presented this amazing problem plus it does offer me a many fodder for thought. Nonetheless, thanks for this phenomenal point although I cannot actually concur on this in totality, I value your own standpoint.
Actos Lawyer

Perfect !!!| 11.19.11 @ 2:50PM

I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles.
mas 200

bogol| 11.28.11 @ 8:22AM

this is an amazing set of pictures. I am plannning to print it on my Tshirts. That will be awesome. Thanks again for efforts made to collate these pictures.

Paxil lawsuit

bogol| 11.30.11 @ 11:36AM

With all the sites I've been to on the web, here is the only submit That i've ever deduce the exceptional creating. Your clearness want to know , explains effectively the actual conversation. I am glad that the writer discussed this kind of subject for the visitors. My partner and i appreciated the way the writer programs their producing top quality. It is usually known as a successful task.

Actos Lawyer

bogol| 12.1.11 @ 7:58AM

It's perfect time to make some plans for the future and it's time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or suggestions. Maybe you can write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read more things about it!

mesothelioma lawyer

bogol| 12.1.11 @ 8:01AM

I am really pleased to stumble upon this your writing.I wanted to thank you for your time for this excellent read!! I without a question enjoyed all of it and I have you remebered to check out the new work on you website..

mesothelioma lawyer

inah0911| 12.3.11 @ 9:02AM

this is an amazing set of pictures. I am plannning to print it on my Tshirts. That will be awesome. Thanks again for efforts made to collate these pictures.

asbestos lawyers

inah0911| 12.5.11 @ 12:26PM

A very good and informative article indeed. You are one of the best blogger I ever knew..

san diego personal injury

inah0911| 12.6.11 @ 8:15AM

this si very amazing i like it so much thanks for the share...

san diego bankruptcy

IMYI| 12.15.11 @ 10:02PM

I was extremely pleased to find this website.I wanted to thank you for this good understand I definitely enjoying every single small bit of it and We've you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.

Medtronic Infuse Lawyer

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online