Palin, Ruedrich call for Begich resignation: Former Sen. Ted Stevens | adn.com. The entire GOP continues to surprise me with their stupidity right now. "Spending freeze?" Have any of these people read any history?
But Palin and JTP take the cake, and they are the people the "base" of the Republican party just loves. What more can you say about that "base?"
11 comments:
I don't see the big deal here.
First, I didn't see anything about a spending freeze, so I'm not sure what you are reffering to.
I personally think and election is an election. I was against the California recall of Gray Davis. So I think that even if the result came out poorly for the Republicans, they have to deal with it and there should not be a special election.
That said Palin and the Republicans aren't calling for anything improper or silly. Stevens got something of a raw deal, though it does sound like Stevens probably still is a crook. Because Stevens got a raw deal, the election was almost certainly influenced by the "conviction." Palin and others are calling for the resignation of Begich, which is a legitimate request.
In all reality this is simply politicking. The Democrats would do the same thing if the situation were reversed. I simply don't think that this is a big deal.
LB, I can guarantee you that Republicans have been calling for a 5 year spending freeze--the same kind of economic policy articulated by Herbert Hoover in 31. Their budget called for a spending freeze and massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
As for this thing in Alaska, I don't think I said it was a big deal. I said it was stupid, and I stand by that. As you note, elections matter, and if they are mad at anyone for screwing up their election, they should hunt down Bush and Mukasey and Gonzales for what they did to the Justice Department. I actually don't think their request for an elected Senator is a "legitimate" request at all. It is, as you note, politicking, and I have no doubt that Democrats would do it too.
But that doesn't make it legitimate or not stupid. :)
I work for a law firm, which means I'm a sworn blood enemy of PR firms, and I get cranky when I see politicians taking a lot of time to manage their image rather than dealing with, you know, actual policy. Campaigning for office is a necessary evil, though election season isn't a good time to be a small furry woodland creature directly in front of my feet. But this whole Ted Stevens sympathy party strikes me as less about justice and more about rehabilitating a public image, and I think it's a waste of time and the salary we pay our elected reps.
I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. While I never had a great impression of Stevens, I am even more bothered by prosecutorial misconduct in general. I don't think there is anything wrong with what the Republicans are asking for, but I also don't know if this is the best way to remedy the situation.
LB, I can guarantee you that Republicans have been calling for a 5 year spending freeze--the same kind of economic policy articulated by Herbert Hoover in 31. Their budget called for a spending freeze and massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Hoover changed his mind pretty fast and instituted one of the largest tax increases in history. The wealthiest went from paying 25% to 63%. He also had passed many farm subsidy bills and gave massive loans and grants to businesses that were trying to stay afloat. I think it is reasonable to say it may have been too late, but even some New Dealers, such as FDR economist Rexford Tugwell, concede that the New Deal was extrapolated from programs Hoover started. Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive offers a fair account of Hoover. I think Hoover gets kind of a bad rap.
Sorry, but calling for the standing senator to resign simply because you don't like the outcome is still a stupid thing. I am not sure why you guys think it is some kind of legitimate request. If Begich was somehow implicated in the misconduct, I could understand. But there is no connection there. Stevens brought this on himself by asking for an early trial.
Steve, I am well aware of Hoover's record and actually agree. He was nothing like the Republican President's he worked for in the 20s. That actually puzzles me, because they were idiots, and Hoover clearly was not. Why he continued to enact policy in the Commerce department for these people eludes me. But he did some good work, especially with the 27 flood.
And you are right, he did raise taxes. But that isn't the same thing as changing his mind on freezing spending, right? They aren't the same thing. Hoover's problem in 30 and 31 was not that he didn't try to do something for the depression, but that he simply was not willing to be radical enough in his changes. Farm subsidies, yes, well, almost. But not nearly enough to counter the depression agriculture had been in for the entire decade preceding, and not near enough to counter the deepening crisis and bank collapse. Same with loans and grants under the RFC. Not enough. Not too late, but not enough. And ultimately, he was so wedded to a balanced budget (the main reason for raising taxes as he did) that he tried to freeze spending to balance the budget, and at the wrong time.
Roosevelt did the same thing in, I believe, 37, when there were some brief signals of recovery. He bowed to conservative pressure (and had screwed things up with the court packing scheme) and reduced spending. It is that economic downturn, btw, that produced the term "recession" to replace "depression." Prior economic downturns were either "depressions" or "panics" and no one wanted to panic the American public in 1937, so they used a milder term.
Hoover does get a bad rap, but not about the spending freeze. And any Republicans who think that the lesson from the New Deal is to cut spending have simply not read any history, or have only selectively done so. Conservatives like to say that the New Deal didn't fix the economy--the war did. But the lesson there is not less spending, it is more.
If Begich was somehow implicated in the misconduct, I could understand.
I meant to mention this. You are correct. He shouldn't have to be penalized. I wish there was amore effective means to punish prosecutorial misconduct, though.
It is easy to look back and postulate on what Hoover should have done, but from what I can tell, he was a genuinely decent person that faced some extrordinary problems. I think he genuinely believed his stuff would work.
The War certainly helped the economy, but there was already recovery before the war started. There is also some decent evidence that some of Roosevelt's programs actually prolonged the Depression. One comparison that can be made with today is that it is not always clear what will work. Someone on my blog pointed everyone to a Ballon Juice post on the American News Project which shows that even the experts do not agree on what the best course of action is. I certainly have my opinions, but I am, by no means, an expert.
Steve, I never said that Hoover was a bad guy. In fact, I agree with you that he gets a bad rap. But he was wedded to an old way of doing things and was unwilling to move into deficit spending or actually provide direct assistance to the poor.
I am not bashing the man. Like I said, he is much better than the idiots who preceded him in the decade. Harding and Silent Cal were willing to reward the rich and screw the poor. Hoover was a decent and well-intentioned guy, who simply did not have enough imagination to face the disaster he faced. I am not sure which programs "prolonged" the depression save his effort to cut spending in 37, but we must also remember that Roosevelt had no clear agenda save trying to push for recovery. He was an experimenter who was willing to try things outside his comfort zone (after all, he believed in balanced budgets too, and was rather isolationist in his leanings when he was elected in 32).
And of course, there is no way to guarantee what program will work. History doesn't work that way. This depression, while sharing similarities with the Great Depression, is a different problem with different global and domestic variables. I agree there is no consensus on how to move forward. But I have not read one legitimate economist who thinks the response to a shrinking economy is to freeze the biggest spender in the economy and make it shrink even more.
Hence the "stupid" tag for GOP leaders for calling for a freeze, and a specially big one for Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford--though all for different reasons. Sanford seems to be taking the stupid cake, and perfectly willing to sacrifice his poor to elevate his electoral status in 2012. And a pox on any Republicans who advocate tax cuts for the rich during this time. Feh.
I am not sure which programs "prolonged" the depression
The article was posted on Volokh about a year ago and their search engine is nearly useless. I can keep looking if you are interested.
I have not read one legitimate economist who thinks the response to a shrinking economy is to freeze the biggest spender in the economy and make it shrink even more.
I agree and wouldn't argue that spending be frozen. I would argue that Obama and Geithner's plan is not all that good, especially in regard to toxic bank assets, but tis probably outside the scope of this post.
Steve, I am curious about those programs that made the depression worse or prolonged it. Like I said, that won't shock me because Roosevelt was really throwing things at the dartboard and hoping some of it would work.
As for the toxic asset plan, I am still unsure. I understand the arguments about that, and certainly the lefty blogs I read are not happy about the plan, but I am of the mode of letting them try. Obama has shown himself to be pretty damn smart.
And isn't it nice to say that?
Give me some time to find the articles and I will post the links. I am going to watch to see who MSU will be facing in the finals.
Obama is very smart, which makes Geithner's plan even harder to swallow. I have trouble seeing it as anything but a massive transfer of public money to the wealthy in the financial sector. I am still holding out hope that there will be enough public outrage and he will can Geithner and bring in someone that is not beholden to Fianance/Banking.
Found it. It links to several other articles and most of it is a pretty good read. We had a good debate on it over at the blog I am a part of, but economics certainly is a social science and I don't consider the author to be the final authority.
certainly the lefty blogs I read are not happy about the plan
I am the only right leaning person on our blog and have been suprised that no one else seems to be happy about the plan.
Post a Comment