Four very recent columns on the current situation you may want to read

William Niskanen, "Slow Down the Political Response to a Perceived Crisis":

This is the fifth time in my adult life that the president has asked for or asserted unprecedented authority on an expedited basis with little or no congressional review. Each of the prior occasions turned out to be a disaster.

I sharply disagree with Mr. Niskanen that the Iraq war was a "disaster".

But he's right about the other four.

John R. Lott, Jr.:

If Obama claims a mandate, shouldn’t it be related to what he campaigned on?

At the very end of the presidential campaign Obama “proposed a $175 billion plan with tax-rebate checks for consumers as well as spending on school repairs, roads and bridges, aid to states, and tax credits for job creation.”

The current bill is not only spending 4.7 times what he promised in November, but gone are the tax-rebate checks and tax credits for job creation. The new additional programs have nothing to do with roads and bridges. Yet, a package that Obama never hinted at a couple of months ago is now considered sacrosanct. The Associated Press described Obama’s position on the stimulus plan this way: “Stopping just short of a take-it-or-leave-it stand, Obama has mocked the notion that a stimulus bill shouldn’t include huge spending.”

. . .

During the third presidential debate Obama promised to rein in the budget deficit. When moderator Bob Schieffer asked Obama what he was going to do about the deficit Obama promised to cut the it: “But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”

James Pethokoukis:

Where was Geithner the Technocrat when you needed him? Because that is just what the markets need right now: a detailed, technocratic explanation of the way forward. This might have been the clincher as far as investors are concerned: "We are exploring a range of different structures for this program, and will seek input from market participants and the public as we design it." In other words, "We have have concrete and high detailed plan to develop a concrete and highly detailed plan. We'll get back to you."

Joel Kotkin, "Stimulus Plan Caters to the Privileged Public Sector":

It's a massive bailout and expansion of the public-sector workforce as well as quasi-government workers in fields like health and education. Not so well-rewarded – except for expanded unemployment benefits – will be those suffering the brunt of the downturn, such as construction and manufacturing workers, whose unemployment is now heading north of 10%. . . .

Instead, we are focusing once again on those who have been getting the best deal for doing the least. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports state and local government workers get paid 33% more than their private sector counterparts. If you add in the pensions and other benefits, the difference is over 40%. In New York alone, public-sector wages and benefits since 2000 have grown twice as fast as those of the average private-sector worker. . . .

So what's not to like? Well, nothing – if the Roman Empire or China's Qing Dynasty is your idea of a historical role model. Those regimes epitomize what happens when most of a nation's wealth goes to support an ever-expanding bureaucracy and associated private-sector rent-seekers at the expense of both private commerce and public infrastructure. Look in the dictionary under the word decline.

Comments

[JorgXMcKie]

I seem to remember the Gulf of Tonkin reaction to be a little quicker than the "rush" to invade Iraq. Like days compared to more than a year.

[jorod]

Maybe they can spread the spending out over 10 years?

Wish they could do something about mark to market accounting....