Thoughts during a long-distance flight

Random, slightly sleep-deprived musings:

Chapter the First:

Way way back, maybe a whole year ago, there was urgent bipartisan consensus that the economy was going into the tank and that a stimulus was immediately necessary.   For some reason, the idea percolated its way to the surface that the best possible way to stimulate the economy was to take $120 Bn (iirc) and cut each taxpayer a check for $600 or so.  I remember that in the days after 9/11 in the economic downturn something similar was done -- I think we all got $300 then. In 2001 I thought it was a dumb but harmless stunt in response to an economic situation that was not all that serious and possibly already improving.   In fact, at that time there was an element of consumer confidence as the cause, and stimulating spending wasn't an entirely stupid way to address it.

In late 2007, however, the same stunt scaled up was the solution, and I thought it was beyond stupid and no longer harmless.   The housing market was bottoming out and mortgages were defaulting right and left.   The financial sector was in bad shape and hinting at the meltdown yet to come.   In short, there were deep, structural problems with the US economy.   The proposed solution was worse than a band-aid fix: it was addressed at the wrong cause (consumer confidence),  did nothing to address the real cause (indeed wouldn't even cover one month's mortgage payment for loans at risk), wasn't targeted to the sectors that needed it, and was genuinely wasteful.

Now I hear lots of talk about a new, much bigger stimulus, and it seems smart.   They are talking about another $700 Bn or so, but given to the states and dedicated to investments in infrastructure.   Kind of reminds me of the WPA -- creates jobs and does something elective but useful at the same time.   Has a lot more down-stream effects than just tossing hundred-dollar bills out of a helicopter.   It's being called a "New New Deal," which I think it a terrible analogy since the New Deal was a lot more than the WPA.   I was listening to sound bites from the Governors' conference in which various governors talked about how many projects they have ready to go that cannot be executed for lack of funds, which can be put into effect at a moment's notice if the cash is provided.   It'll take longer to pay dividends than giving the money away, but the added stimulus will probably be magnified by the jobs created.   I don't have the economic chops to *really* evaluate if this is good policy, but it seems like a much smarter approach to take.   It's going to be nice to have the grown-ups back in charge.

Chapter the Second:

I've always been a deficit hawk, and it's really pissed me off the way Bush has trashed the fiscal health of the nation.   He fought two whole wars, off budget, without making any effort to pay for them!   I have been annoyed for three years that if a Democrat were to win in '08, he would be constrained in his ability to enact an ambitious agenda (universal health) due to the need to rebalance the budget (or at least restore some sanity to the budget).  So as recently as August it looked like Obama was going to come into office handcuffed with an austerity budget.

Paradoxically, the financial meltdown seems to have freed his hands.  There seems to be widespread consensus that in such a depression (lite), government spending must be expanded, that deficit spending is necessary and beneficial in order to get the economy back up and running.   So things like infrastructure and universal health can be on the table in a sort of "let's get this done and figure out how to pay for it later" sort of way.   There's still a day of reckoning to come, deficit-wise, but he silver lining is that Obama can do some good things in the short term that he might not have been able to accomplish otherwise.

Chapter the Third:

I've been listening to a lot of Maddow and Olbermann lately (gotten addicted to podcasts, sad to say.)   It makes me so happy to hear their voices and perspective.   It's been such a long time that I've been living with the "no liberals on the teevee" rule. I had entirely stopped watching the talking heads. The false balance, the absence of credible liberals on the panels, the absence of any counterbalance to the O'Reillys and Hannitys. There was nothing for me there.  Nobody was there speaking to me, speaking to or from my perspective.

I was initially excited about Air America, but I just can't stand the call-in shows, and for the most part the quality of the programing was amateurish at best, and cringe-worthy at worst.  I stopped listening to that pretty quickly.

But Olbermann and Maddow are something entirely different and refreshing. Yes, they are liberal, unapologetically so. But more, they are smart and professional teevee liberals, which is a huge improvement. And their venue, MSNBC, is prominent enough that it reinforces their stature, to say nothing of the improved production values.

I should point out that I'm not just looking for an amen corner. I get that on the Internet. I want to see someone have conservatives on and ask them the hard questions that Tweety and George never do. I want to see someone come on and push Obama from the left, and to shape the public discourse and conventional wisdom from the progressive point of view. I want an arena where labor leaders can come for a friendly interview and where liberals can promote their agenda to a receptive host.  That dream is finally starting to take shape, in an embryonic form. It's really refreshing.

Sent from my iPhone.