Turning Nitsy On

Do the slaves of Sulzberger remember their undergraduate economics better than we humble? Could it be that, like us humble, they never had any undergraduate economics to remember? Oh, well, ignorance of technicalities does not inhibit the Wall Street Jingos and other clans of Baní Rupert, or the Heritagitarians, or the AEIdeologues, or (best monnickered for times like these!) the intrepid Hoovervillains! Not to omit the ever-unomittable Neocomradess J. Daley of the Daily Torygraph.

Aunt NYTC may be quite as clueless a lay sheep as those who bleat and bloviate for the Neocomradely Cause, Mr. Bones, for thee and I are in no position to judge her mammonological qualifications, yet we do know that her heart is on the left where it belongs, unlike . . . . Furthermore, today's unsigned nitsitorial is finally for once written about a situation that a decent political adult might describe as ‘worrisome’ with a straight face. [1]

So, then, what Nitsy likes about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the following:

... adequate increases in unemployment benefits and food stamps — generally the two most-effective forms of stimulus. Those items must not change appreciably. Aid to states is excellent stimulus because the money is funneled quickly (...) the child tax credit ... is robust stimulus because the recipients are likely to spend it quickly ... a $10 billion provision that would allow states to temporarily offer Medicaid coverage to uninsured people who are unemployed (...)

That seems to be about all the reinvestment (sic) measures that get praised unequivocally and do not need to be carefully disentangled from House and Senate alternatives.

On the worrisome hand,

... Tax cuts aren’t the best stimulus ... [like for example] $39 billion in tax credits for anyone and everyone who wants to buy a house ...

Talk about "a short way with dissenters"![2]

Still, it does seem to be really the case that Hooverville and Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh bark and bellow "Tax Cuts or Bust!" -- either for doin' nothin' at all or else for pullin'

a Rahm Emmanuel crisis exploitation caper of their own to get rid of (1) taxes on corporations and (2) capital-gains taxes on individual organisms and (3) "death tax" on the organisms’ offspring -- not temporarily for purposes of reinvestment, but in sæcula sæculorum amen. Yuck.

When it comes to political strategy, neither Nitsy nor anybody else needs credentials:

Odds are unfortunately high that even an $800 billion stimulus package will fall short of what’s needed to combat today’s downturn, and that more will be needed later. When the Obama administration asks for more, it will need to be able to make a compelling case that the first round was the best it could possibly be. It’s certainly not there yet.

Like a lot of other armchair Thurlow Weeds and Mark Hannas and Colonels House, Aunt Nitsy sometimes offers strategic notions that are a bit worrisome. Suppose the Crawford Crash aftermath still looks much the same eighteen months from now, why should That One™ be required to reassure Televisionland and the electorate "that the first round was the best it could possibly be"? Why should not the President claim, frankly or fibbingly, that American Recovery and Reinvestment™ would have worked out a lot better if only more than three -- 0003.000 of (188 + 39 =) 227 -- militant extremist Republicans had contributed? [3]

Happy days.

___
[1] As thee might have guessed, the W-word does not appear now that it respectably might. "The economy is too fragile. And the numbers are too huge" is not very close.


[2] http://defoe.classicauthors.net/shortestway/


[3] That comes to only 1.33% of the Grant-Hardin'-Hooverites in the Fedguv legislature.