Jared Bernstein explained the "surgical approach on Rachel's show

[Nancy Waterman]

But no one seemed to get it including Rachel. Remember when the WH cut out some defense items last year that had been unwanted but uncuttable previously. These surgical budget items would seem to be the same kind of things.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. I got it at the time and still do.

And the distinction does nothing to diminish the utter horribleness of embracing the republican world-view and concept of the economy.

[Nancy Waterman]

3. What is it with all the hyperbole???

Obama doesn't "embrace the Republican world view". He wants to cut out waste and spend on things that will make a difference, including spending to grow jobs. Why do so many on here need to overreact to everything and make everything a black or white answer. Either Obama "agrees with me on everything" or "he acts like a Republican or a corporate whore". Get a grip people!

[cliffordu]

5. Hyperbole is all the most hateful of the critics have.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. I know you are backed into a corner, by why be so nasty?

You don't seem to know anything about the situation and are lashing out at random.

[Cha]

17. She's not backed into a corner..you're just being nasty as usual.

[Larkspur]

2. I watched that segment and basicaly the "spending freeze" per the WH

is a PR stunt and a horrible one at that because it loses the framing debate to the Right wing meme that smaller government is better and non-military spending should not be a government priority.

Obama should have been championing smarter government that works for everyone, but he's not.

[Clio the Leo]

10. You're thinking like a progressive....

.... you have to look at it like a politically uninterested swing voter.

It plays well on the evening news.

[Strawman]

4. I saw that too and it illustrated how politicaly dumb this move is

If it isn't really a freeze you support their narrative on spending and violate it with your policy. They are just going to say that Obama had to admit McCain was right. Good luck explaining the nuance of why that isn't exactly accurate. Bernstein had a hard time spinning it and so will our candidates.

If it is a freeze, it's terrible economics and when the recovery lags they will pay the price with voters.

[quiller4]

19. This is not what McCain proposed. It freezes portions of the budget

in 2011 at 2010 levels. We are not talking about cuts when the economy is in the pits but about not crowding out the private sector after it begins to pick up.

[TheKentuckian]

7. I don't know why you think folks don't get that they are going through

the budget and cutting certain items, leaving some flat, and even increasing others.

The point is that every single plausible dime needs to be in the economy right now until there is private sector investment to more than make up for it. The logical thing to do is to find waste and repeat services and cut them AND re-purpose those resources into other more effective stimulus or put into needed areas that are light on funding.

In a downturn the government is the buyer of last resort and we need more stimulus, infrastructure investment, R&D, and safety net spending not less and if a few bucks can be shaken loose from elsewhere they don't go into the piggy bank but right back out into somebody's pocket to allow the currency to flow.

The details of what the money was for are unimportant other than if that money can be moved to something that provides a greater multiplier effect or more needy areas but a net cut in a recession is silly.
No concept is more poorly thought through than the one that thinks that during a downturn the government should also tighten it's belt because if the people have tightened their belts, and business has long ago tightened their belts then who in the world is going to provide demand to get the money flowing????

That's what I'd think is an obvious situation. The government should spend less in boom times and pick up the slack when everything goes bust. Not to mention that the roughly forty year hiatus in infrastructure maintenance and upgrading has made matters much worse, if we ever want real and sustained growth again we simply have to have tele-com, energy, water, sewage, and transportation systems that are up to spec and that are competitive with the systems around the world.

Conservatives are either stupid, nuts, or both.

They allowed the infrastructure to go to hell, they pushed deregulation through, they abandoned responsibility and gave over their obligations over to the "invisible hand", they insisted on the crippling and worthless tax cuts for the wealthy, and have been generally just plain wrong about everything that has come down the pike over the past several decades. Why in the name of all that is good does anyone think they are right about this? They wanted everything that caused the mess but think their failed philosophies should be running the show.

DON'T LISTEN TO THE STUPID GREEDY PEOPLE!!! NOT EVEN THE POOR ONES AND ESPECIALLY NOT THE RICH ONES, THEY ARE ALWAYS WRONG.

The sooner we can get the economy rolling the sooner we can ACTUALLY address the deficit by collecting more and increasing taxes and then winding down wasteful or no longer needed spending.

[zipplewrath]

9. Explain "freeze"

It was their word. It was their word and it was McCain's word. Now they are running around explaining all the things that won't "freeze". So are they freezing anything or are they just cutting wasteful spending. You can cut wasteful spending without freezing anything. But you can't freeze something and claim that it will only be "wasteful spending" unless you are ready to explain what the waste is.

The honest truth is they used the word "freeze" to appeal to the right wing nuts. They are doing the whole triangulation schtick again. If they didn't mean freeze, they it's just pandering. If they meant freeze, then it is stupid. They didn't say "pay go" because that wouldn't pander to the right. They didn't say "re-inventing goverment" because it wouldn't pander to the right. Everyone's concern is that they really do mean "freeze".

[TheKentuckian]

13. Freeze usually means spending isn't increased in real dollar

so inflation will make an effective cut in the area frozen.

[zipplewrath]

16. If it deserves to be "frozen" it deserves a cut

Your answer is indicative of why people don't like the word "freeze". Freeze is a de facto "cut". As such, why make it de facto other than a lack of political will to make a cut. Freeze suggests that they want to make cuts without acknowledging that they are making them. The fact that anyone wants to do this "surgically" doesn't really impress folks who don't like the word freeze to begin with. If there is waste, remove it. If the wasted money can be better spent IN THAT ACTIVITY then spend it there. If it is no longer needed, move it. If there is no where that needs it, cut it. The problem is that it does get moved, over to defense or one of the other "un-freezable" areas.

[PA Democrat]

11. Great post.

And I agree on the infrastructure spending.

Fiscal Bang for the Buck- Multiplier Effect

One-year $ change in real GDP per $ reduction in federal tax revenue or increase in spending


Tax Cuts
Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26

Temporary Tax Cuts
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27

Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30

Spending Increases
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

Source: Moody's Economy.com

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Small%20Business_7_24_08.pdf

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Maddow's a pundit.

Logic and rationality don't get as many viewers as knee-jerk hyperbole.

[Phx_Dem]

12. Rachel didn't want to get it. That would have ruined her clueless rant.

[TheKentuckian]

14. Rachel totally understands she thinks it is silly and for good reason.

See my post above.

[Phx_Dem]

15. No she doesn't. She told Bernstein that this freeze would

prohibit us from spending stimulus money. He tried to explain it to her like she was a 5 year old, but she either didn't get it (which I doubt) or didn't want to get it.

It's not that complicated. If there is a program that is not doing what it is intended to do, or is wasteful, they can take that money (freeze it!) and give to a more worthy program. Or they can cut the program altogether, but not the ones who adding stimuli to the economy. It's just not that hard to grasp.

[Cha]

18. Rachel isn't perfect..and this is one of those times.

I like her a lot but nobody's perfect.

Be interesting to see if she revisits this.