Jonathan Chait
I sometimes feel that I spend too much time pointing out all the ways in which various people are wrong, and even then, the vast quantity of wrongness in the public discourse overwhelms my capacity to process it. In that spirit, I'm launching an occasional feature called "Today In Wrong." In it, I'm sweeping up some of the wrongnesses that don't quite merit an individual post. I'm starting with two of the most consistent and reliable sources of wrongness.
1. Today's
Wall Street Journal editorial page purports to rebut liberal arguments about the stimulus. Liberals argue that the stimulus was too small and that Republicans blocked more aggressive action. The Journal offers two rebuttals:
Even Paul Krugman, who now denies intellectual paternity for this economy, wrote on November 14, 2008 that "My own back-of-the-envelope calculations say that the package should be huge, on the order of $600 billion." The White House raised him by 33% two months later, but now we're told that wasn't enough.
In fact, as
Krugman points out, he was calling for $600 billion per year, not total, which would be much larger than the $787 billion over two years (much of which consisted of non-stimulative spending at the behest of Senate moderates.) Also, the economic outlook darkened dramatically between November and the time the stimulus passed.
The
Journal also pooh-poohs the idea that GOP obstruction limited the size of the stimulus:
As for blaming the Republicans, with only 40 and then 41 Senators they couldn't stop so much as a swinging door.
Of course, at the time of its passage, Democrats had just 58 Senate votes and needed two Republicans to do anything. It's simply a fact that Republican moderates forced the stimulus to be lower than the Democrats wanted.
moreThe WSJ to Republicans: We got your back!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
