With the election so close and my travel plans for next week tying me up, I devoted some time to the elections this week, mostly looking for a reason to even bother. Well, I found one. Florida has two amendments to the State Constitution on the ballot that will theoretically outlaw gerrymandering. As I wrote in a post earlier this year, gerrymandering is one of the principle reasons Congress is so ineffectual. It is inherently anti-democratic, and it produces safe seats that can be more easily held by one extreme or another, which then leads to further political polarization. I’ll show up to vote for them with enthusiasm. As long as I’m being self-referential today, I posted a letter I’d sent to David Axelrod back in February 2009 in which I urged him to be more proactive in the administration’s defense of the stimulus bill. He never answered. But I see Austan Goolsbee (above), now the Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, just put out a short video in defense of their success on the jobs front. It is short, clear and understandable. If this were the 50th video in a White House Economics-Made-Easy Series they’d be looking a lot better in the midterm elections than they are, but it’s a little late now.
President Obama should also have adopted my stimulus plan, but that’s another post.
For those of you who are interested, I've posted my Life 3.0 plan on the What's Next web site. Wish me luck.
Mrs. d’blank and I are heading to California for a week, so I’ll be off the air for a while.
Posts
8 comments:
Let me respond first - for a change...
Austan Goolsbee's video explanation of stimulus is very good. You wonder how Republicans have so easily stolen the key of credibility.
Democrats wanted the hot potato of leadership in hard times and have burned their hands. Had they been better in both discretion of stimulus spending and perhaps, the spin, many who supported the Obama/Change would have taken the sacrifices attendant with a stiff upper lip. Instead, what came across to the public was Democrat profligacy.
BTW, I find David Brook's piece in the Times on money being overrated in politics to be disingenuous.
I thought the Brooks piece was good. His point wasn't that this kind of spending was good, or that it did no damage, only that its effect on the actual outcome is being overstated since it is only about 10% of the total spending. Dems are outspending Reps by a good margin, they just have a bad message.
The point I took away from David Brooks was that money was ineffective in politics. His argument was that it has not been proven that money spent makes a difference on outcome. If that is so, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. A lot of people are going to extremes to get it and spend it. Am I missing something? Money is like sugar to ants at a picnic.
He does defy the common wisdom which is why I enjoy reading him, and I thought he made a persuasive case.
I like his moderate position, which has a calming influence on the polarity of the times. He works the center very well. I dare say that he has nudged Times readers to the right ever so gently.
Brooks is point should be taken with a huge case of, it depends. Hillary spent a ton of money in the early primaries assuming that she would break the other candidates because they wouldn't be able to raise the money to have a fighting chance. Obama began to raise money, mostly online, and he could match her organizing and media buys on Super Tuesday. All of a sudden she could not outspend him and her organization even began cutting back.
You cannot buy a national election but you sure can't win if you are not well financed.
Hi! I read your "Life 3.O" thingie. And this blog. You sound like an intelligent, fun human being. I don't think you need any damn life coach, but maybe he needs you.Life 3.0?? That's for fools, your life is full enough as it is!(Let'm sit on his own stool.:]
I just voted.
No endorphin rush. No free chicken. No free beer. Just items, most I wouldn't have ordered on my own, on a menu.
Post a Comment