Obama: Pass This Giant Spending Bill, Because Otherwise We’re Just Continuing the Old Ways

There are many bones to pick with Obama’s op-ed in the Washington Post–the tagline helpfully explains, “The writer is president of the United States.“–but just focusing on these paragraphs, a few jump out:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis–the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems¹; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures²; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care³ and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We’ve seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

1. Show me the lawmaker who has argued “tax cuts alone will solve all our problems.” Show me one lawmaker who is unwilling to accept any amount of new spending in the stimulus bill.*

2. Actually, giant, massive, all-items-thrown-together-into-one-behemoth is exactly the approach the government has taken to every problem in recent memory–the annual appropriations process, war funding, the Wall Street bailout, the auto bailout. Breaking up a massive bill into piecemeal measures might actually allow us to evaluate each proposal separately, and only pass the ones that can garner the support of a majority.

3. Energy independence and health-care reform are goals that are distinct from economic stimulus. In some areas there may be overlap, in other areas there may not–both areas may require changes to be enacted over a long period of time, which contradicts the “act fast to turn around the economy” argument of the stimulus.

Much of the op-ed is a repeat of a lot of the president’s campaign rhetoric, and I think Obama is trying to glide past one of the fundamental problems with the stimulus as written (Spruiell and Williamson found another 50 or so). A stimulus shouldn’t include spending for after 2010; spending set for 2011 and beyond is laughable. All of these other goals may or may not be good ideas, but nobody buys the idea that they’re economic stimulus. The day, the year, and the administration are young. Keep the stimulative proposals in the stimulus, and deal with the rest of these issues after they pass.

*UPDATE: Dave Weigel points to the DeMint amendment and argues that its supporters fit the bill, because they voted for an amendment that would have “killed all stimulus spending and replaced it with tax cuts.”

Yeah, but on that list, you have guys like Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Richard Burr, R-N.C., who wants the government to guarantee low-interest, fixed mortgage rates. You can debate whether that’s a good idea or a bad idea, but that’s not a tax cut.

Then you’ve got guys like Bob Corker of Tennessee: “There may be some need for capital improvements, and those are things that are long-term and help us be efficient, and I could support some of that. But what we’re doing, again, just in a willy-nilly way, spreading money throughout our society, to me, is a total waste of money, and I’m getting very concerned about our debt levels.”