On Public Investment, Republicans Again Show They Aren't Serious

On public investment, Republicans again show they aren't serious
By Steven Pearlstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 26, 2011

When talking about the federal government and its budget deficit, Republican politicians love to score points by noting that "you'd never run your household or your business that way."

Then again, you'd never run your household or your business by ignoring investment. Yet now that President Obama has proposed stepped-up public investment in infrastructure, energy, education and basic research, Republicans have suddenly decided their favorite analogy no longer applies.

Asked about investment on the television talk shows Sunday, House Republican leader Eric Cantor (Va.) and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) each declared it was just another Democratic ploy to spend more money. Instead of Obama's "invest-and-grow," Republicans now offer "cut-and-grow," which will take its place beside "government ownership of the means of production" and "tax cuts that pay for themselves" in the Pantheon of Economic Nonsense.

Republicans, it turns out, have no public investment strategy, just as they have no health-care strategy and no agreed-upon blueprint for reducing federal spending. What they have are poll-tested talking points, economic delusions and an overwhelming partisan instinct to say "no" to anything Barack Obama proposes. In their response to the president's State of the Union message, they remind us once again that they are not serious about economic policy and not ready to govern.

In framing his retooled economic and political strategy, the president emphasized using public money to leverage private investment and innovation, once a popular Republican theme.

In the short term, administration officials expect the bigger boost to the economy is likely to come not from jobs directly funded but from additional private investments spurred by increased confidence and a renewed sense of national purpose - "our Sputnik moment," as Obama called it.

There is a similar emphasis on the private sector in the president's proposal for a National Infrastructure Bank, which will not only help to insulate the government's investment decisions from the political process but will focus on projects with demonstrable financial returns. Toll roads, smart grids, wind farms, freight lines and air-traffic control systems would compete for funding on the basis of their ability to generate user fees to repay the bank's bondholders.

In the energy sector, Obama expects to untap tens of billions of dollars in private investment with modest amounts of seed money and the right regulatory incentive - in this case a requirement that 80 percent of electricity comes from environmentally clean sources by 2035.

While high-speed or new transit projects may never generate enough revenue to cover the original investment, the president cited the experience with the transcontinental railroads and the interstate highway system - both started during Republican administrations - which showed that such projects could more than pay for themselves indirectly as a result of the private development they stimulated.

You don't have to be Republican to question whether more education spending will be a worthwhile investment in human capital or just more money poured into an inefficient and unaccountable educational establishment. Through the Education Department's "Race to the Top" grants, the administration has already demonstrated its determination to use additional funding to leverage needed reforms. One would hope a similar strategy could now be used with these new investments in higher education, getting schools to improve productivity through creative use of technology and new teaching and learning techniques.

Even with the proposed increases, of course, federal investment still will amount to a small slice of the budget. Other than interest on the national debt, all the rest is consumption: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, fighting wars, protecting the safety of workers and consumers, national parks, food stamps, farm subsidies, housing vouchers. Most Americans, I suspect, would consider some of that spending pretty vital, which is why Republican plans for across-the-board cuts are just plain dumb.

As it happens, a bipartisan deficit commission has just finished laying out a plan for reducing the government's consumption spending, reforming the tax code and modestly increasing tax revenues. While Obama acknowledged the necessity of painful cuts in domestic spending, it was disappointing that he didn't use Tuesday's nationally televised speech to embrace the broad outlines and deficit reduction targets in the commission's report. White House officials are concerned that if the president "laid all his cards on the table," it would weaken his bargaining position in upcoming budget negotiations with Republicans.

However, as the president should have learned from health-care reform, the danger in tailoring his strategy to the partisan back and forth on Capitol Hill is that he risks losing the more important battle for broad popular support. By endorsing the markers laid down by his own commission, Obama could have taken the the deficit issue away from Republicans and gained the political credibility he needs to push through his investment agenda. To use the president's phrase, that would have been doing "big things."

An important article in my opinion that should be read by all.

Yeah, you posted it three times lol. How many times do you want me and Atypical to read it?

Yes, certainly. But absorbed is something else.

Repukes succeed because they, with *Luntz's invaluable help, have mastered the art of simplistic, sound-bite, emotionally satisfying "us against them" positions. Because humans react strongly to simple thoughts, what one hears, if not subjected to stringent analysis, (in itself rare) always sounds at least good.

Progressives generally can handle nuance and analysis but those skills are generally ignored by conservatives who favor fast decisions that satisfy pre-conceived biases. That's why the liberal position doesn't sell well. Too complicated. Too much nuance...too many details...(they're suspicious of details) so stop, we can't handle it!!! It's sooo boring!

And the number one reason liberalism is a tough sell...we're "us for them". Definitely, not a good meme for those who like to hate.

But, I state the tiresome, banal, obvious truth. We all know this, don't we? (sources available upon request)

So, Havakasha, don't hold your ......

* That's why they use Luntz - he tests everything to achieve the 'desired' outcome. Proves the point doesn't it?

I will keep posting this S&L till you understand it, and acknowledge its factualness and significance. LOL.
Since it will never happen i just might have to post it forever. :)

Luntz is frightening.

I am in favor of posting the same factual article(s) daily. We don't know that anyone pays attention anyway - with the exception of ideologues who never actually consider anything that disagrees with their beliefs. It would be easier too. Think about it. We would have a lot of time to...

Yes, he is. How does he sleep? No conscience obviously; just like the crew at Fox and elsewhere foisting lies for the purpose of getting POWER!

Humans are regularly disgusting. On an ongoing basis. Frequently, too. Don't ever stop. They enjoy it. They like others who do it too. Blood brothers I guess. Hate creates bonds. It's fun to lie they say.

Animals are nicer.

I like that idea. Not that it will help change certain individuals minds very much.

Since the "non idealogues" like lables, here are some truths exemplified by what has been written in these forums.

Liberal Agenda or Communist Agenda?
The word "Liberal" originally described honorable and principled men who held to a philosophy of government that advocated Constitutional Republicanism. Constitutional Republicanism is a type of government almost unknown to most of the world. America was originally a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic defined is characterized by a very small government with limits on its powers of taxation and whose other powers are strictly limited by rigorously enforced Constitutional edicts. The honorable old Liberals of the 19th century would certainly not recognize the "liberals" of today. Modern Liberals promote, advocate, and enforce the centralization of all political power into an all powerful central government.

Some thoughts about modern liberals:

At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God. The Liberal attempts to use government to eliminate all moral consequences for immoral behavior. The Liberal imagines that freedom from moral consequence can be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.

Liberals use moralistic platitudes and catchy phrases like "social justice" and "The Brotherhood of Man" to appeal to the naive masses who are duped into believing that the ultimate goals of Liberals are genuinely good..

The fundamental power struggle of Liberals may be classified as the individual versus the collective. The Liberal supports the collective in every contest against the individual. Liberals hate Individualism because it demands moral responsibility. Liberals support collectivism because they hope to eliminate the need for moral responsibility.

The U.S. Constitution and specifically the support for rugged individualism which is evident in the Bill of Rights, is the enemy of the Liberal. The Liberal despises the United States because it is the premier protector and promoter of individualism in the world.

In the mind of a Liberal, all institutions and concerns schools, environment, courts, etc. - serve no relevant purpose other than the promotion of collectivism.

To a Liberal, abortion becomes necessary to guarantee sexual freedom and eliminate moral consequence.

Any religion or religious person who believes or teaches that there are moral consequences for sin, is the enemy of Liberalism and must be oppressed. Thus for the collectivist Liberal bent on imposing socialism upon a nation, Christianity is the number one enemy above all other enemies. Christianity must be eliminated..

Strong families are one of the greatest threats to the final goals of Liberalism. The total disintegration of the American family in recent decades among some ethnic communities has occurred as a direct result of the design and intention of Liberals.

Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore is despised by Liberals.

The Liberal despises national sovereignty. Why? Because the best protection of individual freedoms is found in small decentralized governments.

The Liberal promotes the growth of multi-national and international governments such as the European Union and the United Nations because these organizations advance the cause of socialism and seek to destroy the very individualism that is best protected by sovereign states.

The Liberal fears any hint of individualism in any part of the world, and is obsessed with the centralized control of all human activity and thought. Thus the Liberal constantly seeks total control over all forms of media.

"Multi-culturalism" is the liberal code word for a single, oppressive, collectivist culture.

Liberals speak often of tolerance, but they only tolerate Liberals and Liberal ideas. (no arguement there, is there?)

The Liberal seeks to criminalize any speech that promotes morality or individualism as "hate speech." Thus we see Liberal Judges and Liberal Courts outlawing the Bible and gutting the free speech provisions of the first amendment of the constitution. Liberal Judges are now declaring that the Bible's proscriptions against homosexuality are illegal "hate speech" and scripture is now in the process of being outlawed from any appearance in public discourse or the public square.

The Liberal's only method of debate is to appeal to the emotions of uneducated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college classroom. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance.

When possible, Liberals oppress anyone who questions their beliefs.

Liberals despise all innocence - especially the innocence of a child. Thus Hollywood Liberals seek to steal the innocence of our children as early as possible and the public schools assist them in this goal.

Liberals seek to sexualize our children, eliminate age of consent laws and promote the normalization of pedophilia, all in the pursuit of sexual freedom.

The Liberal typically chooses a career in a field that produces nothing of value. A Liberal will look for employment in field such as public education, an employee of local, county, state or federal government, an "activist," a lawyer, or a bureaucrat in a tax free foundation or an NGO devoted to advancing Liberal goals, etc.

Liberal do-good programs enrich Liberals and do little to actually help the poor.

Liberals are not obsessed with sex, but with promiscuity. Promoting promiscuity among the masses is the primary mission of the Liberals who control the Hollywood, Television and print media monopoly. Why? Because Liberals know that the twin pillars that support conservatism are family values and faith in God. By promoting promiscuity Liberals know that they are simultaneously attacking both of the main support pillars of rugged individualism.

Liberals say that they despise marriage and family because they are "patriarchal institutions" that oppress women and children. But the real reason they despise marriage and family values is because these institutions oppose, disapprove and limit promiscuity thus undermining one of the principal supports for Liberalism.

Liberals seek to control public schools, and force all children into them, in order to foster promiscuity and instill collectivist ideology into the minds and hearts of our children.

Liberals are obsessed with demonstrating their putative "moral superiority." Thus even though they live their lives without really helping anyone, the political activism they engage in is dedicated to convincing themselves that they are truly good people. Liberals are driven by the need to validate the unspoken assertion that "I care more than you do," which is ironic in the extreme since none of the government programs liberals have designed can be shown to have an overall positive influence in our society.

Whenever a Liberal expresses concern "for the children," invariably they are using and targeting children to expand their own power, promote promiscuity, advance collectivism and enlarge their personal income at the expense of the taxpayer.

Liberals are elitists who exempt themselves from the oppressive rules they impose on the general population.

Liberals howl if a homosexual transvestite or convicted felon is even slightly offended, but they openly bash Christians.

Liberals claim to be against violence, but make excuses for Liberals like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro who murder and torture political dissidents. Liberals claim to be against violence, but they seek to disarm individuals and render them powerless before the thugs, thieves and murderer's who rule the inner cities.

Liberals have enormous compassion for criminal predators, but little for the victims.

In the Liberal world, all problems stem from individualism, and all solutions are collective.

LMFAO. That is the biggest bunch of NONSENSE i have yet seen you post. I think we finally see your true colors. You've obviously become friends with Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. Good luck.


P.S. This was a thread about the Republican approach to public investment. Sorry you felt the need to hijack it to post some crap that expresses your deep sited hatred of Liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

LMFAO. That is the biggest bunch of NONSENSE i have yet seen you post. I think we finally see your true colors. You've obviously become friends with Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul. Good luck.


P.S. This was a thread about the Republican approach to public investment. Sorry you felt the need to hijack it to post some crap that expresses your deep sited hatred of Liberals.

---

I am a non party affiliate. It is verifiable. In my quest to understand both conservative thinking and progressive thinking I did come upon that web site. As a centrist, I could see that many of the observations about "liberals" were true, and to be fair, some are just plain stupid.

I don't hate anyone. That's nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's funny that you accuse me of things, yet you,re the staunch liberal waging war on anything Republican. You fuel the divide. You are part of the problem. I guess for you, it is war.

Every polical stance "quiz" I've taken has placed me right in the center. They are posted. Several of them.

Am I not on record about Sarah Palin? Or have you conveniently forgotten as to incite and divide some more?

S&L, that article was TOTAL BS. You're the one who should be ashamed of yourself. Do you usually publish what you admit is some stuff which is "just plain stupid"?
You say you are a non party affiliate but you certainly don't act like it 90% of the time.
Stop putting out nonsense on a whole group of people.

My reference to Sarah Palin and the rest is to the fact that the article you published is an example of the kind of lies they traffic in. But please do tell us how you disagree with Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul for starters.

Steven Pearlstein the writer of the article (about investment by the way) which started this thread happens to be in the center. It was certainly interesting how threatened you got by it. It is a TOTALLY mainstream and centrist point of view. Read it again.

P.S. Are you for raising of the debt limit? Agree with Bill Gross (another centrist person)?
Since you're a centrist you must be REALLY concerned at the political game the Republicans are playing with debt limit huh?

And you must be really offended by these lies told by Boehner and other Republicans about Obama's speech huh?

Ben Smith (a right leaning centrist) at Politico flags this bit of Republican dissembling from John Boehner (R-OH) during an appearance on CNN last night, where he complained about what the President didn't say in his State of the Union address:

BOEHNER: Well, they -- they've refused to talk about America exceptionalism. We are different than the rest of the world. Why? Because Americans have -- the country was built on an idea that ordinary people could decide what their government looked like and ordinary people could elect their own leaders.

And 235 years ago that was a pretty novel idea. And so we are different. Why is our economy still 20 times the size of China's? Because Americans have had their freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail. We've got more innovators, more entrepreneurs, and that is exceptional but you can't get the left to talk about it. They don't -- they reject that notion.

Did I say "dissemble"? I meant lied.

Because during the President's State of the Union, besides talking about "what sets us apart as a nation," what "America does better than anyone else," that we're a country where "anything is possible," and that "there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth," Obama said:

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.

... and:

America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.

The American "exceptionalism" claim, which is pseudo-patriotic code for you're not cheering loud enough, has been enjoying a resurgence in popularity among Republicans since Obama was elected, because, hey, everyone knows that the commie, marxist, socialist Kenyan isn't a "real American."

But the lie, said by the Speaker of the House on national T.V., usually isn't this blatant.

The traditional media will be all over it ... just kidding.


Based on your definition, Centrism must have taken on a WHOLE NEW MEANING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

S&L, that article was TOTAL BS. You're the one who should be ashamed of yourself. Do you usually publish what you admit is some stuff which is "just plain stupid"?
You say you are a non party affiliate but you certainly don't act like it 90% of the time.
Stop putting out nonsense on a whole group of people.

My reference to Sarah Palin and the rest is to the fact that the article you published is an example of the kind of lies they traffic in. But please do tell us how you disagree with Michelle Bachman, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul for starters.

Steven Pearlstein the writer of the article (about investment by the way) which started this thread happens to be in the center. It was certainly interesting how threatened you got by it. It is a TOTALLY mainstream and centrist point of view. Read it again.

P.S. Are you for raising of the debt limit? Agree with Bill Gross (another centrist person)?
Since you're a centrist you must be REALLY concerned at the political game the Republicans are playing with debt limit huh?

And you must be really offended by these lies told by Boehner and other Republicans about Obama's speech huh?

Ben Smith at Politico flags this bit of Republican dissembling from John Boehner (R-OH) during an appearance on CNN last night, where he complained about what the President didn't say in his State of the Union address:

BOEHNER: Well, they -- they've refused to talk about America exceptionalism. We are different than the rest of the world. Why? Because Americans have -- the country was built on an idea that ordinary people could decide what their government looked like and ordinary people could elect their own leaders.

And 235 years ago that was a pretty novel idea. And so we are different. Why is our economy still 20 times the size of China's? Because Americans have had their freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail. We've got more innovators, more entrepreneurs, and that is exceptional but you can't get the left to talk about it. They don't -- they reject that notion.

Did I say "dissemble"? I meant lied.

Because during the President's State of the Union, besides talking about "what sets us apart as a nation," what "America does better than anyone else," that we're a country where "anything is possible," and that "there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth," Obama said:

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.

... and:

America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers -- no workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We’re the home to the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any place on Earth.

The American "exceptionalism" claim, which is pseudo-patriotic code for you're not cheering loud enough, has been enjoying a resurgence in popularity among Republicans since Obama was elected, because, hey, everyone knows that the commie, marxist, socialist Kenyan isn't a "real American."

But the lie, said by the Speaker of the House on national T.V., usually isn't this blatant.

The traditional media will be all over it ... just kidding.


Based on your definition Centrism must have taken on a WHOLE NEW MEANING.

---

Editkasha at it again. Too bad I fat fingered my first reply and lost it. I think it has to with the new software as I've never lost so many posts before.

Anyway, that article was not totally obsured. You find it absurd because it is attempting to define the label you wear, and in an unflattering way. I'm sure if you listed several observations about tea partiers, you would include unflattering remarks (e.g. liars). So let's not be silly. There are solid examples here on these forums that match some of the observations noted.

Why would I post "just plain stupid" stuff? I'm objective. Why do I need to adulterate someone else's thoughts? I can tell you what I agree with or not. That's just dumb.

As for the debt ceiling, clearly and unfortunetly , it needs to be raised for the 74th time in 70 years. Pretty lousy record on containing costs don't you think? It has become clear to me that the tea partiers are over blowing the debt; though, it is an issue, and needs to be contained. The US, as the world's leader, needs to retain the full faith of other nations. We are challanging that by not being good stewards of our finances. Not all debt is bad, but I would argue that the government probably isn't well prepared to make excellent decisions on what to invest in. They couldn't keep up with the banks, correct? Recall that I posted an article that noted that for every 1 that hits, there are 10 that don't and we don't hear about it.

We need to reduce the debt to something that is livable within the global economy. Candidly, just pulling it out of my ass, anything less than 10 trillion probably would calm the concern.

On the other hand, some of the rhetoric surrounding the debt is staggering. Check this out. If we tried to repay that amount down to zero in 10 years, it would take $44,394 per SECOND for the 10 year period.

I don't know what is inevitable, but it is hard to beleive it would be good.

I know the difference between reasoned intellectual differences and garbage.
And you hijacked this thread from an important article on Republican and Democratic approaches to investment.
Pearlstein was simply pointing out the Republican hypocrisy over opposing something they would ordinarily support.


Boehner? Rand Paul? Michelle Bachman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

I know the difference between reasoned intellectual differences and garbage.
And you hijacked this thread from an important article on Republican and Democratic approaches to investment.
Pearlstein was simply pointing out the Republican hypocrisy over opposing something they would ordinarily support.


Boehner? Rand Paul? Michelle Bachman?

---

Well, one thing should be clear. I like to discuss issues. You like to bash republicans. Have at it. Hate on them all you like. It's a free country.

Ive been discussing issues with you for more than a year. Earth to S&L-- we disagree! lol
You oppose Democratic ideas as much as i oppose Republican ideas. Hate on Liberals all you want.
Lets move on.

I've been trying to get you to be honest about your ideological beliefs. So why not tell me how you disagree with Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan for instance? And are you bothered by Republican lies such as those of Boehners about Obama's speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Ive been discussing issues with you for more than a year. Earth to S&L-- we disagree! lol
You oppose Democratic ideas as much as i oppose Republican ideas. Hate on Liberals all you want.
Lets move on.

I've been trying to get you to be honest about your ideological beliefs. So why not tell me how you disagree with Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan for instance? And are you bothered by Republican lies such as those of Boehners about Obama's speech?

---

What's the position of a non party affiliate? You're the idealogue; bound to liberalism. I'm bound to nothing. I can pick and choose what I like. I've demonstrated open mindedness on a number of issue (see post on national debt), but statism isn't one of them. Sorry. I don't agree with the tea party. I've said that dozen's of times, yet you seem to want me to identify with them time and time again. Why? Plainly speaking, your're a divider. I will agree that we disagree on some things.

"you're the ideologue; bound to liberalism. I'm bound to nothing". Oy vey. How self righteous of you.
I try to be bound to the truth and thats why i get upset by people like Boehner, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and even you when you spout things that i feel are far from reality.

Sorry S&L but you are a lot less open minded than you want to believe. Thats exactly why you reacted the way you did to Steven Pearlstein's article on Investment. Goodnight.