Economics is the Dismal Science; Politics is Where it Gets Stimulating

Something I don't care for: frivolous government spending. Something I care for even less than that: politicians who act like it's a harbinger of the the apocalypse. Yes, folks, this is about the stimulus. And I'm not going to talk about the economics of it, really. It's borderline hackneyed to point out that tax cuts aren't particularly effective (and certainly not in this climate) or that the package probably isn't big enough. I'm fascinated by the political debate.

I just came across an awesome map of America over at msnbc.com. ("Interactive Timeline...") Take a look- I promise you'll feel blindsided, too. I usually read two newspapers a day, not to mention pickings from an assortment of other periodicals and blogs, and so it's not like I didn't know that unemployment was very high. But seeing it there colorcoded really hit me in the gut. Did you notice that the states with the senators complaining the loudest about proposed solutions seemed to have the lowest unemployment? (I'm looking at you, Nebraska) No wonder they seem so oblivious the urgency of this problem.

If people are complaining that Democrats are going falling back into their old ways instead of adopting a transformational approach in line with the style of the Obama movement, the same can be said for the cut and paste response from Republicans. Did you see the new RNC head on Fox saying that "government has never created a single job"? Never? How about my father's job? How about my great-grandfather's work a WPA mason during the Great Depression? The religious devotion to tax cuts among these people is truly ridiculous. Don't they realize they lost on that platform?

Sure, the stimulus bill probably does spend some money in the wrong places. But can we really say definitively what will and what won't help the economy? We call economics a science, but the practical application of it is nothing close. Moreover, most of this so-called wasteful spending doesn't seem very wasteful to me. In today's WaPo, columnist Steve Pearlstein notes:

[WSJ Columnist Daniel] Henninger weighed in with his own list of horror stories from the stimulus bill, including $325 million for trail repair and remediation of abandoned mines on federal lands, $6 billion to reduce the carbon footprint of federal buildings and -- get this! -- $462 million to equip, construct and repair labs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"What is most striking is how much 'stimulus' money is being spent on the government's own infrastructure," wrote Henninger. "This bill isn't economic stimulus. It's self-stimulus."

Actually, what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient. ("Wanted...")

I think he's right on target. Even if the spending itself doesn't save America (and I can assure you, it won't), what it will do is rebuild the fabric of our society. The New Deal didn't save us from the Depression, but it did give us modern American society- everything from bridges to libraries to parks to schools and beyond. It gave us the paradigm through which everything else has developed, and yes, that involves quite a few civil servants. So what?

If Republicans want something to worry about, I've got a suggestion. Did you know that construction is the least efficient industry in America? Okay, that one isn't surprising, either. Once again, though, the numbers behind it are pretty astonishing:

Every other industry has gotten more productive in the past half century – by about 22 percent on average. Construction has seen productivity fall by 25 percent. ("Trillion Dollar Barry...")

If we're really going to be spending so much money on infrastructure, then pols worried about spending should focus on making sure these projects finish on budget and finish on time. I guess they'd still be tilting at windmills, but since the election proved tax cuts are out of fashion, at least they'd be trying out something new.

Courting the Feminazis: Gov. Sarah Palin

"Governor Palin ... will remind women that if they are not welcome on the Democrat's ticket, they have a place with Republicans," - Gov. Mike Huckabee

John McCain picked Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate today. I've made it pretty clear that I'm an Obama supporter over the past few months, and his VP choice wasn't going to change my mind, but I can't help feel I've been cheated. Maybe it's just how transparent this whole scheme is that's really bothering me. It seems so clear that this has nothing to do with anything but trying to steal votes by luring women to John McCain.

It must have been Limbaugh that really tipped me off to the absurdity of this all. As I was running some errands today, I had Rush on the radio, as is my wont. (Yes, I'm liberal, but the man is good listening.) Right at noon, with no qualifying statements, Rush jumped right on to the Palin bandwagon. This is the man that popularized the term "feminazi", praising a decision made for the sole purpose of attracting feminists to the ticket. I know that Rush has to play along, because he has to push for his guy to win, but that kind of turn around is upsetting. Maybe it's fitting, though. I personally think that choosing Gov. Palin is an anti-feminist choice.

First, let's go into why Palin is an absurd pick for VP. McCain makes such a fuss about experience, so it's asinine that he's picked someone with so little of it as his running mate. She was the mayor of a small Alaskan city for a few years before ascending briefly to the governorship of a state which is barely important: the only reason it's even a state is oil. And that's another thing: for a candidate that talks about energy independence and getting off fossil fuels, picking a candidate with such strong oil credentials is offensive. But more than any of this, John McCain is old and has a history of cancer; if there was any candidate in recent memory that needed a VP ready to take over at any time, McCain is the guy. I don't see that ability in Sarah Palin.

So why is Palin an anti-feminist choice? Because this decision makes clear a lack of respect for women. Sure, she fits into the "reformer" image McCain's trying to push. And, of course, Palin deserves respect for being a high profile working mother and for her achievements. She does not, however, deserve to be used. The quote from Gov. Huckabee above is essentially a neon sign boasting about the pandering to women embodied by this choice. Much of Palin's speech was devoted to drawing to link between the women who flocked to Hillary Clinton and the significance of this choice. Republicans are so obviously aiming to exploit a voting block already thrown into chaos by the Clinton campaign. (Plus, they're exploiting the misconceptions that Clinton would have liked to be VP or that she had the nomination "stolen" from her.) Additionally, if Palin is to be a feminist icon, she is a curious one. By my own calculations, she was no older than 19 when she had her first child. She is anti-choice and an avid huntress.

If John McCain and the Republicans think this is "change," there may be no better indicator of just how superficial their idea of change really is. Gov. Palin is a worthy woman, but she's been unfairly reduced to a cheap gimmick.

Update: Either I'm losing it, or the boundless wisdom of Wikipedia lead me astray. As it happens, Sarah Palin's oldest son did not turn 18 in 2001 but in instead in 2007, meaning that she did not have her first kid at 19. But apparently, she will be a grandmother at the ripe old age of 44 or so.