He was probably more effective in this gambit, if for no other reason than some of these quotes will be replayed over the next 24 hours. The attacks are still disingenuous, though. Obama suggests that the bulk of his opponents don’t want to do anything at all. This makes them look absurd. It’s true that some people hold this view. But the bulk of his opponents believe in some stimulus bill, just not the one he proposed. This is a perfectly standard political trick, but it’s hard to pull off if you’re a president promising a new kind of politics.
His disingenuous “choice” between his plan and nothing didn’t even slip past Washington Post reporters without comment:
“There seems to be a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing,” he said. But in truth, few of those involved in the stimulus debate are suggesting that the government should not take action to aid the cratering economy. Many of the president’s fiercest congressional critics support a stimulus package of similar size but think it should be built around a much higher proportion of tax cuts than new spending. Others have called for a plan that is half the size of the one headed for a House-Senate conference — still massive by historical standards. Even those who think that no new government spending is necessary do not advocate a stand-still approach. A newspaper ad by the Cato Institute, signed by 250 economists, argued for removing “impediments to work, saving, investment and production” and said that “lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”
Perhaps the most glaring mistake Obama made in his first press conference was announcing that Tim Geithner would offer “very clear and specific plans” about TARP 2 the following day only to have Geithner testify that he’d rather work out the details before divulging them. Oops. The markets were not fans of the Obama administration’s wait-and-see approach or the little substance they were given:
Now with TARP 2.0, renamed a friendly Financial Stability Plan, the idea is to entice private capital to buy these bad loans and derivatives in an effort to set the “market price.” But Mr. Geithner hasn’t solved the dilemma of banks not wanting to sell and become insolvent. Moreover, no one is going to buy these securities ahead of Mr. Geithner’s action with the “full resources of the government” to bring down mortgage payments and reduce mortgage interest rates. Lower mortgage payments means mortgage-backed securities would be worth even less. Six months to a year from now, big banks may still be weak and the ugly “n” word of nationalization will be back. Mr. Geithner should instead use his “stress test” and nationalize the dead banks via the FDIC — but only for a day or so.
And, then there are Obama’s allies in the Senate and House:
“We need more details from Treasury on how exactly it plans to remove bad assets while protecting the taxpayer,” Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told the New York Times. “We have zombie banks that are weighed down because their liabilities exceed their assets. Without a precise mechanism for addressing toxic assets, it will be difficult to increase lending.”
Chris Dodd:
“What is the framework? What is the purpose here? And what do you hope to attain?” Dodd said.
And, Barney Frank:
“While the Secretary’s speech moves in the right direction on all fronts, some specifics remain to be detailed. …the Secretary said the administration would present details of their foreclosure reduction plan in a few weeks, which is too much time. In the meantime and while we wait for President Obama’s plan, I call on institutions that hold or service mortgages to delay and stop any foreclosure proceedings. I have said in the past that I have been skeptical of the question of a moratorium in general because it wasn’t clear where that would lead us, but in this situation where the Obama Administration will have a specific plan shortly, a moratorium is clearly called for.”
The sheer number and ideological diversity of the stimulus package’s critics serves to set fire to Obama’s earnest straw men. H/t Jen Rubin.
