Obama's Stimulus Package

President-elect Obama has unveiled his almost $800 billion federal economic stimulus proposal.  While the devil is always in the details, I'll take this as a positive sign:

Obama's proposal to stimulate the economy includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion — including $500 for most individuals and $1,000 for couples if one spouse is employed — as well as more than $100 billion for businesses, an Obama transition official said. The total value of the tax cuts would be significantly higher than had been signaled earlier. 

Of course, a big caveat for me will be whether the tax cuts are extended to individuals not paying income taxes. That wouldn't be a tax cut, but would instead be a "spread the wealth" income tax redistribution program.  Still, I'm pleased to hear that tax cuts will be a significant portion of the stimulus plan.

I also like this:

At his meeting with bipartisan leaders of Congress, Obama said he would make his stimulus proposal available on the Internet, with a Google-like search function to show each proposed project or program, by congressional district, according to three people who attended.

Nothing like a little disclosure.

Republican leaders are right to gripe about the overall price tag affixed to the package, but it must be remembered that the Democrats prevailed at the polls and the GOP doesn't have the right to expect the Dems to pursue an agenda whose cornerstone is limited government.  We GOPers will have to fight for and win those policies at the ballot box.

The politics of the moment make a federal stimulus package inevitable.  Tax cuts to businesses and individuals make it a little more palatable to swallow.  Let's just hope that there's not too much heartburn with the rest of the package, particularly if the House and Senate Democrats work to sweeten it.

Debate Wrap-Up

Just a few quick thoughts on last night's debate.

This debate was by far the best showing yet for Senator McCain.  He was appropriately aggressive, and contrary to what some of the pundits have concluded, I thought he landed some pretty good punches.  Fred Barnes seemed to think, for instance, that McCain missed an opportunity on the abortion issue by neglecting to mention Senator Obama's support for the Freedom of Choice Act.  What McCain did do, though, was bring up Obama's opposition as an Illinois State Senator to the Born Alive Act as well as legislation banning partial birth abortions.  I thought that these two points were terrific.

The high-mark for Senator McCain, in my opinion, was when he boldly told Senator Obama that he (McCain) wasn't George Bush, and that if Senator Obama wanted to run against George Bush, he should have run four years ago.  It's about time that McCain challenged Obama on this point.  Conservatives like myself have long been critical of McCain because of his tendency to stray from the GOP reservation.  It's particularly galling to hear Senator Obama contend that somehow there's an equivalence between McCain and Bush.

The inadvertent (maybe) reference to Obama as "Senator Government" could potentially be a defining moment. 

Senator McCain did a fine job of drawing the critical liberal versus conservative distinction on taxes (Obama wants to spread the wealth), health care (federal mandates and fines), energy (Obama would "look at drilling") and free trade (Obama supports tariffs and more limited trade).

No one would dispute that Senator Obama is a superior debater.  Still, I believe that those watching the debate may have seen what I saw...an unsettling slippery quality usually associated with slick-talking salesmen.  McCain pointed this tendency out on a couple of occasions ("looking" at drilling and "health of the mother").  I can't guarantee that everyone viewed the debate the same way I did, but , more than on any other occasion, I thought that Senator Obama looked plainly evasive.  His propensity to bob and weave was very evident when challenged to repudiate the incendiary remarks of Congressmen John Lewis.  He talked around it prodigiously, but never issued a repudiation, even when challenged to do so a second time by Senator McCain.

I liked McCain's effort to tie Senator Obama to Acorn.  He needs to keep doing that, as the Acorn voter fraud story is so pernicious that it has broken through the MSM protective filter.

I watched the Frank Luntz focus group of "undecided" Florida voters after the debate.  While most of them thought that Obama had won the debate, one got the sense that they still weren't sold on either candidate.  In fact, the first person interviewed plainly stated that, while he thinks Obama won the debate, he wasn't going to be voting for him because he just doesn't trust him.  Some of the others who thought Obama won the debate, when asked for their thoughts on what they watched, complimented Senator McCain for making this or that point rather than talking about Senator Obama.

This reminded me of the GOP primaries.  As most of you know, I was a strong supporter of Governor Romney.  I was joined by pundits and focus group participants in my belief that Governor Romney won each of the debates.  Even so, the polls never seemed to move significantly in Romney's direction and McCain won the primary.  I think what this illustrates is the disconnect that exists between a good debate performance and how voters feel about a candidate.  Voters may award a debate victory to an articulate candidate on points, but still like the other guy better on election day.  Voting can often be more visceral than cerebral, and therein lies both the risk and the hope for McCain's candidacy.  Voters are presently feeling an anger about the economy that has them seemingly poised to vent their frustration by putting the new and untested candidate into the White House.  The ideal situation for Senator McCain is that undecided voters and independents have a deeply felt discomfort with Senator Obama that trumps their anger about the crumbling financial market.

Senator Obama is looking strong at the moment.  I think it's entirely possible, though, that undecided voters, if they choose to vote at all in large numbers, may walk into the voting booth and find that they can't pull the lever for Obama because, well, it just doesn't feel right.  There are too many questions and doubts involving Senator Obama.

The next three weeks will be critical.

An Opportunistic Poseur

I'll be the first to admit that I have mixed feeling about the mortgage bailout package. 

On the one hand, I have no desire to see Wall Street bailed out for what appears to be reckless lending practices and rank corruption.  I also don't want to advocate on behalf of any policy that aggregates additional power to the federal government (and it's vast and corrupt bureaucratic structure). I'm also disconcerted by the idea of accumulating taxpayer debt to cover for the myriad of government and corporate screw-ups that contributed to this mess.

On the other hand, I don't want to take the risk that the American economy might descend into a deep and painful recession...or worse.   Too many of the people who make responsible decisions and play by the rules would be impacted.

As for now,  I consider myself an agnostic on the mortgage bailout issue.  I know that sounds evasive, but I sincerely don't believe I have enough of an understanding of the details of the pending bailout legislation to render an intelligent opinion at the moment.

What I do understand, though, is how thoroughly ridiculous it is for Senator Obama to try and claim that he, and not John McCain, deserves credit for the final legislative product that will be voted on by the Congress. 

McCain is the one who, to much ridicule on the Left, announced that he was suspending his campaign to steep himself in the mortgage bailout negotiations.   McCain is the one who spent most of the last several days in Washington working on the problem.  Meanwhile, Senator Obama was continuing his campaign while saying that he would be called if needed in Washington.

It's therefore a bit galling for Senator Obama to now argue that, not only should Senator McCain receive no credit for the pending agreement, but that he, Senator Obama, actually had significant influence over "shaping the provisions" of what appears to be the final product.  This is despite the fact that Senator Obama didn't commit to spending much time in Washington.  It's despite the fact that Senator Obama's Party controls both the House and Senate and should therefore have been able to push through whatever bill they wanted.  It's despite the fact that the crucial negotiations that brought about the pending agreement were largely brokered with the involvement of skeptical Congressional Republicans...the same Republicans among whom Senator McCain would carry far more influence than Senator Obama. 

In the end, both Democrats and Republicans were involved in crafting this pending bill.  If the bill helps to stabilize the economy, both parties can rightly take credit for an act of bipartisanship.  Should the bill do more harm than good, both parties should shoulder the blame.

Senator McCain's steady presence in Washington may or may not have helped move the parties toward an agreement.  The fact that Senator Obama largely stayed away, but now feels compelled to announce that Senator McCain should get no credit, is indicative of a very small man with exceedingly parochial interests.  The United State Congress is on the verge of approving a bill that was crafted with the intention of saving the U.S. economy and all Senator Obama can do is demand that voters not give Senator McCain any credit.  Way to show that class, Senator Obama. 

Now that's change we can believe in.