The past week has been one of the fiscally craziest ever. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped to its lowest point since many of us were in middle school, the U.S. government took steps towards buying up 40 percent of Citigroup’s stock, Starbucks started selling instant coffee for cheap prices and President Barack Obama signed into law a stimulus package that would pump $787 billion of taxpayer money into the economy.

Let us put $787 billion into perspective, because once we see the “-illion” suffix, our minds cannot comprehend it. According to the book “The Numbers Game,” $15.6 billion is our magic number in getting a grip on this huge sum of money. Why $15.6 billion? Take 300 million, the approximate number of citizens in the U.S., multiply it with 52, the number of weeks in a year, and you get $15.6 billion. This is about how much money the government would have to spend each year on any program for it to cost $1 per week per citizen. If we divide $787 billion by $15.6 billion, we get the approximate cost for each one of us to pay for this stimulus: $50.45 per week, or about $2,623 per citizen per year. Where is all of that money going? To be honest, I do not think anyone is really sure how to interpret the 1,100-page bill that is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Most of the stimulus will go towards infrastructure improvements and repairs. A large chunk will be spent as expansions of food stamp and unemployment benefits, and the rest as tax rebates of about $800 dollars for the average family. Interestingly enough, much of the stimulus money will be handed over to state governments to distribute and spend as each state sees fit. I do not want to imagine the infighting that is going to take place in the 50 legislations.

Is this a worthwhile endeavor? The fiscal conservative in me wants to scream out that this is a horrible step onto the slippery slope towards socialism, but I have to agree with it. Understand that in an economy, there are three main spenders: people, corporations and the government. Most people currently have little to no spending cash. Many have lost jobs or have become underemployed and have lost homes to foreclosure. Meanwhile, corporations are going bust all over the country, including the behemoth like General Motors and AIG. To make matters worse, the banking system is also collapsing. Without banks to loan money to corporations and individuals, no entity can get money at all. This leaves the only remaining potential spender: the U.S. government.

The stimulus will hopefully shoot enough money into the country to allow banks to lend and individuals and corporations to spend. Once people feel comfortable enough to buy, the increased demand should push up production and profits in U.S. industries, allowing them to hire more people, who will then have jobs, who will then spend their money.

I am very curious to see what will happen to Obama’s political clout in the coming months. Obama has always preached a message of bipartisanship, but not a single Republican in the House of Representatives voted for the bill, citing an excess of Democratic pork in the barrel. Also, vaguely familiar accusations of haste and scare tactics are being hurled Obama’s way, just as they were at former President George W. Bush when he rolled the Patriot Act through Congress. The Republican boycott rallied a previously demoralized GOP base — a base with lots of people out there who would love to see this stimulus — and Obama — fail.

On the other hand, Obama did exactly what he set out to do. Even with all of the imperfections in the stimulus package and the lack of Republican support, Obama got the job done, managing to get $787 billion into the economy quickly. I think there may be some truth to the smell of bacon and the hurried, frantic way the bill was presented, but I think it truly needs to be done. Only time will tell if this is remotely effective and if Obama will be hailed as the next FDR or scorned as a Hoover. Partisanship aside, I, even as a Republican, truly hope this works because it is a cause that we can all root for: people having jobs and mortgages they can afford, CEOs being able to take home tens of millions of dollars in bonuses, and grande, soy milk, sugar-free cinnamon dolce lattes in every cup holder. I really do not care if there is pork fat thrown into the package to grease the political wheels, especially if this thing can get the economy bullish again by the time I leave Rutgers. I want to be able to find a job.

This story was originally published by The Daily Targum

You can view the original story at the following address: http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/is_the_stimulus_worth_it-1.1573855

]]> http://johnsonvillepress.com/is-the-stimulus-worth-it-preston-saks/feed/ 1 http://johnsonvillepress.com/no-simple-high-way/ http://johnsonvillepress.com/no-simple-high-way/#comments Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:31:21 +0000 Alex G http://johnsonvillepress.com/wordpress/?p=113 Read more »]]> By Mike Stuzynski, as edited by the Johnsonville Press. This article also appeared in second-edit form in the Daily Targum, 2/20/2009

If you’ve read any piece of political writing in the past two weeks, you’ve probably heard some use of the term ‘bipartisan’ thrown around a few times. And why not? On paper it’s a truly groovy subject, evoking images of people with different opinions shaking hands and getting along over a $4 espresso drink. If you take your cues from the popular media (and realistically, who doesn’t), it’s just what the doctor ordered for the difficult economic times that lay ahead.

But if you stop and think about it, there’s something not quite right with our cultural presuppositions related to how true bipartisanship is constituted. Close your eyes and visualize bipartisanship; chances are you’re looking at two men in suits talking ‘across the aisle’, negotiating some important piece of legislation. It’s enough to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It’s a sham of course, like most of the feel-good imagery that is drummed up by Washington spinsters. Diabolical, yes, but it’s all part of the plan.

With the support of the popular press, the Democratic Party has succeeded in using the mythology of bipartisanship to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public long enough to ram an irresponsible string of stimulus bills through Congress while hypocritically ignoring or belittling any nonconformist opinion. Much was written in the media about the latest stimulus package, but even members of Congress expressed their exasperation about a legitimate lack of information pertaining to the language of the bill itself. Forget the fact that only a handful of legislators had a hand in the actual drafting of the bill, most members of Congress were never even afforded a reasonable chance to read it before the voting began. According to Ron Paul, only five copies of the 1,000-page document were made available for perusal at 12:30 a.m. the night before it was voted on.

Ours is a culture that encourages individuals to think outside the box, but just wait until your individual thinking is fundamentally different from the thinking of an authority figure: You’ll find that dissent isn’t as patriotic as it was once cracked up to be. From day one, no one who opposed this previously unheard of example of deficit spending was taken seriously. Remember when the House of Representatives rejected the initial bailout proposal? Less than an hour later, Nancy Pelosi was in full combat regalia scolding members of the opposition for failing to take responsibility by protecting their constituents. She was able to persuade enough Congressional representatives to see her side of the issue and consequently embrace her definition of bipartisanship, by any means necessary. You were either with us, or you were against us — sound familiar?

After that initial blip, it was smooth sailing for the Democratic spending machine as wave after wave of unprecedented bailout initiatives were herded through the Legislature. Nobody stopped for a second to even try to come up with a better alternative to what promises to be the single most shortsighted piece of economic policy in the modern era. Republicans kept silent in protest or out of convenience and Democrats seemed more than happy to toe the party line. At the end of the day, it seems as if everyone in Congress is just trying to keep their heads down until Paris Hilton is safely back on top of the Associated Press ticker.

But the blame should not fall too squarely on the shoulders of our legislators, as recent polls suggest that a majority of Americans also supported these same dubious measures. Suffice to say that none of the initiatives would have passed if they weren’t a textbook example of the easy answer. What do you do when you have a whole lot of paper and ink but no money? Print more. There’s American ingenuity for you. Just do something about the problem so I can continue to lose myself in an increasingly sophisticated world of electronic stimulation. If anyone in Congress, or even in the private sector, had bothered to take a good hard look at the situation, alternative solutions would certainly have presented themselves. The easiest substitute, supported by Ron Paul, is to simply sit back and allow the market to correct itself. It will be a painful process, but that’s the price you pay for a supposed free-market.

Allow me to propose a third way. I’m no Tony Blair, but trying is better than dying. So if you could keep your comments about communism and high treason to yourself for just 10 more minutes, I would be much obliged.

First, something needs to be done about our system of taxation. In a culture of excess where executive compensation can range into the mid troposphere, the idea of a 75 or even 80 percent tax bracket should be seriously considered. Former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have proven the trickle-down effect to be little more than a pipe dream, so it seems about time that the super-elite started pulling their financial weight around this place.

The second step may seem even more drastic. With thirteen states acknowledging the medical legitimacy of cannabis sativa, it’s about time we thought about legalizing marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Administration spends around $17 billion annually combating the flow of the drug into and around the country, and countless more billions are spent prosecuting and incarcerating petty criminals caught with the substance. Not only would legalization help trim governmental spending, but the added revenue from taxation of the federally sanctioned sale of marijuana products would provide a much-needed boost to the national coffers.

While far from a panacea, these two proposals would at least scratch the surface of the larger problem. While there may be a dearth of popular support for these seemingly un-American ideas, this is exactly the kind of radical thinking our country needs during this time of economic upheaval. If we cut back on unnecessarily wasteful policies, we will be putting ourselves on a solid track to recovery. The money generated by such progressive initiatives could then be pumped back into the economy, and since we would in this case be using existing money rather than simply printing more, we might avoid the side effects of stagflation the bailout will likely lead to some 10 or 20 years down the line.

I’m sure there are countless other opportunities to trim the fat of government excess, but these are just the first ones that jump into my mind when pressed to come up with a viable alternative to the seemingly unchallengeable principles of Obamanomics. Give it a try, if you dare. It may not be pretty, but we’re not exactly living in a fairy tale.

It seems as though a day cannot go by without hearing the N-word.  That’s right, I’m talking about nationalization.

Even the thought of the word is enough to send some people into tirades against Big Brother, socialism, and liberals.  However, upon reflection, the idea of nationalizing our banks may not be as terrible as it initially appears.

It is best to begin by exploring the problem itself before we begin to consider potential solutions.  A significant fraction, if not the majority, of major banks in the United States are now insolvent.  Their liabilities are greater than their assets resulting in a negative net worth—this usually precipitates bankruptcy proceedings.  The insolvency in the financial sector has caused most credit channels to freeze up.  The banks, worried about their own financial health, are refusing to lend money out of fear that they could worsen their situation.  The inability of creditworthy individuals and firms to obtain credit has had a further chilling effect on the economy that is worsening by the day.

When a business is unable to get a loan, it often must scale back its operations.  The firm reduces production and employees are laid off or their hours are cut.  Those laid off no longer have a steady source of income and must cut back on their consumption.  This weakening demand will then produce another round of businesses scaling back operations and a downward spiral ensues.

It is useful to see if history can teach us anything about the problems we face.  As Mark Twain said, “History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme”.  Similar crises have occurred before, notably in Sweden and Japan.

In Japan, an investment bubble grew due to easy credit.  When it finally popped, investment levels crashed and the economy was sent plunging.  The Japanese central bank lowered the interest rate to zero but it failed to jump-start the economy.  When banks became insolvent, the government offered them subsidies.  The result was so-called “zombie banks” —banks neither fully alive nor dead that could not exist without government support.  The recession that followed the bursting was not as catastrophic as it could have been, but it was prolonged.  For ten years Japan experienced no economic growth leading some to call this time period the “lost decade”.

Sweden experienced a speculative housing bubble similar to what just occurred here in the United States.  When the bubble deflated in 1992, credit channels froze up and the financial sector saw widespread bank insolvency.  The Swedish government took decisive action that let everyone know it was engaged with the problem—the government guaranteed all bank deposits and debts while assuming the bad debts of failing banks.  The bad banks were forced to issue common stock to the government in exchange for debt assumption.  The banks, now owned by the government, had their bad assets transferred to asset-holding companies where they were eventually sold off.  The proceeds from this went back to the state.  When the banks were again considered solvent, the ownership shares were sold on the market and the government was able to recoup much of its initial outlay.

The problem in the United States, as I see it, is fairly straightforward.  Banks are unhealthy and have stopped lending, and this is sending ripple effects throughout the whole economy.  So what options are available to us?

The first is simply to do nothing.  Proponents of this option claim that we should allow the market to take its course, eliminate any government intervention or regulation of the financial markets, and let the banks find their own route to solvency.  This is an appealing argument but one that fails to appreciate the scope of the problem.  If a single bank found itself in dire straits, it would be appropriate to allow the bank to declare bankruptcy.  The insolvent bank would then be taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), shareholders would lose all their equity, creditors and depositors would be paid back, and the bank would disappear.  The problem is that there are too many banks that are in such awful shape.  Aside from whatever impact this would have on the markets, it would also most likely make the FDIC insolvent.  This is what happened to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) during the Savings and Loan crisis in 1989.  We further deregulated savings and loans when it was first realized they were in a dangerous condition.  This was done so that the taxpayers would not have to bail them out.  The result was that they dug themselves deeper into a hole and the resulting bailout was even more costly.  The FSLIC ultimately went bankrupt and was phased out of existence.  The magnitude of the problem we face precludes this option.

The second option is to inject money into the banks by purchasing the assets that are polluting their balance sheets.  By replacing the toxic assets with liquid capital, banks would be on sound financial footing and have all the necessary liquidity to start lending again.  This option has its own pitfalls.  The first is that nobody knows how to price these assets and how much the government would or should pay for them.  If we are to use the market price as an indicator of value, then these assets are essentially valueless.  Even if we fixed the banks’ balance sheets through an injection of cash, there are no provisions to correct the behavior that got us here.  Taxpayers should not pay to reward failure and incompetence.  If they are paying, they should be getting something for their money.

This leads us to the third option – nationalization.  What this would amount to is the government injecting capital into the banks and receiving ownership of the banks in exchange.  Before you even begin to cry “socialism”, you should realize that if any private investor gave money to a corporation, they would expect to receive equity in the business.  Why should the government be expected to do something that no private individual would do?  Through a stewardship model, the government can go through the balance sheets and determine how badly each bank is actually doing and how much capital would be necessary to fix it.  When the banks have returned to a state of financial normalcy, the government would be able to recover some or all of its initial investment through dividends or selling the equity stake.

Critics of this option often bring up several points as to why this cannot work.  First, it is claimed that government has no knowledge or expertise in dealing with insolvent banks.  This is false—government actually has plenty of experience in these matters through the FDIC and formerly the FSLIC.  Second, it is claimed that government intervention would be an affront to laissez-faire capitalism.  The truth is that laissez-faire capitalism never existed—and even if it did, so what?  The government is doing what it is supposed to do: provide protection for its citizens.  Rabid lust for deregulation is what created this crisis.  Having the government take over failed banks for a period is far from the Soviet-style central planning which many libertarians seem to fear.  Third, it is said that nationalization could never work in America—it is against our culture.  This is essentially throwing a political bone into an economic argument—it is there to confuse and obfuscate.

However, it should be noted that in the past it was not in our culture to allow women, minorities, or anyone without property to vote.  Time has passed and our culture has changed in response to dynamic conditions.  There is no reason to think that our culture and mindset cannot change again.  The fourth, and perhaps most plausible argument against nationalization, is that it cannot work because the scale of the task is too enormous.  This argument claims that the Swedish model worked because there were fewer failed banks and Sweden is a smaller country than the United States.  I see no reason why this means nationalization must fail.  It simply means that we must be willing to embrace it on a different scale—larger problems require larger solutions.

None of these options is especially appealing.  As it often is in life, we must settle for the lesser evil—the cost of inaction is too high.  Pumping more money into the system without getting anything back simply delays the solution.  The government has no alternative but to temporarily assume control of banks that would otherwise fail: allowing the financial system to collapse is simply not an option.  The government must demand common stock in exchange for any capital injections, and the existing management must be replaced as well.  When the banks have been found clean by truly independent auditors, then the shares can be sold off.  The banks will become re-privatized and we, the taxpayers, will get at least some of our money back.

Seen here as it appeared in the Daily Targum

In his most recent article for the Daily Targum, entitled “When the going gets tough…”, Josh Baker, or as I have known him for four years now, “Hollywood”, makes several dubious claims with regards to the current state of politics in Washington. Josh, the Targum’s consistent hardcore liberal voice, argues that the Republican Party has rudely and systematically rejected the bipartisan efforts of President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party coalition. According to Josh, members of the GOP should be repudiated for their consistent opposition to the liberal Democrat’s agenda. As John McCain might say, I fundamentally disagree with Josh’s claims herein.

To begin, with regards to Josh’s claim that the president’s attempts at bipartisanship, or as he calls it, “post-partisanship”, may “ultimately prove fruitless – at least in the short term”. It is true that the President has recently made a number of symbolic moves, such as inviting Republican leaders to the White House and appointing a few GOP’s to administration posts, in an effort to make good on his campaign promises of a bipartisan Washington. But could we reasonably say that these attempts are proving fruitless? Certainly, there has been marked opposition to Obama’s stimulus package from the conservative right. But this is not in any way to be unexpected. Nor is it, I would argue, undesirable. The Democrats currently control both the Legislative and Executive branches by a strong majority, much stronger in fact than the Republicans ever did during the Bush years. Their hold is so strong, in fact, that any legislation the Dems see fit to pass will pass, regardless of the fact that more than forty percent of the American voting population stands with the GOP. Considering this, why would any Republicans choose to vote with the Democrats here? In posing an opposition to the stimulus package, Republicans do not realistically stand to prevent the passing of the bill. Further, the failure of the Republican Party to stand for that oppositional voice would only serve to prove once and for all that it has lost touch with its constituency, which comprises very nearly half of the American public. This is a fact of which both Democrats and Republicans are certainly aware. As such, we cannot even assume that the near-unanimous opposition of the Republican Party to the stimulus package necessarily points to the fact that all Republicans are in fundamental disagreement with the widely accepted view of economists today that the stimulus is a necessary evil. After all, many republican congressmen chose to vote for the much larger influxes of government spending in the TARP fund and other bailout legislation prior to the Obama inauguration. And you will notice that, while Republicans may claim to be against the stimulus, they conspicuously chose not to invoke the power of the filibuster, perhaps the one great tool they have at their command at this point. From where I’m sitting, the real story seems very different from the one Hollywood is telling. Seeing a dire need to speedily pass the stimulus through Congress, and rightly recognizing the ability of the Republicans, if not to stop the bill, at least slow its progress to a crawl, President Obama took decisive, pragmatic, bipartisan action. Favoring speed to partisanship, Obama placated the Republicans with concessions, if not enough to convert them to his cause (which as we have said, would have been both an irrational and unnecessary hope) enough to allow its passing in a timely manner. Count it as an Obama success that the bill passed as quickly as it did.

Hollywood makes his second error in suggesting that because a slight majority of Americans are in support of the Stimulus Package, Republican opposition is somehow not warranted. I quote: “In contrast with the considerable political resistance it faces on Capitol Hill, the Obama plan is favored by a decisive majority of Americans”. He cites a recent Gallup poll, according to which 59% of Americans polled support the plan. I have, I think, already shown how we must not necessarily take the Republican opposition at literal face value. What is more, I need not even mention except briefly that the contents of a poll, even one held in such high regard as the Gallup, should not be taken as factual evidence of…well…anything. Polls are often misleading and perhaps just as often blatantly false. But what struck me most about Hollywood’s (Josh’s) comment here was that he seems to have neglected the fact that 59% of the American public nearly exactly corresponds to its representation on Capitol Hill. That is to say that, according to the very poll Hollywood cites, about as many Americans support the “Obama package” as there are Democrats in Congress (actual, the Democrats voting power is closer to 58.8%, but who wants to split hairs?). Is it somehow shocking that the Congress is reflecting nearly to a T the will of the people? Perhaps to a veteran Bush-basher it is, but if this is so, I would argue without any reservations that it is a step in the right direction. To say that the Republicans are somehow in the wrong for (finally) standing up in support of a fundamentally conservative view is only to reveal one’s own personal partisan tendencies to the left, and reject the very spirit of bipartisanship that the liberal savior President Obama purports to embrace. The true bipartisan would count it as a success that the Republicans were able to salvage something for their side and their constituency, in the form of tax-cuts and other revisions which Hollywood bluntly repudiates. If anything, the bill was in this a bipartisan success, perhaps more favorable to the liberal end, but at least granting some concessions to the American conservative base. After all, why should the Democrats, or for that matter any political party, get everything they want? To me, that sounds like tyranny, or at least Soviet-style, one party politics.

The third and, for me at least, most offensive error Hollywood makes is in stating that “The [Republican] Party’s leadership vacuum in Washington has essentially made the ineffably obnoxious and ill-informed political pundit Rush Limbaugh its de facto leader”…What? It is quite clear that this is not the case, and in fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. Consider only staunch Republican campaigner Pat Robertson’s recent repudiation of Limbaugh in the national news! I will only say that anyone with half a brain can see that Limbaugh is both obnoxious and ill-informed; why then should we make the same mistakes?

The fourth and final problem I have with Hollywood’s article is his apparent distaste for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s comment that the country is “screwed”. I suppose only time will tell whether or not Obama’s plan will prove effective, but I would contend that it will not, particularly in conjunction with the several more trillions of dollars in deficit the country has been stacking up of late. In truth, economics is largely the science of common sense. My common sense dictates that this much debt and apparent inflation can only lead to only two things: a devalued dollar and a global DEPRESSION. As to why Republicans have failed to voice an alternative to “Obamanomics”, I would only point to veteran Congressman Ron Paul, perhaps the most honest politician left in Washington. According to him, in times like these, the market must undergo a correction, as painful and politically unacceptable as that position may be. Therefore, the answer could not and is not to spend more money, which can only prolong the problem and in the process engender further bureaucratic inefficiency in the marketplace. The only viable solution can be to dramatically cut taxes while simultaneously dramatically reducing government spending. But the truth is, no matter how long we put off the inevitable, make no mistake, this correction will come, and it will be painful; all the more so the longer we wait and the more we spend and inflate.

As I mentioned, I have known Josh for quite a long time, in fact since our freshman year in 2005. Josh is an active contributor to the Johnsonville Press, Rutgers’ newest alternative source of opinions and news, for which I myself am an editor. We are always grateful for Josh’s contributions to the Johnsonville Press, and I for my part read his Zeitgeist column in the Daily Targum religiously. Perhaps you will find it surprising that the two of us are longtime friends, considering the disparate nature of our political views etc. But I feel I can accurately speak for both of us (the obviously liberal Josh and politically agnostic Alex) when I say that what we should all be striving for is the fullest expression of the diversity of opinions to be found within our community. It is this spirit that drove me to write this objection, this spirit which we encourage to see in the Daily Targum, and this spirit that we strive to uphold in the Johnsonville Press.

By Mike Stuzynski

Editor in Chief

As read at the Demarest Coffeehouse on 2/26/09

With an increase in air, water, and light pollution since the industrial revolution, transparency in many forms is in shrinking supply.  It is only natural for such problems to carry over to the social sphere from the environmental, and so we have come to accept a lack of transparency in our University, our city, our state, right on up to infinity.  Most are willing to concede that this is undesirable, yet few are motivated to do anything serious to change the situation.

There is a fatalistic, almost apocalyptic, attitude that often follows this pattern of thinking.  The popular buzz about global warming essentially holds no hope for humanity’s future-our longstanding neglect for environmental wellbeing having irrevocably altered the future of the planet.  Granted I’m no meteorologist, but the water isn’t exactly coming up around our ankles just yet.  Even if you buy YouTube’s trash 2012 end game theories, there are still the better part of three years-why not at least make the effort?

If the staggering $787 billion stimulus package were an environmental phenomenon, it would be the London fog on a midsummer day in the 1870′s.  The bill ambles on for 1,400 pages, so chances are none of us will ever claim familiarity with the mechanics of Obamanomics.  Even the legislators can’t understand it in full-only five printed copies were provided for review less than 24 hours before the measure passed through Congress.  But rather than pressure our representatives by writing letters or soliciting signatures on petitions, we are largely content to express our discontent through inactive cynicism.

The politics of fear rule the day in times of crisis-Bush’s ability to galvanize the public in support of the oppressive PATRIOT Act following 9/11 being a glaring recent example.  It’s happening again in the government’s rhetoric surrounding the economic crisis.  Most of the discourse is predicated on the notion that our nation must act, and act fast, to avoid further exacerbating current problems.  In this light, any action on behalf of the government is in large part perceived as being for the best.  In this situation, the more drastic the action, the more support it is likely to generate.  Our recent actions concerning the environmental crisis also mirror this philosophy: cheap buzz words like biofuel and hybridization are thrown around without much thought about efficiency or feasibility or sustainability.

In times of crisis, we tend to think and communicate using epic metaphors.  It is easy to let our minds wander and associate people and events with terms like hero, Armageddon, prophet, etc, because we have let ourselves be tricked into believing that we are helpless to address the problems of modern life without seemingly divine intervention.  That is why you’ll hear the government talk about printing more money before you’ll hear them talk about raising taxes and increasing civilian oversight over the private sector.  You’ll hear CEO’s talk about increasing fuel efficiency by 35% (wow, now I get 28 miles per gallon?), but you’ll rarely hear a governor give a speech about the pressing need for a comprehensive system of public transportation.  We have the vocabulary for those things already-trains and tax-hikes-what we’re looking for is a miracle.  We’re looking for something that is too original to have a name-something that’s too big to fail-or we allow ourselves to be fooled by statistics that prove to be negligible under serious analysis.

In the interest of doing something to clear the air in our own back yards, the Johnsonville Press will be making an effort in the coming weeks to explore the two sides of the New Brunswick Ward Campaign, a conflict which has been ongoing in city politics for over a year, but about which there is a noticeable lack of specific information made readily accessible.  We are of the opinion that a more complete understanding of political situations is the only way to make informed decisions, and we will attempt to bring light to Empower Our Neighborhood’s position and past actions as well as those of the City of New Brunswick.

Based upon our populist philosophy, aside from the usual suspects, we are also soliciting the opinions of our readers in order to fill in the big picture.  As always, we welcome any submissions, suggestions, and contributions from the residents and affiliates of Johnsonville. Together, we can see through the fog.

I’d like to talk about bipartisanship. It’s a word that has taken a lot of rhetorical abuse of late, at the hands of our elected officials and media spokesmen. During the campaign season, both senators promised that bipartisanship would be a benchmark of their new administrations. The self-styled “Maverick” of the Senate John McCain often referred to his willingness to cross party lines and “reach across the aisle” when voting in Washington. Specifically, he cited votes on torture policy in the armed forces and environmental protection. Barack Obama for his part had little historical precedent to cite—the former Senator’s short Congressional voting history reveals very little tendency to stray from well-established party lines. Even so, the pragmatic Obama did not hesitate to blithely embrace the bipartisan spirit, swearing that an Obama administration would work with both Democrats and Republicans to “bring change to Washington”.

Today, Obama is eating his own words. It seems that, especially with regards to the so-called stimulus package, bipartisan support from the Congress has been wholly lacking. Republican opposition to the bill was nearly unanimous, with not a single Republican in the House and only three in the Senate voting in support of the measure. In light of this, questions have begun to surface as to the feasibility of a bipartisan government under an Obama presidency.

In his first primetime press conference from the White House, the President was forced to confront the issue on more than one occasion. How, the true believers-turned doubting Thomas’ asked, did the thorough opposition to a bill largely crafted by his administration bode for his bipartisan promises? Obama defensively wiped his hands of the issue; he cited Republican appointments to major administration positions and stimulus concessions in the form of tax-cuts, to the tune of one third of the bill. But in the end, he stood by his guns. “I won” Obama remarked, not without force, but perhaps a hint of resentment. As he presents it, the American people voted him into office to ‘do something’ about the economic ‘crisis’, and this is his something. It is a position Obama bases on a perceived “consensus for change”.

Does this position hold any real weight? In other words, do Americans really support Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as strongly as some of us seem to assume? It is a question intimately linked to our current pursuit. Let’s break it down: about 80% of the potential voting population registers to vote; about 60% turns out; about half of that voted for Obama. Potentially, that leaves about 70% of the adult population that did not support him in the recent election, and presumably, his policies, for whatever reason. Are we then to accept this idea of a national consensus in support of Barack Obama? Even more dubious is the question as to whether a vote for Barack equals a vote for the stimulus package.

But why so much emphasis on bipartisanship today? In large part, this new obsession was born in response to the supposed Republican domination of government, particularly of the congress, during the Bush years. What few Americans today seem to realize is that this assertion is, historically at least, blatantly false. Let’s consider the party summaries of the Congress from 2000-today. The 107th Congress of 2000-2002 reflects a near perfect split between Democratic and Republican representation, the GOP holding 50 seats in the Senate and 51.5% of the final voting share in the House. In the 108th Congress, that number jumped to 51 seats and 52% respectively. In the 109th Congress, the GOP gained four more seats and a further 1% (bringing their voting share up to 53%). By the 110th Congress of ’05-‘07, the Democrats had regained control with a mild majority. Today’s 111th Congress is easily controlled by the Dems, who hold nearly 60% of the voting share in both the Senate and the House, much more than the Republicans ever have in the 21st century.

Why then should liberals complain? Today they enjoy more power in both the Legislative and Executive branches than Bush era Republicans ever did. The fact is, any Republican domination in our government during the Bush years owes itself to three factors:
1. The unwillingness of the Congress to step up and take responsibility for its constitutionally-designated role, specifically as a check to executive power,
2. The impressive (if unfortunate) ability of the GOP to vote together in force, and
3. Bipartisan support for many Bush administration policies (consider only the acquiescence of the legislative power to declare war to the President).
Any of the perceived failings of our government that mark the Bush years are not solely the burden of the GOP, but of both parties, of our government as a whole, as is usually the case.

By this point in time, both parties have well established philosophical foundations, guiding principles that unite individual representatives as a party in general. That being the case, how could we ever expect bipartisan support in any fundamentally philosophical issue? The beauty of our government is that one branch can hold the others in check, provided, that is, that we have the good sense to vote those checks into place. We should not be surprised that the stimulus bill was widely rejected by the GOP—after all, these are the representatives who are supposed to be against government spending and intervention! What’s more, we shouldn’t be so hasty to assume that Obama’s attempts at bipartisanship have failed. In fact, bipartisan support for the President will only be built up over time, as Obama himself has stated. I expect to see bipartisanship emerge in the coming months and years, probably most prominently in the realm of environmental policy. But do not be surprised when Republicans reject a bill proposing around $500-600 billion in deficit spending. What does bipartisan support matter these days anyway? The Democrats now have near-full control over our government and our future. Let’s hope such power doesn’t go to their heads…