07 February 2009

What Insisting on Bi-Partisanship Gets You ~ Ineffectual Policy

". . . to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts. . . .

The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad." ~ Paul Krugman
So much for post-partisanship. So much for "change." So much for leadership from the Democrats in Congress and the White House.

Update (8 February): Today Krigman published this polished and somewhat expanded version of this earlier post in The Times. The punchline? "But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy." I have said it repeatedly here before - bi-partisanship is bad for policy and for democracy.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Dawei_in_Beijing said...

Why aren't the Democrats simply steamrolling over these GOP cretins?! This is so maddening! In the midst of the worst recession since the '30s, leave it to the Democrats to negotiate over tax cuts with the Republicans, while they have a majority in all three branches of govt.! Insane!

08 February, 2009 03:02  
Blogger Public Squalor said...

I guess it's what we get when we elect a president who pretends to be above partisan conflict. Obama has typically avoided fights, preferring instead to get along. He needs to realize that fuzzy warm messages of hope and change aren't going to appease his adversaries. His aversion to conflict is seen as nothing by weakness by the Republicans. It only opens the door for more extreme demands.

- peace

08 February, 2009 08:17  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home