Long Overdue Move by the RNC
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 30 December 2008 | 3 responses
The Washington Times reports the following:
Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing “socialism,” underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush’s administration….
If enacted, the resolution would put the party on record opposing the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which passed Congress with Republican support and was signed by Mr. Bush, and opposing the bailout of the auto industry. The auto bailout bill was blocked by Senate Republicans, but Mr. Bush then reversed course and announced that he would use financial bailout money to aid the auto manufacturers.
The virtual collapse of the world economy appears to have sobered up just about everyone except the RNC and a few Southern senators with Japanese auto factories in their own state who were eager to eliminate the Midwestern competition/ crush the Democrats-supporting UAW. They appeared very willing to take a chance on toppling the economy to do it.
Bush/Paulson have done a pretty good job of messing up the bailout so far. The big banks used Fed $$$ to buy other banks or sit on it waiting to buy vulnerable banks rather than use it as intended by Congress. And so Congress balked when Paulson asked for more $$$ for his cronies to piss away. But that’s not what’s bugging the RNC. It’s not the mismanagement, it’s the bailout itself.
We’re in the midst of a worldwide liquidity crisis and the RNC is going on about ’socialism,’ while offering up what — small government, free markets and low taxes? Are these hidebound ideologues hell-bent on becoming completely irrelevant? A substantial number of economists and Democrats think that if a surge in private spending would raise employment, so therefore a surge of public spending raise employment? The RNC evidently thinks differently, but what, if any, realistic alternatives to strong fiscal stimulus is it considering?
Even after eight years of George Bush, I really had no idea how radical the GOP really is.
The resolution was drafted by Indiana talent the importation of more of same to Washington is greatly desired. GW without 9/11 would surely have been a one term President. What most economists think reminds of what most British economists thought of the Iron Lady’s reforms. It really is an open question if economists can think at all.
Economics aside, I find this hilarious. For the last 7 plus years, these same republicans (and some democrats too) have been complicit in government spying on US citizens (i.e. they exercised no oversight and failed to hold the executive branch to task), granting telecom immunity for the warrantless searches, expanding the scope and reach (and size) of the government and the national deficit, etc., and now in the 11th hour of all of their handiwork, they seek to blame George Bush for ‘embracing socialism’. Pot, kettle, kettle, pot. If you are going to call this socialism, what took so long?
On the other hand, maybe they hope that people are too stupid to realize that “socialism” is not simply a monetary policy. Maybe they hope that by using an emotionally charged term, whether tired cliche or not, people will magically forget that it was the republican party’s overzealous embrace of a free market economy and de-regulation that got us into this fiscal mess in the first place. I am only surprised that they did not call for an end to the ‘death tax’ as a solution.