Not even sure it's worthwhile to look at these Wall Street Journal gems, but it really does feel like the standards for hackery are going down, if that's even possible, and so lets take a moment to educate. The first postulates that because John McCain didn't vote for the stimulus, it is a failure. You see, because Obama couldn't convince someone who holds diametrically opposing views of these issues to support his plan, none of the policy goals will be achieved. (Historical counter-factual alert: If McCain had won, would his agenda be a failure if Obama had not supported it?)
In any case, the whole thing relies on a tendentious reading of a passage from Obama's 2006 book. In truth, the passage manages to mock McCain without using his name, demonstrate Obama's dislike of the kind of Nelson-Collins bipartisanship that created the stimulus bill, and reveal the new president's ultimate bias: "the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal." If Obama had McCained the bill so as to gain his vote, it would not serve the goal of stimulating the economy. The article also suggests that if the bill had only had more infrastructure spending, more Republicans would have voted for it. Seriously.
The second piece isn't much better: it argues that we shouldn't try to do anything about the economic recession except expand unemployment insurance and other social safety nets while letting the FDIC and the Federal Reserve handle the financial system, because... well, because the author doesn't seem to know anything about what's currently going on in Washington. Amar Bhide rejects Keynes, as well as the various empirical data that indicates the current downturn is the worst in a long time, and the signs that monetary policy will not solve this problem alone. He goes on to make the cardinal mistake of conflating the goals of the stimulus package and the TARP program, using one to criticize the other, while for some reason also assuming the stimulus is all about starting new programs (in fact, it isn't). He also doesn't seem to realize that a huge chunk of the stimulus is in fact doing what he wants: expanding social safety nets. He also doesn't know that bankruptcy courts can't adjust primary home loans, or really any of a number of basic facts around which our economic policy currently turns. I know it's the WSJ, but try to at least get some of the basics right. Which of course should remind us of Tom Ricks' joke.
-- Tim Fernholz
