×
- It's not news that the much-maligned economic stimulus enacted last year is doing pretty much what it was designed to do: mitigate the effects of the Great Recession. And despite reports that it might even be performing slightly better than expected, I can't help but regret that it could have been designed better. More money, more focus on infrastructure, and a focus on shoring up state budget shortfalls and job creation could have dramatically improved the bill. Instead I got a $400 tax credit while official unemployment sits at 10 percent and growth is anemic. And lest we forget, a better stimulus bill that visibly turned things around would have deprived critics of pointing out the inadequacies of the compromise we got.
- Speaking of getting a return on investment, Kevin Drum tries to help people understand that contrary to the myth that Medicaid expansion will break the backs of cash-strapped state governments, the federal government will be covering at least 95 percent of the cost, not to mention the minor detail that an additional 11 million people will receive health-insurance benefits. But as with the ARRA, facts like this aren't going to dissuade the powerful narrative that "out of control government spending" is destroying us.
- I love these National Review "Originals" that The Corner highlights every now and then. For those who don't know (or care), this feature highlights a past issue of the magazine and some of the articles contained therein. It exists as a reminder of the magazine's glory days, when conservatism was an ideas-based movement on the ascent. I don't know what that says about the contemporary conservative movement, or for that matter, National Review, but it's amusing that conservatism remains so hardwired to revere the past that it's reduced to revering one magazine's lonely struggle against the liberal establishment.
- Remainders: The (financial) fate of U.S. presidents has always been tied to the state of the economy; part two on the sources of Nancy Pelosi's influence as House speaker; the line item veto is just a technical way of saying "shift power to the White House"; more principled opposition to the Elena Kagan nomination; and I'm going to go with "powerful personality disorder" to explain Wall Street's obliviousness to their own role in taking down the economy in 2008.
--Mori Dinauer
