It occurred to me that I haven't actually linked to Barack Obama's Washington Post op-ed on the stimulus bill. So here's a link. The op-ed reads much like you'd expect: Boilerplate heaped atop bullet points. But this sentence is interesting. "This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending," writes Obama, or someone in his press shop. "It's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education." The Obama administration is not arguing that this is simply a stimulus bill. Rather, it's stimulus and. Which is correct, though not precisely how it's been sold. The question is: And what? Bill Kristol read this and detected an opportunity. "President Obama has given Republicans a golden opportunity," he wrote. "Insist on splitting the legislation being debated on the Senate floor into a true short-term stimulus, which can pass quickly, and long-term policy proposals, which require serious debate." There's some logic to that: Both cynical and, let's admit it, substantive. But not for Democrats. No one believes that Bill Kristol would slow down a Republican stimulus and investment bill for extra debate and consideration. Even so, it would be wise if Democrats figured out a way to amp up the emphasis on investment in the debate (quick moving as it is). Letting the stimulus get attacked on how much money moves in two years has made the bill worse, not better. The economy is weak right now. The recession is likely to be long. There's no reason to delay on either the immediate stimulus or the longer-term investments. Barack Obama and the Democrats just won the election. As they say, that has consequences, and among those consequences is the passage of the promised agenda. There's been a sort of embarrassment at the prospect of aggressively using the Democratic mandate, and there shouldn't be.
