Democrats' New Deal: This is It?

Democrats' New Deal: This is It?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
February 03,
2009

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," sayeth Rahm.

Opportunistic and cynical, yes. But also savvy political counsel
that transformational presidents have always followed.

FDR exploited the Depression to launch his New Deal, bring an end
to a Republican hegemony of seven decades and make Democrats the
majority party, until Richard Nixon picked the lock.

While the debate is endless over whether the New Deal ended the
Depression or caused it to endure until World War II spending
pulled us out of the ditch, few deny that FDR left a monumental
legacy.

We see it in the great dams of the West and TVA in the South, in
the REA that first brought electricity to America's farms, in
deposit insurance, unemployment benefits and Social Security.

Lyndon Johnson seized on the trauma of JFK's assassination and
racial incidents such as Selma Bridge to enact the Civil Rights Act
of
1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Ronald Reagan seized on the humiliation of the Iranian hostage
crisis, Moscow's invasion of Afghanistan and the worst recession
since the 1930s to rebuild the military, create a 600-ship Navy,
push the Soviet Empire out of Central America and Afghanistan, and
cut taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent, creating 20 million jobs
in a seven-year boom that inspired the awe, envy and emulation of
much of the world.

Not for nothing are the '80s remembered as the Reagan Decade.

Obama himself has spoken of FDR and Reagan as the kind of
"transformational" presidents he wishes to become.

Which brings us to that "stimulus package," the price of which is
$819 billion and rising, 6 percent of gross domestic product, piled
on a deficit already projected at $1.2 trillion. As it was being
whistled through the House, not one Republican voted aye. A dozen
Democrats could not
stomach it, either.

Does President Obama really want this Nancy Pelosi New Deal to be
his legacy? Because that is exactly what he is inviting. And before
he uses force majeure to ram this bill through the Senate, he ought
to consider what the honest objections are.

When Sen. John Kyl, at a White House meeting with Obama, said that
giving income tax rebates to millions of folks who pay no income
taxes seems to be simply welfare, Obama tersely replied, "I won."

Indisputably. But does it make sense to include in a plan to
prepare America for the 21st century borrowing billions from
Beijing to mail out in $500 checks to folks who don't pay income
taxes, so they can run down to Wal-Mart and buy more goods made in
China?

The New York Times reports Monday in a front-page story about
California, "A State With a Wish List," "More than two-thirds of
the states are facing budget shortfalls this year and
next ... and
could use the money to help balance budgets, blunt potential cuts
in education and shrink Medicaid obligations."

Sure, they could. But is this remaking America? Or is it bailing
out the same state and local politicians Barack himself castigated
in his inaugural as those responsible for "our collective failure
to make hard choices"?

Why would Barack wager his presidency on a gamble that, by handing
over hundreds of billions in borrowed federal money, to spare
governors and mayors the consequences of their own profligacy, he
can remake the America economy and ignite a real recovery?

What are the fundamental objections to the Obama-Pelosi plan?

It is three parts social spending to one part stimulus. It takes
too long to work. It represents a permanent not temporary expansion
of government.

It is too much LBJ, who bet the ranch on spending and failed, and
not enough JFK, who
bet on tax reductions that succeeded.

Even Bill Clinton would not have ceded so much to the tax-and-spend
wing of his party, which he relied on for votes, not advice.

Has Obama no more imaginative ideas for government's role in
reshaping the economy for the 21st century than this? Was it all
talk all along, to prepare the way for a return to the days of
spend and spend?

Sad, because this is likely to be Obama's last shot at getting this
economy on its feet and running by 2010. For Americans are not as
patient as they were in the 1930s, when FDR could try one idea,
then another, then another for five years, and continue to roll up
massive electoral victories.

If Obama gets this one wrong, and all this pork and welfare fail to
generate real growth, his party could face a wipeout in 2010, and
his opportunity could be lost forever. Does he really want to bet
the farm on the nag Nancy Pelosi just
trotted out of the House?

SOURCE:
http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=BIz8Z&m=1frJLJ61UnxN9f&b=MayFzbv1OWns38.vUbHkFg