Stimulus vote reveals deeper issues
By Editorial
President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on Tuesday. Given the current state of our economy, we certainly hope this package successfully alleviates our economic woes, even if we disagree over what the ultimate outcome might be.
These economic woes are becoming harder and harder to ignore. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment in January of this year hit 7.6 percent (a 2.7 percent increase since last January).
And let's not forget that despite October's $700 billion financial rescue package, our largest banking institutions remain insolvent, or, as International Tribune Columnist Steve Lohr referred to them in a Feb. 13 column, like "dead men walking."
While accurately predicting what effects Obama's stimulus package will have on the economy is impossible for even the most brilliant of economists, the passing of this bill presents another critical issue: the firm entrenchment of the Republican Party against it. Only three Republican senators gave their stamp of approval to the package.
Though it's refreshing to see Republicans defending their traditional small-government position, anyone who remembers the last eight years can hopefully recall Republican support for the type of Federal spending that has cost the party its credibility.
The war in Iraq alone (don't worry, this isn't one of "those" editorials), has trashed our Federal budget nearly beyond recognition and will continue to do so long into the future. Economist Joseph Stiglitz long term cost estimates for the Iraq War run over $3 trillion. For the party that's traditionally opposed massive Federal spending, the last eight years have certainly been a departure from tradition.
The Republican's recent opposition to "New Dealesque" policies begs the question: Do Republicans overwhelmingly oppose Obama's stimulus package because they think it reeks of Keynesian socialism or because Obama is the one spearheading it?
If Republican opposition represents a rally to the values that have traditionally appealed to the Republican base, then we understand this new development.
We live in a world of strong opinions which are represented in our two-party system. Parties should pursue their goals and stick to their ideals. It wouldn't come as a big surprise, for instance, if a party promoting liberal sun block use voted yes on a "Sun Block Saves" advertising campaign.
On the other hand, if Republican opposition to the stimulus package represents the continuity of destructive partisan politics, then both parties need to re-address their core values. Rush Limbaugh didn't do his party any favors when he said of Obama back on Jan. 16, "I hope he fails."
One would think no American would want their president to fail, even if their statement was an easily misinterpreted attack on socialist policies.
If the Republicans continue to make their brand irrelevant to the majority of Americans who voted for Obama by becoming the anti-Democrat party, their future victory will hinge on Democratic failure, and this is no way to run a party. Let alone, it will never lead to bipartisan compromise.