This seems to be a frequent right-wing tactic. Global warming deniers (I think it was Inhofe) make up lists of 'climatologists' who disagree with the premise of anthropogenic global warming. Of course, the lists are filled with TV weather persons. They are also filled with real scientists who suffer the cherry-picking of quotes in order to make them look like denialists. Evolution deniers have a similar list. In response, though, someone came up with a list of scientists named 'Steve' (or some variation thereof (Ivan, Stephanie) with over 600 names. I predict that, very soon, someone in congress will come up with a list of about 600 economists who think this is a bad idea. Of course, the names on the list will be junior college part time professors, investment counselors, and some real economists from which they will cherry-pick a half-sentence from 1980 and claim he or she agrees.

http://iambilly.wordpress.com

And third, isn't this the kind of thing Boehner should do quietly? Call up the Heritage Foundation, AEI, and Cato, tell them you need some skewed reports showing that the economy's in pretty good shape and will get even better on its own, and tell the Wall Street Journal editorial page to repeat the talking points. Isn't that usually how this game is played?

Yes, that is how the game is usually played. If you ever wanted any indication of just unlike the usual this mess is, there you have it. The usual rules of Republican obstructionism just don't apply at all.

I don't think you understand the method behind the Republican madness. Boehner doesn't care about the stimulus package per se, doesn't care about many actual issues, in fact. This is about the fight. This is about scorched earth, make them battle for every inch of progress until they, and the public, get tired of it all, politics. This is about taking every opportunity to throw obstacles in the way of the Obama Administration, to bleed his credibility, to create Washington journalist-beloved "On the one hand the Democrats say, on the other hand the Republicans say" equivalencies, and if there are economic problems down the road, this is about Boehner putting himself into a position to say, "I told you so, you big spending liberal pansies."

That's what Republicans do, "New kind of politics," "reaching out to the other side," notwithstanding. It isn't about the economy, the country, what Boehner and the rest of his caucus were sent to Washington to do -- none of that. It's about the forensic game of electoral politics. That's almost all those people care about.

Hey - the guy's name is Boner.

If the nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President didn't make the entire republican party run in the opposite direction, then there is no shaming them. The sheer stupidity of these people is astounding.

The Republicans aren't collapsing fast enough. They seem to have decided on a scorched-earth policy, destroying as much of the US as can before they lose power. Their mix of stupidity, meanness, and ideology is hard to believe.

I feel sorry for conservatives and Republicans wer are neither imbeciles nor lunatics. But not very.

First, why Boehner would oppose a stimulus right now is beyond comprehension.

I have to partially disagree with mg on this. I mean, sure - the House Republicans are pretty much stuck on their game. Why would we expect them to change their entire tactic so quickly? Even if it's a losing tactic - which it pretty clearly is to most people with senses - it's something they know how to do. So what the heck.

But I believe Boehner is actually a true believer, and so typifies the core Republican problem - which is, simply enough, the lack enough intelligence, wisdom, insight, and political smarts to get beyond the ideology. They are "stuck in time" as the song goes. He's simply looking for other true believers - with degrees in economics - to back up what he thinks he already knows.

I really enjoy watching Boehner, he who felt comfortable handing out lobbyist payments to Congressmen on the House floor, lead the House Republicans down the long path to doom. I cheer him on every day.

Why that's me! Please hire ME! I don't believe in economics. Have always wondered why we invented money and have lamented the lack of a Supreme Being in America like a King to provide guidance and direction. I am wondering what we will ever do now that President George is being forced into retirement! I have all my own leathers, chains, and implement of pain and am prepared to report for work at the Senator's office immediately!

Boehner's district in Ohio (8th) has a lot of agriculture based corporations. It is widely known that the new administration is going to be looking at farm and other agriculture subsidies very carefully. He knows well and good that once the light of day is cast upon how much money is going to agriculture -- and more importantly for what, exactly - that the gravy train will have come to an end.

Boehner isn't really opposing mass spending to get the economy on its feet. He's opposing radical re-alignment of how this country is spending because it will shift billions away from agri-corporation subsidies and toward urban and suburban infrastructure projects (where most Americans happen to live and need work).

What about Joe the Economist, Plumber and Pundit? He's a reel smahrt gie.

I speculate that GMAC will use its bailout money to become a bank.

Attention Geographers: Are you a Round Earth skeptic?

Attention Medical Professionals: Are you a Germ Theory skeptic?

House Republican Leader John Boehner is compiling a list of credentialed American scientists who have decided that fundamental teachings of their field are wrong and/or completely lost their minds. If you are a barking lunatic or ideological crank, you can add your name to the list, to be used for making irrational political arguments to the detriment of mankind.

I really still have no idea why Boner didn't lose his job as Minority Leader, other than for the reason that no one else wants it. Stuff like this is what I'd expect from him, but still, come on. Why don't you just put out a personal ad.

"Wanted: Skeptical Economist for Man-Tanned Politician. Must oppose putting money into economy. Politician also request economist not make fun of his name.

I and my fellow Chicago schoolers, Professors Richard Hertz and I.P. Frehley, have all signed on. Professors A. Wood-Jablome and Ivan Tubleauyu of M.I.T. are expected to sign today.

First, why Boehner would oppose a stimulus right now is beyond comprehension. Second, House Republicans should be able to make their case on the merits, and not point to a list of people Boehner found online to bolster a weak argument.

First, no stimulus has ever worked. That isn't "beyond comprehension", it just isn't believed.

Second, it isn't so easy to document the nothingness of events that have never happened, or stuff that isn't there. A senator saying on his own that no stimulus has ever worked would be accused of being an ignorant obstructionist.

What economists generally provide are arguments about how something that wasn't tried would have worked. Economists are in the position of physicists between Maxwell and the Michelson-Morley experiment: they have excellent analytical reasons for believing as they believe, because the nothingness of what isn't there (effective government policies to ward off recessions) has not been revealed experimentally. Unlike Maxwell, the theories of economists are full of dependent clauses and qualifications: each time an economist's recommendations are followed without the hoped-for success, the economics community notes that there were subtle differences between what was recommended and what was attempted (writing about why the Japanese government's stimulus packages of the 90s didn't work now comes to thousands of published pages, all focused on previously non-noticed differences between what was advocated and what was tried.)

Two years from now you will be able to read how the failed Obama-Democratic Congress plan wasn't really what any economist recommended, no matter how fervently some economists will advocate in its favor in the coming months. The explanations may not all be in agreement, but each in its own way will be admirably persuasive.

Wow, marketeer! You have me BEAT! I just cannot win now!

You are SO RIGHT. Why everyone know the Great Depression NEVER ENDED!

I'll bet you even know how to add and subtract! I am so HUMBLED!

I have to say, Steve, the only one of your points I agree with is that it's surprising that Boehner couldn't manage to do this quietly. As for why he would oppose it and arguing his case on the merits, just look at the kind of "merits" conservatives have been arguing throughout the modern era.

Other than doing it in public, this is conservative "thought" to a "T". The conservative movement is all about starting with an ideologically-determined conclusion, and looking for "reasoning" that supports that conclusion. (And "appeal to authority" is pretty common type of "support.")

I firmly believe that the reason our conservative government got into so many foreign policy blunders is that they were working from policy developed by conservative "think tanks" -- ones where "scholars" can keep their jobs forever, no matter how ludicrous their arguments, as long as their arguments produce "conservative" conclusions. They declared that academia was "liberal" because it didn't produce conservative answers, and established a parallel pseudo-academia that would, and it wasn't until they got in charge that the country had to suffer with the truth that intellectually honest researchers didn't get "conservative" answers because those answers were wrong, not because the researchers were "left-wing."

Those who rose to the top of the conservative movement will never believe this. To them, it's an article of faith that government is always the problem and the "free" (i.e. unregulated) market is always the solution, so I have no doubt that Boehner is sincerely opposed to a stimulus, despite the fact that there is no rational basis for it, and therefore he is desperately in search of, not a "case on the merits," but something that sounds like expertise that he can use to club those who disagree.

Boehner is obviously flailing -- the only reason he got to keep his job is that nobody else wanted it. He was severely burned by the Paulson bailout when several of his old friends on the right refused to follow his leadership, and now it seems they've been proved correct. He's surrounded by more conservative faces in key Republican leadership positions, and he's never been an idea guy, more of an implementer. He's as out of gas as the rest of the Reps, sticking out his thumb for a ride to the station.

Talking about ideas, though, and on a far higher note (just finished the last New Yorker, which might be called the slit-your-throat issue), Bob Herbert has a great column in today's New York Times. Aptly titled "Hope Amid the Gloom," it's on the nomination of Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, and what it may mean for a middle class that's been virtually destroyed by the American economic policies of the last thirty years. Obviously this is where Boner should, but won't, look for ideas -- to the Democrats. Another triumph for Herbert too; after years as one of the blandest columnists writing, since Obama clinched the nomination he seems to have caught fire.

Billy: That Inhofe denialist list was even worse than you think. It did include some bonafide scientists. The problem is they were not asked if they could be put on the list. Some, who were not in fact climate skeptics, were horrified to discover how their names were being used.

This reminds me a lot of the Iraq war runup, decide the desired result, then force intelligence to deliver propaganda to support it. This has become the norm on the American right, determine the desired outcome based upon a combination of ideology and gut feel, then design the study to deliver that result. All part of the war against science, and intellectualism.

And, he is trying to place out a marker. A few years down the road after the stimulus has revived the economy, the concern will be about how much the deficit had been expanded to revive the economy. The historical reconstruction will then be, that stimulus was not needed, and democrats simply used it as an excuse to run up the national credit card. He can claim he had scientific proof that the stimulus was not needed. This is similar to "we had all but won the Vietnam (Iraq) war, but the defeatist fellow traveler democrats gave the enemy an undeserved victory.

I'll agree with Redshift. This is typical conservative "thought" process.

I. Scientists and researchers follow this pattern:

Collect data --> Analyze data --> draw conclusions --> Act on conclusions --> collect more data and adjust as needed (politicians leave this last step out.)

II. Conservatives and Libertarians follow this pattern:

Draw conclusions --> locate semi-credentialed individuals --> hire them to ignore opposing data and to justify preexisting conclusions --> act on preexisting conclusions --> blame someone else for failed outcomes.

I also agree with Steve. The conservatives must desperate or in a big hurry to come up with a patented conservative reaction to the collapse of the economy which they themselves have driven over the cliff. It takes time to stockpile a collection of semi-credentialed individuals (that is, individuals who can fake credentials but won't insist on using real analytical skills with results submitted to real peer review to draw conclusions) who can act as advocates for crackpot conservative ideology on demand.

People like The Boner are the reason Ohio's falling farther and farther behind.

People like The Boner are the reason Ohio's falling farther and farther behind.

Rick B. is exactly right. Boehner's following a pretty standard approach: Pick a conclusion then find facts (or even just opinions) to support it. Of course, intellectual integrity requires going in the reverse direction.

But we've seen this over and over during the past eight years. Boehner is just fixing the intelligence in a different context.

You are SO RIGHT. Why everyone know the Great Depression NEVER ENDED!

According to FDR, FDR's economic policies failed to end the Great Depression, but WWII ended the Great Depression. Maybe Obama will follow that example: 8 years of failed economic policies (making the depression worse, not better), followed by a buildup to A Great War.

Collect data --> Analyze data --> draw conclusions --> Act on conclusions --> collect more data and adjust as needed (politicians leave this last step out.)

Where are the data showing government interventions successfully halting recessions? Republicans claim that the Bush tax cuts reduced the recession he inherited. If Republicans are correct, then the Bush tax cuts are the only example of government intervention working to ameliorate a recession, but read on.

A few years down the road after the stimulus has revived the economy, the concern will be about how much the deficit had been expanded to revive the economy.

This is exactly the Democrats' criticism of the Bush tax cuts: the tax cuts did no good, but just ran up the deficit.

It would be nice if liberal economists could provide a list of 5 occasions when government macroeconomic stimulus packages headed off a looming recession.

I agree that the word "credentialed" seems to have been Boehner's major stumbling block.

I listened to Michael Steele drone his way through a solid 15 minutes whining about how the only stimulus the economy needed was estate and capital gains tax cuts.

You know... because Bush did such a crummy job on that for 8 years and our economy would be booming if only...

Do they really believe more of teh same will work or they figure a wrecked economy is a good thing for their "base".

Maybe it is... I'm not sure if wealthy men considered the depression to be some of their best times. When people will do just abotu anything you ask for a dime. They might enjoy that very much.

Stinks on ice for MOST of us, but it would explain conservatives' calls for more of the same.

According to FDR, FDR's economic policies failed to end the Great Depression, but WWII ended the Great Depression.

Was that because WWII blew up the Depression? Or was it because the government raised taxes and paid lots of people to make things, lots of other people to build things and other people to serve in the military? Sounds startling similar to a stimulus package without the necessity of having the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor.

Sounds startling similar to a stimulus package without the necessity of having the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor.

I must have missed Obama's call to draft millions into the military for 4-6 years.

The facts that millions of young men in the prime of life were willing to endure years of privations, and that everyone left in the U.S. was willing to spend years at work postponing the purchase of consumer goods, and that the U.S. built up the manufacturing capacity of U.S. industry -- those may indeed have
been the reasons that WWII ended the depression. But I don't think anyone is now contemplating the government enforcement of years of privation, and it was more or less forced on FDR by armed enemies.

The main point is that no economic stimulus package has ever been shown to work, and that includes all of FDR's economic policies.

FDR paid millions of Americans to work for the government. As for years of privation, Bush has already made that nearly inevitable. Right now, building up the manufacturing capacity of the US doesn't sound like such a bad idea in comparison.

"I'm not sure if wealthy men considered the depression to be some of their best times."

If they survive it, yes, it is. Goods, services, real estate go begging for buyers. The economy experiences deflation. If you still have hard money (gold and diamonds are the best) then it's the best of best of times.

The big fish, who have swum in the sea for generations, sell short in advance of the wave. It's the little fish, and little fish grown big, who take the force of it. These days, the big 'uns negotiate their own bailout, which explains Henry Paulson. Watch his post-governmental career for more info.

Ah, Marketeer is regurgitating his Amity Shlaes talking points. There's no convincing an obvious ideologue like him, but interested readers may wish to educate themselves at be reading actual economist like Paul Krugman, Eric Rauchway or somebody not at the Cato Institute.

The crazy thing is that it's not so hard to find reputable stimulus opponents. I knew about Greg Mankiw and Tyler Cowen, and I'm just a casual blog reader. Google stimulus spending skeptic, and it pops right up. And I'm sure that a phone call to Greg Mankiw would get a lot more names.

Ericfree,

I agree with you on this one. Except, I think this time instead of valuables, it may well be foodstuff.

I've just brought up Paulson yesterday. Last week Paulson said he wouldn't need the last $350 billion. Now that the depths of the Madoff scandal is surfacing, now he needs the remaining $350 big ones.

With the bank bailout, I am starting to wonder if this is another ponzi scheme. Especially with most banks headquartered or having subsidiaries off shore. I am starting to think that maybe they didn't have the losses they claim, especially when they have repackaged and sold off.

I said before, they were robbing the treasury at our expense!!!

Example, a few years ago, Schwarzenegger started selling assets that were escheated to the state. He tried to say that if anything was escheated you lose all rights to it. It's not known how much the Cali government sold before a lawsuit was filed.

I just don't understand how every state and every business is claiming they are bankrupt or on the brink - and no, I will not give in to "they overspent." While they claim the economy was doing well from the economic boost, they were also selling infrastructures and whatever they could get their hands on, e.g. toll roads, ports, public transportation systems, landmark buildings (Chrysler)...

I have tuned out all the economists lately, appears the GOP have most bought and paid for.

The only person I look up to at this point is Warren Buffett - the investor, someone that I have admired for a long time.

If he can find enough compliant economists to be counted on a single mangled hand, other professional economists should institute the equivalent of Project Steve: A list of economists who support stimulus spending . . . who are named Steve, or a legitimate variation thereof. I am sure such a list would be lengthy, and would include many respected professionals.

I find it hard to believe why anyone would listen to any economists at this point and time. Besides, the economic indicators are always obsolete by the time they start gauging the factors they use for CPI, GDP...

All you have to do is look around you to know what's going on, you, your friends, your neighbors, and most importantly seniors - how long does it take to find a job now, it used to be you could quit a job today and have another by the end of the week. Have your paycheck been able to keep up with the costs of living?

Besides, most of the economists are on a self-promotion ideology - either they are selling a book or trying to make a name for themselves.

What we are in now, is unchartered territory. It used to be when foreclosures start, interest rates would be in double digits - for homes, bank accounts/cd's....the only thing in double digits right now is credit card interest rates.

I sold my home in 2004, I have been waiting on the sidelines since - but, the way things are going, I'm not sure I want to buy another home.

I have a friend that bought multiple properties in Texas. I warned him against this, but he insisted he was making money. It didn't matter that I told him when interest rates were low, that's the time to refinance to a lower rate and to buy when the interest rates were high to get a cheaper sales price.

I knew this was too good to be true. It was all hype.

You are forgetting how the game is played:
1. Boehner finds a skeptical economist who gives him some talking points so he can go on the floor of the House and sound semi-intelligent
2. Boehner shares talking points with Kingston, Fox, Blackburn; they recycle the same points over and over
3. Someone on the Dem side demolishes the talking points
4. Republicans keep regurgitating same discredited talking points because they have nothing else.

We saw it so many times in 110 Congress, so 111 will be the same. Watch for these three people, who have are not aware when they have been discredited.

BC

You should have mentioned Fox's Sean Hannity - a former construction worker.

Don't know much about Hannity, besides that fact that he's a former construction worker. I won't waste my time looking him up, because he's an hostile, angry-idiot.

But Barack Obama should learn from F.D.R.’s failures as well as from his achievements: the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.’s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.

Note that in his second sentence Krugman has done what I claim all economists do: explain why what was done did not work. In his first sentence Krugman supports my assertion, that FDRs policies did not alleviate the Great Depression. In fact, most macroeconomic measures (federal debt, unemployment, GDP) got worse after FDR started implementing his program.

Dennis-SGMM: [1]FDR paid millions of Americans to work for the government. [2]As for years of privation, Bush has already made that nearly inevitable. [3] Right now, building up the manufacturing capacity of the US doesn't sound like such a bad idea in comparison.

1. Yet unemployment increased after FDR started his programs.

2. Not compared to the privations endured by the millions in the military. I meant real sacrifice of material wealth, not 10% or so declines.

3. I agree, but it won't postpone a recession.

Postponing, or eliminating, a recession is the Democrats' policy goal right now, and there is no evidence [including not in Krugman's work] of any macroenomic governmental interventions effectively forestalling recession. If there were, you [and others] could list some instead of going around in circles or calling me an ignoramus.

Marketeer,

I am not arguing with you. I just tink this is a argument that can't be won.

Here in Cali, illegal immigrants have replaced the citizens of Cali. Mexico is still getting remittances well over $25 billion a year. This is a sanctuary state. There are quite a few illegal immigrants that can't speak English at all.

So yes, Obama will create new jobs, but who will get them. Identity theft is high among illegal immigrants. I know this one guy who is here on a work visa from Europe - someone got ahold of his identifying information and started working, the IRS sent him a huge tax-bill for failing to report income. So now, he's entangled in a dispute with the IRS for taxes he doesn't owe.

Marketeer,

BTW, didn't Boy George just admit about a month ago that we've been in a recession since 12-2007?

All the while, the GOP, economists, as well as Boy George kept saying that the economy was doing great.

Heck, Phil Gramm said we were a nation of whiners!

But again, I will refrain from taking an argument on this because we won't know exactly what's going on until the new administration comes aboard - hopefully.

I say hopefully, because, for sure they don't want a run on the banks, and people resort to stuffing money in the mattresses. Better yet, not spend at all unless it's for food, gas...

I know it's too late, but... marketeer, your analogy is not a good one.

The story is as follows: Maxwell's equations do not have to be adjusted for relativity. But they are are in tension with Newtonian mechanics, requiring a universal frame of reference - the luminiferous ether. Michelson-Morley showed that there was no such ether. In fact, it showed something stronger: Newtonian mechanics could only be made to work by postulating ad hoc forces. This was not a good situation to be in, of course. Einstein fixed it.

Alas, even were your analogy good (which it manifestly is not - what serves as the ether?), it would not further your argument: for Newtonian mechanics works just fine on the face of the planet. It's an appromixation, and a damn good one. Are you willing to concede the same for economics?

Perhaps it would be better to refer to the situation between the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiments and Einstein. But that won't help either. We can postulate ad hoc forces and get the right answers. It's just messier.

Let's do some lab testing and see who's right. LOL.

Until the One-Armed economist appears, they are just guessing. As the greatest living economist, Pat Buchanan, points out, if huge deficit spending stimulated the economy, we should now be reaping the benefits of Bushonomics, Bush being the King of Deficit Spenders.

Thank God the country voted for Socialism (remember that's what the Repubs said) so we don't have to have Bull$hit economic arguments.

And we know to a "T" what doesn't work. It's that vapid Chicago school voodoo economics "free markets" that's been auguring our country into the ground since Ronnie Reagan. Good riddance!

marketeer, your analogy is not a good one.

It's ok, but it's imperfect. Maxwell's equations survived, but the luminiferous aether didn't survive its first experimental test.

What I would really like is a list of governmental interventions that have prevented or alleviated recessions. Since every proposed intervention has failed, the idea that interventions can work ought at least to be seriously discredited. During the 19th century, America's economy revived after recessions/panics even when the government supported strong currency (e.g.1865-1908); so we know that cheap currency is not a sine qua non of recovery, despite Keynes et seq.

"First, why Boehner would oppose a stimulus right now is beyond comprehension."

Come on, Steve. Use your brain. He wants the recession to last until November 2012.