January 27, 2010
PAWLENTY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT A 'CREDIBLE ECONOMIST' IS.... Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) hopes of undermining confidence in the economic recovery package are predictable -- he is, after all, planning to run against President Obama in 2012. It's his citation on Fox News today that irked me.
"I think most credible economists say it's not working," Pawlenty said.
Funny, I can't think of a credible economist who doubts it's working.
[W]ith roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working. [...]
In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do.
Among "credible economists," we seem awfully close to complete unanimity that the Democrats' recovery effort rescued the economy from collapse, created jobs, and generated economic growth that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Among the experts, this isn't even worth debating anymore -- it's simply an obvious truth that the stimulus was effective. (It would have been more effective had it been more ambitious, but "moderate" Republicans insisted that the package be smaller.)
Even the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that which enjoyed very close ties to the Bush White House, said that without the stimulus, the economy would not have grown at all in 2009. We've seen related reports over, and over, and over again. Any serious person who's looked at reality has to conclude that Pawlenty's vision for addressing the economic crisis would have made things worse, not better.
Which is why the politics of the economic debate can be so exasperating. To reiterate a point from a month ago, the Republicans' track record of uninterrupted failure is rather astounding.
The GOP said the stimulus package would fail to create jobs. We now know the Republicans were wrong.
The GOP said the recovery efforts would fail to generate economic growth. We now know the Republicans were wrong.
The GOP said the stimulus "failed." We now know the Republicans were wrong.
The GOP said the government should cancel unspent recovery funds. We now know the Republicans were wrong.
The GOP said tax cuts are more effective at stimulating the economy than government spending. We now know the Republicans were wrong.
Tim Pawlenty simply has no idea what he's talking about. His understanding isn't just backwards, it's dangerously confused.
—Steve Benen 4:40 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (20)
Why hasn't the DNC gotten the word out on this? We need Howard Dean back in the chair!
Posted by: Dan on January 27, 2010 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK
Pawlenty's audience doesn't care anything about economists. He's speaking to the irrational right-wing base. This is not a reality-based discussion he's having.
Posted by: Bat of Moon on January 27, 2010 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK
Makes him the prefect successor to the GOP thrown. Carry the mantle of ignorance Tim!
Posted by: PhilMc on January 27, 2010 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK
He's not confused, he's lying.
Posted by: Gummo on January 27, 2010 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK
Are you implying Sean Hannity isn't a credible economist?
Posted by: Old School on January 27, 2010 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK
Pawlenty is out of step with his fellow Repugnants. They have been demonizing Obama and condemning the stimulus even as they have praised the local success stories of that same stimulus as "rammed thru" by that very same President.
Pawlenty evidently can't do the Repugnants' lying and thuggish equivalent to walking and chewing gum.
Posted by: neill on January 27, 2010 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK
Among "credible economists," we seem awfully close to complete unanimity that the Democrats' recovery effort rescued the economy from collapse
No, that's a patently false assertion. Hell, your own sources undermine your argument. Credibile economists do not say it rescued the economy from collapse - they say it helped cushion the blow. Economists debate the degree to which it actually helped, but no one with his (or her) salt has gone so far as to say the stimulus single-handedly saved us from economic collapse.
You make such a blatantly ignorant, sweeping statement, and have the gall to accuse others of ignorance?
Posted by: xj on January 27, 2010 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK
There's still such a thing as a "credible economist?"
Posted by: Cazart on January 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK
Such rhetoric is evidence of treacherous politics - not a serious engagement attempting to better our society! Bull shit on all who would obfuscate for political gain - any perverted cynic is capable of such skullduggery.
Pawlenty has sold his soul for he perceives to be political gain! -Kevo
Posted by: kevo on January 27, 2010 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK
So, XJ, what did prevent a total economic collapse? Tax cuts for the wealthy? BWAHHAHHAHAHA
Please.
Posted by: citizen_pain on January 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK
Tim Pawlenty's background - before he decided being a rightie politician had all the advantages of a job without actually having to work, that is - was in Political Science (similar to psychology in that every answer is opinion, and consequently is neither right or wrong) and Law. Economics? Not so much; I guess he's a talented amateur.
However, as Bat of Moon points out above, he's playing to an extremely uncritical audience who will not be startled from their worshipful doze unless they hear something they didn't want to hear. This is the same audience who follows Grampy "Snappin' Turtle" McCain around the Sunday talkie circuit and gobbles up his pretzel logic as if it were holy writ.
Yelling, "Hey!! Somebody's pickup truck's on fire!!" from the back of the audience might be as effective a means of breaking up Republican momentum as anything else.
Posted by: Mark on January 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK
Unemployment shot up in 2009 from 7.7 percent in January to 10.1 percent in October before settling at 10 percent in December. Behind those percentages were more than 4.1 million people who lost their jobs during the year. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that’s the most job losses in a year since 1940. (BLS could only provide data from 1940-2009)
Whew I am glad all the economists disagree with these numbers. We would be in real trouble if this were true.
Posted by: Orwell on January 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK
I would say primarily the trillions of dollars pf liquidity the Fed pumped into the economy, and TARP (as poorly-managed as it was it did stabilize the banking system).
Tax cuts don't have anything to do with it. The stimulus helped boost GDP and employment to an extent (I've read estimates it may have reduced unemployment by 0.5% - 2%), but that's a far cry from "rescuing" the economy. Did it matter? Yes. Did it rescue us from the abyss? Not even close.
Posted by: xj on January 27, 2010 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK
Tim Pawlenty simply has no idea what he's talking about. His understanding isn't just backwards, it's dangerously confused.
He's got Pawlenty of nothin'.
Posted by: navamske on January 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK
His knowledge of economics is only matched by his expertise in bridge engineering.
Posted by: the seal on January 27, 2010 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK
It doesn't matter what any economist, credible or not, says if the Democrats won't speak up to defend themselves, their successes or their good and popular ideas.
As long as the Dems let the Republicans define the issues they are doomed to perpetual impotence.
Posted by: xtalguy on January 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK
Doesn't anyone get it yet? The Republicans believe the truth is for losers. They belieeve they create their own "truth'' search: Jeb Bush and his quote on the truth. THIS is how Republicans think.
Posted by: Jeremy on January 27, 2010 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK
Polls show that despite the reality, Americans don't feel it is working. P-dawg is only validating what people feel--reality be damned.
Posted by: jwk on January 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK
*His knowledge of economics is only matched by his expertise in bridge engineering.*
I agree that Pawlenty is a dolt.
However, your allusion to bridge building is a bit flawed. I assume you are referring to the I35 bridge that collapsed in 2007. The replacement structure was completed less than 14 months later, 3 months ahead of schedule. It is state-of-the-art, with anti-icing sprayers and over 300 sensors that measure bridge conditions.
Like it or not, the new bridge was constructed on his watch, and he gets the credit.
Posted by: jackinmpls on January 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK
Jackinmpls: Pawlenty appointed his lieutenant governor head of the department of transportation though she had no expertise and limited legislative experience in the area (she was mainly known as a pro-life bully. She and her staff delayed and denied numerous bridge and highway projects because Pawlenty signed a right-wing groups "No New Taxes" pledge and Minnesota started to go broke. MNDOT even hired former employees as "independent contractors" to do bridge inspections, then stalled on doing work even these suspect inspectors got around to recommending. During the stall-all-repairs Pawlenty regime a bridge fell. And you praise him for the quality of the replacement?
Posted by: W Action on January 31, 2010 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK