AnnotatedOpinions.com

On Tuesday, however, Obama announced a new, multibillion-dollar spending package . . . The plan includes a reported $50 billion for . . . infrastructure.   

We may need some new roads and bridges, but these are not short-term economic boosts. In any case, infrastructure accounted for less than 10 percent of a bill that was sold in large part as a “reinvestment” package that would pay dividends for decades. [AO: Creating jobs “now” is a short-term economic boost. One of the primary reasons the economic recovery has been tepid is that consumers are not spending. Consumers are not spending for a variety of reasons including unemployment. No reasonable consumer who looses his or her job will continue to make the purchases he or she made before the job loss. Therefore, helping unemployed Americans get jobs creates an immediate boost to the economic recovery. ]  

The new stimulus would spend nearly twice as much on infrastructure as the last stimulus included. . . But infrastructure is not the only dead end in this plan.  [AO: Infrastructure is not a dead
end. In fact, spending on infrastructure is one of the best ways to address our current economic problems. Unlike some of the other fixes, infrastructure projects require borrowing money to create assets that will be available for the benefit of future Americans who themselves help pay for the assets.  

Large-scale infrastructure projects like the interstate highway system and large dam projects helped make America great. It creates conditions for connecting the country, reducing cost of trade and so many other benefits. At a time when our infrastructure is crumbling, recession or not, we need to spend the funds necessary to rebuild our infrastructure that has been allowed to crumble for the last 50 to 80 years.   

The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America’s infrastructure a D and recommends a $2.2 trillion dollar five year plan to improve our infrastructure. Based on these numbers, the  amount of infrastructure funding the administration is considering is a drop in the bucket. But it will be money well spent.]  

A couple of Obama’s measures might spur small businesses to invest. These include an extension of these firms’ ability to expense immediately some investments, as well as a one-year elimination of the capital gains tax for investments in small companies (though committing to keeping the current top rate of 15 percent for all investments would have a larger positive economic impact).  

There’s also a tax credit for small businesses that hire workers next year. But it’s not as promising as it sounds. . . [AO: Like his view on what constitutes short-term investment, the author has an unreasonably narrow view of what benefits small businesses. The jobs creation measures and infrastructure improvements contemplated by the administration will also be a great help to small businesses. These initiatives will enable small businesses to hire more people or put their existing workers to work. It will create projects that small businesses can work on.]

It’s much too early to suggest genuine progress on dealing with Iran, but there is a glimmer of hope from President Obama’s arm-twisting at the U.N. yesterday. For the first time, Russia has suggested it may be open to imposing tougher sanctions against Iran for its nuclear violations. . . .

Some conservatives, however, are having trouble letting Russia go. You remember that old proverb: “Hold your friends close, but hold your enemies closer”? They’ve held Russia so close for so long they miss the old, reliable enemy.

[AO: To be fair, “a glimmer of hope” is not exactly the sort of basis you want for giving Russia a free pass. Indeed, Tucker, writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, even agrees that “It’s much too early.” Therefore, as much good news as this is, I say it’s also much too early to start blaming conservatives of not letting Russia go. ]

[AO: Here are excerpts from an op-ed by Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Bookman takes us back to 1961 Reagan to illustrate how ridiculous some of the arguments against Healthcare reform really are. ]

Judging from conservative rhetoric, the debate over health-care reform is in truth a fight over the future of American democracy and capitalism. Stopping the health-care bill is being described as an essential step toward restoring America to its rightful owners and rightful course. . . .

In a recording back in 1961, Reagan patiently explained, step by step, how the then-controversial proposal to create Medicare would lead to an America in which freedom was a distant memory. In post-Medicare America, government would dictate to its citizens where they would be allowed to live, what they would be allowed to study and what career they could pursue.

It’s a great case study in how elusive the line between reality and fantasy can be, particularly in the hands of a master illusionist.

Reagan begins by noting that under Medicare, the federal government would pay doctors for the care they provide. From that single data point, he weaves a portrait of America that none of us would recognize. . . .

Today, almost half a century later, we know how things turned out. Medicare did become law, as Reagan feared, but the rest of his horror story never came to pass. Government is not dictating where we can live or what we can study or what career we can enter. We remain a free people, in many ways far more free than we were in 1961.