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.]

[AO: Yesterday, I explained why a decision on a plan to support jobs and small businesses should not be based on whether the plan to support big businesses, and particularly financial firms, is/was successful. I stated:  

The Tribune makes the argument that there is no need for a second stimulus because either the current one is working and will continue to work as the remaining funds, as much as 70% of the total $787 billion, is appropriated or the current stimulus is not working and therefore there is no need for a second stimulus.   

This misses the fact that the first and second stimuli are not the same. The first stimulus focused on a few big businesses sectors, banking, auto, insurance, and some infrastructure. The second stimulus would focus on small businesses and employment.   

Today, Steve Chapman, writing in the Tribune, repeats the Tribune’s editorial argument from yesterday. I will not return to that argument. However, he also seems to think that the first stimulus was not effective because like football season following baseball season, baseball can’t be said to cause football. But alas, this analogy goes too far. Even if we assume that one ca not prove definitively that the stimulus is the cause of the current economic improvements, one cannot be certain that it is not the cause of the improvements in the economy. The problem here is that we don’t have a controlled experiment, or as mathematicians might say, we have an underdetermined problem.  

Here’s a better alternative to Chapman’s baseball/football analogy: When you get a flu shot and don’t get the flue this flu season, you cannot prove conclusively that it was the flu shot that protected you from the flu. The problem here is that you don’t have a controlled experiment. To have a controlled experiment, you’d need two versions of yourself that do exactly the same things and go to all of the same places and experience the same exposure to the flu virus over the course of the flu season. The only difference between you and the other you would be that one version got the flu shot and the other didn’t. Under those conditions, if the version of you that got the flu shot does not get sick but the other does, then you can conclude that the flu shot made a difference. This is what scientists do in controlled experiments. Obviously, we cannot do this with a stimulus package and our economy because the stimulus changes everything ones it comes into play and we don’t have another economy we can compare our current economy to. ]

For months, congressional Democrats have been arguing that the economy needs another federal stimulus package, on top of the $787
billion appropriated last winter. . .  

What also gets overlooked is that most of the stimulus funds haven’t accomplished anything because they haven’t left the vault. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told a congressional committee last week that only 30 percent of the money has been spent so far.  

Nevertheless, President Barack Obama called on Tuesday for a new jobs program. He didn’t set a price tag, but various estimates in Washington put it at $75 billion to $200 billion. Some would be directed to tax cuts to encourage hiring by small businesses, but much of it would go to government infrastructure spending.  

What is the logic of charging another package to the national credit card? If the previous stimulus is working, it should work even better as the lion’s share of the money finds its way into the economy. If it is not working, however, then there is no reason to think another round would pay off — and besides, the recovery is taking hold in spite of its failure. . . 

[AO: The Tribune makes the argument that there is no need for a second stimulus because either the current one is working and will continue to work as the remaining funds, as much as 70% of the total $787 billion, is appropriated or the current stimulus is not working and therefore there is no need for a second stimulus.  

This misses the fact that the first and second stimuli are not the same. The first stimulus focused on a few big businesses sectors, banking, auto, insurance, and some infrastructure. The second stimulus would focus on small businesses and employment.   

The argument the Tribune makes is that either stabilizing big businesses is working and is all we need or it will not work and we therefore don’t need a stimulus for small businesses and job creation. Obviously, it seems an odd argument when put this way. This is because the Tribune uses the word stimulus as if both stimuli mean the same thing. However, each stimulus is targeted at different parts of the economy. The first was for big companies. The second would be for people.]

Despite some questions, Obama’s Afghan policy is sound Given time, his strategy should work. But will there be time, and what about ‘winning’? [LA Times]

Afghanistan: Did Obama really say that? [Chicago Tribune]

Afghanistan: Now let’s win it; Republicans, Democrats and independents, it’s time to get behind our troops – and our commander in chief. [USA Today]

A Goldilocks strategy: Obama bought himself time on Afghanistan, but there will be hell to pay if his policy fails. [Washington Post]

Health reform must go forward: Defenders of the status quo in health care would gladly allow the need to vet President Obama’s Afghanistan plan to drain precious energy from the health-care fight. [Boston Globe]

Climate of suspicion [Chicago Tribune]

Trading with Ecuador: Washington must resist efforts by Chevron to interfere with a Andean trade agreement. [LA Times]

Too risky to regulate? Not with proper verification [Boston Globe]

The Job Summit: Once job creation has the priority status it deserves, the next step is to build on proven programs and add new ones to address the scale and nature of joblessness. [New York Times]

‘Yes’ to a second stimulus: State and local governments are draining federal dollars, deepening the U.S.’s decline. [Washington Post]

Cracking Cuba [LA Times]

Framers envisioned separation: Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s support for legal abortion has earned him the wrath of the Catholic bishop of Providence, R.I., Thomas Tobin [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Tiger Woods pleas for privacy, and he has a point [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Taking one for the team: The National Football League needs to move beyond its incremental steps to combat player brain injuries. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Concussions: Kurt Warner’s courage - Arizona Cardinal Kurt Warner did something courageous last Sunday. He admitted he was too shaken up to play. [Boston Globe]

Neglected Warriors: Far greater candor in Washington is needed about all the factors and risks that can drive soldiers to commit suicide. [New York Times]

‘Reality’ and the White House crashers [LA Times]

How to get around Karzai: Good governors and ministers may help us succeed in spite of the Afghan president. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

————————–

Editorial Note: This feature, “What They Are Saying” will be discontinued on Monday, December 7, 2009 so that we can bring you more annotated opinions.

Let’s end the War on Drugs [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Growth, at last [Chicago Tribune]

Too Little of a Good Thing: The Obama stimulus plan is helping, but it not nearly enough. Unless something changes, high unemployment will continue for years to come. [New York Times]

Six Tests for Equality and Fairness: Political battles in six jurisdictions could have a profound impact on whether the United States will extend the right to marry to same-sex couples. [New York Times]

So what if they promote it? Let’s suppose, for a moment, that conservative critics are correct: Gay educators want to “promote homosexuality” in American schools. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Police these pills and powders: Congress should give the FDA the power it now lacks to regulate the dietary supplements industry. [Boston Globe]

Don’t count illegal immigrants? That doesn’t add up [LA Times]

‘Public option’ politics: The government-run option is a good compromise, but lawmakers avoided dealing with its true cost. [LA Times]

What’s next for health care: The battle now is not about whether to pass a bill, it’s over how to define the product. [Washington Post]

Adrift in an ocean of complexity: The important work of being informed about public issues has been crowded out of our lives at the very time that big money has found a way to insinuate itself into nearly every cavity of government. [Boston Globe]

Saving the news [Chicago Tribune]

The Court and Your Savings: Congress wisely put limits on the ability of mutual funds to overcharge investors. The Supreme Court needs to give the law the power that Congress intended. [New York Times]

Superpowers with super problems: Most Russians are peculiarly willing to accept their place. This is a horrifying idea to most Americans, who have deeply absorbed our sense of a Jeffersonian democracy. [Boston Globe]

Afghanistan’s drug war: The farmers aren’t the enemy – Opium cultivation and heroin production fuel corruption and aid the Taliban, but targeting the growers isn’t the answer. [LA Times]

Inside Iran’s opposition: Even if its leaders supplant the current regime, the biggest changes might be of style. [Washington Post]

Our sense of troubled normalcy returns: One year after the financial panic was at full bore the US economy is more shackled than ever to a military budget, which is money spent, for all its benefits, on death. [Boston Globe]

We’re killing communication: At 78 years old, I can authoritatively say that ‘talking’ isn’t what it used to be [USA Today]

The Shepard Fairey-AP case: A clearer picture: The dispute over the popular Obama poster gives the courts a chance to better explain what is fair use of creative works. [LA Times]

Cape Wind: The Wampanoag tribes’ attempt to block a clean energy project off the Massachusetts coast should be rejected by the responsible federal and state officials. [New York Times]

Wind power might blow a hole in bird populations: Some species will not nest near the turbines, while eagles, hawks and migratory flocks can be cut down by the spinning blades. [LA Times]

Shale game: A boom in natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania will ease energy demands and boost the state economy. But there’s reason to be concerned that environmental regulators won’t be able to keep up with this new gold rush. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Science, faith used to be allies: Tellingly, President Obama’s pick to head the National Institutes of Health — Francis Collins — touts this symbiotic relationship today. In recent years, some Americans have come to view science and religion as consistent antagonists, butting heads over everything from the origin of the cosmos to when human life begins (abortion) and when it ends (euthanasia). [USA
Today]  

President Obama has pledged “to explore each and every avenue that will lead to job creation and economic growth.” One avenue would be redirecting nearly $300 billion in unspent federal stimulus funds to metropolitan areas, where most of the people, jobs, and gross domestic product in this country are found.  

While states hoard federal money to do little more than plug yawning budget gaps, cities are more likely to use it to create jobs in the short term and drive economic growth in the long term.   

[AO: This is all well and good. And indeed, the writer makes a strong argument for directing stimulus funds to cities rather than states. However, I couldn’t help but worry about some underlying assumptions. One of these assumptions, it seems, is that state governments are somehow not integral part of state such that states can be left to wallow in debt while cities thrive or at least make ends meet. This is unlikely. If funds bypass the state level, state governments are likely to reduce their support to cities, especially since states have to balance their budget.  

While directing funds to cities might enable them to fund projects in the very near term (say 12 months), their fiscal situation is sure to deteriorate during that period or very soon after when state governments takes steps to limit the resources they provide as a result of their debt. There are no easy answer here so while the writer’s argument is strong, it doesn’t appear to be the silver bullet they make it out as.]

Get the shot [Chicago Tribune]  

Swine Flu and You: While there is no reason to panic over the swine flu, people should take normal precautions to prevent it from spreading. [New York Times]  

The Case for More Stimulus: Because of ongoing economic problems, the immediate need for stimulus trumps the longer-term need for deficit reduction. [New York Times]  

The threat of homegrown terrorism: Though terrorism is back in the headlines, many question whether individuals like Mehana Mehanna, the Sudbury native arrested last week, pose a significant terrorist threat or do they lack the capability to inflict any real damage? [Boston Globe]  

Iraq, Afghanistan and the politics of war: In both countries, military advances must be matched by political progress toward peace. [LA Times]  

General fallibility: President Obama should give Stanley McChrystal what he needs — not what he wants. [Washington Post]  

Either/Or in Afghanistan: Sometimes a “war president” has to decide to start bringing the troops home. [Washington Post]

Keeping our allies on our side in Afghanistan: The U.S. must be willing to listen to those nations that are sharing the risks. [LA Times]

‘One free swerve’ [Chicago Tribune]  

Death in the desert: It’s time the U.S. take steps to keep thousands of migrants from dying attempting to cross into this country. [LA Times]  

To check or not to check: Bag wars aloft [Chicago Tribune]  

A Win for Internet Speech: A judge was correct in throwing out a suit against Craigslist over its “erotic services” section, since the law shields the company from liability for the speech of others. [New York Times]  

Lose your job? Need health care? Join the military: Times being what they are, I have decided to suck up to Fox News by becoming a conservative commentator. [Philadelphia Inquirer]  

More than 1 way to cool Earth [USA Today]  

Boomers out of the spotlight: Not long ago, I was blithely driving along, listening to a public radio story on senior citizens and unemployment. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

The many meanings of a cross: The dispute over a cross in the Mojave points to how entangled religion and culture are. [LA Times]

The Banks Are Not Alright: While bank trading operations are highly profitable again, the part of banking that really matters —lending, which fuels investment and job creation — is not. [New York Times]

Flight of fancy [USA Today]

Switzerland’s example of universal healthcare: Its citizens receive very good medical care. Controlling costs, however, is difficult. [LA Times] 

Oh, That Account: To curb tax evasion by the wealthy, Congress must swiftly pass tax-related legislation wrapped into President Obama’s 2010 budget. [New York Times]

Antibiotic research: the kryptonite of superbugs: Drug manufacturers have abandoned antibiotic development in favor of more commercially reliable medications, particularly ones given for chronic (rather than acute) diseases. This needs to change. [Boston Globe]

Stimulus by $250 check: The government wants retirees and others to get another $250. Why? [LA Times]  

A fiscal pacifier: Treating the elderly like spoiled brats [Chicago Tribune]  

Reawaken young voters: Will the young and hopeful abandon the political playing field to older voters who are angry? [Washington Post]  

Sudan’s state-sponsored pyromania: Militias burn rebellious villages in southern Sudan. What will the U.S. do? [LA Times]  

Europe’s angst over Afghanistan: Allies have a question: Will Obama walk away? [Washington Post]

Tackling a gruesome trade: A new report suggests some necessary steps for dealing with organ trafficking, a problem that has burst into the headlines in recent months. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

A new model for news reporting: American society must take some collective responsibility for fostering a new journalism ecosystem. [Washington Post]

Speechless [Chicago Tribune]

America’s maddening paranoia: Suspiciousness and conspiracy fears have been part of our politics for decades, but the attacks on Obama’s back-to-school speech are especially depressing. [LA Times]

Source: Boston Globe

Obama’s pep talk: Since when is a back-to-school speech urging the country’s children to work hard and get good grades fodder for a controversy? [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Stop Fussing Over Obama: The president’s speech urging kids to work hard set off a ridiculous protest. [Washington Post]

American zombies: How silly were the protests against Obama’s schools speech? This silly: [NY Daily News]

Mr. President, ignore the polls and pass health care reform [Atlanta
Journal-Constitution]

Obama needs the speech he just gave [LA Times]

Cheney’s Disdain For The Law Is Appalling [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Health care fear factor: Roughly one in six Americans lacks health insurance. Millions more could lose theirs in a flash. Costs are rising so fast that in a decade, premiums for a family policy will approach $25,000 a year. And yet time and again, the system proves impervious to reform, mostly for one reason: fear. [USA Today]

Less Spocky, More Rocky: President Obama is so wrapped up in his desire to be a different, more conciliatory, beer-summit kind of leader, he ignores some verities. [New York Times]

Keep ban on contributions: The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear a case with enormous implications on political campaigns: whether to overturn the ban on corporate money in federal elections. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Van Jones and the witch hunters [Chicago Tribune]

Green jobs: New messenger, same message: The work Van Jones was doing was important. Obama should find a replacement as committed to the goal of bringing green jobs to inner cities. [Boston Globe]

Sudan’s indecent misogyny: The arrest for indecency of a female journalist and UN official in Sudan because she wore pants puts a spotlight on human rights violations in a country that turns its courts over to religious authority. [Boston Globe]

The Crisis, a Year Later: Without full disclosure from the banks about how they are using their bailout dollars, it’s impossible to assess the plans’ efficacy. [New York Times]

Abortion Fear-Mongering: Misleading statements from the GOP do a disservice to a complex policy issue. [Washington Post]

How to restore consumer confidence: A cheap, simple and powerful solution for much of America’s consumer confidence problem rests in a consumer financial protection regulator. [Boston Globe]

Think you can hide? Think again [Chicago Tribune]

‘Freeze! Put your hands up!’ Oh, sorry: At home, watching TV — then an erroneous 911 call leads to a brief, tense encounter with the LAPD. [LA Times]

Shackled Democracy in Burma: The military regime’s planned election is a mockery, says a former political prisoner. [Washington Post]

‘Convincing Evidence of Fraud’: Afghan authorities should refrain from declaring a formal winner of the presidential election until the recount is finished and the Electoral Complaints Commission rules. [New York Times]