Obama Administration Fights Debate

A front page article in the Sunday New York Times entitled White House Debates Fight On Economy should have been called "White House Fights Debate On Economy."  It began:

President Obama and his senior aides are considering whether to adopt a more combative approach on economic issues, seeking to highlight substantive differences with Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail rather than continuing to pursue elusive compromises, advisers to the president say.

Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors

The passivity of the President was on full display.  Despite the fact that "mainstream economic theory" prescribes a new round of stimulus spending "to create jobs and promote growth," Obama likely won't seek anything so bold because it would meet with resistance from Republicans.  Despite advice from his chief economic adviser that Obama should to push for "bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers," and "to help homeowners facing foreclosure," the consensus view that is emerging in the White House is for the President to remain non-confrontational.

Unfortunately as the article points out, there are "few economists among Mr. Obama’s senior advisers," and so the conversation is dominated by his political advisers, who not only believe that it is politically beneficial to focus on deficit reduction, but who also are "skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending" as a matter of economics.  Indeed, Jay Carney, Obama's press secretary referred pejoratively to more aggressive efforts that had little change of overcoming Republican opposition as "stunts."

Steve Benen explains that even though the Republicans will kill any bold ideas, "having the debate positions Obama as the leader with the right vision, who cares about getting Americans back to work."

Picking the fight offers a chance to blame the do-nothing Congress and make Republicans the opponents of a real jobs agenda, dragging down the GOP brand even further in advance of 2012. All the while, there’s value in giving progressives something to fight for.

Tangible results are obviously more important than rhetoric, plans, and speeches — voters want jobs, not more talk about jobs — but Republicans won’t allow real progress anyway. The more Obama can make them own the results, while positioning himself as the leader fighting the good fight, the better off he’ll be politically.

Nevertheless, the Administration seems poised to pursue little in the way of policies that have any chance of improving the economy as they pursue that Holy Grail for Democrats -- the Independent Voter.  But as a matter of economics and as a matter of politics this is incredibly wrong headed.