This Judd's For You

After lobbying President Obama for the position, New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn his name from consideration for Commerce Secretary, citing “irresolvable conflicts” with his new administration. According to Gregg, he and the President “are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.” Really? You mean Republicans and Democrats actually differ on items of policy? Question, Judd; did you not know that the President is a Democrat? Were you somehow under the impression that McCain had won the election? I don’t understand what you thought was going to happen once you became Commerce Secretary. Did you think you would be able to get up in front of the cameras at every subsequent press conference and say, “You know, I really respect my employer and all, but I think everything he does wrong?” Why did you ask for the position if you weren’t going to be able to do the job? What is wrong with you?

Ordinarily I would appreciate the idea of a piece of legislation devoid of earmarks. But this time I think the lack of earmarks might be doing more harm than good. In a way, the inability to specifically target the economic aid is making it easier for Congressional Republicans to obstruct the process. Devoid of earmarks, opponents can simply claim the stimulus will help no one, without ever having to justify their statements. And, in the event it does work, they still reap the benefits of the legislation they fought tooth and nail to kill. However, with earmarks, the writers of the bill could target tax cuts and spending to the home districts of the most stalwart opponents of the stimulus package and force them to explain why they would vote to deny their own constituents desperately needed assistance. How many Republicans in Congress would actually vote against money targeted to their voters?

To help resolve this issue, I propose an experiment. Divide the stimulus spending and tax cuts by Congressional district. Provide stimulus benefits to districts that voted in favor of the package, provide nothing for districts that voted against it. Then wait a year and evaluate the progress. If the stimulus opponents are correct, there should be no economic difference between districts that received stimulus money and those that didn’t. If that’s the case, stimulus backers should admit they were wrong and capitulate to their opponents’ demands for doubling the tax cuts and eliminate all the spending. But, if the communities that received stimulus money are faring better than those that received nothing, then the constituents of the obstructionists should demand they be thrown out of office.