Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times about the new stimulus package says that Congressional Democrats have “allowed themselves to be bullied into doing things the Bush administration’s way.” He says the stimulus plan “looks like a lemon” because it “essentially consists of nothing but tax cuts and gives most of those tax cuts to people in fairly good financial shape.” Excerpts from the article:

• Specifically, the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective.
• Sending checks to people in good financial shape does little or nothing to increase overall spending. People who have good incomes, good credit and secure employment make spending decisions based on their long-term earning power rather than the size of their latest paycheck. Give such people a few hundred extra dollars, and they’ll just put it in the bank. In fact, that appears to be what mainly happened to the tax rebates affluent Americans received during the last recession in 2001.
• On the other hand, money delivered to people who aren’t in good financial shape — who are short on cash and living check to check — does double duty: it alleviates hardship and also pumps up consumer spending.
• That’s why many of the stimulus proposals we were hearing just a few days ago focused in the first place on expanding programs that specifically help people who have fallen on hard times, especially unemployment insurance and food stamps. And these were the stimulus ideas that received the highest grades in a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
• There was also some talk among Democrats about providing temporary aid to state and local governments, whose finances are being pummeled by the weakening economy. Like help for the unemployed, this would have done double duty, averting hardship and heading off spending cuts that could worsen the downturn.
• But the Bush administration has apparently succeeded in killing all of these ideas, in favor of a plan that mainly gives money to those least likely to spend it. Behind that refusal lies the administration’s commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble — a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. And the result is a plan that not only fails to deliver help where it’s most needed, but is likely to fail as an economic measure.
• We don’t know for sure how deep the coming slump will be, or even whether it will meet the technical definition of a recession. But there’s a real chance not just that it will be a major downturn, but that the usual response to recession — interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve — won’t be sufficient to turn the economy around. And if that happens, we’ll deeply regret the fact that the Bush administration insisted on, and Democrats accepted, a so-called stimulus plan that just won’t do the job.

From The New York Times, Stimulus Gone Bad, written by Paul Krugman

Fred Thompson, in his new commercial showing in South Carolina, says that he has been a conservative all of his life. He says that he supports conservative principles. This is a commercial for which Fred paid a lot of money, and I’m sure its purpose is to encourage the conservative Republican base to experience warm and fuzzy feelings toward Fred.

But certainly, Thompson must have pondered all of the few words of this commercial carefully. It seems to me that two statements deserve a closer look. Fred said,

“In this country, if you play by the rules, you‘ve got a fair chance to live the American Dream.”

“Our basic rights comes from God, not from government.”

What in the world is Fred saying? I’m guessing the American Dream that Fred refers to is a dream centered on achieving material prosperity, a dream centered on financial security sufficient to enjoy the freedom that America gives to those with money — for example, the freedom to pay for your medical expenses, the freedom to send your kids to college, the freedom to take a vacation.

There are many Americans who are far from enjoying the American Dream — even though they are playing by the rules of going to school, working hard, obeying authority, paying taxes, etc. Fred says they have a “fair chance.” But many Americans feel they have not been given a fair chance at all.

Fred and our whole political process should honestly try to analyze why some Americans are prosperous and why some are not prosperous. It is an important topic that, for the sake of our social fabric, we need to understand. Living the American Dream is not simply a matter of playing by the rules — because, the rules themselves are skewed and unfair. As a country we need to look at this question of how the American Dream can be put within the reach of every American. It is a topic that should be center stage as part of our political discourse.

I earlier attempted an analysis of this general question in this post: Why Are We Rich?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mF_gyb7MkE[/youtube]