Mitch McConnell : An American Brutus
- Image by Getty Images via @daylife
Once again, the Senate Republicans have chosen to live up to their “Party of No” reputation by blocking a bill intended to provide assistance to small businesses. The bill, sponsored by the Obama Administration, was intended to provide $30 billion in loans for small businesses, combined with tax relief for a ten year period. In addition, the bill was to provide another $1.5 billion in grants to state lending programs that are currently running low on cash. Clearly, the intent of the legislation was to stimulate economic activity and job creation by putting sorely needed funds into the hands of America’s economic engine; small businesses. Predictably, the Senate Republicans refused to support anything proposed by the Democrats, regardless of whether it was in the best interests of the American people. The Republican political strategy has been, and continues to be, to ensure that no legislation with a potential to help the economy improve will be considered. An improvement in economic activity and a reduction in unemployment prior to the November Congressional elections would be the Republican’s worst nightmare. Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell attempted to justify his party’s appalling, obstructionist behavior by saying they didn’t want to increase the National debt, even if it meant jobs could be created by small businesses. In a nutshell, the Republican Party talks a lot about their support for small businesses, but is not willing to support anything that will improve their situation.
The effects of the “Great Recession” , that began almost three years ago, in 2008, have continued to linger throughout 2010. The nation’s Gross Domestic Product for the quarter ended June 30 showed a increase of a paltry 1.6% , and will probably show an increase of 2.0%, or so, again in the third quarter. Although the Obama Administration has taken bold, decisive moves to save the American economic system from collapse, still more needs to be done to help economic activities regain momentum. The newly proposed “business aid bill” was the kind of legislation to do just that.
In Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”, Mark Antony speaks to the people of Rome after the assassination of Julius Caesar. He starts off by flattering Caesar’s murderer, Brutus, by saying “. . . the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus hath told you he was ambitious. If it were so, it was a grievous fault and grievously hath he answered for it here under the leave of Brutus and the rest. . .” Much like Brutus, the Republicans, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, have metaphorically tried to oust the Obama Administration, and any chance they may have had to improve the condition of middle class Americans. They have told the American people that bills such as the Health care Reform Bill, or the Financial System reform Bill, or the “business aid bill” are not good for America. In the end of Julius Caesar, Brutus (i.e. Mitch McConnell) is exposed for his crimes, and forced to flee from Rome. In November, the Republicans should be held accountable for two years worth of obstructionist politics, and be forced to flee from Washington DC.
Rich
17 Comments »
Leave a comment!
It’s even worse as banks and large corporations are holding on to tens of trillions of dollars just waiting for demand to pick up. The conditions are right that decent nudge economically would start them investing in main street, but the Party of No is stopping even the littlest nudge.
It’s very cheap for small businesses with excellent credit to borrow funds right now with rates at historic lows and there is no shortage of funds as banks of all sizes are sitting on trillions in reserves. I thought we had all learned a good lesson in the financial havoc that is unleashed when government encourages banks to scoff at creditworthiness to drive demand. I guess not.
This is another “cash for…”–like program that will do little to help the economy. It’s too small and there is no guarantee that banks will lend out the money wisely or quickly. Obama needs to stop with the little half measure programs that cause spikes and then big drops.
Project,
If the speed of the “recovery” and the creation of jobs depends on small businesses doing better, then it makes sense for the government to help them get the necessary capital. The big regional and money-center banks, although flush with cash, are not interested in making small business loans if any risk is involved.
VH,
There is always plenty of money available at cheap rates for small businesses with excellent credit; but what about everyone else? If the small businesses that do most of the hiring can’t get capital, how are they supposed to expand their businesses and hire people? Republicans refused to go along with a fairly modest stimulus program that could have helped to create jobs. They always look at the glass as “half empty”, and prefer to let the American people “stew in their own juices”, rather than try to do something positive. The whole thing is pathetic!
Rich,
Banks aren’t lending to “everyone else” because of the uncertainty of the economy in general and the added risk entailed to lending to riskier businesses in this environment. Whether they were right or wrong, Obama and the Democrats excoriated banks for months for their loose lending standards and risky behavior. According to Democrats the banks (and greed) were the sole cause for the financial collapse; Dems have gone out of their way to threaten and create new compliance costs and regulatory hurdles with great vigor. So, NOW they want these same banks to go out and lend out willy-nilly to get hiring going again? With the governments blessing? Jeez. Well, at least we know who the Dems will blame no matter what happens—anybody but themselves.
Considering the amount of debt that was incurred with the recession I would think that people expecting a normal market increase to be unrealistic. The fact that republicans want to keep the debt down is not hard to understand. I am still wondering if the government spent all of the stimulus money yet. I thought that more money was still sitting in the stimulus fund. That doesn’t necessarily mean the government should spend the money. I think the tax credit for the rich should be ended and that companies should be provided with incentives to hire individuals and develop infrastructure and investment opportunities. America needs to work on its strengths and develop products people want to buy. I think things are going to improve slowly with ups and downs. The debt is obstacle to growth. Obama tired to do too much too soon as though he thought he was going to be a one term president. If you look politically at the country I think it is reasonable to assume he’ll be reelected. Universal health care right now was a bad political decision.
Hey, VH, do you actually know what “excellent credit” is?? Hmmmm–I didn’t think so.
Just so we have our facts straight, please answer this question:
What political party was in office when deregulation first occurred? (hint: It wasn’t the Democrats)
If you said “The Regan Administration,”then you are correct!
If you said anything else, someone has been filling your head with so much crap that you no longer know your ass from first base.
Start thinking for yourselves, People! Do the research! Don’t be lazy! Draw a line down the center of the page, and list the pros and cons! Just make sure that you have your facts straight.
Great comments about MCConnell but the notion I fear the most is John Boehner as speaker. Frightening thought.
VH,
1. If banks aren’t lending because of “uncertainty” in the economy, maybe Obama’s new bill isn’t such a bad idea after-all?
2. The banks did, in fact, play a major role in the financial collapse in early 2008, so maybe financial system reforms weren’t such a bad idea either?
3. I don’t recall a clause in the new bill that requires “willy – nilly” lending to small businesses. I must have missed that part.
Chris,
That’s a good question as to whether the stimulus money is all spent yet. I think it has been. I totally agree that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be eliminated, but it doesn’t look like its going to happen at this point.
A lot can happen in two years, so it’s hard to say whether Obama will get re-elected. However, I predict that two years from now the economy will be “rockin’ and rollin’”, unemployment will be way down, and Obama will win re-election. The only major problem for Obama may be his support for continued military presence in Afghanistan.
teacherman,
I couldn’t agree more; Boehner has been a plague on this country, and personifies the Party of “No” perfectly.
Judie,
Please spare me and everyone else your partisan crap. It’s boring and intellectually lazy.
Guess what? Many Democrats supported Ronald Reagan in cutting the regulatory red tape and bureaucracy that was choking our economy. What party do you think controlled the House for most of Reagan’s eight years in office? Have you ever heard of a “Reagan Democrat” or the “Boll Weevils?” Who holds the public purse and has the power to repeal laws? The president can veto or sign bills into laws. Democrats are just as responsible for any evil “deregulation” that zealots like you hoist your hopes on for some sort of valid argument. Maybe you should take your own advice.
BTW, I’ve worked in financial services (Cash management and Treasury) for about 12 years, so I do know my way around a credit risk assessment and understand well what excellent credit is…particularly for businesses. So when you answered your own question you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
Rich,
1. If banks aren’t lending because of “uncertainty” in the economy, maybe Obama’s new bill isn’t such a bad idea after-all?
People made a similar argument for the Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, Cash for Homes too. Try everything to see what sticks. How about we hire all the unemployed to dig ditches and fill them up again. That will solve the economic uncertainty.
2. The banks did, in fact, play a major role in the financial collapse in early 2008, so maybe financial system reforms weren’t such a bad idea either?
Banks did have role and I’ve made my case several times on this blog on why they were not the prime movers of the financial crisis. Do you believe that the financial reforms will actually prevent another crisis? I don’t. All the elements that spurred the bubble are still with us and Dodd-Frank added more compliance costs to boot.
3. I don’t recall a clause in the new bill that requires “willy – nilly” lending to small businesses. I must have missed that part.
Well, if someone gives you 5K and tells you that you have to spend it (or else!) on an investment that you wouldn’t normally do so with your own money, what do you think the outcome will be? Are you going to lower your standards a bit and take more of a risk? What the heck, it’s not your money really.
Judie,
Thanks for weighing in. I wanted to see VH’s response before sending you a return comment. You were absolutely right in pointing out that deregulation began with Ronald Reagan; a fact that many Republicans seem to forget. Actually, deregulation can be a good thing when government regulations becomes a burden rather than a help. The question is not whether to regulate or deregulate, because most reasonable people will agree that some degree of government regulation is necessary to prevent chaos. The question is whether the current level of regulation is sufficient. As it relates to the financial meltdown of 2008, the deregulation that began with Ronald Reagan went too far because it left the economy vulnerable.
This author may be a tad on the biased side. The Republicans do have an excellent reason for obstructing this bill: we already owe so much money to China! Must we continue to spend what we don’t have?
Sgong,
As author, I readily admit that I have a liberal bias. I share your concern with the mounting national debt; however, we cannot stand idly by and wait for Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to make everything better. There are many things that can be done to stimulate job creation, and reduce the misery of many millions of our citizens. It seems sometimes that the Republicans want to extend America’s suffering; perhaps they feel suffering is therapeutic?
I appreciated your comment Judie :0)
Sgong, anyone who supports an extension of tax cuts for the rich, is not concerned about the deficit.