Why Was Gregg Appointed in the First Place?
That Judd Gregg backed out of the Commerce Secretary job is not terribly surprising. Gregg claims that he could not reconcile his own conservative beliefs with the stimulus package. He also expressed dismay over the census, which was supposedly “taken away” from the Commerce Department. (This is not entirely true).
Even odder, just a week ago Judd Gregg had this to say about the stimulus:
“We need a robust one,” he added. “I think the one that’s pending is in the range we need. I do believe it’s a good idea to do it at two levels, which this bill basically does, which is immediate stimulus and long-term initiatives which actually improve our competitiveness and our productivity.”
It seems clear, at this point, that Gregg was BSing it when he praised the stimulus bill. In fact, the stimulus bill represents a distinct break with Reaganite conservatism – the most profound ideological shift in American economic policy since 1980. I’m not surprised that Republicans are fighting this stimulus package tooth and nail. It represents a repudiation of their entire ideology.
So, then, why did Judd Gregg seek out the Commerce Secretary job? And what did President Obama think he’d get from Gregg at Commerce? Surely there are other less conservative Republicans out there if bipartisanship alone were the issue.
I thought at the time that Gregg was invited in to a lead a task force on entitlement reform, but we never heard anything about that either. In fact, we never really heard ANY justification for the appointment.
So…why? Why was Gregg appointed in the first place? And why did Gregg want that job?
That is far more perplexing to me than why he quit.
14 Responses to “Why Was Gregg Appointed in the First Place?”
Gregg just made a very smart move, anyone co-opting themselves with ????? ?????'s spendulus plan is going to eat it in the mid-terms.
????? ????? – ?? ?? ?????!
Spending your way out of a bankrupt/spending problem. real smart. real smart. Do people realize that the US government is spending money that unborn people will have to slave to pay off? NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Remember that? How are the people who cant even vote yet being represented when the legislature and government is putting them DEEP into debt? Answer that, pseudo-boffins!
Mick,
Um, the GOP is not exactly in a position to lecture anybody about fiscal responsibility.
That quote is odd because in a lot of other places, I've seen Gregg quoted with a strong opposition to the bill as it was taking shape (though he supported the general idea of a stimulus.)
elrod, can you give it a rest about who has the moral authority to recommend fiscal responsibility? By your logic, a crack addict shouldn't tell his/her kids to stay away from the stuff.
Sadly, Obama actled like Hitler when he unconstitutionally politicized the Census. Millions of Americans like Gregg are disgusted by Obama's abuse of power.
Ugh, cindy, no need to go there. Let's just say he overreached, and that there's some reason to think that what he was trying to do was unconstitutional.
CS,
I cannot give it a rest because it's so opportunistic and crass. The only reason Republicans spent like crazy in the Bush Administration is they felt that they could only keep a winning coalition together by offering entitlements to certain constituencies. As such, it rendered their whole belief in “small government conservatism” a complete charade. The crack analogy doesn't work either. Republicans didn't learn any lesson from overspending; the notion that the GOP base stayed home on Election Day in protest against big spending is not backed up by any polling. If McCain had won and he proposed a stimulus bill just like Obama, the GOP would support it thoroughly. There is just no real principle at work here.
There is ONE difference between GOP spending in the Bush years and GOP opposition to spending now: the party in charge of the White House.
Godwin's Law, cindy.
Republicans didn't learn any lesson from overspending; the notion that the GOP base stayed home on Election Day in protest against big spending is not backed up by any polling. If McCain had won and he proposed a stimulus bill just like Obama, the GOP would support it thoroughly. There is just no real principle at work here.
Sigh. My analogy didn't necessitate a rehabilitated crack mom; even if she's still using, if she steers her kids away she's doing the right thing. This is where the overemphasis on hypocrisy goes off the rails; it's not a greater moral good to continue acting in an unprincipled way or to advise others to do so in order to bring consistency to your words and actions.
You are so filled with righteous indignation about the motivations of the GOP lawmakers, but the voters don't care. If we agree with the principle, then it doesn't matter whether they're pushing it for their own political gain or because they've seen the light. That part will have to be sorted out later, but for now, the principle is all that matters, not the person who's espousing it. So when other bloggers or commenters state what we feel is the correct policy, it makes no sense for you to chide us as though we're being gullible.
The only reason Republicans spent like crazy in the Bush Administration is they felt that they could only keep a winning coalition together by offering entitlements to certain constituencies.
Yeah, unlike Pelosi, who has principled reasons for the spending, right? [rolls eyes]
You are so filled with righteous indignation about the motivations of the GOP lawmakers, but the voters don't care. If we agree with the principle, then it doesn't matter whether they're pushing it for their own political gain or because they've seen the light. That part will have to be sorted out later, but for now, the principle is all that matters, not the person who's espousing it. So when other bloggers or commenters state what we feel is the correct policy, it makes no sense for you to chide us as though we're being gullible.
I guess it depends on which voters. Sure, there are many conservatives out there – you among them – that are happy that somebody is finally talking about fiscal sanity – regardless of their motivations. But those of us who support the Keynesian spending plan on general principle don't have to take the Republicans' new religion at face value. These aren't members of the CATO institute we're talking about. These are politicians who have a long-term agenda I genuinely oppose.
All of which is why I think the bipartisan schtick is a waste of time. We have two very different economic philosophies at work. The American people have supported one view – Reaganite small government, deregulation and low taxes – for roughly 30 years. But now the pendulum has shifted and voters (judging by the election and by rebounding poll support for the stimulus) have looked to government spending again as an integral part of the economy. Of course, if Obama's Keynesian approach fails, voters will probably reject it in 2010 or 2012 and go back to Reaganism.
As for Pelosi, she's an ideological liberal who believes government is both good for its sake and beneficial to her political power.
But those of us who support the Keynesian spending plan on general principle don't have to take the Republicans' new religion at face value.
I'm not asking you to do so. I'd prefer an honest debate, but there hasn't been much response when I've asked people to support their belief in the Keynesian philosophy. What annoys me, I guess, is that instead of trying to engage any conservatives in that discussion yourself, you repeatedly bring up the fact that Republicans don't hold the moral high ground- which seems like an attempt to deflect from the actual issues at hand.
I totally agree with you about the bipartisan schlock, though I don't mind the part of Obama's schtick where he's trying to change the tone. I think we've lost the ability to disagree without being disagreeable.
I even agree about Pelosi, but I think the same is true of Republicans who believe that their calls for holding back growth of govt is good for the country as well as aligning with their political interests.
CS,
There is no debate because you can't debate with a religious fundamentalist and that is precisely what you'd be asking anyone debating with you to do. Your belief in Free Market is absolute. You have admitted you are not an economist. Have you ever taken an econ class of any kind or is your philosophy based on what Cato, AEI and the RNC publish? The Wall Street Journal op-eds don't count either because they have been completely political for years now. Do you actually think Amity Schlaes is a historian or economist who knows what she is talking about in her relentless attacks on FDR which are pretty much supported across the board by Republicans? Do you even recognize how unprecedented this recession is for reasons other than its size?
In other words, what would the basis for a debate be?
WTH?? What are your economic credentials, or Elrod's?
And we've gone round and round before on your accusations that I'm a dogmatic laissez faire proponent and I think you've actually backed down on that accusation when you couldn't provide any evidence that that's actually what I believe. Please stop with the straw men- I never ever ever ever said that I think that those philosophies are correct although it's equally wrong to dismiss all sources that have a conservative free market perspective. If you knew how to defend your own economic philosophies against the free marketers' arguments, you would, but instead you tie them all up in a bundle of straw.
Anyone who's read my comments for any length of time knows that I support a great number of things that CATO would disagree with- and that's because I can actually look at an argument and break it down into which parts make sense and which parts are weakly substantiated. I've pointed out a number of reasons that I don't believe the Keynes' theories (as they are currently advocated, which isn't even necessarily as Keynes described them) will work in the current situation.
THAT'S what the basis for a debate would be.