There's been a lot of hang-wringing over the $700 billion giveaway to Wall Street. The main thrust of this worrying from the left has been that it hamstrings Obama, if elected, from accomplishing his many stated goals. This includes from Markos: "And since half the money will be disbursed before the Obama Administration takes over, that's $350 billion that will be distributed to Bush's friends before the year is over, further stressing our nation's finances and hamstringing the Obama Administration."
Certainly nothing untrue about that, but what if we flip this around as we head into next year?
When FDR inherited a devastated economy, his fix was so dramatic and controversial that we're still arguing about it today. Essentially it was this: Spend government money to create jobs in order to stimulate the economy. Really it's the opposite of the trickle-down theory of economics and has the opposite effect. And let's be honest. Without the crises he's faced, FDR couldn't have accomplished all that he did. It might be the only point of comparison between him and Bush.
Back to the Shock Doctrine. It's the recent book by Naomi Klein that talks about how the right uses crises as opportunities to further their goals, in their case robbing the treasury.
Well, well, what do we have here? An economic crisis of historic proportions. Could the left apply the shock doctrine to further our goals?
Here's how this could work:
- President Obama (love saying that) will gather a bipartisan group to study the current economic situation during his first week in office.
- The conclusion? Immediate government action is needed. Announce that a series of economic initiatives will be rolled out over the next few months.
- One of the key problems noted as killing the economy is the spiking costs of health care. The solution? Opening Medicare to all as an option. All health care providers are required to take Medicare and all patients within it.
- This is rammed through Congress in record time due to the sudden emergency.
- Boom, you're done.
I'm just riffin' on the details, but you get the idea. Realistic? I don't know. Is it the most likely way we get what we need? I think so. I say, in the way Republicans use tax cuts as their solution, no matter the problem, we push single-payer health care as the solution no matter the problem. War in Iraq? We need single payer to drop the prices of our health care so we can keep the budget balanced. High gas prices? We need to unload the excess weight on our economy by moving to single-payer health care. You get the idea.
And let me answer the inevitable point of where the money comes from. Personally I believe the economic benefits could be enough that we actually do build our way out, but if not, personally I wouldn't be heartbroken if some of our military budget got squeezed out. Which is, oh yeah, the opposite of another strategy that has been used against us for some time.
Personally I wouldn't mind another FDR. How about you?