Retooling Social Policy Won't Stimulate Economy

President Obama obviously relished slamming the present-day robber barons of Wall Street last week for paying out billions in bonuses even as taxpayers are bailing out their failed businesses. He demanded that they begin to show some sense of discipline and responsibility in the management of their companies.

But as politically useful as his scolding was, the president should also take Congress to task for using the financial crisis to go on a spending spree that is unlikely to stimulate the economy as fast as he wants and will create or expand social programs that, once started, aren't likely to go away.

Admittedly, it's not easy to take seriously the huffing of Republicans, who but a few months ago were as free spending as the Democrats want to be today. But the GOP House members who voted to the person against the huge package of federal spending and tax cuts were right to question whether loading the stimulus with partisan projects would actually create new jobs or would merely grow the government in unsustainable ways.

In an unguarded moment, no less than The New York Times blurted out the unvarnished truth: "The stimulus bill working its way through Congress is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts intended to jolt the nation out of recession. For Democrats, it is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed, in ways they have long yearned to do."

There is the very heart of the matter: an opportunistic and ideological exploitation of the acute distress of the country. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," quipped White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.

Indeed, President Obama says he's confident that as bad as the economic crisis is, he sees opportunity in it.

"This is not just a short-term program to boost employment," Obama said "It's one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education, health care, and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century."

For Obama and his supporters, his election sealed those priorities. And the nation's infrastructure, energy self-sufficiency, even education standards are appropriate federal concerns. The question is whether inveterate spending on social programs makes sense when taxpayers will be forced to pay back the money the government will have to borrow to pay for them.

There's no doubt some of the spending proposals have tremendous political appeal, especially when so many people have been hurt by the economic downturn.

It doesn't take political courage to support a program to subsidize health insurance or increase unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs. And there is a good argument to be made that money offered states hit hard by revenue shortfalls will keep them from having to lay off workers.

But the pledge to spend $127 billion over the next two and a half years for health care alone is a back door to universal coverage without having had the debate over whether this is the best strategy for the nation.

In reality, the size of the stimulus plan - it could reach into the trillions by the time Congress is done - can only be defended because the financial system is crippled and economists across the political spectrum advise that federal spending and tax cuts will help.

And so the president has gone out of his way to find common solutions with both Republicans and Democrats. He certainly cannot be accused of working in isolation with members of his party.

But he doesn't need Republican support. He knows he has the political clout to get the congressional votes he needs for the plan he wants.

In that, he should remember that the people don't want Congress to use the crisis; they want them to tend to it. More than bipartisanship, they seek solutions that will restore confidence in the nation's financial institutions with some reasonable certainty the country can pay for the commitments it is about to make.