"The GOP’s ‘Jobs’ Hypocrisy"
The GOPs Jobs Hypocrisy
By Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/03/the-gop-s-jobs-hypocrisy.html
"SNIP...................................
When David Frum, whom I respect a great deal, tweets that a new article should be thought of as a 95 theses moment for the reformist right, he gets my attention. So I clicked immediately and read through A Jobs Agenda for the Right, by Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, from the new issue of National Affairs. I liked the essay and even agreed with a respectable percentage of what Strain had to say. But reading it was far more infuriating than reading something by a conservative and disagreeing with every syllable, because articles like Strains refuse to acknowledge, let alone try to grapple with, the central and indisputable fact that the contemporary Republican Partyhis presumed vehicle for all this pro-jobs reformhas opposed many of these initiatives tooth and nail.
The first big measure Strain touts in his essay is infrastructure. Anyone who has driven on a highway in Missouri or has taken an escalator in a Washington, D.C., Metro station knows that the United States could use some infrastructure investment, he writes. He doesnt lay out a specific program, but clearly he favors fairly broad public investment.
Um, OK. There are people whove been trying to do just that. And not only Barack Obama. John Kerry led this effort in the Senate, and he was joined by Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison (whos since retired). Their attempts to fund a modest infrastructure bank were supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But it could never get anywhere because of rock-solid GOP opposition. Does Strain not even know this? Or is he pretending it never existed so he doesnt have to deal with the political reality of Republican obduracy?
I think, of course, its the latter, and theres further evidence for my guess in the way Strain talks about recent history. The 2009 stimulus was not a failure in infrastructure terms at all (has he read Michael Grunwald?). But even if you believe it was an infrastructure failure, or have to say so for political reasons, should you not acknowledge in fairness that it was Democrats and liberals who wanted it to have more infrastructure spending, and that nearly 40 percent of bill took the form of tax cuts because thats what Republicans demanded (before they decided en masse to vote against it anyway)?
..................................SNIP"