oh, nuts

Everybody has that guy in the office that you're just deathly afraid of engaging in any sort of conversation for fear that it will turn into a 2-hour ordeal. Even the idea of a friendly "hello," seems a bad idea, because the he or she in question will invariably proceed to talk you into submission about the weekend, their spouse that doesn't understand them, the Mets, or that special something that they're thinking about calling the doctor on. Whatever. The point is, once that door is open, once you even nod in their direction, it's over. Lights out. The conversation will not end until a) you walk off; b) ask him/her to leave; c) the boss shows up; or, d) your cube mate saves you with the fake call into your extension. And, sure, on the rare occasion that you've got some time to kill, or you're looking for super mild entertainment, it's a harmless enough way to while away the day. Mainly, though, it's proof that there are certain folks that, if you give them an inch, they're gonna take the mile. No two ways about it.

Once you've established this, though, the relationship is fairly easy to manage. Like Caesar Milan entering the homes of certain dog owners with his tennis raquet at the ready, when that guy comes round, you're always prepared to sprint for the bathroom as if something has gone terribly wrong, pick up a phantom call from your cell phone ("It was on vibrate, dude."), or just turn your chair and hope the storm passes. Most of the time, these tactics will work. The catch, though, for most decent people, anyway, is that you know you're being a bit of a punk, and so, the occasional feelings of guilt will strike at you, and you'll find yourself giving a big cheery hello the next time Sparky comes around. Twenty minutes of talk about strategies he's putting together for his daughter's youth soccer team, and you're ready to shove your head through your computer monitor, just to make it stop. Still, the cycle seems to feed on itself, and you winding up either hating your coworker or yourself, all depending on how you play the siutaion that day at the office.

What does this have to do with anything? It might be a stretch, but the whole deal between Democrats, and Obama, in particular, and the Republicans on this economic stimulus package strikes me as eerily famiiar to some of those totally whacked-out exchanges back at the office. You see, Obama wants to be nice; he wants to hear about the Mets and what's new and exciting in the lives of Rs. In return for listening, he expects the Rs to support whatever he cooks up to stimulate the economy. He expects them to get on board. And, so, his way of giving a big, cheery, "c'mon, guys, let's all play nice in the sandbox," smile to that crowd of evil-doers, is to throw them a $275B bone in tax cuts as part of the $825B package he cooked up w/ Senate Democrats. "I am your friend. I care about you and respect your opinion. Look how I honor Ronald Reagan and throw a bone your way. Vote yes."

I get the politics of it, really. The problem I have with the move, though, is that it legitimizes the notion that Reaganomics actually work. For anyone that's been around for the last decade and change, we know that's not true. Like getting a a pair of scissors lodged in one's eye teaches one not to run with scissors, the last few decades, culminating with 2008, have taught us that there ain't no trickle in trickle-down. So, if we know this, why concede the $275B in tax cuts right off the bat? Did Obama's people really think that McConnell and Co. would rejoice, say, "thank you very much, Mr. Pres.," and vote "yes," on the package? Really? Don't forget, these guys are like our co-worker friend: you give them $275B, they'll want $500B, plus, ask you to check out a mole on their back. Obama didn't have them pegged? I mean, were his people paying attention to the last 8 years of Republic rule? They built an administration on grabbing for more power, cash, oil, you name it. Now we're gonna kill 'em with kindness? Whaaat?

People a lot smarter than me have raised issue with the proposed tax cuts. Read Krugman, Mark Thoma, Stiglizt, and a whole host of others readily found with a google search, to learn more. My favorite idea out there is that Obama's folks are counting on the House Dems to do their heavy lifting. Obama will play to the Blue Dogs and moderate Republics by floating a sub $1 trillion figure and leave others to push for more. It's Obama as sensible and restrained, because Americans don't want their president talking about trillion, with a T, dollar packages. You're telling me, though, that Charlie Rangel is going to sort this out? He can't even figure out the taxes on his winter home! C'mon, man. Obviously, the $275B didn't get Obama support from McConnell (surprise!), so why not have offered up something closer to $0 and started negotiations from there?

Plan calls for $90B in infrastructure, which sounds like a lot until you remember that light rail in any kind of urban setting goes for about $1B/mile and the new NY/NJ crossing is $15B on its own. Factor in a good chunk of the $90B going to crucial transportation corridors of North Dakota, Wyoming and Kansas, a la Homeland Securty funding guidelines, and we'll be lucky to fund a few new rope-tows at northeastern ski resorts. Yes we can!