When Did We Stop Criticizing The Arguments We’re Making?
The White House CAP tells us why the IMF money should be approved. Surprise!
Nina Hachigian did a brief piece for CAP about this but suffice it to say that the world economy continues to be in a very perilous situation. It now looks like things might start getting better. But it’s possible that some “other shoe” or two may drop—most likely the meltdown of an Eastern European country—and the IMF exists to stop that kind of thing from happening.
As with TARP, the net fiscal cost is likely to be dramatically lower than the headline appropriation (because money gets repaid) and the macroeconomic impact of collapses is much more severe than the cost of ponying up the money.
None of this explains why the White House won’t meet with Maxine Waters, or why they flat-out refuse to even discuss her very reasonable requests for change. Her letter, cosigned by 41 members of the Progressive Caucus, asks for accountability and transparency with regard to the money. As I recall, it was a value most Democrats were showing a fondness for some time before November 4.
"Vote for this bill or Europe collapses" is no more compelling than Hillary Clinton’s "vote for this bill or the terrorists win," or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ "a vote against this bill is a vote against the troops." We aren’t in an either/or situation. The only reason we’re not discussing the possibility of much needed improvements to the IMF provisions is because the White House is saying "my way or the high way," something that many had problems with during the Bush era.