Share

The Anti-Stimulus Crowd: The Fear of Success

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
As President-elect Obama prepares to take office, debate resumes regarding the best way to tackle the economic crisis. Liberal Democrats are hoping for a new "New Deal," while many conservatives contend that the market should balance itself. (Photo: National Archives)

 

    At least some Republicans are starting to muster an anti-stimulus drive, claiming that President-elect Obama's package will not help the economy. Their drive is centered on what they claim is a careful rereading of the history of the New Deal. According to their account, President Roosevelt's policies actually lengthened the Great Depression.

    In their story, we would have been better off if we just left the market to adjust by itself. New Deal programs that directly employed people, or in other ways supported living standards, created an uncertain investment climate. They claim that this uncertainty slowed the process of market adjustment that was necessary for returning to high levels of employment.

    The Wagner Act, which created the legal framework for the union organizing drives of the era, stands out as being especially pernicious in their story. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which created the 40-hour workweek and established the first national minimum wage, also gets singled out for criticism. In this new reading of history, what most people consider the great successes of the New Deal simply worsened the Great Depression.

    In reality, any careful reading showed that the New Deal policies substantially ameliorated the effects of the Great Depression for tens of millions of people. The major economic failing of the New Deal was that President Roosevelt was not prepared to push the policies as far as necessary to fully lift the economy out of the Great Depression.

    Roosevelt was too worried about the whining of the anti-stimulus crowd that he confronted. He remained concerned about balancing the budget when the proper goal of fiscal policy should have been large deficits to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt's policies substantially reduced the unemployment rate from the 25 percent peak when he first took office, but they did not get the unemployment rate back into single digits.

    It took the enormous public spending associated with World War II to fully lift the economy out of the depression. The lesson that economists take away from this experience is that we should be prepared to run very large deficits in order to give the economy a sufficient boost to generate self-sustaining growth.

    However, from the standpoint of Republicans, the more ominous lesson of the New Deal policies is that it left the Democrats firmly in power for more than 20 years. The Republicans did not regain the White House until 1952, 20 years after President Roosevelt was first elected.

    Imagine how terrifying the prospect of 20 years of Democratic presidencies must be for the current generation of Republican leaders. This would mean that they would not retake the White House until 2028, just 20 years before the Social Security trust fund is first projected to face a shortfall.

    In 2028, Newt Gingrich will be 85 years old; Mitt Romney will be 81; Mike Huckabee will be 73 and Senator McCain will be 98. Even Sarah Palin will be a less than youthful 64. In short, if President-elect Obama is allowed to carry through with his stimulus package and the rest of his ambitious domestic agenda, most of current leadership of the Republican Party can expect to spend the rest of their political career in the political wilderness, far removed from the centers of power.

    For this reason, the Republicans can be expected to adopt a strategy aimed at delaying and diluting the stimulus. We can expect their leaders to find every conceivable argument to slow down the spending that the economy desperately needs right now to prevent further job loss. While some of their concerns may be legitimate - we should all support efforts to restrain wasteful pork barrel spending and rein in corruption - these concerns should not be the basis for obstructing stimulus. The public should be careful to distinguish legitimate concerns from simple delaying tactics.

    In short, we should realize that the main concern of some of those opposed to stimulus may not be that it will fail, but rather that it will succeed. Most of us don't have the same set of concerns.

  

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The vast majority agree

The vast majority agree that Federal Reserve policy was the main influence prolonging the Depression, so it is important to point out that Federal Reserve policy is going to be the main influence during the current recession. The Fed has attempted to follow the stimulus prescription since the 2001 recession using low interest rates. With the lax oversight of other officials, this resulted in a housing bubble, which many falsely saw as an economic boon. The current recession is fundamentally different from the Great Depression in that a huge asset bubble is not only collapsing, but massive debt which it supported remains. Our government, along with the Fed, is now both the lender and consumer of last resort in our troubled economy. This power is more absolute and corrupting than it seems.

i am not an economist so the

i am not an economist so the idea that either the new deal of the federal reserve prolonged the depression doesn't mean much to me. i think you'd have to ask exactly what investors were deferring their investment plans because of uncertainty about government policy. exactly what investments were they expecting to succeed when the people either had no money, or were afraid of having no money? there is no doubt the New Deal succeeded: even the rich got richer once they overcame their fear of investing in the face of "big government"... oddly they didn't mind big government so much when it was buying war materials. this is not to say there were no problems with the new deal and investor uncertainty over changing policies. only that, as Roosevelt himself said, doing something even it turned out to be wrong was better than doing nothing. you could always try something else if the first idea didn't work. as to whether government power is now more absolute and corrupting than Big Business... well, could be, but if you think about it, if you can't keep government honest, what chance do you have to keep business honest?

This article illustrates

This article illustrates that there is no real good way out of the current mess the Republicans created and would like very much to maintain. I expect battles on a daily basis to obstruct any and all constructive efforts. I expect the most minor and insignificant action to be distorted and spun to try to delay or stop any relief for the economy. The is no end to the Republican destructiveness, and I do not see why the Democrats need to work with them. The Republicans are obsolete and too destructive to be allowed to impede the efforts of decent people.

Roosevelt did not face a

Roosevelt did not face a situation where the previous 20 years of Republican policies had shipped 90% of U.S. jobs, and production capacity and infrastructure overseas. The large oil and energy magnates were sitting on high above a collapsing economy, so that is substantially the same. The same lack of control over banking and investment has been re-instated to contribute to the problem, which is of course the real cause of the "housing collapse" of unwise investments using tarot cards to build the house. To use a racing analogy, they've torn out the asphalt at Indy and rebuilt the brick surface. It is going to be a rough ride, and the speed of recovery has been slowed considerably.

If you want to live like a

If you want to live like a Republican, they vote Democrat. Translation_ out with failed Laissez faire Friedman and in with deficit spending/ stimulus package Keynes. And who said in times like these it would even pay to have one man dig a hole and another man fill it up. -thus giving employment to 2 people who could then spend their earnings on life's necessities? Was it Keynes?

My understanding is that

My understanding is that unfettered market forces are a main cause for this mess, yet some Republicans are saying that unfettered market forces are the solution? Isn't it Limbaugh who loves to say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time? I've no doubt he's a proponent of this "solution."

Thank you. And Republicans

Thank you. And Republicans will HOWl soo loudly, already offering Jebb Bush as their messian--wanting more time to finish what they have started. BIGGEST difference and problem today is we have lost enormous parts of our nation's PRODUCTION capacity: there are no factories to restart or retool-- all gone to China and /or elsewhere. Eventually you will need a new pair of socks or levis, and now the money you spend on those items will be expatriated..and be PROFITABLE to those countries--our competition . When Republicans outsourced our production means, our CAPITAL and economic means of SUSTAINABILITY are also gone AND CONTINUALLY EXSANGUINATING...

Here I am on my soapbox

Here I am on my soapbox again about the FED being a private bank intead of a government institution as we are led to believe. I will try to be brief. The FED is a PRIVATE bank which the Federal Reserve act installed as the sole issuer of the nation's money in 1913. This means that any government financing for anything at all carries with it increasing government debt and and also an associated increase in interest which is then owed by the Gov't to PRIVATE bankers. (Rothschilds, Bilderbedrgers, Morgans, et al.) These private bankers thus have control of the availability of credit in this country (and they don't feel like issuing any right now) with pretty much no oversight or regulation and a corporate charter which requires that the banking organizations they own make money for themselves and their shareholders. In other words, they have neither regard for the common good nor any accountability to the people of this country. This arrangement institutionalizes the diversion of funds formerly used for the public good into private hands and the final outcome as the Gov't debt grows ever larger is that the interest alone becomes too large to be paid by our tax money. If FDR had challenged the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, repealed it, taken a second look at the practice of fractional reserve banking (the inflationary practice of private banks creating money from nothing) and had financed the New Deal with debt-free, US Gov't-issued money, the recovery from the great depression would have been very quick. Further, the interest paid by businesses on gov't bank loans would have been available to be reinvested for the common good and would STILL be paying dividends in the form of infrastructure, education, health services, an other common-good programs. A good reference on the subject is the book: The Web of Debt by Ellen Brown, J.D.

I love it: Newt, McCain,

I love it: Newt, McCain, Jesusboy Huckabee and Romney sitting around the stove in 2028 with blankets on their knees, preparing to retake the White House. The thought alone is reason enough to hope these incompetents, who are wholly responsible for the fix we're in, will finally be sent to Siberia by the voters.

The Republican Party wogs,

The Republican Party wogs, paid "experts" at the "think" tanks, economists, and their bureaucrats running the Federal Reserve, SEC, Treasury Department, and banks and investment institutions, have been dead wrong. But for the break with Bill Clinton, the problems of 2008 would have appeared by 1998. Now after devastating the USA economy, bankrupting millions of American workers, and involving the country in two unnecessary wars at the cost of thousands of deaths of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands disabled for life, these same people want to give us guidance and advice. They should be tarred and feathered and run out of the country on a rail. Let them live in the tax havens with their loot and let the country get on with undoing the damage they have wrought.

I agree with the previous

I agree with the previous commenter that the Federal Reserve is primarily to blame for the current economic problems. As for the "careful reading" of the events regarding the Great Depression, the author seems to be furthering a vastly different cause and effect of World War II's effects on the United States' economy then what many economists believe. These economists believe that the governmental spending of OTHER governments, (think England, France, Russia) pulled us out of the Great Depression. Furthermore, the total devastation of those same countries' manufacturing facilities allowed us a huge competitive advantage spurring the economic boom of the 1950s. It took many years for these countries to overcome their debt to the United States and the competitive advantage that was produced. Therefore, it is misleading in the extreme to state that the "enormous public spending" pulled us out of the Great Depression, when in fact, it most likely lengthened it by not allowing market forces. This does not even include the disastrous effects these policies had on American freedoms that we are finding more and more today. Socialism has proven to fail everywhere. It makes no sense to bring a failed experiment here, as the author clearly desires.

When I consider the

When I consider the irresponsibility of the Republican "leader"ship over the past eight years, I can't help but detect the acrid scent of treason

I second LHC"s comment about

I second LHC"s comment about the Federal Reserve. Stay on your soapbox! Here is a good sample (the introduction to Ellen Goodman's Book, "Web of Debt") - http://www.webofdebt.com/excerpts/introduction.php

"...we should be prepared to

"...we should be prepared to run very large deficits in order to give the economy a sufficient boost to generate self-sustaining growth." So we should print up more funny money to goose up the economy that went south because it printed up too much funny money in the first place? Where do they get these people!? Isn't "running larger deficits" what got us into this mess to begin with? It does not matter whether the RepubliCONS or the DemocRATS print the stuff, the result will be the same: devaluation of an already weak currency. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, print your way out of debt. Idiots!

I third LHC's comments and

I third LHC's comments and plan to read Ellen Brown's book. Thanks for your cogent thoughts. They remind me of something I read somewhere that said as a result of, I believe it was, the 14th Amendment we endowed corporations with more rights than the average person enjoys. Tell me how that makes sense.

Rational stimulus suspicion

Rational stimulus suspicion is based on two primary ideas. The first is that spending the future's wealth today assumes we know better how to spend children's wealth now than the children will when they are adults. The second rational suspicion of stimulus ideology is that stimulating an economy which is 70% based on consumption prolongs the consumer culture that is destroying the planet. The real solution is to spread jobs around so that every person is employed to the degree that is sustainable. It is irrational and absurd to stimulate a world consumer economy so that nine billion people work forty hours a week making plastic fantastics that pollute the air, water and soil and then fill the dumps.

Being a big Obama supporter

Being a big Obama supporter and Election Protectioneer, how do you know that just because it worked for FDR it'll work today? What makes you think that spending far beyond our economy's means will somehow fix a broken system, while at home a similar strategy would put me on the streets? Love your politicians all you want, but please, let's be real. No one knows what the future will hold, and just because this looks like another depression doesn't mean that the same solutions will work for a vastly more complex problem.

I think the objectors to the

I think the objectors to the economic stimulus are worried that it will succeed. If they truly believed that "we would have been better off if we just left the market to adjust by itself" then we could still hear them huffing and puffing because several hundred banks were saved! I don't like potholes in my roads, cracks in my bridges and schools to be crumbling.

No, the Fed did not cause

No, the Fed did not cause the current depression through printing too much money. It wasn't the Fed, but the unregulated banks, let off the regulatory hook by the repeal of the New Deal law, Glass-Steagall, that in effect created all the debt that drowns us today. The Fed did prolong the 30's Depression by not printing money. The New Deal ameliorated the worst aspects of the Depression, but didn't spend enough, didn't run large enough deficits, to drive unemployment down far enough--until WWII enabled the government to spend far more (deficit spending), at which point unemployment vanished. When FDR attempted to balance the budget in 1937, because of the anti-stimulus crowd, the Depression came back, so he had to continue (in 1938-39) to spend more than the govt took in. Fiat money is not funny money if people continue to value it; it all depends on perception. Since the dollar is in danger of rising (not good for sellling American goods elsewhere) because it is still one of the few safe havens in the world, deficit spending at a great rate will still be possible. As for doing away with the Fed: would you rather have Congress managing the money supply? Or the President? The Fed is independent and (partly) private so that it will not be politicized. Greenspan, it's true, kept money too cheap, thereby enabling the various bubbles until the final housing one, but the effect of that was paradoxical once the crash happened: instead of too much money there was not enough--and still isn't. Further, there is the issue of who had the money. Bankers earning multi-million bonuses can't keep consumer demand going. Only the many millions of people can do that, and without decent wages they borrowed. That's why re-unionization is crucial; to insure that the great bulk of Americans have the money to keep the consumption machine going WITHOUT HAVING TO GO INTO DEBT. But that requires a temporary increase in government debt, which is also creating money. Why do you think there is such a fear of deflation? It's already happened, because people don't have enough money to buy goods, especially the important ones like cars and houses. Baker is right on target.

ITALIAN PENSIONS SAPPED BY

ITALIAN PENSIONS SAPPED BY PRIVATE FUNDS BUSH BACKED[Update1]Italy did for retirement financing what Pres GeorgeWBush couldn't do in the US:it privatized part of its social security system. The timing couldn't have been worse.The global market meltdown has created losses for those who agreed to shift their contributions..to private funds.[for] higher returns.Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi..now..compensate as many as 1.2 million people who made the switch..by Andrew Davis & Alessandra Migliaccio,Jan05,2009, Bloomberg.com.

Douglas C. Smyth couldn't be

Douglas C. Smyth couldn't be more wrong when he writes that "fiat" money is not funny money and has value because we give it value. Well Doug, we have no choice but to give it value by act of law. Its the only currency allowed by law. The negative aspect of fiat money is that its value decreases as more is printed. A 60% drop in value since 1950. It still has value, but so very little. That's why foreign banks and governments have been dumping the dollar for the last decade.

@ Douglas C. Smyth I agree

@ Douglas C. Smyth I agree that the repeal of Glass-Steagal pushed by Phil Gramm and Bob (Citigroup) Rubin in Bill Clinton's admin. which tore down the firewall between banks and investment houses is the primary reason that we are in this mess. I also believe that the Fed should be looked at with a fresh, analytical (and investigative) eye. I'll read Ellen Brown (forgive earlier mistake "Goodman") in entirety and contrary opinions before deciding if the Fed is benevolent, malevolent or neutral. I suspect the second at this point. I certainly know at the very least that Greenspan, with his Milton Friedman laisser-faire, Ayn Randian philosophy screwed up badly, then expressed hypocritical shock over the fact that the market had been ruled by short term immoral short-sighted avarice (ponzi scheming). I am in agreement with Dean Baker's post.

Dear P-E Obama, be VERY bold

Dear P-E Obama, be VERY bold and right!!! The Republicans were bold, brutal, and wrong. You can throw as much money and stimulus at ENERGY as you like. Create millions of New Energy Jobs! Don't be fooled by currently low oil prices. You can never be wrong with energy because we will run out of conventional oil in 40 years. BE VERY BOLD, RIGHT, CREATE AN ENDURING LEGACY, AND WIN BIG TIME!!!

One more point! BE VERY

One more point! BE VERY BRUTAL!!! BRUTALLY RIGHT!!!

Repugnantcans are already

Repugnantcans are already planning to obstruct and oppose much of what Obama wants to do. I just heard on CSpan this morning from Repugnantcan Congressman Pence of Indiana that he's all for spending more money on the so-called War in Iraq (because it's actually an occupation, not a war anymore) and Afghanistan, but not for spending money domestically (I'm paraphrasing). He blamed much of the problems on borrow and spend policies, but didn't bother to mention that that was a Repugnantcan(and by the way, I refuse to use the term Republican because this is not the same political party of Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, let alone Everett Dirkson or Robert Weiker!) invention. Anyway, you can bet that McConnell will be twisting the arms of Snowe, Collins, and Spector to make sure 60 votes are never achieved, and Reid is too cowardly to make Repugnantcan Senators stand on the floor of the Senate for countless hours making speeches in a filibuster. Obama is going to have to use executive orders, which to me is a dictatorial power outside the Constitution, but if it's for the good of the country, unlike those of Bush/Cheney, which were bad for the country, so be it!

Yes Douglas you are going in

Yes Douglas you are going in the right direction and the book: " Web of Debt" gives good insights. The problem in economics has always been an increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the most capable and/or the most ruthless over time. Central Banking is one of the tools that can dilute/confiscate wealth to keep the system going for the benefit of all. New "funny" money from the bottom up and improved productivity keeps the system going. The repeal of Glass-Steagall facilitated the banking problems but the SEC decision in 2005 to allow leverage to increase from 12 to 40 times was the death knoll. Instrumental in both major mishaps were Goldman-Sachs people, Rubin and Paulson. There needs to be an untitrust case against Goldman-Sachs and JPMorgan. Both need to be broken up!!!

Like FDR, Obama is too

Like FDR, Obama is too worried about the whining of the anti-stimulus crowd to do what needs to be done. We must cut the military budget to levels needed to protect this country, not corporate profits. We need to get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to create public transport, green energy, and insure that everyone has a decent place to live. We need a not for profit national health care system. We need to figure out how much it costs to educate a person and spend that much per pupil nationwide. But Mr. Obama wants to increase the military budget, cut taxes, and work with the opposition, who have done anything and everything in their power (and out of their power) to make sure that no meaningful reform or change occurs. Now why is that?

The task ahead is to

The task ahead is to identify what we think the economy will look like in the years ahead, what we want it to look like, and how to move it in the latter direction. The planning will involve input from everyone, including the supply-siders who believe that increasing output will generate more demand. It also will require the establishment of monetary holdbacks as the economy stabilizes. Our monetary granary (like the bank reserves to cover bad debt, and brokerage margin limits) had already dwindled before the current crisis, and we will have to restore it. Altough they are noisy, the Republican idealogues constitute a shrinking minority. They will oppose any solution that is more pragmatic than conforming to their philosophy.

One quick way to turn around

One quick way to turn around our nation's economy is to force telecom and cable companies to lease their lines at a fair rate. Japan did this and had 20 mbps connections available for $21/month. In 2003. If Obama would just articulate to the people that the reason we aren't even in the top 20 of wired countries is due to irrational zero-sharing of communication lines we could be putting one step in the future, tomorrow. Of course, its the future we would have had years ago if Americans were not so religiously "free market" that they can't even see when a market could be made freer.

Excellent article. John

Excellent article. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are men unworthy of the positions of power they hold. "Me first, my party second, and America third."

America is in deep cow

America is in deep cow manure either way u look at it. With 14,000 retailers facing possible closure and 1.6 million new foreclosures in the first quarter, we are getting a wake up call from 30 years of reckless economics, not just by our government but by American consumers as well. To bail the American consumer out without educating them on the need to save as well as change their consumption patterns is to reinforce more of the same. And more of the same cannot be sustained....My mother was fund of saying God works in mysterious ways, maybe this is his way of trying to save the planet.

Both the New Deal and WWII

Both the New Deal and WWII helped get us out of the Big One last time. But something else helped too. That was Truman's GI Bill and FHA mortgages, or New Deal II. Both pumped enough money into the economy that 6 yr after WWII, the stock market finally regained what it lost in '29. The Rethuglican's insistence on letting the market be might have some weight had it come when the banks were screaming for socialized losses instead of when those distasteful little people were getting their crumbs. They are just utterly shameless. As Confucius said, the worst shame of all is to be shameless.

This article implies that

This article implies that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. I see none.

* JAIL the fraudsters,

* JAIL the fraudsters, including those in Congress, Treasury and on Wall Street. Bluntly - if we can find a predicate felony to nail you with in this mess, off you go. * REMOVE all of the overseers. This includes The Fed. Set up a new agency that is charged with enforcing all of the laws related to the financial system including The Federal Reserve Act, and empower them with subpoenas. Direct that they must act and operate "in the sunshine", with everything published on The Web. You do an evil thing, the public sees it. They try to hide it, the public sees it. * DEFAULT all the bad debt. Yes, this "booms" a lot of banks. Tough. * SET UP new banks. Take the remaining $350 billion and capitalize ten banks with $35 billion each. IPO them to the public. By law no officer, current or former, of an existing public bank may serve on these firm's boards. Now we've got the means to replace the credit creation the boomed banks can't do any more. This clears the system and requires no stimulus spending. Yes, it results in plenty of pain and bankruptcies. Those are coming whether we like it or not. We can either choose to take a small amount of pain now or a huge amount of it in the VERY near future. There is no solution to this problem that does not involve clearing the excess debt from the system. Walker is right in that we must fix entitlements. Where he's wrong is that he, like all of the other pigmen, refuses to admit in public that the math is clear - we cannot recover in the economy until the debt to GDP ratio is reduced, and there is only ONE way to make that happen as we have reached the point where the exponentially-increasing debt load is constraining GDP faster than we can grow it through technology and other productivity improvements. This process can ONLY be halted by defaulting the excessive debt. This debt will default. Our choice is to do it now and have it suck badly, or to try to avoid it and have it suck catastrophically. Oh by the way, if you're wondering how far off that "catastrophically" is, the answer might be right about now. How come? Treasury today ran a T-bill auction that had only 18% indirect participation. "Indirects" are foreign central banks and investors, mostly. 18% eh? Is that "screw you" I hear echoing around the Treasury Department - in Mandarin?

Is it possible that the

Is it possible that the control available through the Fed is being manipulated to prevent the continuance of the USA as the only global superpower? If the US economy is brought to it's knees, won't it be easier to gain greater control of the population and move all people (globally) toward serving one master? Whoever or whatever that new master might be remains to be determined ... although I think that someone knows who or what.

Unbelievable! Pray tell us

Unbelievable! Pray tell us what, exactly the stimulus will achieve? Have you actually read the 1557 pages of pork submitted by individual states? Will there be more productive capacity built with this money? Will America become a net exporter again? Where will the money for this come from? More debt, to fix a problem derived from debt? And who will cover this debt? The Chinese? Don't think so? The Japanese? They're in trouble? The Saudis? They're going bust, too. Actually, you answered the question yourself. It was WWII that saved the American economy. So, start another war! Simple.

Mr. Baker's article is a

Mr. Baker's article is a very depressing confirmation of the intellectual deficit that engulfs most of the "educated" class in America. A central premise of his essay is the existence of two opposing parties in America (Republican and Democrat) engaged in a cyclical (and cynical) competition for control of political power at the national level. He is apparently ignorant of the fact that both the Republican and Democratic parties are the faces faces of one party - the Ruling Class. A party which, true enough, does have internal divisions and cleavages in respect to process and strategy. This party is undivided though in respect to objective - defending and expanding the privileges, immunities, and powers of their class. If Mr. Baker disagrees, let him write an article which evidences a legislative program or policy advanced by Republicans or Democrats at the national level, in the last fifty years, which actually challenged or diminished the privileges, immunities, or powers of the ruling class in the United States of America. I admit he will not be able to write such an article, at least not one based on facts - as opposed to the rhetoric and imagery which marks his current essay. The imagery I refer to is President elect Obama as Robin Hood, the rhetoric is the Republican party as the Sheriff of Nottingham. The depressing historical truth is that Mr. Baker enthusiastically supports President elect Obama pushing an economic policy undertaken more the sixty (60) years ago - how's that for change?

Nice turn of phrase: The

Nice turn of phrase: The Fear of Success. Reminds me of The Fear of Winning. Now that we all agree that every entity or group --though not every individual comprising them-- have been at fault in spreading the disease, can we find the moral strength to come together to find the cure? Government, labor unions and employees, management, all of us as consumers, have caused this mess.