Josh Bivens has an enlightening item up on the EPI website illustrating the bleak state of the economy and the helpful role being played by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

Despite the overall contraction, the fingerprints of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act could be seen in some aspect of today’s report. Federal government spending grew at an 11% rate in the quarter, adding roughly 0.8% to overall GDP. State and local government spending grew at a 2.4% annual rate, the fastest growth since the middle of 2007. It is clear that the large amount of state aid contained in the ARRA made this growth possible. [...]

The consensus of macroeconomic forecasters is that ARRA contributed roughly 3% to annualized growth rates in the second quarter. This means that absent its effects, economic performance would have resembled that of the previous three quarters, when the economy contracted at an average annual rate of 4.9%. In short, the recovery act turned this quarter’s economic performance from disastrous to merely bad. This is no small achievement, but with even more public relief and investments, the U.S. economy could do much better.

In Q3 and Q4 we should start seeing more of the impact of the infrastructure investment money. It also appears to be the case that the balance of trade is moving in the kind of direction that will be necessary to create an internationally sustainable environment. But given the increase in the personal savings rate, the fall in incomes, and the need to readjust trade flows it will probably be a good long time before consumption levels regain their peak 2007 value.

Aftermath of the Tunguska Event (wikimedia)

Environmentalists tend to think that conventional economic models overstate the difficulty of adjusting to a low-carbon economy. Given a clear and consistent economic incentive to find low-carbon solution through a well-designed cap-and-trade system, we believe that human ingenuity will find ways of getting the job done at reasonable cost. And I think that the currently existing climate debate illustrates that point. The evidence is clear and overwhelming that humanity needs to reduce its level of CO2 emissions. But special interests don’t want to do that, and opportunistic politicians want to do what the special interests want. Consequently, a huge market niche has opened up for “creative rationalizations for doing nothing.”

Take, for example, Jonah Goldberg who thinks that because asteroid strikes could be a serious problem we should do nothing about global warming. Personally, I’m sympathetic to the view that public policy should be more concerned than it currently is about asteroid strikes. But this is also a total non-sequitur. Failing to pass the Waxman-Markey bill or negotiate a good deal at Copenhagen doesn’t put us any closer to safeguarding ourselves against asteroids. Nor would enhanced monitoring of potential collisions require us to build new coal-fired power points. The two issues simply have nothing to do with each other.

Let me join Kevin Drum in expressing concern about reports that the military officials in charge of the war in Afghanistan are getting ready to ask for more troops. I don’t think anyone should find such a request surprising. I bet if you asked Faiz whether or not his team’s budget should be increased so that he can hire more ThinkProgress bloggers he’d conclude that, in fact, it should. What’s needed is a broader strategic judgment.

When I look at the situation, I see a United States of America that’s economically battered and continues to badly lack credibility in the Muslim world. This makes me want a strategy aimed at figuring out what there is we can accomplish in Afghanistan on a reasonably short time frame before heading out. Instead, the wheels of national security policy seem to be spinning in the direction of escalating goals leading to escalating demands for resources, all in a manner that seems oddly detached from concrete considerations about costs and benefits.

I’ve been a bit distracted by the fights in congress over domestic policy, but Spencer Ackerman never takes his eye off the ball and says “it seems fair to say that the balance of evidence favors an interpretation that Afghanistan strategy is coming unmoored from the actual objectives of the war, and the actual interests at stake, and the White House is being either deluded or outright dishonest about what’s happening.” That’s a harsh judgment, but the sense of drift I get is very real. Inability to achieve relatively concrete low-level goals (“kill Osama”) seems to be leading us to escalate our objectives in an unhelpful way. Note that Hamburg, Germany was and is a lot better-governed than Afghanistan will ever be and that didn’t stop al-Qaeda from using it as a “safe haven” from which to plot attacks.

I made this point at a few seemingly key junctures during the Presidential campaign, so to return to the theme whatever questions there may be about what actions will or will not help produce comprehensive health care reform we can be fairly certain that a lot of meta-commentary from the country’s most articulate progressive voices is not going to help. Nor will Monday-morning quarterbacking. If there’s an argument about health care reform that you think more people need to hear, then make the argument don’t argue about how other people should be making the argument.

It’s difficult, of course, to critique the impulse to “go meta” without falling prey to accusations of going double meta. But I don’t think people should start criticizing communications strategy until they’ve actually exhausted the ways in which they can personally make a valuable contribution. Have you told people about the eightfold path of consumer protection included in all the draft bills on the Hill? Contacted your congressman and senators? Urged your friends and family to do so? Written letters to the editor of your local paper complaining about bad editorials?

Have you discussed the proposals with coworkers, heard what concerns they might have, and cleared up any misapprehensions? Disinformation is hard to beat back, and everyone in life knows somebody who’s misinformed about something. And there are always more calls to be made and more letters to write.