A stimulus or not a stimulus

I am reminded of the line from Shakespeare — “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Apparently not according to Robert Gibbs. In the press briefing yesterday, Gibbs continued with the administration’s stern rebuke that their latest economic proposal was not a stimulus. To quote Mr. Gibbs, “I do not think that this is anywhere near the level of what was enacted at the beginning of the administration.” [1] My reply: “If it actually does something to help the economy, does it really matter what we call it?” It shouldn’t, but the Obama administration, just like the Bush administration before it, is hung up on the idea of terms and phrases. They’re the hooks with which they lure people in, and they’re the weights that drag them down to the ocean’s depths. Bush had his “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” “Axis of Evil,” and “Mission Accomplished.” Obama now has his “Change,” “Stimulus,” and “Recovery Summer.” Will we ever get real statesmen again who realize that words are a tool not a solution? Words should be used to explain a fully-developed plan that will address and tackle a problem head-on, not crafted and smithed into a bandage to keep a problem from becoming too big while it somehow magically is expected to solve itself. A note to the administration (this one, the last one, and any future ones to come): problems typically do not just magically become better without someone acting, and if we have to go through another, two more or ten more Presidents before we find someone who is truly ready to act, to develop plans, to explain to us what they intend to do and not to try to hoodwink us while they escape to a ranch in Crawford or a golf course, then we will keep on until we find that person. America will last far longer than any one person’s fifteen minutes of fame, and the clock is ticking on yet another administration more worried about what to call a proposal than actually crafting a well thought out plan of action.