Committee for Justice Blog

http://www.committeeforjustice.org/cfjnew/blog/

July 16, 2009

The NRA Comes Out Against Sotomayor

The National Rifle Association has issued a statement officially declaring its opposition to Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

The statement can be read here.

This announcement is encouraging because of its potential to impact the votes of Democratic senators from red and swing states, who are especially wary of upsetting gun rights advocates in fear of the group's ability to thwart their hopes for reelection.

July 15, 2009

Poll: Plurality Oppose Confirming Sotomayor

A new Rasmussen poll shows that a plurality oppose the confirmation of Sotomayor: 43% are opposed to her confirmation while just 37% are in favor. It will be interesting to see whether opposition continues to grow as Sotomayor's poor performance continues on day 3.

Ed Morrissey rounds-up reviews of Sotomayor's performance so far and they aren't good, which provides anecdotal support for Rasmussen's polling.

Inherent Physiological Differences

Sotomayor’s explanation, in response to Sen. Cornyn, of her statement that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may result in gender and ethnic/racial differences in judging has to be her worst performance this week. Most of her response completely evaded Cornyn’s question, and the remainder of her answer did nothing to assuage concern that she believes there are inherent physiological differences and “differences in logic and reasoning” in how women and minorities think.

Quote of the Day

It comes from liberal Georgetown law professor Michael Seidman.

"Speaking only for myself (I guess that's obvious), I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified."

Update: GOP staffers question the truthfulness of Sotomayor's testimony.

"After a night of studying Sotomayor's testimony, Republicans will have more questions about what they view as her misrepresentation of her record. GOP senators know that Democrats are committed to confirming Sotomayor, and, with a 12-to-7 advantage in the committee and 60 votes in the full Senate, they don't need any Republican support to get it done. But they are troubled by her answers, by her attempts to deny the clear meaning of her words from the past. And that could result in growing, rather than diminishing, Republican opposition. 'We heard a lot of things that were not factually buttoned down,' the senior GOP aide said. 'If that's because she and the White House think she has the votes and doesn't have to answer, then some Republicans are going to be troubled by that.'"

July 14, 2009

CFJ Ads Debut

Sen. Graham’s questioning about Sotomayor’s leadership role in the radical positions taken by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund serves as the perfect introduction for CFJ’s brand new TV ad, which discusses that role. CFJ’s new print ads address Sotomayor’s views on race and the Second Amendment. Our radio ads will be posted shortly. The ads will be aimed at the constituents of red and purple state Democrats.

TV ad:
http://web.committeeforjustice.org

Print ads:
http://web.committeeforjustice.org/Home/Page/Ads

PRLDEF: Sotomayor vs. the Facts

Sotomayor portrays herself as barely aware of the activities of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund during the 12 years that she served on its board. So let’s review her description and the New York Times’s description of her time on the board:

“[Sotomayor] played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances on issues like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights. The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund’s lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts during her time with the group.” – NY Times, May 28, 2009

“I served … in the following capacities: Member and Vice President, Board of Directors; Chairperson, Litigation and Education Committees for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.” – Sotomayor’s Senate questionnaire

Abortion and Firearms as Civil Rights Issues

In responding to Sen. Graham, Sotomayor justifies PRLDEF taking a position on abortion – in fact, the radical position of equating the denial of federal funding for abortion with slavery – based on the argument that abortion is a civil rights issue. Someone should ask her if she agrees with today’s article by Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski explaining why Second Amendment rights are an important civil right, especially for minorities.

CFJ on Twitter

Thanks to my colleagues Christina Pesavento and Dylan Marck for summarizing my live blogging on Twitter, while adding their own insightful commentary.

http://twitter.com/comforjustice

Sotomayor on “Inherent Physiological” Differences of Minority Judges

Good cross examination by Sen. Kyl on Sotomayor’s theory of ethnicity-based judging. Maybe I missed something, but why haven’t any senators asked Sotomayor about the most shocking statements in her Berkeley speech, specifically:

“Whatever the reasons why [judges of color] may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning …” (emphasis added)

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” (emphasis added)

Even Senator Feingold

Wow, even Sen. Feingold is expressing concern about Sotomayor’s ruling that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to Wisconsin and other states. When I said that Second Amendment concerns among red and purple states Democrats are the key to credibly challenging Sotomayor’s confirmation, it’s not Sen. Feingold I had in mind.

Note to Self

Note to self from Sonia Sotomayor: At every possible opportunity, repeat the line about policy being the job of the other branches. I don’t really believe it – see Duke University and my other speeches – but MSNBC will eat it up.

Where’s Her Empathy?

Sen. Grassley or the next Republican to question Sotomayor should draw a comparison between her property rights decision in Didden and the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter ruling, upholding a statute of limitations defense to Lilly Ledbetter’s pay discrimination claim. Democrats have repeatedly called the Ledbetter decision an outrage because of its narrow reading of the statute of limitations. Doesn’t the same logic apply to Sotomayor’s narrow use of the statute of limitations to throw out Mr. Didden’s claim that extortion is not what the Founders had in mind when they included “for public use” in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause?

DiFi Dead Wrong

Sen. Feinstein just said that the Supreme Court has struck down dozens of federal statutes as beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. I can only think of two, the Gun Free School Zones Act and the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act.

I got a kick out of Feinstein’s remark that the Court shouldn’t put any teeth in the limits on the scope of the Commerce Clause because it gets in the way of Congress doing its job of legislating. Call me naive but I thought Congress’s job was to legislate only within the bounds of the Constitution.

Also, it’s good to hear that Feinstein is bothered by all the calls her office is getting expressing concern that Sotomayor is a judicial activist. Sounds like us Sotomayor critics are having an impact.

Leahy: Why We Blocked Estrada

Sen. Leahy just admitted that Miguel Estrada, the man who might have been the High Court’s first Hispanic justice, was obstructed by Senate Democrats for two years to punish the Bush Administration for not releasing documents, despite the fact that, in Leahy’s words, the lack of release was “no fault of [Estrada’s].”

More on Sotomayor’s 2nd Amendment Theories

Sotomayor just explained in a very matter of fact manner that, of course, nunchucks can be banned under a rational basis test because they “can hurt somebody.” She then said her holding in Maloney was a “very narrow ruling.” She seems unaware that the “can hurt somebody” standard makes Maloney a very broad ruling, because except for toy guns, all firearms can hurt somebody.

Second Amendment

Re Sen. Hatch’s 2nd Amendment questions, Sotomayor’s 2009 Maloney opinion strongly implies that the rational basis test she would apply to state regulation of firearms is whether they are “designed primarily as a weapon.” In other words, Hatch is correct that, under Sotomayor’s reasoning, all state gun restrictions are lawful.

Burying Ricci

Another great point by Sessions: Sotomayor explains her troubling and cursory opinion in Ricci, the New Haven firefighters case, by saying it was the Supreme Court’s job to decide the issue at hand. But then why did she and her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit panel do everything they could to bury the opinion and insulate it from review?

Sotomayor’s Full Flowering

Sen. Sessions just noted that Judge Sotomayor’s race and ethnicity-based theory of judging will reach “full flower” on the Supreme Court. That’s an important point. Most of her controversial statements occurred in the dozen or so years that Sotomayor was being discussed as a potential Supreme Court nominee and thus, assumedly, was on her best behavior. Imagine what we’ll see when she’s no longer auditioning for a promotion.

I Didn’t Mean “Policy” When I Said “Policy”

Sotomayor just told Sen. Sessions that she meant “precedent” rather than “policy” when she told a Duke University crowd that the “the Court of appeals is where policy is made.” If so, why in her next sentence at Duke did she say “I know this is on tape and I should never say that”? Sotomayor’s strategy – or to be fair, the White House’s strategy – is to deny the plain meaning of all the controversial things she has said, no matter how implausible her explanation.

Not from the Heart

Much of the exchange between Sotomayor and Leahy, including discussion of the Second Amendment, sounds so wooden and awkward that I almost feel sorry for them. I don’t know if they practiced too much or too little, but it sure doesn’t sound like it’s coming from the heart – either Sotomayor’s or Leahy’s.

Pelosi Censors Republicans

by Rep. John Carter

Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House?

In fact, we had planned to speak on the lack of transparency of the House since Democrats took control. We had planned to criticize Speaker Pelosi for repeatedly denying Members, the media, and the public to right to read legislation before it was voted on. We were set to discuss House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s statement last week that if his Members were required to read the Democrats’ healthcare reform package before it was voted on, it would fail.

So the Speaker obviously feels that if the public is truly aware of her party’s agenda, they will reject it. She is now making sure the public is kept in the dark by trampling the centuries-old democratic traditions of the House.

What are those traditions? Every day that the House is in session, following the final vote of the day, representatives are allowed the privilege of free speech on the House floor in what is known as “Special Orders.” They may speak for one minute, five minutes, or one hour segments, and must request their time in advance. Time is allocated equally to both parties on a first-come basis.

Since the advent of live C-SPAN coverage of the House, this has provided a national televised outlet for both Republicans and Democrats to speak to the nation on topics they feel were not adequately addressed during regular order in the House, during which the Democrat majority has the parliamentary ability to limit debate and speeches.

Special Orders therefore frequently serves as a political safety valve if the party in the majority becomes too dictatorial during debate, using their majority status to truly oppress the minority’s ability to debate and offer amendments.

That is now the case in the House, with the Democrat majority under Pelosi repeatedly rejecting House rules to ram a far-left agenda through before the public has time to learn what is actually in the bills.

This is what we were committed to bring to public light.

House rules require a bill be publicly posted for three days before it can be voted on. That basic rule was written by none other than Thomas Jefferson as part of the original rules package of the House, as it is essential to the survival of representative democracy.

The House can waive that rule if it chooses on specific occasions. The Republican-controlled House chose to waive it when considering the Patriot Act in 2001 following the terror attacks of 9-11. They thought there was enough of a national defense emergency to just bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

But Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have chosen to ignore the rule on every major issue taken up by the House this year, including:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - The Obama Stimulus: This one just had to pass that very day because time was a-wastin’ in getting those new jobs coming. We couldn’t wait for Members to read it. But then the President waited four days to sign it into law while he spent the weekend in Chicago, and months later none of the new jobs have come into existence.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization (SCHIP): Speaker Pelosi couldn’t wait on this one either, although the deadline for reauthorization was still two months away.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Lilly was peddled as covering decades-old wage discrimination cases, but after waiting 20 years, Congress couldn’t wait one more day to let Members actually read the thing. The bill is still stuck in the Senate Committee

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: No excuses at all on this one. They just didn’t want the details known.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009: This one has been languishing since last October, but we suddenly had to pass it that day.

The AIG Bonus Tax Act: This had to get through right then, don’t mind the details, we just had to go after those bonuses. Only when we read what passed after the fact, the bill contained waivers for all of the same executives the bill was supposed to reign in, many with curiously close ties to Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009: No rush whatever on this one time-wise, the Democrats just didn’t want people talking about the hundreds of billions given to foreign banks that should have gone to our troops.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act/National Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax:
No excuse was offered on this one, the Speaker just didn’t want anybody reading Henry Waxman’s 300 page amendment he sneaked in overnight before we were forced to vote. Three weeks later, the Senate shows no intention of taking up the bill before the opening day of dove season, if then.

There’s a reason all these bills are listed. The list constitutes every major policy bill undertaken by Congress this year. House Democrats are not just waiving the three-day rule -- they have destroyed it, and are intentionally pushing their agenda to the floor with blindfolds on the media and the public.

This constitutes an astonishing and chilling acceleration of the assault on representative democracy that began in earnest this January.

Representative democracy works when a U.S. Representative listens to the input of their constituents, and votes the way the majority of their district would vote. Only a Representative can’t listen if no one has ever seen the bill, or had time to provide input. They have to vote blind, which for too many, is voting the way their leadership tells them.

This is what Republican House Members were going to the floor to say Monday night. We were set to decry the loss of openness in the House.

Instead, we were met with a slammed door by Democrats, who are now committed to burying truth along with democracy.

The Democrats are the majority -- for now. They chose to silence debate on the floor by gagging House Republican Members from using their historical right to speak after the close of the day. But they cannot stop us from speaking outside the halls of Congress and letting the American public know the truth about their ongoing attack against the very foundations of a free Republic.

---

Mr. Carter, a Republican, represents the 31st District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.

---

Dems to GOP nominee: Will the defendant please rise?

---

---

© 2009

Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.

Interestingly, the Democrats' examples of ethnic prejudice did not include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the Democrats saying, "You may now uncuff the defendant."

Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic – as stated in Democratic staff memos that became public.

No, they had to go back to Roger Taney – confirmed in 1836 – who was allegedly attacked for being a Catholic (and who authored the Dred Scott decision), and Louis Brandeis – confirmed in 1916 – allegedly a victim of anti-Semitism.

What will it take to restore common sense and rein in out-of-control government? Get Glenn Beck's latest book, inspired by Founding Father Thomas Paine

Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada's nomination, blaming it on Republicans: "He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge."

The Republicans were "in charge" for precisely 14 days between Estrada's nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada's nomination for approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.

Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was blocked "by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats" – as the New York Times put it.

Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada "especially dangerous" – as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer – because "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

Sandy Berger wasn't available to steal back the memos, so Durbin ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer servers and lock them in a police vault.

Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to construct a fence around Estrada's house.

In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.

At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be "handing Bush a campaign issue to use in the Hispanic community."

Alas, today Democrats can't really place Estrada – James Carville confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on "CHiPs." They also can't recall the name "Anita Hill." Nor can anyone remember African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to her.

Only the indignities suffered by Justices Taney and Brandeis still burn in liberal hearts!

So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his "hope" is that "if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment," I think it's a lovely speech.

It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war – while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor speech – everything short of driving a woman into a lake! – within an hour of Reagan's announcing Bork's nomination.

Sotomayor on the Second Amendment - Evasive and Hostile

Guest post from Brian Darling Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) engaged in detailed questioning of Sotomayor’s views on the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor seemed hostile and evasive to the concept that the Second Amendment protects and individual right of all Americans against an action by a state to seize firearms. A senior Senate staffer concluded that “she confirmed her view that gun ownership is not a fundamental right.” Sotomayor seemed evasive when questioned by Senator Hatch whether she relied on the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois to hold that the Second Amendment was not a fundamental right. Sotomayor said, "It may have. I haven't read it recently enough to remember exactly." Hatch made the case that Sotomayor in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals case, Maloney v. Cuomo applied the wrong standard of review. Senator Hatch said “I believe you’ve applied the wrong line of cases in Maloney, because you were applying cases that used the privileges and immunities clause and not cases that used the 14th Amendment due process clause.” Hatch made the case that Sotomayor’s line of reasoning would allow any decision by a state or local government to pass constitutional scrutiny if merely rationally based. Sotomayor responded that “well, all standards of the court are attempting to ensure that government action has a basis.” Not much of an answer and Sotomayor seemed evasive in explaining her reasoning for the Maloney case other than that she was following a precedent. Not much analysis. Senator Kyl asked Sotomayor whether she would recuse herself from any Supreme Court decision relating to the divergent Second Amendment decisions of the 9th and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that direcly address the incorporation argument at issue in Maloney. Sotomayor refused to state that she would recuse herself from these similar cases. Kyl made the case that Sotomayor’s participation in the 9th or 7th Circuit Court of Appeals incorporation Second Amendment cases may lead to an appearance of impropriety. One could come to the conclusion that Sotomayor would be protecting her rational in Maloney if she refused to incorporate the 2nd Amendment on the states. The responses to Kyl’s line of questioning evidenced hostility to the clear reading of the words of the 2nd Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Brian Darling is Director of Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation

The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think

OPINION

The average length of unemployment is higher than it's been since government began tracking the data in 1948.

By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

The recent unemployment numbers have undermined confidence that we might be nearing the bottom of the recession. What we can see on the surface is disconcerting enough, but the inside numbers are just as bad.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics preliminary estimate for job losses for June is 467,000, which means 7.2 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. The cumulative job losses over the last six months have been greater than for any other half year period since World War II, including the military demobilization after the war. The job losses are also now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all job growth from the previous expansion.

Here are 10 reasons we are in even more trouble than the 9.5% unemployment rate indicates:

David Klein

- June's total assumed 185,000 people at work who probably were not. The government could not identify them; it made an assumption about trends. But many of the mythical jobs are in industries that have absolutely no job creation, e.g., finance. When the official numbers are adjusted over the next several months, June will look worse.

- More companies are asking employees to take unpaid leave. These people don't count on the unemployment roll.

- No fewer than 1.4 million people wanted or were available for work in the last 12 months but were not counted. Why? Because they hadn't searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.

- The number of workers taking part-time jobs due to the slack economy, a kind of stealth underemployment, has doubled in this recession to about nine million, or 5.8% of the work force. Add those whose hours have been cut to those who cannot find a full-time job and the total unemployed rises to 16.5%, putting the number of involuntarily idle in the range of 25 million.

- The average work week for rank-and-file employees in the private sector, roughly 80% of the work force, slipped to 33 hours. That's 48 minutes a week less than before the recession began, the lowest level since the government began tracking such data 45 years ago. Full-time workers are being downgraded to part time as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water, and factories are operating at only 65% of capacity. If Americans were still clocking those extra 48 minutes a week now, the same aggregate amount of work would get done with 3.3 million fewer employees, which means that if it were not for the shorter work week the jobless rate would be 11.7%, not 9.5% (which far exceeds the 8% rate projected by the Obama administration).

- The average length of official unemployment increased to 24.5 weeks, the longest since government began tracking this data in 1948. The number of long-term unemployed (i.e., for 27 weeks or more) has now jumped to 4.4 million, an all-time high.

- The average worker saw no wage gains in June, with average compensation running flat at $18.53 an hour.

- The goods producing sector is losing the most jobs -- 223,000 in the last report alone.

- The prospects for job creation are equally distressing. The likelihood is that when economic activity picks up, employers will first choose to increase hours for existing workers and bring part-time workers back to full time. Many unemployed workers looking for jobs once the recovery begins will discover that jobs as good as the ones they lost are almost impossible to find because many layoffs have been permanent. Instead of shrinking operations, companies have shut down whole business units or made sweeping structural changes in the way they conduct business. General Motors and Chrysler, closed hundreds of dealerships and reduced brands. Citigroup and Bank of America cut tens of thousands of positions and exited many parts of the world of finance.

Job losses may last well into 2010 to hit an unemployment peak close to 11%. That unemployment rate may be sustained for an extended period.

Can we find comfort in the fact that employment has long been considered a lagging indicator? It is conventionally seen as having limited predictive power since employment reflects decisions taken earlier in the business cycle. But today is different. Unemployment has doubled to 9.5% from 4.8% in only 16 months, a rate so fast it may influence future economic behavior and outlook.

How could this happen when Washington has thrown trillions of dollars into the pot, including the famous $787 billion in stimulus spending that was supposed to yield $1.50 in growth for every dollar spent? For a start, too much of the money went to transfer payments such as Medicaid, jobless benefits and the like that do nothing for jobs and growth. The spending that creates new jobs is new spending, particularly on infrastructure. It amounts to less than 10% of the stimulus package today.

About 40% of U.S. workers believe the recession will continue for another full year, and their pessimism is justified. As paychecks shrink and disappear, consumers are more hesitant to spend and won't lead the economy out of the doldrums quickly enough.

It may have made him unpopular in parts of the Obama administration, but Vice President Joe Biden was right when he said a week ago that the administration misread how bad the economy was and how effective the stimulus would be. It was supposed to be about jobs but it wasn't. The Recovery Act was a single piece of legislation but it included thousands of funding schemes for tens of thousands of projects, and those programs are stuck in the bureaucracy as the government releases the funds with typical inefficiency.

Another $150 billion, which was allocated to state coffers to continue programs like Medicaid, did not add new jobs; hundreds of billions were set aside for tax cuts and for new benefits for the poor and the unemployed, and they did not add new jobs. Now state budgets are drowning in red ink as jobless claims and Medicaid bills climb.

Next year state budgets will have depleted their initial rescue dollars. Absent another rescue plan, they will have no choice but to slash spending, raise taxes, or both. State and local governments, representing about 15% of the economy, are beginning the worst contraction in postwar history amid a deficit of $166 billion for fiscal 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and a gap of $350 billion in fiscal 2011.

Households overburdened with historic levels of debt will also be saving more. The savings rate has already jumped to almost 7% of after-tax income from 0% in 2007, and it is still going up. Every dollar of saving comes out of consumption. Since consumer spending is the economy's main driver, we are going to have a weak consumer sector and many businesses simply won't have the means or the need to hire employees. After the 1990-91 recessions, consumers went out and bought houses, cars and other expensive goods. This time, the combination of a weak job picture and a severe credit crunch means that people won't be able to get the financing for big expenditures, and those who can borrow will be reluctant to do so. The paycheck has returned as the primary source of spending.

This process is nowhere near complete and, until it is, the economy will barely grow if it does at all, and it may well oscillate between sluggish growth and modest decline for the next several years until the rebalancing of excessive debt has been completed. Until then, the economy will be deprived of adequate profits and cash flow, and businesses will not start to hire nor race to make capital expenditures when they have vast idle capacity.

No wonder poll after poll shows a steady erosion of confidence in the stimulus. So what kind of second-act stimulus should we look for? Something that might have a real multiplier effect, not a congressional wish list of pet programs. It is critical that the Obama administration not play politics with the issue. The time to get ready for a serious infrastructure program is now. It's a shame Washington didn't get it right the first time.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.