In response to E.J. Dionne, Jr. piece What’s on Obama’s Next Page?, there were various comments adding to the carping about the Obama Presidency.

I explained to the complainers how to solve their problems.

You know how to solve your disappointment with Obama?  Put the Republicans back in office.

They will repeal the health reform act as they have promised.  There won’t be any more stimulus packages from Republicans.  We know they prefer bank bailouts.  The TARP was Bush’s answer to the financial crisis.

Tax cuts for the middle class, sure after they give some more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Repairing crumbling bridges and roads? Naw, that would hinder private enterprise.

Research using embryonic stem cells?  No way.  We’d rather throw away those frozen embryos than discover a cure for Parkinson’s disease.

Increase the number of bank examiners and go after fraudulent bank executives?  What a waste of money.  We know how successful Reagan was in preventing the S&L disaster by refusing to let examiners examine the insolvent S&Ls;.  He cut the examiners budgets and refused to pay them decently or give them computers.  Now that’s the way a Republican carries out his executive responsibilities.

If you don’t like the intelligence reports that had doubts about whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs, then form your own defense intelligence agency to tell you what you already know for sure is the real truth.

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of the Arab speaking intelligence officers.  They might be able to understand what the terrorists are saying, but we can’t have gay people in the military.  It ruins unit cohesion.

These are all policies your friendly Republicans have brought to you.  They will be glad to bring them back.

But wait! There is even more.  This time it will be the Republican Tea Party.  If you thought the old Republicans were extreme, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Almost in answer to my previous rhetorical question Does Keynesian Economics Work In China But Not The USA, Paul Krugman’s column, The Real Story, uses the recent history of our economy to show that it works here too.

He shows that the so called experts who predicted dire consequences from a too large stimulus package were completely wrong.  The actual experts who predicted dire consequences from too small a stimulus were right.

If repeating the same action and expecting different results is called insanity, what we would we call it when the Republicans want to do the opposite action, but expect the same results?

Do we think the behavior of the economy is completely unaffected by government action, and just because one set of experts were right the last time, then they won’t be right the next time?  Apparently the Republicans don’t think the economy is unaffected by government action or they wouldn’t be so adamant in their obstruction.

Do progressives believe that because Obama was only able to get a small stimulus package through that we ought to now turn control back to the Republicans who wanted no stimulus?

I am having a real problem making sense out of either side that seems to blame Obama as the cause of our problems and not the potential solution.

Hans G. Despain has written the commentary in The Worcester T & G titled Mere Maid Service On Wall St.

Hans G. Despain is a professor in the Department of Economics at Nichols College in Dudley.

While I have found that Hans Despain is one of the few local people who are writing knowledgably about the economy, I am also a little curious about the tone of his article.

For anyone trying to figure out whether or not to vote in more Democrats or more Republicans in the fall, this article seems to leave that as an unaddressed issue.  What references he does give to the political struggle leave one wondering just what he does think.

In particular, with his mention of Scott Brown’s election as a catalyst for financial reform, I wonder what Prof. Despain was thinking.  Does he really believe that after struggling to pass health care reform over the obstructionist tactics of the Republicans, that Obama would not have tackled financial reform had it not been for Scott Brown?

Does he think giving more power to the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner would end up with better financial regulation?

Having started reading the book ‘The best way to rob a bank is to own one’ I think that Professor Despain isn’t giving enough credit for our troubles to the out and out fraud committed by many of the ‘risk’ takers on Wall Street.

They didn’t just take risks, they cooked the books, they intimidated internal and outside auditors, and they used political influence and bribes to remove any regulators that were getting too close.

It’s not that President Obama and the Democrats don’t deserve any criticism. However, for one so knowledgeable as Hans Despain to leave the impression that the solution might include voting in more Republicans (who actually favor deregulation and little enforcement) is more than I can comprehend.

It bears repeating what Vice President Joe Biden said in quoting former Boston Mayor Kevin White, “Don’t compare me to the almighty. Compare me to the alternative.”