Blog House: We work hard for the money ...

If Michele Bachmann had her way, Minnesotans would be "The People with 10,000 Jobs." And we could do it. Just ask her:

"I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We're the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs, we have more women in the workforce than any other state."

Ironic, coming from the first-term congresswoman, considering she was vocal in complaining about the Democratic leadership switching Congress to a five-day workweek from a three-day workweek. She made the comments at a news conference endorsing a plan to jump-start the economy by cutting the corporate tax rate.

When Bachmann lets her mouth run wild, you can count on the similar response on the Internet.

"I finally get it," wrote Zack at MnPublius (1). "All along, I was measuring the state of our economy by traditional measures. You know, unemployment, wage growth, that sort of thing. Silly me, that is so 1998. These days, a good economy is one that gives people the option to work two or even three jobs. A good economy is one where people have the ability to work long hours. That's something to be proud of. And how do we create that economy? Cut taxes. Slash services. After all, you don't need a quality education to work at McDonald's and Blockbuster. I finally understand."

Libby Spencer at The Impolitic (2) noted that Bachmann may be a smidge out of touch with her constituents. "Be sure to catch Ms. B at her second job at the Burger King on nights and weekends. She looks great in that uniform and really enjoys the work. Who wouldn't rather have two jobs to make ends meet than spend time with their families? Oh, sorry, I had her confused with a real person who doesn't receive an outrageous salary and the world's best health insurance benefits for working three days a week with about four months paid vacation."

For a politician who advertises herself as "profamily," Bachmann's comments are inexplicable, said Jeff at the Unruly Pedestrian (3). "Let me tell you, this accelerating turn of our economy being one where people are working two jobs (both likely to be dead-end jobs with no pay) is a much greater detriment to the American Family than a few gay people getting hitched. You have problems with kids in school because they have no guidance, their parents are working day and night."

That's what some bloggers are asking after the federal government began to react to the downturn in the economy.

When foreign markets plummeted overnight Monday, the Federal Reserve reacted by cutting a major lending rate by three-quarters of a point. Bad, panicky move, wrote Captain Ed (4). "Welcome to the activist Fed. ... Rather than lowering the price of credit as the Fed dramatically did here, analysts have argued that tightening credit and liquidity would be the better long-term strategy to resolve the actual problem, rather than addressing the symptoms. That kind of strategy would force the country -- and the globe -- to suffer a recession as a corrective. That might be an effective economic strategy, but not a political strategy. In an election year, no one in either party wants to explain why they think a recession would be good for the soul."

Everyone inside the beltway is talking about a stimulus package that would likely include tax rebates, possibly up to $1,000 a person, $2,000 a household. Michelle Malkin (5) is not a fan of the idea. "I'm all for the government giving me back my money. But why not drop the economic stimulus pretense? Just give me back my money. If the government can spare these 'rebates' and send them back now, why did they take the money in the first place? Forget this temporary candy. Why not make this 'rebate' permanent?"

The high-minded Democratic race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is getting nasty. Obama is claiming that he feels like he's running against Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, while Hillary is saying that Obama is not being upfront about his record.

Some see race playing a role in Clinton's attacks. Mickey Kaus (6) at Slate gave the following analogy:

"Here we thought we were getting the [Walter] Mondale/[Gary] Hart campaign of 1984 -- without Mondale's pleasantness or Hart's weirdness -- and instead we get the Michael Dukakis campaign of 1988, in which a slightly tedious, marginally likeable elite liberal established his mainstream (white) bona fides by running around the country thumping Jesse Jackson."

Monday's debate was particularly nasty, with Obama and Clinton arguing over what Clinton claimed was Obama's reverence for Ronald Reagan. "The Democrats are talking more about Ronald Reagan tonight than the Republicans even do," crowed Mark R. Levin at the Corner (7). "I guess they don't think the era of Reagan is over. Anyway, it's getting ugly among the Democrats in the debate, and I have to admit I am enjoying it."

tobrien@startribune.com

SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW TO FIND THE BLOGS ONLINE

1 MnPublius • mnpublius.com

2 The Impolitic • theimpolitic.blogspot.com

3 The Unruly Pedestrian • globewwatch.blogspot.com

4 Captain's Quarters • captainsquartersblog.com

5 Michelle Malkin • michellemalkin.com

6 Kaus Files • slate.com/id/2182569

7 The Corner • corner.nationalreview.com