Post-Partisan? Nope, Ain’t Gonna Happen
One thing is for sure – Barack Obama’s vision of a ‘post-partisan’ Washington just went out the window:
The House passed an $819 billion tax-and-spending bill Wednesday, in a recession-fighting effort that would extend the reach of the federal government across the U.S. economy by reshaping policy on energy, education, health care and social programs.
The House bill is one of the largest single stimulus packages in history, almost equal to the entire cost of annual federal spending under Congress’s discretion. A parallel Senate measure, which is expected to come to a vote next week, is now valued at nearly $900 billion.
Either bill, if enacted, would push the federal debt toward levels not seen since the second World War.
…The 244-188 vote was not what Mr. Obama had hoped for. A week of presidential wooing — including a visit to the Capitol, a return visit to the White House by moderate House Republicans and a bipartisan cocktail party Wednesday night — did not yield a single Republican vote. The president also lost 11 Democrats.
House Republican leadership aides said the vote should force Democrats to compromise in the Senate, but White House aides were more sanguine. They said the package in the Senate has already moved toward Republican positions on key issues, making GOP votes more likely. Mr. Obama has said he wants a final compromise version by Feb. 13.
By providing enormous sums for social programs and changing many of the rules to allow more people to take advantage of the programs, the Obama plan has prompted some Republicans to complain that the bill is becoming a back-door way to expand the social contract. The long-lasting nature of some of the items, say Republicans, has as much to do with pent-up policy demands of a Democratic Congress and White House as reviving a flailing economy.
Since I seem to have as many or more readers on the left these days as I do on the right, I know I’m asking for trouble here, but I’m jumping in anyway: the Republicans are right.
I know, I know: the lefty blogsophere and punditry will decry the partisanship of the Republicans after Obama made the overtures…and I don’t really blame the president here. But the 100% opposition is a statement (one that would, admittedly, have a lot more force if Republicans hadn’t thrown away their credibility on spending and economic issues during the last decade or so): this bill is not about stimulating the economy. It WILL stimulate the economy, of course: hell, you spend a trillion bucks and you can’t help but stimulate the economy.
But we could have got a lot more bang for the buck – a hell of a lot more – if the Democratic congressional leadership hadn’t turned this into a bill full of pork and ill-disguised ‘agenda’ measures. To be clear: I’m not opposed to a stimulus package – and I accept the fact that, to make a difference, it has to be massive. But what the devil do handouts to the National Endowment for the Arts, net neutrality, and smoking-cessation programs have to do with economic stimulus?
Absolutely nothing…you know it, and I know it, and this bill is a farce. Anyone who says ‘it’s better than nothing’, as Democrat Rep. David Obey did tonight, is insulting the intelligence of all thinking Americans everywhere. We don’t want ‘better than nothing’, we want a targeted bill that does away with the pork b.s. that is very much Washington as usual.
This is a crap bill, and it’s NOT better than nothing. If Congress can’t get serious, and they quite apparently can’t, about the economic crisis facing this nation (think about it: everything of substance that has been done in response to the crisis so far has come from the Bush administration and the Obama administration, as Congress has passed the buck time and time again), then pass nothing at all. The economy WILL improve eventually, and I’d rather not have a two trillion dollar deficit if we’re just going to flush $900 billion down the toilet for about $300 billion worth of actual stimulus.
I have not been a fan of Republican congressional leaders for quite some time, but kudos for sending a message here, no matter if it is ultimately to no avail…
I agree with every word of this post. It would be very, very difficult to make a reasonable argument that this thing isn’t just PACKED to the gills with PORK–pork that isn’t going to do anything to help our economy recover. I think it sends an awful signal to voters on both sides of the aisle who have high hopes that this Administration is going to be different. It appears the difference is going to be in order of magnitudes WORSE than any preceeding Administration as far as absurd levels of reckless spending. Personally, I would rather they do nothing than to do this.
Or, is that “orders of magnitude”?
The good news is that we just paid enough money to make sure we cant smoke anywhere. Oh and its going to bite the Democrats in the ass when people see how much bs they paid for.
Who decided that “bipartisanship” is defined as you agreeing with me, regardless of the facts of the situation (or legislation)? If Republicans think the bill is wrong – however they determine that – then they should vote against it, no matter how many overtures and cocktail parties Obama tosses their way.
As for the stimulus bill, the Boston Globe reports today that just 5% of the $819B is targeted at true infrastructure. What happened to the massive infrastructure bill passed in ’05 or was it ’06?
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Mark, as someone who has been pretty clearly opposed to reckless government spending since time immemorial – even when it was unpopular to point out that Republicans are hypocritical assholes who haven’t the first idea how to govern – I’m largely in agreement with you here. I am no fan of this stimulus and would have voted against it myself.
That said, what the Republicans want is equally idiotic. If you put tax cuts in a stimulus, they need to be fast, targeted, and temporary. Permanent business tax cuts simply aren’t stimulus, and a basic knowledge of macroeconomics is all you’d need in order to know that.
This entire process is a game of both sides trying to score their own political points without any reference to what the country actually needs. No one has earned any plaudits on this one.
Although, I have to say, zero Republican votes is a flirtation with disaster. The last thing you want to do is let Nancy Pelosi know you aren’t going to be there when she doesn’t really need you anyway. Reid and Obama both have – to me, maddening – needs to seek bipartisan cover for the things they do, but Pelosi doesn’t. She would gladly rule the House from her side of the aisle and leave the entire Republican caucus choking on her dust. She’s an incredibly dangerous woman to piss off, and Boehner is playing with fire.
Queen Nancy already changed the post 1994 rules to make it impossible for the GOP to do anything. She has the whip hand and already knows it. So, piss her off or not, its about 99.99% the same.
If the Pork Bill is perceived to be a success, then President Pals Around and the other Dems will get all the credit anyway. If the Pork Bill is perceived to be a failure, being opposed was the smart choice for the GOP. Note the 11 Dem defectors and where they come from.
The more arrogant Queen Nancy becomes, the better in the long run for the GOP. The changes they made in the bill were by mocking things like the Rubber Fund. This Pork Bill still has plenty of things to mock later if the economy does not perk up before 2010.
On the other hand, if the economy does perk up, the Republicans who voted against this bill may have sealed their fates. Not to mention that, by writing themselves out of the process, they have abdicated any real role in actual governance. For Republicans from Ohio (Bob and John Boehner), it may be more important to score political points against psychotic-fantasy bogeymen (Queen Nancy? President Pals Around? God, you’re a pathetic toad), but for people who actually care about their country, having a place at the table might turn out to be important.
The voters are fickle and have quite short memories – what percentage of the people were in favor of TARP (a minority), what impact did that fact have on how people voted (negligible) – the Republicans will get short term credit for, supposedly, standing on principle and with the “people” regarding the stimulus bill, but, as you say, if the economy perks up, as it most certainly will before November 2010, the ruling party will reap the benefits.
Well, a couple things:
1) It’s not at all clear to me that Republicans are going to get short-term credit. The stimulus bill is, by all accounts, fairly popular (I’ve seen it around 55-65 approval), so why exactly do we expect Republicans to come out of this looking good?
2) If we agree that the political points being scored probably don’t matter nearly as much as the objective economic conditions will in 2010 – and I think we do – then what do the Republicans have to gain by making it clear that they aren’t interested in compromise? One can claim the Democrats also weren’t interested, but that argument is problematic because a) there’s a good case to be made that they were and b) they don’t actually have to be anyway. In the future, if Pelosi knows she can’t count on Republican support, what makes anyone think she’s even going to be tempted to take ludicrous crap like the family planning stuff out of a bill? There’s no political reason for her to placate people who aren’t placateable (is that a word?) in the first place.
1) The idea that the House Republicans unanimously opposed the bill out of principle and not partisanship is ludicrous. After meetings with the Republicans, hearing their objections, and making substantial concessions, Obama was snubbed by the entire GOP caucus, despite the fact that they had no credible alternative of their own to offer.
You may recall that Clinton’s first budget in 1993 passed without GOP support, amid widespread Republican prophesies of fiscal Armageddon. As we all know, the eight years of the Clinton administration produced more jobs and prosperity than we have seen in a very long time. My guess is that the current crop of Republicans would also have strenuously opposed the New Deal, as their predecessors did.
Republican fiscal policy (and lax regulation) is largely responsible for the mess we are in. I give credit to Obama for listening to them sincerely, despite their proven lack of ability to manage the economy. They responded with a slap in his face. He gave them far more credit than they deserve.
2) Instead of repeating GOP talking points and nitpicking minutiae, have you actually looked to see where the bulk of the spending would be? When you take out the infrastructure projects — which will take a few quarters to have noticeable effect — nearly all of the remaining money goes where it will have the most good in the shortest period of time.
While I don’t recall any of the whiners complaining when Bush sent out tax rebate checks, a large part of the money goes to tax relief on an ongoing basis, which is much more effective (because rebate checks are more likely to be saved while increased net pay due to lower withholding is more likely to be spent). Ditto for aid to the unemployed and working poor.
Aid to the states is also likely to have an immediate effect. I live in a state with a $45 billion budget deficit, which has necessitated layoffs, work furloughs, cancellation of road projects, and so forth. Since many states have balanced budget requirements, providing aid prevents things from more layoffs and budget cuts. Ditto for the health care and education provisions. Preventing the states’ fiscal crises from worsening will do far more far sooner than Boehner’s suggestion of more tax cuts for the middle and upper class. (This is the only mantra Republicans know. If the economy is weak, we need tax cuts to make it stronger. If the economy is strong, we need tax cuts to make sure it doesn’t get weaker. Hence you have the record budget deficits of the Reagan and Bush years).
If you add up all of the items which Republicans are complaining so vociferously about, my guess is that they total well under one percent of the cost of the bill. But that’s what Republicans do: focus on the small picture and avoid the larger one. Next time around, Obama would be well advised to simply ignore their whining and come up with the policies which he thinks best.
You are reading fantasy magazines.
Obama’s response to Republican requests for changes to the stimulus package: “I won”.
95% of the package is pork, the balance is for infrastructure. Stimulus, then, is euphemism for “pet Democrat programs”, and given to what and to whom they are targeted, designed to stimulate demand for more Democrats in Congress.
Pork is a Bridge to Nowhere. You may disagree with aid to states, tax relief, low income tax credits, and the remainder of what is in the bill, but it is definitely not pork.
Since you are so eager to criticize the Democratic plan, what would your alternative be?
Really, you must stop praising me. (Blushes)
The GOP doesn’t want a share of governance right now. There is no short term and little long term upside.
President Pals Around won comfortably and the Dems in Congress have big majorities. They own the government now. They don’t need the GOP, so why should the GOP give them any political cover?
(Though I will note again that opposition to this monster was bi-partisan while support was strictly partisan.)
Opposition and bomb throwing will get the GOP back in the game. As it always does.
See 1992-1994 and 2003-2006 for recent examples.
You want Bob Michaels back. Perpetual minority.
[F U back BTW.]
“Opposition and bomb throwing will get the GOP back in the game. As it always does.”
Utterly childish. And you wonder why no smart people are Republicans any more.
Steve, Obama’s response to Republican requests for change was including tax cuts his party didn’t want and dropping family planning. His response to insane Republican requests to design a stimulus according to their whims and contra the expressed preferences of the American public was “I won”. He, Pelosi, and Reid are under basically no obligation to talk to Republicans at all for at least the next two years, but that is manifestly not what is happening. That Republicans insist it is is yet more proof that the entire party is delusional.
Have to say I agree with steve–peter’s description of this package reminds me of a line from Annie Hall–”Excuse me, I’m due back on planet Earth.” This is a pork-laden insult to people on both sides of the aisle who are expecting a more responsible approach to the economy and politics. One aspect that is being left out of predictions about how voters will react in the long run is what exactly occurs in the next year. If the economy gets significantly worse, and I believe it will, and this so-called stimulus package gets beaten up and blamed for it-which it could/should, then I think there will be a price to be paid by the Democrats. I realize that George Bush will continue to be the whipping boy for the left, but, at some point, people are going to realize he isn’t President anymore, and the economy has gotten much worse under the current Administration. I didn’t vote for President Obama, and I am a conservative. However, even I hoped for much better than this from him. This bill is depressing.
“The economy has gotten much worse under the current Administration.”
Uh, the current administration hasn’t even been in office for ten days. The economy has been sliding for well over a year, and its decline has accelerated rapidly over the past three or four months. You expected that it would miraculously snap back in a little over a week?
Let us know when you’re back on planet Earth.
Sorry, peter. I meant I expect the economy to get significantly worse, and, at that time, people would be reacting accordingly.
Fair enough. The economy may very well get significantly worse as job losses lead to less spending which leads to more job losses and so forth. The question is what policy will have the greatest impact in the shortest time frame.
Let’s suppose the unemployment rates goes up to 10%. I would expect the Republicans to complain about the stimulus bill being too expensive and its components being the wrong ones. However, perhaps without it the unemployment rate would have risen to 15%. We would never know.
If those on the right think there is a better solution, let’s hear it. All I’ve heard is sniping and whining. It would be nice if we could at least have the spirit that we are all in this together. I think that Obama has been operating in that spirit, but in my view, the GOP’s answer was to find something which would enable them to point fingers in 2010. To paraphrase the inaugural address: you can have an outstretched hand, but it won’t do much good if all you get is a clenched fist.
Peter, this bill sucks. Regardless of the partisan motives of the Republicans, and whether principle played a part, there is pork all over this dog…and precious little stimulus.
The payroll tax holiday? $500 bucks for 12 months. I get 26 checks in a year. That means, at most, $19 every two weeks. You can argue that Bush’s tax rebate was not stimulus, but $600 (or $1200) at once is a hell of lot more stimulus than a nice dinner every two weeks.
Cigarette-cessation money, net neutrality, a big new computer for NOAA – these aren’t Republican talking points – they’re in the Democrats bill (some in the Senate, some in the House).
I agree with you – let’s be bipartisan, let’s pass a bill that doesn’t push either a Republican or a Democratic agenda, let’s reach across the aisle…but this bill ain’t it.
That’s all.
Quick test: how does a big new computer for NOAA stimulate the economy? Ready…go! Time’s up…okay, so it shouldn’t be in the bill.
How do cigaratte-cessation programs stimulate the economy? Ready…okay, you get the picture.
Regardless of whether the Republicans in Congress are being partisan, I’m not – I’m saying enough of this sh**. Obama campaigned on changing the landscape…well, let’s change it. Pork has no place when the government is about to run a $2 trillion deficit.
That’s the honest truth, and you KNOW it, because you’re a smart person….
$19 a paycheck times millions of paychecks adds up to real money.
The things you object to are a miniscule part of the bill. Add them up and they will be well under one percent of the total. Show me another appropriations bill which was over 99% pure and I’ll buy you the nice dinner you referred to.
If you are so unhappy with this bill, what is your alternative?
No, no, I’m not charged with an alternative. That’s the job of Congress – that’s what we pay them for, that’s what we elect them for. But I don’t think anyone, Democrat or Republican, wants Congress to use this crisis to play pork politics. That’s not only insulting, it’s un-American, because this crisis is real, and we deserve better. You’re saying the same thing as the Democratic congressman I referred to – well, it’s better than nothing.
No, it isn’t. Nothing is better than wasting $900 billion. As Martin Feldstein said today:
$19 a check is nothing. Most people will not even notice it. It’s not like people are going to say, hey, I’ve got an extra $19! Let’s go out!
Or let me put it in a more relevant way to you: $19 a check times millions is real money if you have to pay for it…but if you’re one person that receives an extra $19, it will not cause you to spend more, and thus is money truly wasted, for stimulus purposes…
I think that if you are going to have a meaningful critique of the stimulus bill, then you are charged with coming up with an alternative. Otherwise, it’s just throwing stones. There are no easy solutions to the problem: they are all messy, unpalatable, costly, and uncertain in their effectiveness. But if you can’t come up with something different and better, then it’s just invective.
I think that while few people will jump for joy over an extra $19, the money will get spent and the cumulative effect will be meaningful.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the pork issue. I challenge you to add up elements you consider to be porcine and come up with a total greater than 1% of the appropriation. Any appropriations bill which is over 99% clean is fine by me.
Though I have a degree in Economics, I am not a professional economist. It’s not my job to come up with stimulus proposals – I have too much work at my REAL job.
To say that means I can’t criticize pork is a result is crazy – exercising my First Amendment rights is not invective.
I’m opposed to pork when the deficit is projected to be $2 trillion…if you call that invective, you better stay away from Kos and RedState, you might get the vapors!…
Whoops, “as” a result, not “is” a result…
Let me also add this: even if you are correct (and I don’t believe you are) that only 1% of the bill is pork, one percent of $900 billion is $9 billion – why the hell should I (or you?) settle for $9 billion in pork under these conditions? Why should we settle for $10 in pork?
This is the same criticism leveled at McCain in the campaign when he promised to eliminate pork – well, it’s only x% of the budget – well, hell, then, let’s get rid of that x%! You have to start somewhere…
Well, I do stay away from Kos. I think I’ve been there twice. As for RedState: they banned me. I had a discussion with someone there several years ago where I clearly had the more cogent argument — and I was perfectly civil — and they cut me off. What a bunch of (rhymes with wussies). If you get the better of them, they take away the microphone.
I just don’t see where the pork is. I’m not sure what the rationale is for smoking cessation or a new computer — or even if there is a rationale — but these items are such a miniscule part of the bill that they are hardly worth mentioning. It’s like saying the Beatles weren’t a great band because Maxwell’s Silver Hammer is a dumb song.
Post 29: I agree, but let’s not let perfection be the enemy of the good.
No, it’s like saying the Beatles are a great band, but they should have left Maxwell’s Silver Hammer off of the album.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, those who would sacrifice stimulus for pork don’t deserve the resulting bacon (I may be paraphrasing slightly).
Agreed on closed communities, both right and left – I may not have a big audience, but at least we can argue with each other without anyone getting banned…(I’ve banned one person ever – for insulting another reader’s religion, then using racial epithets)…
OK, the stimulus bill is a great bill, but the House should have left smoking cessation off the appropriations.
Except the Beatles weren’t $12 trillion in debt and about to take on $2 trillion more – so there the analogy breaks down.
Any pork at all, even a wayward stick of chewing gum, is not acceptable under the current conditions, and the presence of any pork makes it a bad bill…but you are exaggerating how much of the bill is really stimulus.
For example, much of the $900 billion (a huge chunk, though the figures are not in front of me) is merely transfer payments to state and local governments, and I’d be willing to wager that these governments, facing huge deficits of their own, are going to find a way to use this money to paper over their own deficits rather than ‘stimulate’ anything or anyone with new spending…
But I’m getting away from my main point – no pork! Not now, not at this time, we’re too far in debt for that b.s. right now…
Mark: Paying down smaller government deficits is to cure certain financial system failures that state and local governments were not a small part of. Not giving local governments money might mean running out of money altogether to pay their employees…like my wife who is a school teacher. They’re having trouble making payroll each week. It’s sad.
It’s pretty bad when it’s not even stimulus that the money is going to be used for, but just plain business as usual. This is not a good state of affairs.
Why don’t we go through the bill, item by item and do our own line by line veto? Put it up, let’s do it. Surely this group would be glad to break things up. Make the assignments. I’m in. Make a post. Put 10 sections or so and assign names. I’m down. We could do categories. Pork, not pork, but not good spending, good spending…other. In any event, it’s not even “what’s the alternative?”, it’s “what else don’t you like besides this small little bits that the stupid newspaper highlights because they have nothing better to talk about?”
Well, that’s actually a good idea, but let’s wait and see what the Senate comes up with first…then we do a little compare and contrast, time permitting. I understand that the local and state governments are in financial difficulties, don’t get me wrong…you’re right, it’s very sad. These are trying times for almost everyone…
Ryan: I have no problem with Obama telling the Republicans “I won”, regardless of the topic. It is true and, as is said, elections have consequences. I have long said that this notion that anything “bipartisan” is an absolute good is utter, and infantile, nonsense. If Obama, properly in my view, believes in the notion that he “won” and so gets to choose (be the decider!) then why the faux wooing of the Republicans? As someone else has already said, he doesn’t need their support anytime between now and then, which, at the earliest, is January of 2011.
On what would I spend ~$1 trillion to get the economy going in a positive direction? Roads, bridges, nuclear power plants, and substantial business and individual tax cuts. No more, no less.
Just my two cents on the current popularity of the “stimulus” bill:
What was the popularity of the war in Iraq when the resolution first passed Congress? If I recall correctly, it was about 75%.
Things didn’t go well, support dropped, and the GOP took the blame. Considering that there’s virtually nothing in this bill that an intelligent person could actually call “stimulus,” it’s pretty much guaranteed to fail in the execution. When it does, every House Republican — and only 11 House Dems — can claim credit for being wise enough to vote against it.