House Democrats Disappoint?
I'm not so surprised that the stimulus package is disappointing -- not efficient, fair, or expeditious -- but I am surprised that my party's leadership was so late to the topic, unclear about its goals, and apparently unable to get its message across.
I guess we need a President to get the right results. Or perhaps some other leaders from somewhere else in our uncivil society.
This should have been so easy: you want the money to go to the poorest, the neediest; you want it to go to those who need it so much they will spend it; you want to help those who are going to lose their houses; you want in addition to create infrastructure investment; most other incentives are unnecessary, useless and probably just hidden tax breaks.
Where are the Presidential candidates?
I think the lesson here is that we need to realize the Democrats suck. Less than the Republicans suck, for sure. But they suck.
January 24, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the Presidential candidates? They're out campaigning while Harry Reid sells our civil rights to your buddies in the telecom industry.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, House Dems didn't disappoint. That implies not living up to expectations and honestly, who could have expected anything better from this bunch?
January 25, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Money for the middle class. The poor and the unemployed are too depressed to vote. The Democrats know who butters their bread.
So sayeth Nancy "$50 Billion in Tax Breaks for Business but not One Additional Penny for the Unemployed" Pelosi.*
* I so liked the epithet the first time I wrote it, I just had to write it again.
January 25, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last time we did this "stimulus" thing, there was a pretty nice surplus budget to do it with. Now... Yes it should go to the poor because they are the ones who will pay it back. You see, this is borrowed money. Just like the tax cuts for the rich when Bush took over, it is borrowed money that we will all pay back through inflation, and believe me, it is just around the corner. The tax cut or "stimulus" goes to those with money, and then everybody pays by way of the inflation tax. This is precisely why the rich SHOULD pay a larger share of the tax burden. They benefit from the monetary/economic system we have set up.
dc
January 25, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had such high hopes for Pelosi when I saw her take the Speaker's gavel from John Boehner.
A little more than a year later and I saw her and Boehner together again, announcing the stimulus package........
this time as I looked at her, I had the same feeling I get when I see Bush....disgust.
Addendum:
I honestly cannot remember ever being so disappointed in another political figure as I am in regard to Pelosi. Harry Reid is another disgrace.
January 25, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just one more thing....
Hey gang! How's about we take our tax rebates and pool them all together into a fund that will be used for punishing Pelosi, Reid, et al in the next election for their failure to impeach the clowns that got us into this mess?
just a suggestion
January 25, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The candidates themselves didn't sound half bad at all on the issue, but I could imagine it might, if not have made a difference in Bush world, at least made an impressive campaign statement to go back to the senate and push something on behalf of ordinary Americans. It could be they didn't want to be associated with losing. It could be that they just feel they have to be out campaigning all the time to keep up.
I'd blame a lack of imagination, but also the state of American elections right now. Betcha the press would have covered the campaign and buried the economy.
At least the Times news coverage set things out a clear contrast between the plan and Democratic criticism of it. On the other hand, it's not wrong either for Reed or Krugman to criticize the Democrats here, too.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 25, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reed:
"I guess we need a President to get the right results. Or perhaps some other leaders from somewhere else in our uncivil society."
Hopefully, when the dust settles, we will have in one of the three viable Democratic candidates the kind of president you are writing about. In the interim, while the partisans on the various sides express outrage and charge each other with dirty tricks and worse, I am proud to say that the AFL-CIO for one has not lost sight of the growing crisis for working men and women in this country.
This is the response of the AFL-CIO to the weak-kneed and corporate oriented stimulus package that our elected officials are prepared to rubber stamp at this point. Note the emphasis is on providing additional unemployment insurance benefits for the estimated 200,000 workers whose benefits expire each month, and an increase in the food stamp program. The report I link to reflects that both UI and foodstamps are apparently, based on the findings of, inter alia, the Congressional Budget Office, two of the more effective means of providing that immediate boost to the economy that all parties seem to agree is required at this point.
Bruce
January 25, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, here's my wild hypothesis, make of it what you will.
Since the Dems have been out of power for 40+ years (effective power, I mean) those who enter politics to effect progressive change saw no reason to run for office. Who wants to be a backbencher in a minority party? Well obviously, someone, since the seats get filled. It must be centrists, people interested self-aggrandizement, people who like to play Santa Claus in their own small district (my congressman) or those without much ideological passion.
On the GOP side one got the opposite dynamic, those who believed in an ideological cause were motivated to run (DeLay, Gingrich, etc.). This also attracted a large group of conservative followers, those without much independent thought or originality, but who were comfortable following strong leaders. Ideological foot soldiers.
Now that their rightwing leaders have been deposed they are leaving congress. They have no ability to lead themselves, and they see the gravy train coming to an end.
So what's left are the mediocre dregs from both parties. Notice that the few passionate legislators who still exist (Waxman, Rangel, etc) tend to be those who have been in congress since before the GOP takeover. They came in as reformers and they still have the passion. Unfortunately they are an aging minority.
In the last election the Dems that won were people who would have run as Republicans under normal times, this present cycle seems to be the first time that some actual progressive Dems are making an appearance.
My dour predictions: The Dems will win a few more seats in the house. Some of these new members will tilt a bit further to the left. The balance won't shift enough for progressive action to have a chance.
The Senate will remain effectively deadlocked as the Dems will only pick up 2-3 seats.
The presidency will be extremely close. Who will win will depend upon events right before the election. Bad economic news will favor the Dems, bad military events will shift the undecided to the GOP.
Expect four years of continued mediocre performance by our elected officials.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
January 25, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Presidency will be extremely close..."
Running on the Republican side is the most godawful collection of ignoramuses, warmongers, thugs and buffoons we've seen in generations.
Running on the Democrat side is a black, a woman and a populist lawyer.
So it's going to be extremely close.
Your country is so screwed.
January 25, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"OK, here's my wild hypothesis, make of it what you will." I think it's simpler, although not as simple as the cowardice meme we all know and love suggests. This not being a parliamentary democracy, what the opposition party can do, especially when it's not a serious majority, and especially in a party that's broader than the fanatical GOP, is to block change, not initiate it.
This puts the right at a huge advantage. All they ever really have had to do with a Democratic president was play defense. At one time, the South could block civil rights legislation by filibuster. In the 1990s, the GOP put forth pretend governance (the Contract with America) as a cover for simply blocking change (as with health care). Moreover, since the goal is to prove government is dysfunctional, so the party of "small government" can triumph, it's self-reinforcing. They're the party of failure, in effect.
While I can't easily excuse the losers this time, my theory makes the case for aggressively supporting their party in November, especially at the level of house and senate races.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are campaigning to replace the Republican Party not to defeat it.
January 25, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this mostly the same stimulus package as was passed back in 2001/2002? When the GOP had majority?
Why didn't they tie the damn thing up in committee and let the public know that it's tied up because the GOP won't let the stimulus go where it needs to go - the poor? Are the dems really that inept at hard-ball negotiations? Or could it be that they don't want to acknowledge the poor as their constituency? I wonder.
January 26, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink