Bi-partisan or Mono-plus?
All the reports I've seen about the dissenting Senators trying to gouge a hundred billion or more out of the House stimulus package talk about a "bipartisan" or "postpartisan" group. But the only Democrats named as having attended any of their meetings--which may or may not mean they support the gouge--are Nelson (NE), Bayh (IN), Udall (CO), and Begich (AK). How bipartisan is this group? Is it making decisions as a group or is it simply discussing the merits of the bill?
Another question for reporters. Dick Durbin theatrically stood up yesterday, tore one page out of the bill, and said the total savings proposed by Republicans amount to only that proportion--one page out of hundreds. Is it true? How hard would it be to do the arithmetic?
But OMG teh Pork!
February 6, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be brutally honest and cynical at the same time, given that most economists I trust are saying they'd feel a lot better about the stimulus chances of success if it were bigger, I wish that instead of going along with the cutting, the administration would require putting in something of equivalent value instead that would "bribe" them to stop the obstruction on cost. Is it that hard to find pork that would make each one of the dissenters cave on their abstemiousness and/or worry about debt, pork that would also have some benefits to the economy as a whole? I.E., what the administration should taking their hardest line is the amount, on not cutting the amount.
February 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the sane voice aa. The spending shouldn't be stupid but most of what critics call "pork" has at least some utility, and usually much more than "some." We could use more of it. And our infrastructure is a mess. It's not like there's not tons to be done.
February 6, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and if they fillibuster come back with a bigger bill and blame it on the Republicans. The delay made the problem worse, hence the bigger bill.
February 6, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Durbin was likely talking about early complaints which amounted to less that 1% of the total. If so, then the "one page" visual aid is accurate enough.
The $100B business came later, as I recall things. That's clearly not one page out of a book sized document.
There is clearly too much rushing around. A few more days won't kill off the chances of the bill helping out. We should be looking at things clearly and rationally. The problem is that most objections to the bill have been not rational at all. The Republican alternative of 100% tax cuts (as it's been called) is just stupid. And if Republican's believe we should let the economic chips fall wherever, they need to come out and say so, and defend their view.
If Congress takes a recess in the middle of this, that would be practically criminal.
February 6, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self-crippled journalists think that it would be unseemly to say straight-out that "The Republican alternative of 100% tax cuts (as it's been called) is just stupid."
The learning curve is steep, their energy flags, and they're in mid-panic about the profession's decline.
Expect more of this slovenliness.
February 8, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink