Voting Against the Stimulus Bill
I'll be surprised if some Progressive Caucus members don't vote nay on this rotten failure of a stimulus package. First of all, the bill sucks. It is too small and the money is not spent appropriately. Second, it will probably pass, so if some members want to cast a protest vote they will be safe in doing so. But I'd rather the progressives withhold their support entirely until the bill is fixed. At best, the garbage Reid and Pelosi have come up with will delay a deepening of the recession. It's literally less than half the necessary size. At some point, sometime, progressive Democrats will have to risk something bad happening in order to make something good happen.
Advertisement
Democrats in general and that includes the progressives are pretty chicken, uh, I mean risk averse. I doubt they'll make any kind of stand but, like you, I wish they would.
February 11, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) There is no way a trillion-dollar stimulus will get through Congress at the present time. Yes, I know there are economists calling for a $2T to $3T package. It will not pass at that size. The one we have now barely got through the Senate. Congress would likely revolt against a bigger package - including a number of Blue Dogs who didn't cross over on this one.
(2) The "garbage" produced by Congress is pretty much what the President wanted, in the size he wanted, on the timeline he wanted. (He said he wanted a $825B deal done by the end fo the first week in February.)
I can understand complaining about the stimulus, but it adds up to a political win for Obama. So, if you're THAT unhappy about it, why are you just blaming Reid and Pelosi? This is not their package, ultimately. It's Obama's.
(3) I think this bill is not the end of the salvos being fired into the economy. And, by the time the government is done, I would expect several trillion dollars to have been plowed into it. It is, however, likely unrealistic to expect a $3T stimulus package to pass in one shot.
February 11, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is far less important this the half loaf produced in the stimulus bill is a win for Obama than it is a win for the country. This isn't just an excercise in scoring political points as you seem to think is the important thing. I want a win for the people. If Obama wins that great too, but it's not him I'm worried about nor is it about him or about whether he wins. It is about us and whether we win. The huge and far less productive tax cuts are not a win for the people. It's better than nothing but that's not saying a whole lot. Those billions should have been used for targeted government spending instead of just handing out money in the hope it will be spent. And it very likely is the end of the big spending bills.
February 11, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea where you got the idea that I think this is an exercise in scoring political points. I strongly suggest you re-read what I wrote.
Again, you get through what you can. Even a $1 trillion stimulus WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED. Never mind trying to get through, say, $3 trillion. Thinking otherwise is completely unrealistic. The bill that is likely going to pass is going to do so by the skin of its teeth in the Senate. Add a few hundred billion to it, and you'll get a party-line vote...which adds up to FAIL.
And I have no clue as to why you consider this the end of the big spending bills. Did you not hear Geithner utter the figure $1.5 trillion? And that's just approaching the problem from one side.
Personally, I wish it was possible to get a bigger bill passed. I'm just not willing to see this bill fail in protest of a bigger bill not being presented.
February 12, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Boyd. I might add that even a $800 billion bill didn't pass.
It's arguable that had Obama abandoned his play for consensus, he could have gotten a bigger bill through the House. So? He still didn't have the votes in the Senate. What he had the votes for was $798 billion, with a third of it going to tax cuts.
To identified who "failed" in producing a "crappy" bill assumes there was some scenario under which a bill half again as large with $500 billion in infrastructure spending was possible.
February 12, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have been clearer about whom I blame. I blame Obama primarily. But when I wrote this post the bill was already in conference, so Reid and Pelosi were the ones who still had a chance to fix it.
February 11, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd wager a month's pay that the White House was fully involved throughout the conference. And, again, Obama's original proposal was $825B - which, while very likely not big enough to fully address the coming loss of demand, is still a massive case of sticker shock.
I really don't think a bigger bill would have ever made it through the Senate - and it might have even died in the House. Remember, most of the Blue Dogs went along with the bill, but I have grave reservations about them signing on for something twice as big (which would probably have still been about a trillion short).
February 12, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right about Obama's involvement in the conference. But the exact percentage of blame I personally assign to various politicians is not really the issue. My point is, Obama started out failing and then managed to fail even more by the time the legislative process was complete. Why not start with the right bill, and do everything you can to pass it?
Why not start with $2 or $2.5 trillion, and try to find 60 Senators and 218 Congresspeople? Then if that doesn't work, and you have to compromise, maybe you take $25 billion out and it's still twice as large as it is now. Why not come out at the beginning and say, this is the bill, and it is properly designed, and it includes state aid, food stamps, unemployment benefits, infrastructure projects and tax credits for the poor, and anyone that doesn't think that is the right thing is simply wrong -- and then publicly call out anyone who thinks the rich need more money or that we should let people starve or die?
What Obama did was start too small, invite the Republicans to screw up the bill, and then once Nelson and Collins were done with it, it really sucked. His approach was wrong from the beginning, which meant that once the idiots and wackos were finished the bill was really, really wrong.
February 12, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like what you describe as being a good approach to a trillion-dollar stimulus. The only explanation I can think of is that the political calculus dictated it simply wouldn't fly at that price, period.
Then again, what good is 65% approval if you don't take it for a spin on the big stuff?
February 12, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
(1) There is no way a trillion-dollar stimulus will get through Congress at the present time. Yes, I know there are economists calling for a $2T to $3T package. It will not pass at that size. The one we have now barely got through the Senate. Congress would likely revolt against a bigger package - including a number of Blue Dogs who didn't cross over on this one.
(2) The "garbage" produced by Congress is pretty much what the President wanted, in the size he wanted, on the timeline he wanted. (He said he wanted a $825B deal done by the end fo the first week in February.)
I can understand complaining about the stimulus, but it adds up to a political win for Obama. So, if you're THAT unhappy about it, why are you just blaming Reid and Pelosi? This is not their package, ultimately. It's Obama's.
(3) I think this bill is not the end of the salvos being fired into the economy. And, by the time the government is done, I would expect several trillion dollars to have been plowed into it. It is, however, likely unrealistic to expect a $3T stimulus package to pass in one shot.
February 11, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) There is no way a trillion-dollar stimulus will get through Congress at the present time. Yes, I know there are economists calling for a $2T to $3T package. It will not pass at that size. The one we have now barely got through the Senate. Congress would likely revolt against a bigger package - including a number of Blue Dogs who didn't cross over on this one.
(2) The "garbage" produced by Congress is pretty much what the President wanted, in the size he wanted, on the timeline he wanted. (He said he wanted a $825B deal done by the end fo the first week in February.)
I can understand complaining about the stimulus, but it adds up to a political win for Obama. So, if you're THAT unhappy about it, why are you just blaming Reid and Pelosi? This is not their package, ultimately. It's Obama's.
(3) I think this bill is not the end of the salvos being fired into the economy. And, by the time the government is done, I would expect several trillion dollars to have been plowed into it. It is, however, likely unrealistic to expect a $3T stimulus package to pass in one shot.
February 11, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the graduated approach. We can build on it and get a bigger bang for the buck politically. If we did it all at once, no one will remember in 2 years how we improved. If we see results and hit it again for more of the same, the Reich will continue fading. I like that!
February 11, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you on this Gregor. I am not going to pan this package. I refuse to.
First, I have not read it.
Second, I will not understand it when I do.
Third, I cannot conceptualize 800 billion dollars
Fourth, the republicans hate it, so it must be good on a lot of different fronts.
Fifth, the republicans keep saying it is socialism, which is a good thing.
Sixth, like you intimate, this is three weeks into a change.
Seventh, we just finished with an administration that wrote out racist jokes and distributed them from the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. Anything is better than that.
Eighth, we do need at least two reps to back legislation in the Senate. Doing nothing is very bad. And this is the first of many pieces of legislation.
THE END for now
February 11, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that now the "centrists" and fake Dems and Republicans know they can push Obama and the Democrats around. Obama should have done everything he could to shut them down and out. Now we have to go through this with these freaks every time we want to do anything. Can you imagine the antics if they try to do health care this year? "Prescription coverage? Why, when I was a child a hot poultice was good enough for anybody!" "Long-term care? Get a job, Grandpa!"
February 12, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
To my eyes these obstructionists are exposing themselves as simply that. If we go through this again, the Reich reveals itself as opposed to aiding the people. They oppose everyone except the ones who would actually have enough money to pay taxes, that is. Those people can help themselves. They have been helping themselves. They are the ones who belong on Mars where they can learn that they need everyone to survive and thrive in order to enhance their own existence. Otherwise, they get everything and are all alone. How pathetic is that?
February 12, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink