Just to be sure I'm clear

[Elvado]

the Economic Stimulus Plan approved in the House contains the following:

1. $335 Million for STD Prevention

2. A tax refund check for people who don't even have to file a return

3. A mechanism to allow people without a SSN to get a refund

I usually hate symbolic measures, but I actually believe the GOP members did the right thing here. It was readily apparent to me that the Democrats wanted "bipartisan" votes for cover only. That is to say,if it succeeds, it is theirs and theirs alone. However, if it should fail, they don't want to own it.

Curious to see what the Senate and the conference committee do with this one. Maybe we can get an ice cream maker for one of the dorms thrown in too.

[Boz]

I would like to request $50M for analytical research into and communication of geophysical and temporo-spatial anomalies as proposed by and in relation to fabricated digitally broadcast narrative structures.

In other words, could you pay me please to stay home and watch "Lost"?

[Filo]

The problem for Republicans is that any protests are hollow and, frankly, hypocritical, after 8 years of allowing Bush to completely abandon Republican Party principles of small government and fiscal conservatism.

[TBird41]

Jan 29, 2009 16:36:06 GMT -5 Filo said:

The problem for Republicans is that any protests are hollow and, frankly, hypocritical, after 8 years of allowing Bush to completely abandon Republican Party principles of small government and fiscal conservatism.

That's true, but the Republicans aren't going to earn back their place as the party of limited government by continuing to abandon their principles and supporting a massive appropriations bill masquerading as a stimulus.

[Filo]

That's also true!

[Bando]

I really think this was a losing move for the Republicans, for the following reasons:

1. It let the President own the "bipartisan" label. Even though the concessions he offered were fairly weak (that contraception funding he cut will find its way into a later bill), he's going to be remembered as the one who sought conciliation. Furthermore, the GOP PR operation should have been ready for the "slapped the outstretched hand" meme that emanated later from the White House.

2. It put the House Republicans in the position of voting against tax cuts. If you don't think this vote is going to make it to an ad in November 2010, you're fooling yourselves.

3. The President and congressional Democrats now have a ready-made excuse to exclude Republicans from future bills, which will result in more liberal legislation. Especially since the Republicans don't have the power to effectively delay anything (the Dems only need one liberal Republican to stop a filibuster).

4. The House Republicans have now gone all-in against economic recovery. That is, they're betting against the economy improving in the next two years. This is a terrible position to be in. If the economy improves at all (whether or not the stimulus bill has anything to do with it), these Congressmen are screwed.

I mean, I don't know exactly what move the GOP should have made here. Politically, though, this option is a guaranteed loser.

[Boz]

I think you are wrong on #1. (Well, I think you are wrong on a few, but I will only go into detail on #1 for now).

I had the misfortune of being stuck in an auto service shop for three hours this morning, which meant three hours of CNN, in addition to being able to read several news sources online.

Yes, CNN made a point of playing Robert Gibbs' sound bite about bipartisanship, but they have several commentators on as well as the hosts who were really questioning how "bipartisan" this really was. CNN even spent a good deal of time talking about the Democrats who disagreed with this bill. And how, while polling still narrowly favors the stimulus, that there is a lot of doubt among the public and many economists whether this is really a good idea or not.

Now, I'm sure MSNBC was playing up the Gibbs/Dem talking points a little more, and I'm sure Fox had more of the Republicans' back on this. But if even CNN is not really believing the myth of bipartisanship here, then I don't really think that's the prevailing story from today.

We shall see.

If I have time, maybe I'll respond to the other points, but for now, I want to get back to the Chelsea match.

[jerseyhoya34]

Irrespective of whether this is good or bad politics, my $.02 is that the absence of Republican votes for the bill inspires confidence. To the extent Senate Republicans follow suit, it will likewise inspire confidence in the bill. As to the Senate Republicans, they also voted unanimously for the purportedly strict constructionist who couldn't even handle the Presidential oath of 35 words. Senate Republicans, with the exception of Lincoln Chafee, also voted unanimously for the IWR - to disarm Iraq of WMD despite the fact that Saddam had none at the time of the war and could not at the time attack his neighbors with spitballs let alone the United States with missiles. This is not exactly a distinguished record of getting things right. For the sake of the country, I hope they can get back on the balance beam soon.

Yet, it is to Obama's credit that he has reached out so aggressively to Congressional Republicans. I have not seen an argument that Obama steamrolled this one or railroaded Congress. That is good policy (despite the less than inspirational record of many Congressional Republicans) even if it is not necessarily good politics.

My view of this vote is that the Republicans did not offer an alternative or, to the extent that they supported an alternative, they did not make a credible effort to get behind it and explain why. So, Bando hit the nail on the head in point #3.

[nychoya3]

"2. A tax refund check for people who don't even have to file a return"

Can a conservative on the board explain to me the problem with this? Why are payroll taxes not real taxes? And if you're bashing the stimulus for not being, well, stimulating enough, shouldn't you be happy about putting money in the pockets of people with a much higher propensity to spend that money than the wealthier parts of the population? Honest question.

[Bando]

Jan 29, 2009 23:32:11 GMT -5 nychoya3 said:

"2. A tax refund check for people who don't even have to file a return"

Can a conservative on the board explain to me the problem with this? Why are payroll taxes not real taxes? And if you're bashing the stimulus for not being, well, stimulating enough, shouldn't you be happy about putting money in the pockets of people with a much higher propensity to spend that money than the wealthier parts of the population? Honest question.

Also, the EITC was totally Milton Friedman's baby. He, of course, was the most notorious bleeding heart communist of his day.

[Bando]

Jan 29, 2009 20:26:55 GMT -5 Boz said:

I think you are wrong on #1. (Well, I think you are wrong on a few, but I will only go into detail on #1 for now).

I had the misfortune of being stuck in an auto service shop for three hours this morning, which meant three hours of CNN, in addition to being able to read several news sources online.

Yes, CNN made a point of playing Robert Gibbs' sound bite about bipartisanship, but they have several commentators on as well as the hosts who were really questioning how "bipartisan" this really was. CNN even spent a good deal of time talking about the Democrats who disagreed with this bill. And how, while polling still narrowly favors the stimulus, that there is a lot of doubt among the public and many economists whether this is really a good idea or not.

Now, I'm sure MSNBC was playing up the Gibbs/Dem talking points a little more, and I'm sure Fox had more of the Republicans' back on this. But if even CNN is not really believing the myth of bipartisanship here, then I don't really think that's the prevailing story from today.

We shall see.

If I have time, maybe I'll respond to the other points, but for now, I want to get back to the Chelsea match.

I think you're wrong about that (shocking, I know). Even if you think Obama didn't convey bipartisanship, it's not like the GOP were being concilatory here. Also, despite what's playing on TV now, all anyone is going to remember about this in 6 months to a year is that all the Republicans voted against, and even if they don't remember Obama's gestures here, they're going to remember the whole post-partisan schtick he's been cultivating for years now.

Even if you don't see this as a political winner for the Prez, it's not a win for GOP, right?

[Elvado]

Lest I be accused of right wing hackery, I'm not suggesting this was a "political" winner for the GOP. I'm just glad they did not bow to the false gods of "cooperation" and "bipartisanship" and vote for this bill.

[Bando]

Jan 30, 2009 7:04:07 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Lest I be accused of right wing hackery, I'm not suggesting this was a "political" winner for the GOP. I'm just glad they did not bow to the false gods of "cooperation" and "bipartisanship" and vote for this bill.

Who cares about the merits? It's the politics that are interesting! ;D

[TBird41]

Jan 29, 2009 19:31:12 GMT -5 Bando said:

I really think this was a losing move for the Republicans, for the following reasons:

1. It let the President own the "bipartisan" label. Even though the concessions he offered were fairly weak (that contraception funding he cut will find its way into a later bill), he's going to be remembered as the one who sought conciliation. Furthermore, the GOP PR operation should have been ready for the "slapped the outstretched hand" meme that emanated later from the White House.

I'm with Boz on this one. And the PR game will depend a lot on how much explaining the Ds let Nancy Pelosi do:



(And don't look now, but public support for this bill is falling:
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to_42

2. It put the House Republicans in the position of voting against tax cuts. If you don't think this vote is going to make it to an ad in November 2010, you're fooling yourselves.

This is true. Then again, most of the Rs in the House at this point are conservative enough that its going to be hard to paint them as tax raisers. You can call people all the names you want, but if the people don't believe it, it won't matter.

3. The President and congressional Democrats now have a ready-made excuse to exclude Republicans from future bills, which will result in more liberal legislation. Especially since the Republicans don't have the power to effectively delay anything (the Dems only need one liberal Republican to stop a filibuster).

They were going to exclude the Rs anyway, just like they did with this bill, which makes me think they're going to continue to "include" the Rs on a few more bills by bringing them into meetings, listening to their concerns and then not addressing any of them.

4. The House Republicans have now gone all-in against economic recovery. That is, they're betting against the economy improving in the next two years. This is a terrible position to be in. If the economy improves at all (whether or not the stimulus bill has anything to do with it), these Congressmen are screwed.

The sad thing is, I don't think betting against the economy is a bad bet by the Republicans. And it doesn't hurt that they can point to a stimulus that was barely a stimulus, as the CBO said (and just wait until this thing gets enacted and we start getting even more fun stories about the lack of oversight and the pet projects, like billions in money for parks that the group Obey's son lobbies for). I think it helps that the House Rs can say, we went, we talked with Obama about our concerns, he didn't address them and we voted against what we thought was a horrifically large appropriation with little to no stimulating effects. We didn't block anything.

I'm not sure the Senate Rs can say that if they filibuster the stimulus, but I'm not sure they're going to do that. McConnell's a pretty solid politician, so I expect them to have a good plan.

[TBird41]

Jan 29, 2009 22:43:34 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Irrespective of whether this is good or bad politics, my $.02 is that the absence of Republican votes for the bill inspires confidence. To the extent Senate Republicans follow suit, it will likewise inspire confidence in the bill. As to the Senate Republicans, they also voted unanimously for the purportedly strict constructionist who couldn't even handle the Presidential oath of 35 words. Senate Republicans, with the exception of Lincoln Chafee, also voted unanimously for the IWR - to disarm Iraq of WMD despite the fact that Saddam had none at the time of the war and could not at the time attack his neighbors with spitballs let alone the United States with missiles. This is not exactly a distinguished record of getting things right. For the sake of the country, I hope they can get back on the balance beam soon.

Yet, it is to Obama's credit that he has reached out so aggressively to Congressional Republicans. I have not seen an argument that Obama steamrolled this one or railroaded Congress. That is good policy (despite the less than inspirational record of many Congressional Republicans) even if it is not necessarily good politics.

My view of this vote is that the Republicans did not offer an alternative or, to the extent that they supported an alternative, they did not make a credible effort to get behind it and explain why. So, Bando hit the nail on the head in point #3.

They eat this stuff up on Huffington and Daily Kos, don't they?

[Bando]

Liberal groups running ads in swing states against congressional Republicans: "Are you with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?" (Politico)

[EasyEd]

Seems to me being bipartisan on a bill like this should means involving both parties in the actual formulation of the bill, giving both parties some input into the bill itself. What the President was trying to do was to persuade Republicans to accept the Democratic Party's bill. That's not bipartisanship, that's trying to get enough Republican votes so he could say his bill had bipartisan support. This is not to say the Republicans did not do the same thing on many bills in the past but they did not campaign on the lofty theme of bipartisanship and post-partisanship.

I also applaud the Republicans for unanimously opposing this bill. Most of you on this board are much younger than I and I'm just wondering how you feel about the fact it is you and your children who will have to pay for this $1 Trillion + deficit per year. This madness started with Bush's TARP spending but the Democrats are taking it to a new level of outrageous spending.

I honestly don't care right now what the political consequences of the Republicans' actions, they did the right thing to oppose spending gone out of control. The political consequences will, as always, be dictated by how the press reports it.

[TC]

Comparing Bush's TARP and this bill is a ridiculous comparison. This bill has things like weatherization, electric grid improvements, energy efficiency, and renewable energy investment that all have quantifiable years to payback.

Can anyone tell us when or if we will get the TARP money back? Or even where it went?

Love how elvado is concentrating on .0004% of the spending in this bill. Maybe he can develop some outrage about the pennies sitting in his couch.

[Boz]

Jan 29, 2009 22:43:34 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Irrespective of whether this is good or bad politics, my $.02 is that the absence of Republican votes for the bill inspires confidence. To the extent Senate Republicans follow suit, it will likewise inspire confidence in the bill. As to the Senate Republicans, they also voted unanimously for the purportedly strict constructionist who couldn't even handle the Presidential oath of 35 words. Senate Republicans, with the exception of Lincoln Chafee, also voted unanimously for the IWR - to disarm Iraq of WMD despite the fact that Saddam had none at the time of the war and could not at the time attack his neighbors with spitballs let alone the United States with missiles. This is not exactly a distinguished record of getting things right. For the sake of the country, I hope they can get back on the balance beam soon.

Yet, it is to Obama's credit that he has reached out so aggressively to Congressional Republicans. I have not seen an argument that Obama steamrolled this one or railroaded Congress. That is good policy (despite the less than inspirational record of many Congressional Republicans) even if it is not necessarily good politics.

My view of this vote is that the Republicans did not offer an alternative or, to the extent that they supported an alternative, they did not make a credible effort to get behind it and explain why. So, Bando hit the nail on the head in point #3.

A. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the comment about John Roberts was a joke. If you are actually saying that he is not fit for SCOTUS, or that Republicans were in error to vote for him, I really don't think that's a supportable argument.

B. I forgot that the initial vote on Iraq was so partisan. All of those Senate Democrats voted against it, if I recall correctly. Oh, wait, that's right. They only came out against it AFTER they voted for it.

Sorry for the snark, but I think it was earned in those first initial comments.

C. On to more substantive issues, if you really believe that the Republicans are offering no alternatives or are not making the case for those alternatives, then with all due respect, I don't really think you are paying attention. Republicans have been all over the papers, airwaves and tubes, talking about not only how this bill is bad, but how it can and should be made better. The mainstream media is reporting that, and people are listening.

Obama has a lot of good will, and I do believe his efforts are genuine. But if you believe that good will extends to the Congressional leadership, I think you are sorely mistaken on that count. People are skeptical of this bill and they are willing listen to those who oppose it, particularly after TARP.

Furthermore, if this is such a great and wonderful bill, then why are we hearing now from Nelson, McCaskill and Warner about things like "Gang of 14," and how this bill really doesn't have enough job creation in it and needs a LOT more work? Last I checked, those people didn't "vote in a block" with Republicans.

And ed's point is right on. This is not a knock on Obama, but on Nancy Pelosi. Sure, it's all fine and good for Obama to say, I went and talked to Republicans. But what exactly were the substantive items that Pelosi actually allowed Republicans to have in this bill where she can honestly claim bipartisanship? (OK, maybe it's a little bit of a knock on Obama, since he should be able to have some influence over Pelosi, but only an indirect knock).

Finally, this is not relevant to this particular discussion, and it is simply a prediction on my part, but I don't think Robert Gibbs is going to last a long time as press secretary. Just my opinion, as is everything else preceding.

[jerseyhoya34]

Jan 30, 2009 9:29:36 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Jan 29, 2009 22:43:34 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Irrespective of whether this is good or bad politics, my $.02 is that the absence of Republican votes for the bill inspires confidence. To the extent Senate Republicans follow suit, it will likewise inspire confidence in the bill. As to the Senate Republicans, they also voted unanimously for the purportedly strict constructionist who couldn't even handle the Presidential oath of 35 words. Senate Republicans, with the exception of Lincoln Chafee, also voted unanimously for the IWR - to disarm Iraq of WMD despite the fact that Saddam had none at the time of the war and could not at the time attack his neighbors with spitballs let alone the United States with missiles. This is not exactly a distinguished record of getting things right. For the sake of the country, I hope they can get back on the balance beam soon.

Yet, it is to Obama's credit that he has reached out so aggressively to Congressional Republicans. I have not seen an argument that Obama steamrolled this one or railroaded Congress. That is good policy (despite the less than inspirational record of many Congressional Republicans) even if it is not necessarily good politics.

My view of this vote is that the Republicans did not offer an alternative or, to the extent that they supported an alternative, they did not make a credible effort to get behind it and explain why. So, Bando hit the nail on the head in point #3.

They eat this stuff up on Huffington and Daily Kos, don't they?

I don't know, as I don't visit those sites regularly. I would assume that sites that attend to getting things right and acting upon facts (i.e. Iraq WMD issue) would eat it up.