So Every House Republican Voted Against Stimulus. What Do We Learn?
| Thu Jan. 29, 2009 6:52 AM PST
Right now, the new era of bipartisanship in Washington is unilateral.
The massive stimulus package passed the House yesterday with zero Republican votes. Obama, who had hoped for a widely supported bill, got stonewalled despite doing three things: (1) fashioning roughly 1/3 of the package out of tax cuts, which the GOP loves; (2) going to the House Republican caucus and asking for their input; and (3) pulling provisions from the bill that Republicans didn't like (see previous post). House Republicans acknowledged all of this, thanked the President, talked smack about the House Democrats, and voted against the bill anyway.
So what does Obama do now?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
(1) Take stock. He certainly isn't going to stop reaching out to Republicans — to ditch the central premise of his campaign after one negative experience would be preposterous. But he can acknowledge that the output is the same. If he doesn't reach out to the Republicans, he will get slammed for being partisan and get zero votes for his priorities. If he does reach out to Republicans, he will get thanked for his efforts and get zero votes for his priorities (as we've seen). Either way, Republicans remain an unhelpful, recalcitrant bunch.
(2) Lowball. Next time, instead of reaching out to Republicans with a serious attempt to include their priorities (30 percent of the stimulus in tax cuts), Obama should start lower (10 percent?) and negotiate up. His bipartisan credentials will only be burnished by the fact that he went through the process of wrangling with the opposition and adding pieces it supports bit by bit.
(3) Stand strong when necessary. Obama should be less willing to ditch important provisions that Republicans oppose. They'll oppose the final bill regardless. And remember that there are the members of the Democratic caucus that need to be greased, too. MSNBC's First Read wrote today, "We've been hearing chatter from congressional Democrats that they'd like the president to act as concerned about winning their support as he acts when it comes to the Republicans." If Obama cuts too many progressive priorities from a major bill because the Republicans demand it, he will have an even bigger mess to deal with.
(4) Finally, play the PR game. Did Big O forget that he's the guy with the soaring popularity recently elected with a mandate for change? And that Republicans, who have a popularity rating under 30 percent if polling is to be believed, got their tails kicked in November? Make some hay out of this situation in the media. Obama should take to the microphones and explain exactly how far backward he bent over to make this bill one that everyone could get behind. Make the Republicans look bad. Make them think twice about unified opposition next time. So what if it turns into a war of the words — who is the public going to sympathize with, Obama or John Boehner? (Especially considering the public is strongly behind massive stimulus.) Obama doesn't have to create bipartisanship by kowtowing to GOP demands. He can create bipartisanship by making people terrified of opposing him.
Photo by flickr user Barack Obama used under a Creative Commons license.
Comments
Obama should propose and put together the best plans he can. Offer to listen to the GOP ideas but do not compromise his ideals and values to please them. Do the RIGHT thing and let the GOP chips fall where they may. They will never support the plans anyway. Use his Democratic support wisely, and let the American people decide if they like the result in 2010 and 2012. The Republicans will do whatever they do, regardless. They are irrelevant because they are currently being led by nose by a radio wing nut who has a very checkered history.
Steve High --
No, they can't. But I wouldn't worry about the bill passing the Senate. The Republicans in the Senate are more moderate than they are in the House. And they are more easily "persuaded" with a well-placed pet project.
Thanks, Jonathan. If I may follow up, what was the "nuclear option" threatened by McConnell when he was majority leader? Is the cloture rule something set once a session by the Senate's organization bill? How did it get from 67 to 60? I appreciate your help; I really don't know.
Submitted by Pete (not verified) on Thu Jan. 29, 2009 11:09 AM PST.
He takes the high road, continues to pursue bipartisanship, and never says "I told you so" when the stimulus plan helps steer the economy back to recovery. Smallminded pettiness and finger-pointing is just so 2001-08.
Submitted by Kimthejournalist (not verified) on Thu Jan. 29, 2009 11:26 AM PST.
Here's a lesson from Bush: If you oppose me, you love the terrorists and hate America.
That's a sinister lesson, but not necessarily one that President Obama can't turn to his advantage. If you disagree with the stimulus, you hate your district, its residents, its businesses, its economy? It sounds extreme and very Rovian but if the GOP wants to play hardball I think it's high time we stepped up to the plate. I'm sick of liberals getting trampled because we grant concessions and play nice. As the author said, "They'll oppose the final bill regardless."
So make the final bill one that the public-- which has mandated a progressive agenda-- will support, and let the GOP vote against it. Let them further alienate themselves. I see no point in bipartisanship when the other party has horrible ideas. It's like the elementary school contests where everybody wins-- nothing will get done.
John Boehner has gone from being Bush's puppet to being Rush Limbaugh's puppet by doing everything he can to make Obama fail so Boehner can win the Benedict Arnold Award.
"Every House Republican Voted Against Stimulus" confirms the rumors that anyone walking by any republican meeting swears they hear "gobble, gobble, gobble" from Boehner's gang of turkeys.
So the best answer to "So what does Obama do now?" is your recommendation (4) because We The People that gave the democrats the majority now know beyond all doubt that the GOP did everything they could to destroy the American way of life during the Bush Autocracy, and this latest unanimous vote proves the GOP is not done betraying America yet.
Is the author the village idiot? This is not political but commonsense economics. Yes, that sounds simplistic, but I am very liberal, and the laundry list of pork makes me sick. We need stimulus, not pork, and most of the list is pork. We liberals have to admit this, to do otherwise would be no better then a Rush-head agreeing down the line. I have friends and family out of work, housing is still tanking, the credit markets are not working, and we are in for even more pain. This kind of stunt is why there is such dismall approval ratings for congress. I can't believe I am saying this but.. I am ashamed to be a liberal today.
The Senate republicans will not filibuster this bill. They will likely not vote for it, as is, though. You may pick up 4 to 6 GOP votes unless a majority of pork is culled.
This is a bad, pork laden bill that will do more to pay back liberal voting blocks than to stimulate the economy. They'd be better to cut taxes and extend unemployment and nothing more, the economy will bounce back soon enough.
It's a bad bill for stimulating the economy. Most of the infrastructure projects won't get going for 2 years and history shows they don't do much anyway -- think Japan for the last 12 years. Pet projects like "green energy" are, right now, money sinks, and cutting FICA taxes for a brief time does nothing for stimulus but instead will be used to pay down credit cards. Those things are not stimulating the economy.
What he should have done is cut the Corporate Income tax by 2/3rds and used short term credits for each new hire. Companies put people to work. They also make decisions about letting people go. If you want to fight unemployment and all the negative effects that has on the overall economy, help companies to keep the workers they have and even hire new ones. Employeed people spend money. This bill does nothing like that and instead does almost everything to waste $800B on people-positive, economic-negative notions from the left. The Republicans were 100% correct in voting no. A much better bill should be written.
Dave Nelson, I agree with
Submitted by College Student (not verified) on Sun Feb. 15, 2009 6:03 PM PST.
Dave Nelson, I agree with you completely. Enough said.
Wow, I cannot believe how wrong you are. 1. Obama should actually try to go through with his bipartisan rhetoric. To simply show-up for some photo-ops does not count as being bipartisan. And, the only time that he listened to the Republican is when he took off a piece of pork that even he knew would draw questions. Contraceptives, stimulating something, but not the economy. 2. Lowball? Obama ran on tax cuts. Remember the million campaign ads that he ran touting his 95% taxcut. He put that in to fulfill a campaign promise. Other than that, there was not a single concession made. He just went to the Hill, said "I won", and expected everybody to jump on board because of the crisis. Well, miss management will only make a crisis worse. 3. Stand strong? How about stand-up to those in his own party that are walking all over his agenda. Those few that are treating this crisis as a means to get every pet/pork project on their shelfs funded. And, that does not count the ways in which they have skirted the lobbiest rules by sending money to statehouses with broad spending rules. Reports in my state have already gone out talking about how so many lobbiests have been calling the state capital that they had to hire a new operator. (The first job created by this bill, and it is to arrange pork!!!) 4. PR is all this bill is. Empty words and promises. There better be changes after going through the Senate or the Democrats are going to own this bill. And, if results are seen in six months, then people are going to remember that the Democratic party is who spent a trillion dollars (they estimate 340 pluss billion in interest) to get little in return.
What bipartisanship? Yes, Obama TALKED to Rep. leaders, but NOTHING, NOTHING (other than Pelosi's STD funding) was changed. There was NO COMPROMISE by the Democrats. ZERO.
So, why would Reps. not vote against it?
Most of the money is not geared toward jobs. Most of it will not be spent until just before the mid-term elections in 2010.
Reps. would vote for it if it had few things:
1. Got RID of spending projects that did not concentrate on jobs (National Arts spending? Nice, but not a stimulus.)
2. Pushed spending EARLIER, when it is needed. The budget office predicts that the economy will start to grow again in 2010, that's when most spending will happen. We need the spending NOW.
3. More tax cuts for individuals (not welfare) and TEMPORARY cust in taxes on investments (what we need) and tax credit for home buyers, repairs, etc...
This is a PARTISAN bill, that is nothing more than spending.
Even if the plan did create 3 million new jobs, it would be a cost of almost $300,000 per job.
That's not stimulus, it's a payoff spending plan.
OPEN YOUR EYES!
A recent look and published quoted that less than 15% will be spent in 2009. Also, less than half of the spending would affect job numbers.
This is a pork bill, and only about 25% stimulus. Take the PORK out and move spending earlier, and Repubs would vote for it.
Bipartisanship comes from the party in power. The party in power needs to make concessions to get the party not in power on board. Or they can just do the party-line thing, which is what Obama did, which is fine, but is not bipartisan.
But this isn't really about Obama; this is the House Democrats, who have zero interest in bipartisanship.
I also agree with those that say maybe it is better that the Democrats own this thing. That way, it will be clear who to blame/credit in 2010 and 2012 with the outcome.
So, when this 'stimulus' package fails,(and it will) does that mean power shifts back to Republicans? Scary thought, but as has been stated, nothing in this bill is going to do a bit of good. What will the Dem excuse be in 2010 and can Obama survive what will be an colossal failure come 2012?
The excuse will be that it is Bush's fault. And that will be the excuse in 2012 and 2014 and 2016 and until people forget who Bush was.
It may work, it may not. The GOP got slaughtered in 1982 on the "stay the course" line, as did the Dems in 1994.
I tend to think the Obama has 18 months to end the recession. If not, the Dems will get creamed in 2010.
Amazing that the GOP couldn't be persuaded into permanently expanding the federal government's role in education (yeah, the area where they don't have any consitutitional authority) and elsewhere. This is just another attempt to expand the federal government, reduce the effectiveness of the state and local governments and buy votes. In a way, it's too bad that the GOP somehow managed to stop the $100 million in condoms and the $20 million in sod for the mall damaged by the inauguration. Those were some of the many cherries on the top of this pork sundae.
Obama gets credit for going through the Republican caucus and pulling some bad measures, but those two factors alone were not sufficient to rescue the other undesirable parts of the bill. The alleged tax cuts were actually nothing more than barely disguised welfare programs. The retort that the people getting refunds for not paying income taxes also pay payroll taxes is a non-starter. Obama didn't cut payroll taxes. If he had, then the bill would have probably got support. Also, he didn't target the tax cuts at the most stimulating part of the economy; capital gains. Ultimately, if Obama wants bipartisan support he has to reach out substantively, not rhetorically (words) or mechanically (going through the caucus).
PR from any direction, opinions from either side as to the merits of this legislation really don't matter. Why should the Democrats care about what the Republicans think of their bill? And should Republicans vote for it if they believe it will harm the country.
What will matter for the country is whether this legislation is effective. What will matter for the political parties is how voters will evaluate its effectiveness in coming election cycles. And all the smiles and PR in the world will not override voters looking at where the dollars came from and where they went and deciding if this was good legislation.
It doesn't matter who thinks this is a good and necessary idea now. The Democrats will pass (and are entitled to pass)whatever they want. People don't seem to remember the years when the Democrats voted against Republican budgets at the same time they intentionally refused to offer any alternative whatsoever. They were vindicated when voters rejected a Republican party which the Democrats could justifiably pin with the full responsibility for our current financial mess. They were elected to straighten out the mess. They don't need the Republicans to help them do what they believe is right.
They simply have to understand that, like the wrongheaded and arrogant Republicans, that they will get full credit for their efforts. For better or worse. That's the way it works.
To Dave Nelson,
What you are saying is called supply-side economics and does not work. This is proven by where we are now. What good is it to give companies big tax breaks when nobody can afford to buy their products? Demand can exist without supply but supply will not/should not exist without demand. Companies make decisions about hiring and firing based on sales, not tax breaks.
This alleged "article" of fearless journalism is nothing more than a partisan rant from a partisan hack. I am no Democrat, nor am I a Republican. It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of objectivity, that both parties are nothing more than gangs of organized criminals. That being said, the "author's" viewpoint is as disgraceful as the Democratic Stimulus Rip Off. Are Field Marshall Pelosi's comments ("we won"/deal with it) reaching out? When the Democrats schemed up this crime of a bill, was not consulting a single Republican reaching out? Was that "bringing us together", or was that more Capone's gang is in charge and it's intent on wiping out Bugs Moran's crew?
Answer: The latter.
The rinos in congress like McCain snowe Collins Spectre and Graham will give him the bipartisian cover when this plan fails to do anything but pay back dem constituencies. The only thing it will stimulate is the democrats desire for more pork. The democratic idea of compromise is for republicans to bend over backwards and kiss their *ss.
Submitted by Dave_S (not verified) on Thu Jan. 29, 2009 1:04 PM PST.
Inviting Republicans over to the White House for a Super Bowl party or cocktails is no more bipartisanship when Obama does it than when Bush tried the same thing. That Republicans (and a few Democrats) voted against the government wasting $850 billion that it doesn't have sounds like a pretty reasonable thing to me.
By the way, it is easy to mention how unpopular Republicans are right now, especially with Obama's current popularity, but don't forget that Democrats in Congress aren't exactly dazzling people with their approval ratings.
And regarding Stein column, please DO NOT work with republicans is correct. We don't any of the stain of this worthless robbery on our hands. If this passes you just over the Senate to us in 2010 and Obama becomes a one termer.
What a great day this has turned out to be.
Get with it folks. Obama's talk of Post Partisanship was a bunch of campaign huey. Even if he intended it Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will see that it never happens. And for future reference sending money to people who don't pay taxes is called welfare, but not tax cuts and was hardly designed to win Republican support. And finally the Democrats control everything by sizeable margins...the Presidency, the House, the Senate. They don't need Republicans...stop looking for cover and Govern. The next election is in 2010 and you'll be judged by your performance, and so far 2010 looks like a good Republican year!!!!
Here is the waste Obama promised to stop.
View the whole bill here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00001:@@@J
*
Economics and public finance
Administrative law and regulatory procedures
Advisory bodies
Aging
Agricultural conservation and pollution
Agricultural research
Air quality
Alternative and renewable resources
Appropriations
Aviation and airports
Border security and unlawful immigration
Broadcasting, cable, digital media
Budget process
Buy American requirements
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Child health
Climate change
Congressional agencies
Congressional oversight
Corporate finance and management
Corporation for National and Community Service
Defense spending
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of the Interior
Disability and paralysis
District of Columbia
Economic development
Economic performance and conditions
Education of the disadvantaged
Education programs funding
Educational facilities and institutions
Electric power generation and transmission
Elementary and secondary education
Employment and training programs
Energy assistance for the poor and aged
Energy efficiency and conservation
Energy research
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Executive agency funding and structure
Financial crises and failures
Financial services and investments
Fires
Floods and storm protection
Food assistance and relief
Foreign labor
Forests
General Services Administration
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Government buildings, facilities, and property
Government corporations and government-sponsored enterprises
Government information and archives
Government investigations
Government lending
Government trust funds
Hazardous wastes and toxic substances
Health care costs and insurance
Health care coverage and access
Health care quality
Health facilities and institutions
Health information and medical records
Health personnel
Health programs administration and funding
Health promotion and preventive care
Health technology, devices, supplies
Higher education
Homelessness and emergency shelter
Housing and community development funding
Housing finance and home ownership
Housing for the elderly and disabled
Humanities programs funding
Income tax credits
Income tax deductions
Income tax rates
Indian social and development programs
Infrastructure development
Interest and interest rates
International organizations and cooperation
Internet and video services
Labor standards
Latin America
Law enforcement administration and funding
Low- and moderate-income housing
Medicaid
Medicare
Mexico
Military facilities and property
Minority health
Mississippi River
Motor vehicles
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Guard and reserves
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Science Foundation
Oil and gas
Parks, recreation areas, trails
Poverty and welfare assistance
Public contracts and procurement
Public housing
Public transit
Railroads
Research administration and funding
Residential rehabilitation and home repair
Roads and highways
Rural conditions and development
Securities
Separation, divorce, custody, support
Small Business Administration
Small business
Smithsonian Institution
Social Security Administration
Social security and elderly assistance
Social work, volunteer service, charitable organizations
Solid waste and recycling
Space flight and exploration
Special education
State and local finance
Student aid and college costs
Telecommunication rates and fees
Telephone and wireless communication
Transportation programs funding
Transportation safety and security
Unemployment
Veterans' education, employment, rehabilitation
Veterans' medical care
Wages and earnings
Water quality
Water resources funding
Watersheds
Wilderness and natural areas, wildlife refuges, wild rivers, habitats
Youth employment and child labor
THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal |
Smart by Obama to make some concessions and allow the GOP to hang itself.
Not ONE vote.
America sees one party where a good 90% thought this was a good bill and 10% did not. That happens to the best of bills.
The other party voted 100%. Which means they didn't even bother to read the bill and vote for their constituents. Party before country.
what bipartisanship are you talking about? nancy peloser said that she isn't in Washington to be bipartisan. How is it bipartisan to prevent the opposing party from offering or even discussing any amendments? This is just another power grab for the northeastern and western liberal elitists.
"If he does reach out to Republicans, he will get thanked for his efforts and get zero votes for his priorities (as we've seen). Either way, Republicans remain an unhelpful, recalcitrant bunch.
"
Replace the word republicans with the words African Americans and then replace the word he (meaning Obama) with the word republicans. gee see how that fits.
"Did Big O forget that he's the guy with the soaring popularity recently elected with a mandate for change?"
What popularity?
The Big O's popularity meant nothing the moment the public met a lady from Alaska. It took the economy tanking to put things back in the Big O's corner.
The Big O knows that the mob will turn against him soon.
This article is liberal arrogance. The libs only want us Conservatives to drop our principles and have no backbone. As far as support in politics that can change quick. All I remember is all the warrantless attacks of Bush the last 8 years. Never give in to libs.
It's kiind of like Mao said. The Chinese constitution guarantees the People the right to free speech. However, the Chinese Communist Party is the party of the People. Anyone who speaks against the Party is an enemy of the People and, therefore, does not have a right to free speech.
As a conservative, I always wondered exactly what leftists in America meant by bipartisanship. Finally, I understand what it means - agreeing 100% with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Anything else would be viciously partisan.
BTW
Remember when the first $700 billion bill didnt pass the House a few months back.
Republicans got blamed for it not passing when all the dems had to do was have all their members vote for it.
Another version passed and now they dems want to spend another trillion. 6 months from now the big 3 will have their hands out again so they can pay off the UAW (who will then pay off their dem congressmen).
how much is enough? Apparantly the dems never feel that X amount of dollars is too much as long as it is used to buying them votes and pandering to their constutiencies.
You conveniently left out the fact that a dozen Democratic House members broke rank and voted with Republicans against the bill. The only thing bipartisan about this legislation was the opposition to it! At the zenith of his popularity, President Obama could not even keep 100% of his own party in line to support the bill. That should tell you everything you need to know about the it's merit.
So, your Paulson's "give me 700 bilion right now, without oversight, without knowing how is it going to be spend was just superb republican administration under Bush approach, right? And now we just spend 19 bilion of taxpayers money out of that Paulson's idiotic idea to pay bonuses to fricking bankers that ruined world economy! And you all pissed off of about some stupid condoms that are not even in the bill anymore? Just because you can't count to twelve, since you only have ten fingers, don't insult our intelligence with your stupid vomit, little boy!
