The irony is that the Republicans will claim political posturing on the part of the Democrats. But the truth is that the Republican party cynically and complicitly ensured that the economic stimulus bill would be passed, all while playing politics to get reelected. I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, the fact that they did it or the fact that most Americans (including Gatherites) won't even catch on to the charade.
House of Cards
The facts: The final bill passed the House 246-183, with one voting present and three not voting. No Republicans voted for the bill, seven Democrats voted against.
The "posture": Republicans voted as a block against the bill because "it was loaded with pork...it is too much spending...yada yada yada." House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner - skillfully reading from the Republican party playbook without even using a teleprompter - declared that the package was a "billion-dollar-a-page" spending plan and accused Democrats of not wanting people to read it "because they might actually find out what's in it." This despite the fact that both the House and Senate plans had been posted on the internet and debated ad nauseum by everyone and their grandmother (even my own 100+ year old grandmother).
The analysis: Bunk (pure and unadulterated)
The truth: The truth is that this whole thing was a political stunt designed to ensure reelection of House members in 2010. As I'm sure anyone who has ever taken a civics class knows, Representatives are up for election every two years and are thus in constant campaign mode. No decision on anything important is made without first consulting the official party book of quotes and perhaps the reelection astrologer. Since all House districts are gerrymandered to protect the incumbent, virtually all important votes are designed to kowtow to the local voters. So, knowing that the Democrats had a significant majority in the House, Boehner and his boys (and girls) could safely vote against the bill knowing that it would pass. Had the situation been such that they would actually have had to take responsibility for their votes, many would have voted for the stimulus bill. To vote in such as way to have blocked the stimulus would have been irresponsible. Because the Republicans were in the minority, they could have their cake and eat it too.
Senatorial Gamesmanship
The facts: The final bill passed the Senate 60-38, with one not voting. Only three Republicans voted for the bill.
The "posture": Again the Republicans voted as a block against the bill for the same reasons stated by the House (see "yada yada yada" above). But wait, three Republicans voted for the bill, thus miraculously attaining the 60 votes needed both for cloture and for passage of the Senate bill.
The analysis: Come Watson, the game is afoot. (with apologies to Sherlock Holmes)
The truth: The truth is that the Republican vote in the Senate was orchestrated to ensure that the bill passed. Again, to have thwarted passage would have been irresponsible to the country, and no matter how it often appears, the Republican party is not about to destroy the country (on purpose). They understood the bill needed to pass, but also that they had to make a show for the voters back home. [For some reason the "fiscal conservatism" catch phrase works with Republican voters, despite the constant history of Republicans enlarging government and borrowing money from our children and China.] So what to do? What a perplexing problem - how to make sure the bill passes while claiming you are against spending. Aha!! Three Republicans are selected as the ones to negotiate terms. And just by chance they turn out to be the two Republican Senators from Maine (the last remnants of Republicanism in New England) and a senior Republican fellow from Pennsylvania, another state that has been leaning seriously Democratic in recent years.
So these three Senators get to show they are "moderates" to their home town voters (who tend to like moderates) while the rest of the Republican Senators get to appease their more fanatical right leaning voters back home (keeping in mind that most of the Republican Senators remaining are from the south, midwest or other very strongly conservative states).
In the end, everyone gets what they wants. Obama gets the stimulus package the country needs, the Democrats get a "win" against the obstructionist Republicans, and the Republicans get to sell the charade back home that they voted against pork spending.
The really crazy thing is that it was all a game from the beginning. Republicans wanted this stimulus package (including all the pork they themselves inserted) just as much as the Democrats. And they orchestrated (aka lied) to ensure it happened while they play the matyrs.
Frankly, I'm both amused and disgusted.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 223
Same old, same old.
Not that even an Executive Summary would matter much anyway. Most of the votes are based on how the "leadership" tells them they should vote, usually with an eye on how it impacts reelection. Do you really think that ALL Republicans think exactly alike? Or that all Democrats and the two Independents think exactly alike? No.
They play the game.
2010 might be the last fair and open election after the white house controlled 2010 census removes as many representatives from Republican states and from Republican regions within Democratic states. But a lot can happen in two years.
Sorry, I don't understand your second paragraph.
Getting back to Debby's comment, it does appear that not everyone is particularly observant or thinks multidimensionally.
It sucks.
I think that when President Obama promised ''bipartisanship'', he believed that the republibots would have given up on the failed ''trickle down'' theory. But low and behold, they ''still'' believe that it will work. Just give tax cuts to the rich and corporations, and we'll all be rich. They are to stupid to understand that ''IT DON'T WORK FOR US, JUST THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS''. I applaud the President for excluding them. I would exclude them too. Until the republican party comes out and denounces ''trickle down'' economics as a total failure, they should be excluded from ''any'' legislation.
''after the white house controlled 2010 census removes as many representatives from Republican states''
It's funny how returdabots think ''we the people'' are to dumb to remember the redistricting they themselves did in Texas in the early 2000's. The purpose for that was to ''removes as many (democratic) representatives from Republican states and from Republican regions''. This is why they are the party of hypocrisy. ''We can do it, and that's Ok, but if you do it, it's called gerrymandering''.
I think until ''we the people'' start paying attention to what is actually going on in DC ''both'' parties will continue the illusion of ''doing the people's business''. I'll just about bet that there are going to be some ''friends'' of the administration, that will get quite wealthy off this bill.
that was way funny !!!
Not just the budget, they are outraged about everything the democrats are doing, that they themselves did in the last 8 years. Like ramming bills down the oppositions throat.
Interestingly, Frank Schaeffer, son of the religious right founder Francis Schaeffer, wrote the president an open letter advising him not to bother extending the hand of friendship because they'll only bite it off. He oughta know, considering that until he finally saw the light he was probably the right's most prolific writer and public speaker. You can read his open letter here.
Of course he will. He's looking towards the next election also.
This wasn't "rammed". The Dems watered this bill down to compromise to try and get Republicans on board. THAT was a waste of time (and will probably cost of lot of jobs).
You are spot on.
I think that is a typical atttitude.
They dont know what it is but they are against it.
I should clarify my previous response to this. I agreed that it was my opinion. After further thought I would add that it is more of a hypothesis than an opinion (though the difference is admittedly subtle). A hypothesis is formed after careful observation. And whereas an opinion should also be formed after careful observation and at least some atempt to gain and evaluate factualy information, it often is not. Hence my distinction.
By the way, the fact pattern is entirely consistent with this hypothesis.
Alas, Lori, the same is true for the vast majority of Representatives and Senators of both parties. Most voted for or against because their leadership told them to vote for or against.
1. Vote for it, it works, Obama takes the credit.
2. Vote for it, it does not work, you share the blame with Obama.
3. Don't vote it, it works, you say the recession run its normal course nothing stimulated it.
4.Don't vote for it, it does not work, a political victory for the GOP which will translate in capturing the house in 2010.
They went with option 4. Politically, option 2 is too risky and option 1 offers no rewards. They can always claim this plan did not stimulate the economy if it appears to be working. In that case, they will dig up some dirt, some sex scandal against who they running against and distract people from the issues.
In all fairness, Dr. dummy, gerrymandering has been employed rather transparently by both parties. Whichever is in power when the census is done makes full advantage of it to redistrict in their favor, and with the census up in 2010, this is a particularly critical time (and a good part of why the Republican party "convinced" Judd Gregg to turn down the Commerce Department after he had actively lobbied for the position).
Gerrymandering got its name from Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who redistricted the state to benefit his party. Ironically, or perhaps presciently, Gerry's party at that time was called the "Democratic-Republican" Party. Now if that isn't funny, nothing is funny.
I think your track record on these things is excellent and I find your post and its explanations brilliant. I think you have hit the nail directly on the head. Bravo!
"allow me to explain something: the Republican Party is controlled by two ideological groups. First, is the Religious Right. Second, are the neoconservatives. Both groups share one thing in common: they are driven by fear and paranoia. Between them there is no Republican "center" for you to appeal to, just two versions of hate-filled extremes."
I would disagree to the point that I think there are some Republicans in the House and Senate who are less ideologically driven, but as we've seen with the stimulus and, in fact, historically with most important bills, there is a fear of reprisal for not following in lockstep with the leadership. The same thing is seen on the Democratic side, of course, though obviously for different reasons. Overall I would say the Republican party is about a very small number of messages (whether they actually follow through on them or not) while the Democratic party is more about a variety of messages (whether they can keep track of them enough to get anything passed or not).
But luckily for us we have a THIRD party in Obama, and he can with the help of his excellent VP,control the whole of them! Enuff said!
This is a tough one, Lydia. On the one hand, the bill is so massive that there is no way to really read it. Though I would suggest hardly any of them read bills anyway before they vote on them. Mostly they have staff to review it and give them a Cliff Notes version. Or they simply focus only on those bills of direct interest to them or their committee assignments and then vote yea or nay based on direction by the party leaders. That's why most bills follow "party line" votes.
On the other hand, this was a bill that was going to pass one way or the other. As I've outlined above, the Republicans wanted it passed as much as the Democrats. Given that many programs that Democrats like were gutted during the Bush presidency, and the fact that they had the majority in both houses of Congress, it was virtually guaranteed that some of the programs that lacked emphasis in the past would get funding now.
But to be honest, who knows what is "stimulus" anyway? If it was so easy, we wouldn't be in the mess we now find ourselves.
I know right? It couldn't possibly be the president they chose! No way! Blame it all on Obama! He's been in office over a month now so all problems are his fault!
Wow, it's a Win-Win situation! *he says sarcastically* Yes, it is disgusting. It's sad that the Republicans talk the talk, then walk in the opposite direction. It's sad that the Republicans tend to accuse others of the very problems that they, themselves, have. It's sad that the Democrats didn't stand up to them in the last term. It's sad that the same people are pulling the puppet strings for both parties.
The repugnicons still left in congress are from the areas where no decent opposition is available or in some cases tolerated.
Praise the spaghetti monster for Mr. Obama.
My moron of a congressman ,boob latta, says the stimulus bill is a gateway to socialism.
He has yet to vote in favor a single piece of legislation that would help his middle class constituency and the Democrats didn't even bother to put up a viable candidate last time.
I think everyone knew we didn't really need the Republicans' input as much as they think we did.
And Peter is correct - it's interesting that NOW they're concerned about the budget. HAHA
Thought Provoking
C.L. Mareydt 180Āŗ
I also understand that people have their own lives and most people are not political junkies like some of us lost souls. That's perfectly understandable. I would rather people spend time being good parents to their children than get all worked up about the political hijinks of passing a stimulus bill. That said, we as a country constantly whine about Congress and politicians and yet we reelect the same people time after time. We vote based on some fabricated oversimplification of reality. This stimulus bill and the gamesmanship I describe is a perfect example of politicians catering largely to the uninformed base of their parties. And they encourage the charade because it makes it easier to distinguish one party from another. Last I checked everyone I know (everyone) has varied opinions that run the gamut from conservative to liberal, depending on the issue. And yet we encourage our elected officials to vote along the "party line" and worse, penalize those who try to think multidimensionally.
House - Fact 1 The partisan vote was a foregone conclusion when Pelosi stonewall the Republicans and the President rejected Republican amendments out of hand (Remember, "We won!"). Hardly necessary if there was "a deal".
House - Fact 2 Pelosi reneged on a commitment to give members 48 hours to study the final bill so that the public wouldn't get the information (Hardly necessary if they had a "deal").
House - Fact 3 Pelosi distributed only paper copies of the 800+ page bill instead of the usual electronic copy to delay analysis and release of information on the bill by members before a vote. (Again, hardly the mark of a "done deal").
Senate - Fact 1 Arlen Specter is faces close race in the next election, and the other two moderate Republicans face hotly contested races in later elections.
Senate - Fact 2 President Obama actually courted the three liberal Republicans, and made changes in the Senate bill to gain their votes that hacked off both Reid and Pelosi. But, he now has split the Senate Republicans for future legislation (A lot of work for a "done deal, but not so much work if you can split the opposition").
Conference - Both Pelosi and Reid inserted major pork in the conference bill that belies the President's assurance that the bill contained "no earmarks, no pork". Reid's "$8 million train to gambling", and Pelosi's "save the mouse" amendments sure look like payback for accepting the Republican Senators' amendments to the bill, if the President was willing to take the heat for this added pork.
No posturing there....
David.
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis, though it certainly is plausible. I think republicans really were against the bill, and that they were hanging on to their "free-market" delusion. I think they have not yet adapted to the fact that they are now in the minority, and mistook Obama's "bi-partisan" efforts as meaning that they were still in charge. The "we won" or "I won" message was simply a correction of that misperception. For bi-partisan legislation to become a reality, republicans are going to have to understand that the fundamental direction of the country has changed. And while they may have some good ideas (not apparent over the last eight years), democrats are the majority party.
All that said, democrats had better not waste this opportunity. Moderate independents decide elections in this country. It's something democrats absolutely must keep in mind.
Have a nice day.. =)
I agree that the partisan vote was a foregone conclusion. I say as much in my article. Not sure why you have the impression that Pelosi stonewalled the Republicans. Certainly not any more than the Republicans stonewalled the Democrats when they were in power.
As for Obama, how can you say he rejected Republican amendments out of hand? As a matter of fact, he worked hard to get Republican input right from the very beginning. And the Republicans did get virtually everything they wanted - which pretty much was "tax breaks." Seems the Republicans are a bit of a one-trick pony in that regard and offered not much else, but they got that added at higher levels then the Democrats wanted.
In short, the Republicans had ample opportunity to contribute, and they got what they asked for. Doesn't keep them from playing the game though.
David, I agree with you to a point, but to all who play the holier than thou--are you living in a cave? This isn't only politics, its human nature. We may have taken it to a larger stance due to the ability of TV and internet, but if you read your history, politicians, businessment, ministers, children and parents have been doing this since the beginning of time.
On the executive summaries, there is also this thing called a "staff" that are usually the main ones to go through the bills and grab the good and the bad. Didn't really happen with the Patriot Act because the bill was given to congress almost at the same time they were to vote on it--no time. this bill they had with plenty of time to digest...maybe repugs need to learn to read faster...or maybe just to read, who knows?
And when they don't get thier way? They run away to the cameras on Faux News crying like spoiled babies how nobody want to play by their rules.....nope, we are not going to kowtow to the robber barons any longer.
I know this is done by both parties. And in all fairness, both of the ''other'' side b*tch about it. That don't make it right.
''So is the suggestion that we, the voters, are also having our puppet strings pulled''
And the answer is ''absolutely''. Our strings are being pulled every day by those very politicians that we have elected. They are also being pulled by the masters of the media. They tell us ''just'' what they want us to know, nothing more. The politicians tell us what will benefit their reelection campaigns and the media tells us what promotes ''their'' agenda. The problem is, most Americans rely on a few hours of news each week, given by their favorite partisan hack. After all, fox news never said clinton was innocent, huh? I actually know people that ''believe'' morons like ru$h and inshannity.
''My moron of a congressman ,boob latta, says the stimulus bill is a gateway to socialism.''
And the funny thing is, the moronabots are the ones that opened ''that'' door, huh?
The best way I've ever heard that put, kudos.
Before I get to this, why do you keep saying "they had a deal?" I never said they had a deal.
You're really splitting hairs here. First off, hardly anyone actually read the bill, nor would they ever plan to read the bill. Secondly, the leadership of both parties had already settled on how they were going to have their respective parties vote, so "reading" the bill was unnecessary. Thirdly, the public had plenty of access to the bill, not that any of the public would read it, and not that any of the public would understand it.
Bottom line, everyone had ample opportunity to review the bill. It was debated for weeks, both in Congress and in the public domain. Any suggestion to the contrary is merely grandstanding (i.e., fits the fact pattern of my article).
In the words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." I never said there was a deal.
Actually, I already addressed this. Virtually no one in the House had any intention of reading the bill. They had already decided on their vote. Plus, those who actually cared had their staffs reading it. And frankly, the leadership staff's already had the information before any hard copies were handed out.
Again bottom line, there was no inhibition of Republican input to the bill. But it makes a nice little story line for all the folks back home.
Agreed. I said this in the article, and explained why they were chosen to be "the 3" votes needed to ensure passage. I do appreciate you supporting my hypothesis.
Their definition is that anyones way other than theirs, won't work anyway, so don't even consider it.
''still playing bully.''
But that's the nature of the republibot party. I've always said that the two party system should be called ''wimps and bullies''.
Again with "the deal." First, I would hardly call the three Republicans "liberal," though I have seen from experience that you have a fairly liberal definition of liberal. However, clearly all three are relatively moderate, which reflects their constituencies. And further supports my article. They were the safe ones. Which is why they were offered up by the Republican leadership - two birds with one stone, and all that - the bill gets passed (which they wanted), the more moderate Republicans aren't in danger of losing their seats (and in fact are more likely to keep them), and Boehner gets to do his "I shot the sheriff" song and dance for the voters back home.
Obviously Obama courted them. But perhaps you should ask yourself why Boehner isn't calling them traitors and threatening to toss them out of the Republican caucus. [And by the way, wouldn't Obama courting the Republicans and incorporating Republican changes be considered an attempt to be bipartisan?]
As for permanent splits, I doubt you'll see any particular difference in how the three Republican "yea" votes will vote in the future.
But, I don't accept your premise that the leadership had agreed on anything. I repeat, the House vote was decided by the Democrat majority and Pelosi & Obama's rejection of GOP amendments ("We won!"). The Senate vote was decided by Obama's (successful) attempt to split the GOP senators.
Finally, "everyone had ample opportunity to review the bill" is just not true. Pelosi's actions in the House were designed to prevent review of both the House bill and the conference bill before a vote. The Reid "train" and Pelosi "mouse" were certainly not debated, and who knows what else. The provisions to modify health care were never made public or fully debated.
Your attempt to misrepresent the Democrat's "train" that ran full speed with little regard for either the public or the minority (except 3 liberal Republicans), as a bipartisan deal just doesn't fit the facts. We now know that the President does not represent "new" politics and that there is no "change". This is the old politics of Danny Rostenkowski, Dick Daley, and the Illinois Democrats.
Nice try!
Oddly enough, anything the other party put in is "pork" and anything the speaking party put in is "essential." I'm sure some liberal blogger has pulled out all the pork the Republicans inserted (and I'm sure some would argue that giving tax breaks to rich people is pork, though I'm not sure I would agree with them on that point). The bill is posted online for everyone to see, which is a big change from all the secret earmarks that everyone (except perhaps John McCain) so willingly lapped up.
Also, the final conference bill was $787 billion, less than both the House ($820 billion) or Senate ($827 billion) versions. That kind of implies pork was taken out. But despite the logical lapse, I think we all can agree that there is quite a bit of spending in the stimulus bill no matter what you call it. It is, after all, a $787 billion attempt to stimulate the economy. That implies there to be actual spending and tax relief (reduced income). Will it work? We have no idea. But the Republicans have positioned themselves with plausible deniability if it fails and to take some credit if it works. See Jard P.'s interesting comment above for some interesting insight on the matter.
I assure you Arlen Spector was thinking about getting re-elected. But, really you seriously think that two Maine Republicans and Spector are part of a conspiracy. No, If the republicans could have blocked it they would have. They have to walk a line as they only have a few New England Republicans left, but I assure you those three will get nothing from the Republican party as a whole. The sad part is that without The liberal three, the senate never could have passed the measure as Bill Nelson would not have vote for it without a Republican Vote. No one gets thrown out of caucuses anymore. Liberman campaigned against obama and is still in the democratic one as an independent.
You seem to be taking the "we won" comment out of context. It doesn't mean at all that the Republican amendments were written off out of hand, only that the Republicans didn't have the majority and so couldn't dictate everything in the bill. Again, they had ample opportunity to present their case. Many of the Republican pet pork projects were added and kept in, but other than that their main input was for more tax breaks. The final bill has a much greater percentage in tax breaks than Pelosi wanted. So that means the Republicans got what they wanted.
I am not so into politics, but it sure seems to me that spending is what will put people back to work. Thus...all the projects. The stuff without earmarks...could go wrong if our locals spend unwisely.
I also hear people saying they wish they would be bailed out, not just the banks. As I understand it, this is about bailing out our economy and in the long-run, all Americans.
I read part-way through the comments...
Perhaps no one communicated at all for three weeks while the bill was being debated? That they only got a peak just before the vote?
"The Reid "train" and Pelosi "mouse" were certainly not debated, and who knows what else. The provisions to modify health care were never made public or fully debated."
Okay, you said the Reid train was $8 million. You didn't say how much Pelosi's mouse was. What percentage of $787 billion is $8 million? It's trivial. Now add up all the Republican pet projects (and the other Democratic pet projects). I think you'll see my point.
"Your attempt to misrepresent the Democrat's "train" that ran full speed with little regard for either the public or the minority (except 3 liberal Republicans), as a bipartisan deal just doesn't fit the facts. We now know that the President does not represent "new" politics and that there is no "change". This is the old politics of Danny Rostenkowski, Dick Daley, and the Illinois Democrats."
The irony here is you use a biased interpretation of reality to accuse me of a biased interpretation of reality. And you use partisan politics to accuse Obama of using partisan politics. Furthermore, I never said this was a bipartisan deal. You seem to be confusing what I said with what you have said and/or some third party has said. The article is still above if you want to go back and read it again.
The point of my article is solely that the Republicans made sure that the bill got passed while creating the charade of fighting it. In reality, and in a phrase I use above, they wanted their cake and to eat it too. This does fit the fact pattern.
The reduction below $800 Bil was the price the 3 GOP Senators insisted on for their support. No sale.
But, we all now now that there is nothing "new" about the Obama-Pelosi-Reid approach to government. The way they rammed the porkulus bill through actually made Bill Clinton look like somewhat of a statesman. He was a New Democrat who brought liberal and conservative positions together on some issues to actually accomplish something.
At least we now know who and what Obama is.
Who- a complete fake, phony, fraud. No transparency, no one read this socialist Utopian disaster, remember "the Bamster" promised five days of reading any bill before it was voted on"LIAR".
No lobbyist in his administration, what a joke, 15 and counting.
No pork earmarks in any bill, what a joke.
Fake-Phony- Fraud, you bet any surprise non- what-so-ever to me. All socialist Marxist are liars-Castro-Clinton's-Chavez-Obama.
Sending the children in America into a multi-trillion- dollar debt, that we may never recover from in the dark of night you pass this generational theft in- order to help bring your socialism to America.
Wake-up please, America. If you are a hard working man or woman in this country, ask yourself are you now finally fed up with having your earnings taken from you in laws passed by a bunch of incompetent-fools- Congress: A cushy special interest club populated by a pack of out of touch millionaires. These people have brought nothing but disaster to everything they touch with their corrupt hands. They have bankrupted every city and state, stolen all the funds from social security, and not happy with just destroying the cities and states, these criminals are now ready to destroy our nation.
Obama did give the working class that HUGE tax break thou, Yeah, EL Douche Obama got us an astounding 13.00 a week xtra for us to splurge on our family.We the taxpayer gets 13.00- President El Douche Barack steals trillions of our dollars for himself and his Acorn Army of radical Marxist neighborhood brown shirts.
WAKE-UP.
No need for a sale. Getting the bill under $800 billion was a given. Ever wonder why the big 50% sales don't bankrupt the company? Because they artificially inflate the price before the markdown to give the impression that the buyer is getting a bargain. Basic salesmanship 101. These guys didn't get to be Congressman because they were idiots. They know how to work a room.
And apparently it worked for many people.
Big surprise:-)
I know right? It couldn't possibly be the president they chose! No way! Blame it all on Obama! He's been in office over a month now so all problems are his fault!
Lacey K., Feb 14, 2009, 11:08am EST
Oh Boy! Do I love that comment! Does that smack of hypocrisy or what? The libs blamed every little thing - including the weather on President Bush for the last 8 years. So, why shouldn't Obama be getting blame for cramming this down our throat? That IS what he has done, correct? Pelosi was praising him for getting this piece of legislation out faster than any other President. By all means, let's blame him!
David, I like to read your pieces, and I know that politicians are forever trying to get re-elected, but come on. I researched votes last night as well. I read why Lipinski said he voted Present. He comes from Illinois and sounds eerily familiar as to how Obama got to where he is today.
I also read another piece on the 7 Dems who voted against the bill. One, from Oregon is supposedly a firebrand who wanted MORE in the bill, which is why he voted against it. The other six are freshman Congressmen, most of whom are from the South, and are considere