In one of its trademark mushily oblivious editorials, the Washington Post today praises the “moderates” who worked out a Senate compromise stimulus bill. However, other people drew editorial scorn.
The effort wasn’t helped by those senators, including the leadership on both sides of the aisle, who wallowed in customary blame-gamesmanship. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) accused the moderates of trying to hold the president hostage. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) derided the impending bill as an “aimless spending spree that masquerades as a stimulus.” Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) went theatrical. He held up a copy of an earlier version of the Senate stimulus plan to slam the process that led to its creation. She brandished her own copy to complain that Mr. Graham never resorted to such antics when they considered President Bush’s bailout bill for Wall Street. Friday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) jumped in, deriding the quest for bipartisanship as a “process argument” and claiming that potential cuts in the Senate bill “will do violence to the future.”
What the mushheads at WaPo fail to understand is that Pelosi is right. Their ideas of “bipartisanship” call for process over substance, and the cuts in the Senate bill will prolong the misery of many Americans.
As Ian Welsh explains, the “moderates” have cut 1-1/4 million jobs from the stimulus bill (or just under a million, depending on what the actual cut turns out to be). To WaPo, 1-1/4 million jobs are not important. What’s important is that Senators speak politely and not rattle the teacups or slosh the cream.
Anyone up for storming the Bastille today?
Ian does the math. Paul Krugman also explains,
I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.
The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.
According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.
Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.
As Matt Yglesias puts it, “the cart of bipartisanship is straightforwardly put ahead of the horse of policy merits.”
The stimulus package is too small–and it looks like almost all of the cuts are from reasonable uses of government funds that are substantially labor intensive and thus are the right kind of thing to be in the stimulus package.
Now, I tend to believe that process is important. But what the moderates are doing is ignorant. They aren’t looking objectively at the cost effectiveness of the various components of the package. They’re just cutting stuff out that it feels good to them to cut out. And yes, I think most Republicans want the thing to fail, and they’re ensuring that it does.
WaPo — deliberately undermining what the other party is trying to do is not “bipartisanship.
I understand President Obama will address the nation tomorrow. I hope he has the guts to explain to the American people that the compromised bill will be less effective than the one he wanted. I hope he doesn’t just praise the Senate for screwing up America’s future.
The economy is bleeding jobs so they compromised on half a tourniquet.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. The goal of bipartisanship, at least in Congress, seems to be highly overrated. I was glad that there was some sort of deal, but I am wondering what it’s going to be when it’s reconciled, too. And most of all, I agree that almost every congressional Republican wants Obama to fail more than they want the country to pull out of this. Some GOP governors do seem to understand the seriousness of the situation, but that’s about it.
So, not being bipartisan was bad while Bush was pres, but not being bipartisan is good while Obama is pres? Do I have that right?
No Teach, you don’t.
William! How are things in the alternate universe?
Bush promised a bipartisan administration and did not deliver. You may remember The Dickhead Tom Delay saying that if even a few Democrats voted for a bill then it wasn’t ideological enough. Remember that? That’s the Republicans not being bipartisan. And it’s not good.
If you have paid any attention to current events, you might have noted that Obama has actually been trying to deliver bipartisanship; he’s actually been bringing the Republicans into negotiations and has been making actual changes to the bill on their behalf. The house Republicans repaid him by voting the bill down, saying they didn’t get everything they wanted. Remember that? It just happened a few days ago. The Senate is threatening to do the very same thing this Tuesday. That, William, is also the Republicans not being bipartisan. And it’s not good.
Not being bipartisan is bad, William, all the time. It makes things much worse for everyone who lives here in objective reality. I don’t know how it is where you live.
Friday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) jumped in, deriding the quest for bipartisanship as a “process argument†and claiming that potential cuts in the Senate bill “will do violence to the future.â€
Nancy wakes up and smells the coffee! Only a dipshit would call that a bad thing.
I borrowed this comment from wonkette:
If Republicans ever figure out that all they really should be doing is just the opposite of whatever Bill Kristol says, the Democrats are in a heap of trouble.
Now, switch “Republicans” and “Democrats,” cross out “Bill Kristol” and replace it with “the Washington Post.” Fixed!
Although the original comment was pretty spot-on too.
William Teach — genuine bipartisanship is a grand thing, if both parties of the “bi” are working in good faith toward the same end. But that’s not what’s going on here. As I wrote recently,
I have sent the following letter to the editor to WaPo, NYT, Wall St Journal, and other media:
I suggest that President Obama offer to debate any elected official the Republicans choose on the economic recovery plan, in prime time, next week before the House-Senate conference report is voted on. The debate could be moderated by Jim Lehrer. If Senator McCain still fancies himself as the leader/spokesman for Republican economic policies, then he should agree to represent the party’s views; plus, his status as the previous candidate would avoid the perception of lowering Presidential prestige by engaging in debate. Personally, I think the American people had this debate and the Republicans lost it on November 4, but apparently they don’t recall that, it being so long ago. So let’s reset the debate.
It’s time to force both sides of this argument to explain themselves in a serious format, where their pseudo-facts can be held up for examination.
Bruce K
Bruce– awesome.
I understand President Obama will address the nation tomorrow. I hope he has the guts to explain to the American people that the compromised bill will be less effective than the one he wanted. I hope he doesn’t just praise the Senate for screwing up America’s future.
I wasn’t too optimistic about this when I viewed Obama’s weekend address, from the earlier post. Either he’s naive about what was passed (unlikely) or it was so important to get a deal, any deal, passed asap.
On another note, be sure to watch the Bill Moyers interview of Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen, on how the media in this country is so hopelessly screwed up – if you haven’t already seen it. It’s about the kind of thing you wrote about: what’s important is that Senators speak politely and not rattle the teacups or slosh the cream.
JoanR,
I’ve also emailed this to several blogs and commentators, etc on all points on the spectrum, from the White House to right wingers. Feel free to pass the idea along to any others who could create a groundswell for this debate.
“Anyone up for storming the Bastille today?”
Well, as soon as I grease up the bearing buddies on my walker….
But seriously, gun demand in Florida have driven the prices into the stratosphere, and ammo is getting hard to find at a reasonable price, at least that’s what the local duck hunters have told me.
My arsenal consists of a wrist rocket slingshot, and Butch the attack cat. (but don’t tell anybody…..)
Weird system, when the Senator from the tiny and odd state of Maine can dictate the terms of the bill.
Of course it would help if the announced lame duck Senator from the much larger state of Ohio was more interested in the needs of his constituents and less interested in lining up a lucrative gig with a think tank or lobbying firm after he retires. So we get to pay his excessive salary for the next two years while he bends over backwards to work against our interests. Thanks George.
R always wants to win the “game’ at the country’s expense. While in reality serving the agenda of a small class of people. self interest masked as ideology