- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
The Democrats' Greatest Hits
It shouldn't be terribly surprising that a Democratic president can ram an "emergency" spending package through a lopsidedly Democratic Congress in the midst of a recession, but it's enough to impress the Washington Post. "Twenty-four days into his presidency," staff writers Michael Shear and Alec MacGillis enthused, "Barack Obama recorded... a legislative achievement of the sort that few of his predecessors achieved at any point in their tenure."
Swooning aside, they are closer to the mark when they write, "In size and scope, there is almost nothing in history to rival the economic stimulus legislation that Obama shepherded through Congress in just over three weeks."
As a percentage of GDP, the stimulus is twice as big as the early New Deal. And it was indeed written and passed in a matter of weeks. Just three weeks to decide whether to spend $1.14 trillion of the taxpayers' money (including interest set to accrue on the increased debt) during record federal revenue shortfalls. Just months after enacting a $700 billion Wall Street bailout and days after the Obama Treasury Department indicated it was prepared to ask for more. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) has called it "a bill no one has read." It similarly runs up a bill no one knows how to pay.
Of course, the new president doesn't deserve all the credit or blame for the great "legislative achievement" now sending a thrill up reporters' legs. If this were an album rather than a spending bill, its title would be The Democrats' Greatest Hits. It moves the country toward national health care, including significant expansions of SCHIP and Medicaid. It doles out billions of dollars to state governments, whether their governors want the money or not. By creating a $3 billion "emergency fund" that rewards states for increasing their welfare caseloads, the stimulus takes a step back in the direction of welfare as we knew it -- before Bill Clinton.
It is a polite fiction that the stimulus was primarily written by three moderate Republican senators with the help of some friendly neighborhood Blue Dog Democrats. The only Democrat who seemed to believe it was Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon). While six other House Democrats voted against the bill on fiscally conservative grounds, only DeFazio opposed it from the left. Apparently, tax cuts and even token Republican support gives him the vapors. "Been a lot of talk in Washington, D.C. over the last few years about the Bridge to Nowhere in the last highway bill," he said in his floor speech last Thursday explaining his vote against the package. "But what we have with the passage of this bill is a lot of tax cuts to nowhere."
"I've never met a tax cut that could build a bridge... I never met a tax cut that could even fill in a pothole! I never met a tax cut that could build a school," DeFazio continued. "Three Republican senators insisted on a lot more tax cuts. They hijacked the bill because of the arcane, obsolete, and in fact discretionary rules of the Senate." But that's not how most Republicans see it. "This was totally a Democratic bill," says a GOP staffer. "More Pelosi-Reid than even Obama."
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) were essential to the stimulus measure's final passage, but less so its overall direction or content. Atlantic Monthly senior editor Ross Douthat described the Senate moderates' contribution as follows: "Take what the party in power wants, subtract as much money as you can without infuriating them, vote yes, and declare victory." "The Democrats wanted a bipartisan vote for a partisan bill and then were angry when the House gave them a bipartisan vote against it," says a senior House Republican.
Congressional Republicans were adamant that their constituents opposed the spending in the stimulus bill, which is why the House GOP twice voted unanimously against it and only three Republican senators ever voted for it. This is the flip side of Democrats' victories in the past two elections. They have the votes and the raw political power to pass most of what they want. But they will often find it difficult to gain bipartisan cover because they have already unseated most of the Republicans who had a political incentive to cut deals with them. The surviving Republicans hail from more conservative districts and, the change mantra notwithstanding, they all won their elections too.
All things considered, that is not a bad position for President Obama and his congressional allies to be in. While the stimulus fight proved much more difficult than expected, they are still in the driver's seat. The Republicans were effective in opposition, but less so at uniting around an alternative to the Obama administration's slightly refurbished Keynesianism. While the GOP helped the electorate understand that the stimulus cost a lot of money and contained some dubious projects, relatively few Americans seem to sense that the country is toying with the return of stagflation.
Until they do, the political calculus will be simple: As the senators from Maine go, so goes the nation.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Two Weddings and a Demerol
- When the Party Was Over
- An American Tragedy
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Melvin| 2.16.09 @ 7:22AM
With that being said that is exactly why John McCain, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Arlen Sphincter must be voted our of office.
Robert Rosencrans| 2.16.09 @ 8:04AM
Another good read.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/13/friday-the-thirteenth/
There are certain dates that are seared into the memories of all Americans. Dates that altered the course of our union; sometimes in moments of glory, often in moments of tragedy. Today, Friday the 13th, is one of those days. Today, both the House and Senate passed what will historically be looked at as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the U.S. Congress; a bill that will ultimately be the judge and jury of President Obama’s first term in office. There is no doubt that President Obama will sign the legislation that he lobbied for on Monday. He will certainly invoke the names of our greatest Presidents as he does so. But, in doing so, he will be discrediting the very promises he made to the American public only months before.
Against the recommendations of the Congressional Budget Office, he will sign this bill. Despite returning the nation to a sea of dependency by completely reversing President Clinton’s welfare reform in 1996, he will sign this bill. Despite the threat to religious freedom cleverly disguised in the small print, he will sign this bill. Standing steps from the federal agencies he plans on doubling in size through cherry-picked liberal programs, he will sign this bill. Using an economic emergency to shield the liberal goal of federalizing your health care, he will sign this bill. And despite the overwhelming majority of Americans in poll after poll saying ‘no’ to this bill, he will say ‘yes’.
Congress was able to deliver this accomplishment to the President, by ensuring that no Member of Congress had the ability to even read it. They guaranteed there would be no debate. They intentionally delivered new versions with handwritten exceptions at midnight so you would awake not aware of what was happening. This was not transparency, but reckless abandon.
The final House vote was 246-183. And in a few hours, the Senate will pass the bill by the thinnest possible margin. And so the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passes Congress, on its way to the President, giving us the scariest Friday the 13th in this nation’s history.
Pingback| 2.16.09 @ 9:28AM
Topics about Pets and Life with animals » The Democrats’ Greatest Hits links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.09 @ 9:44AM
Topics about Health, Food and Well being » Archive » The Democrats’ Greatest Hits links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.16.09 @ 9:44AM
Topics about Dogs and Life with Pets » The Democrats’ Greatest Hits links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Marc Jeric| 2.16.09 @ 2:33PM
There should be more discussion about 3 deadly things in this porkulus bill:
1) $5 billion for ACORN brown shirts so they can skewer voter registrations, votes, and census figures;
2) $4 billion for "community stabilization" programs for race hustlers and local criminals;
3) welfare program where the more welfare there are in a state the more money that state gets from the federal government.
pomoc| 2.16.09 @ 2:42PM
They are traitors too america ,they will face tuff elections and they will go down in history as traitors .
Bob| 2.16.09 @ 3:41PM
Be careful what you ask for. It is highly likely that if hard right conservatives run against Snow and Collins, then Democrats will win those seats and there will be absolutely no opposition. Furthermore, Gregg is retiring in 2010 and will probably be replaced by a Democrat. Spector will probably also lose to a Democrat as PA has become solidly Democrat. This will test the proposition that the Republican party should become more right wing instead of appealing to the center.
Rick Josey| 2.16.09 @ 4:49PM
Republicans got beat last election because they offered no real alternative to the liberals. John McCain is too quick to "reach across" the aisle. We need leadership who will sell the American public on the benefits of smaller government. Less taxation, greater freedoms, etc.
www.PatriotHangout.com
Thom| 2.16.09 @ 5:04PM
Bob said, "appealing to the center". What center would that be Bob? The lopsided vote in the House for this grand scheme showed no signs of compromise on anything? Same question for the Senate? 61 votes for is hardly a centrists position given all it takes is 51 votes if the Senate does away with the filibuster rule. The three Senators that gave them the victory in the Senate with the filibuster rule are Democrats in everything but name and have the voting record to prove it (by far). If they are replaced by Democrats that changes nothing of substance. There are no centrists Bob. There two kinds of people when it comes to voting for something or against something. This mystical beast known as a “centrist” has never existed in our political history. You are for this or against this. The Republican Party has no national power for at least two years. All those but Snow, Collins and Specter would be better off giving up their Washington residences and moving back to their home districts and States and saving somebody some tax payer money. This is pointless theater for the next two years and likely more.
Bob| 2.16.09 @ 5:15PM
Actually, Rick, the exit polls showed that the two main reasons McCain was beaten were George Bush and Sarah Palin. It had less to do with ideology and more to do with performance and competence.
It remains an open issue of whether a harder right positioning will gain or lose voters. The voter demographics show a gain in registered Democrats from 36% to 38% and a loss in registered Republicans from 36% to about 30% (it varies between 28% and 32% in different reports). From a geographic perspective, Republican strongholds are now limited to the South. There were huge demographic losses with Hispanics (46% with Bush to 34% with McCain) and obviously blacks. Women initially moved from Hillary to Palin, but came back to Obama after Palin's disastrous interviews.
Electoral success in 2010 and beyond will have more to do with Obama than ideology. If the economy turns around, Obama cannot lose and Republicans will lose more ground. Therefore, the test of ideology will be whether the public buys the current unified actions of Republicans in Congress in opposing the stimulus and other legislation. This is a huge risk. Dems have a huge risk in going too far left in spending priorities. That said, most people couldn't care less about ideology if they are better off 2-4 years from now than they are today. The truism is that people will vote their pocketbooks. FDR was highly respected for huge liberal spending because people could see that jobs were being created. This is not that different. Remember that hard right social conservatives only represent about 18% of the voting universe. The remaining 12% of Republicans are moderates.
Thom| 2.16.09 @ 6:20PM
Bob said, "Republican strongholds are now limited to the South" Bob did Republicans just win the 11 states of the Confederacy last election?
That's the South btw. Those western, mid western States and South Western States that don't see themselves as the "the South" might take offense that you can't tell where their states are in the scheme of things.
Robert Rosencrans| 2.16.09 @ 6:36PM
The American public was all giddy about Jimmy Carter, until they began to reap the benefits of his idiotic policies. To believe either party has a stronghold based on temporary results is ridiculous. I worked on Capital Hill during the House Bank and House Post Office Scandals. Americans want honest government. What has happened so far in Obamaland is anything but honest. Obama has a tendency to lie and mislead at the drop of a hat. The public will reject this at some point.
Thom| 2.16.09 @ 6:48PM
Robert that will only matter if people of integrity and a willingness to take the fight into enemy territory run. Too much of Republican politics is based on taking advantage of Democrat over reaches or making Socialism more efficient and less costly. We’ve run out of time to make nice with the shear incompetence and consequence that comes from that. The entitlement tidal wave is going to bury us.
Alan Brooks| 2.16.09 @ 8:49PM
you dont want to be near a ghetto when the welfare checks start bouncing.
Thom| 2.16.09 @ 9:24PM
Alan,
Why would they bounce? The Banks are going to be owned by the Federal Gov soon.
Pingback| 2.16.09 @ 10:22PM
Website Directory - History links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alan Brooks| 2.16.09 @ 10:32PM
Thom,
alrighty, i get it now, banks are going to fail then the government assumes ownership.
i'm slow on the uptake.
Pingback| 2.16.09 @ 11:05PM
house » Blog Archive » The American Spectator : The Democrats' Greatest Hits links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.17.09 @ 5:40AM
Morning Line - February 17, 2009 : Delmarva Dealings links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
drudge ette obama| 2.17.09 @ 6:06AM
If I sign a contract, it is assumed that I have read it and I am obligated under its terms UNLESS.....
the type is too small or
I am too young or
I am mentally ill or
I am operating under materially false or incorrect facts or
the contract's terms are illegal or unenforceable or
I am a member of Congress.
Snow, Collins and Spector are slightly worse than any member of Congress who signed off on this without reading it because they bucked their party for no obvious reason than they must like all the negative attention, sort of like the octomom.
Bob| 2.17.09 @ 7:58AM
Thom, I was using electoral votes as a base. You don't get a lot of electoral votes from Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, and Indiana. If you include the states from Texas to West Virginia, you'll have over 90% of Republican electoral votes. I'd consider that "primarily the South" even though technically you are certainly correct if you don't consider the number of people. Once the census is done in 2010 under Democrat control, this will get worse as they will reverse the gerrymandering done by the Republicans in the last two census.
Michigan-Matt| 2.17.09 @ 11:28AM
Bob offers: "Once the census is done in 2010 under Democrat control, this will get worse as they will reverse the gerrymandering done by the Republicans...."
BZZZZT. Wrong.
First, the power grab of the census has nothing --absolutely nothing-- to do with the drawing of Congressional districts except to the extent that Democrats can argue in federal ct (and SCOTUS for sure) that the Constitutional language allows for selective sampling of certain populations... not head counts of living, legally present humans. Most legal scholars can argue effectively that SCOTUS will not allow sampling or other mechanisms to adjust the census for the benefit of Democrat constituencies and toadies.
The job of drawing congressional districts --and the art of gerrymandering-- is a function of individual state legislatures... not Congress. And even with strong one-party control over a state's legislative chambers, it's still not a slam-dunk to effect partisan advantage (see Tom DeLay, discredited soc-con)
The concern over control of the census is rightly centered on the issue of federal grants & aid, not gerrymandering, Bob. Neither the GOP in Congress, in the last 2 decades, nor the President(s), had anything substantial to do to drawing Congressional districts... it's a state legislative function... subject to considerable legal wrangling and compromise.
Obama wants control over the census for a simple reason: urban areas, homeless people, blacks, felons, etc are --in the Democrats' eyes-- undercounted when it comes to aid, grants, federal privilege. Because "white flight" has been replaced by "middle class black flight" from the urban areas, Democrat mayors need $$$ and the best teets around are the Fed's.
Michigan-Matt| 2.17.09 @ 11:37AM
drudge offers: "If I sign a contract, it is assumed that I have read it... Snow, Collins and Spector are slightly worse than any member of Congress who signed off on this without reading it because they bucked their party for no obvious reason than they must like all the negative attention."
First, there's your problem with the analogy to contracts vis a vis legislation. Few congressional members read bills --or even have read bills-- in the last 25 yrs. They rely upon office staff, advisors, committee staff, nonpartisan staff, caucus briefing memo, lobbyists, constituents, phone calls, press, pundits and polls to make their decision on whether or not to support a bill.
Even looney Ron Paul admits that he often doesn't have the time to read bills but he's perfectly fine with the hyper-hypocrisy of arguing that the Democrat Spending Bill shouldn't have passed until everyone had a chance to read it.
Should they read each bill, cover to cover? No. Should they know what it contains and the impact? Yes. To argue otherwise is to convince all that you know nothing of Congress, the legislative process or politics.
Bob| 2.17.09 @ 12:12PM
Michigan-Matt -- you are absolutely correct. But I believe that Dems will put together a national plan for gerrymandering to support the states in that regard. They will use the census as a stepping off point for that effort. There is a lot of useful data for that purpose from the census. So even though technically it is a state matter, the national party will take a strong lead effort and provide data, software, support, etc. I believe this is all tied together. Whether SCOTUS will open the spigot remains to be seen. In any event, I expect it will be a 5-4 vote.
Nick| 2.17.09 @ 3:14PM
Bob,
If you get a chance, would you please read my last answer to you from our argument yesterday?
Bob| 2.17.09 @ 5:30PM
Nick, I don't remember the exact blog, but we have a impasse. You believe it is possible for politicians to significantly cut spending, and I think their history tells us they won't because spending gets them votes. Therefore, if they can continue to spend, and cut taxes at the same time, you, as a constituent, are getting something for nothing. It's easy for Republicans to vote against the spending bill right now because they know it is going to pass. When they were in charge for most of the past 8 years, they would have never voted against this. Remember that almost all of the Republican governors are for this stimulus bill. Palin even lobbied for funds when she was in Washington.
Therefore, we are not going to agree on this. I really wish you were right, but history proves not.
Howard| 2.17.09 @ 6:05PM
Economics is an art as much as a science. In spite of Nobel Prizes handed out, there is wide room for diverse opinions. So while I think the stimulus bill is chock full of feces, the premise of a large spending plan to increase aggregate demand is part of Economics. Unfortuately, Pelosi, Reid & Co. larded it with rancid swine. The failing of Keynesian strategies is the the greasy hands of government create and implement these theories. So, the end product is perverted.
Bob| 2.19.09 @ 4:29PM
I hear Congress is now working on SCHIMP, a bill to provide food, clothing, shelter and more to primates like Travis the Chimp.
nkjnkjm| 8.19.09 @ 11:15PM
Always leading the avant-garde of fashion without compromising traditional craftsmanship of luxury leather goods
Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton Replica
Louis Vuitton outlet is also active in other ...
CheapLouis VuittonReplica Handbags,Purses,Wallets Outlet and
Louis Vuitton Replica
Designer Bags,Shoes Outlet Store - discount price is our special offer, ...
Louis Vuitton Outlet
Tiffany Jewelry| 8.30.09 @ 9:41PM
abercrombie and fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos
abercrombie fitch and
fitch abercrombie fitch abercrombie cheap abercrombie fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie
womens polos Abercrombie & Fitch Men, women, and children's clothing and accessories
edhardylife a famous Ed Hardy store which sell directly
Ed Hardy Clothing shoes, boots, swim suit and other
cheap ed hardy Ed Hardy cheap Ed Hardy ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing
with competitive price and fast,secure delivery.The famous brand by Don Ed Hardy 's Vintage Ed Hardy
dropshippngwatch| 8.31.09 @ 2:48AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Wholesale Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watches Collection
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
handmade jewelry| 9.2.09 @ 12:13AM
discount jewelry
cheap jewelry
discount fashion jewelry| 9.2.09 @ 12:59AM
china jewelry
wholesale jewelry
costume jewelry| 9.11.09 @ 2:06AM
sterling silver jewelry
cheaper wholesale Jewelry
cheaper fashion jewelry| 9.11.09 @ 2:07AM
wholesale Costume Jewelry
china fashion jewelry wholesale