An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Canadians To Receive Democratic Government Once Again

GOP Lawmaker Apologizes To Republican Powerhouse Limbaugh For Criticism »

Republicans Vote Against the American People

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Economy, Politics.
Jan 28th, 2009 | Comments

The House of Representatives passed an $819-million economic stimulus package this evening. The vote was 244-188. Only Democrats voted for it. 177 Republicans voted against it.

The package includes both spending measures and tax cuts. The American people would get some tax relief, money to save or to spend, perhaps to pay the bills and put food on the table, and money would go to infrastructure projects, for energy and education and health care, to support those who need it, those who have lost their jobs at a time when the economy is bleeding jobs, and down to states and municipalities, to levels of government on the front lines of service provision.

You know what? It’s not just about stimulating the economy, it’s about helping people. It’s responsive, responsible government action at a time when government action is desperately needed.

And, in the House, every single Republican voted against it.

Read that again: EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST IT.

So much for bipartisan outreach. So much for Obama’s efforts to be inclusive and to seek compromise with the other side. All the Republicans could offer was the same old tired formula of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts, and, when it came right down to it, when it came time to pick a side, the Republicans sided, in unison, against the American people and the American economy.

Don’t get me wrong. Like many others, I actually think there’s a need for a much, much larger stimulus package. I would even argue (as I did yesterday) that Obama and the Democrats should now do what needs to be done — that is, pass a bigger, better stimulus package — without bothering to engage in what has proven to be fruitless bipartisanship, that is, without reaching across the aisle and seeking GOP support. After all, if the Republicans aren’t interested in helping the American people, why should the Democrats waste their time with them? The Senate is not the House, though, and it is perhaps there that Obama and the Democrats can secure some Republican support, which, if nothing else, would improve the optics of the stimulus package. As silly as it may be, or seem, given the ideological extremism of the House Republicans, it is still in Obama’s interest that the package not be, and not be perceived to be, a purely partisan effort.

For now, though, the Republicans’ true colours are bright and clear. They may wrap themselves in the flag, and they may play the patriotism card whenever and wherever possible, but they’re actually the anti-American party. At a time when the American people need help, and when the new president and the majority party are willing and eager to rise above partisanship, the House Republicans, once again, put themselves before all else.

  • AustinRoth
    New headline: ALL REPUBLICANS, 11 DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICANS AND OBAMA.

    Why don't you come out of the closet Michael, and show your TRUE colors? You want anyone who dissents from the Party Line and The Great Leader sent for Re-education Through Labor. Or maybe just shot - why waste time.

    What a complete, unadulterated, hypocritical partisan hack you are. You make Rush look reasonable.
  • SteveK
    AustinRoth,

    To paraphrase a "thoughtful" (sic) TMV contributor... What a complete, unadulterated, hypocritical partisan jerk you are.
  • StockBoySF
    Well this is what Obama meant by "I won." We've had eight years of Bush's policies and the American people want something different. On top of that Obama has included tax cuts, which the Republicans want and now the Republicans claim there aren't enough tax cuts for the wealthy and too many tax cuts for the poor....

    The Republicans won't be happy until a Republican is president.

    The Dems under Bush passed what he wanted.... and the Dems could have held up a lot of legislation.

    I don't like all the provisions in this legislation, but it's a start. And Obama is clearly trying to reach out to Republicans in a way that Bush never even tried to reach out to Democrats.

    Thankfully I don't see Obama demonizing the Republicans the way Bush did the Dems.
  • AustinRoth
    I have never, not once, said or implied throughout the Bush years that dissent or not supporting the Republican viewpoint was unpatriotic or un-American.

    Others did, and Michael would go off on rants about the foulness of those who expressed such views against dissent. Now, he has in the past two days made multiple posts calling those who do not agree with his views, and that do not support Democratic initiatives, un-American and that they hate Americans.

    So yes, I proudly stand by calling him a complete, unadulterated, hypocritical partisan hack.

    And if pointing out his blatant hypocrisy, and the complete and utter lack of any 'moderateness' in almost any post he has ever made on this 'moderate' site is being a jerk, then hell yes, I am a jerk!
  • SteveK
    "... then hell yes, I am a jerk!"

    Acknowledged... and agreed.
  • SteveK
    StockBoySF,

    Imagine the screams and rants from the 'right' if the Democrats reintroduced the REPUBLICAN "Nuclear Option".

    Sometimes (only sometimes) I regret that we're the adults.
  • AustinRoth
    Steve - you mean like just recently when Pelosi changed the House rules to bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress? Rules put in place by the evil Newt Gingrich to ensure Democrats (in the minority at that time) would be able to do just that?
  • StockBoySF
    Steve, yes, I was thinking about the Republican nuclear option just a couple weeks ago... and you're right. Let's see what happens when this bill gets to the Senate and the Dems ask for a simple "up or down" vote, like the Republicans did when they were in power.
  • elrod
    The bill will get Olympia Snowe to vote for cloture. The Senate version will actually be more expensive because it will have a huge AMT adjustment in it - a massive tax cut.
  • It would have been nice if we had just passed an actual stimulus bill. This house version, however, is festooned with every sort of spending program imaginable, and somewhere between half and 80% of it seems to have nothing to do with stimulus, job creation, etc. This is a huge disappointment. We're going in the hole to the tune of a trillion dollars or more and a lot of it won't be doing a thing to kick start the economy. All of these other items could have been brought up in a separate appropriations bill this year.

    I've done more than my fair share of criticizing the Republicans, but I don't blame them at all for not backing this abomination of a pork fueled fire sale. I wouldn't have voted for it either.
  • SweetWilliam
    I wouldn't have voted for it either. Strip the tax cuts for business, reinsert the family planning funds, ADD MORE INFRASTRUCTURE spending and pass it without a single republic vote. Onward!
  • JSpencer
    The republicans had ample opportunity to govern this century and ram through whatever policies and actions they imagined represented good leadership and in doing so they managed to drive this country into the ground. Take a look around people, and be honest about how terribly ironic it is they are now trying to obstruct someone else from trying to correct their mistakes.
  • Davebo
    This house version, however, is festooned with every sort of spending program imaginable, and somewhere between half and 80% of it seems to have nothing to do with stimulus, job creation, etc.


    Jazz, care to support this claim?
  • CStanley
    Take a look around people, and be honest about how terribly ironic it is they are now trying to obstruct someone else from trying to correct their mistakes.

    From our point of view, I'd advise you to take a look around and be honest about how terribly ironic it is for you to now support the Democrats attempts to add a pile of new mistakes on top of the past majority party's mistakes.
  • JSpencer
    Not very persuasive CS. We are now backed into a corner that could have been avoided, while the current "mistakes" are a genuine attempt to correct the bad governing of the past. I remains to be seen if this "cure" is going to work or not. Is it perfect? Probably not, but the R's seem to have nothing to offer but more of the same old.
  • CStanley
    while the current "mistakes" are a genuine attempt to correct the bad governing of the past.

    I don't see any evidence that the pro-Dem commenters here are using any objective standard to make that assessment, J, and instead are applying a blanket assumption of good intent and smart policy corrections. Given the polling numbers for the Dem led Congress, I'd say you guys are in the minority in giving that benefit of the doubt.

    I've listed several reasons in various comment threads here why I believe this stimulus package is chock full of mistakes that we can ill afford. Maybe if you'd try giving some reasons that you disagree with me instead of asserting your articles of faith, we could actually debate the issues at hand?
  • CStanley
    I'll ask a more specific question for anyone who supports this bill in its current form, to see if anyone wants to actually talk about the substance rather than assume that the Dems MUST have put it forth in good faith to correct the mistakes of the past.

    I seem to recall quite a bit of discussion about the amount of debt accrued under Bush and the GOP Congress, often specifically attacking the Iraq War spending. There have been lots of discussions about how much that was costing the future generations.

    So, if you are a supporter of this bill who felt that way in the past, how does it strike you as OK to put forth expenditures in one fell swoop (within first 30 days of Congress, before ANY other budget issues are debated) that immediately authorizes as much spending as the entire Iraq War?

    I realize the immediate response to that will be that this is necessary spending and that wasn't, and that this is going for humanitarian kind of spending rather than war. But still, considering the size of the expenditure and what that does to our debt, shouldn't you at least take the time to learn more about what's actually in the bill and whether or not it's even feasible for it to have the intended effect? I mean really, shouldn't we be a BIT more circumspect?
  • This house version, however, is festooned with every sort of spending program imaginable, and somewhere between half and 80% of it seems to have nothing to do with stimulus, job creation, etc.

    Yes, I'm sure I read that half the money will be burned rather than spent.

    Seriously, if the government spent $800 billion on bee research, that would create jobs, at least in bee research. So don't argue that this bill wont be a stimulus, you just think it's the wrong kind.
  • CStanley
    Chris: If money is spent in an area where it's impossible to fill jobs in the near future (not enough trained people, or not feasible that the unemployed from one industry will be able to change course to fit the new roles) then the money is wasted. To take your example, which is obviously facetious but can still be used for the purpose of illustration: not only do we not need $800 billion dollars worth of beekeepers, but there aren't that many people willing and able to do that job. So then if you commit that money, you'd end up only hiring like 1000 people and the net cost of creating each of those jobs would be $800,000,000. Not a very efficient use of money that we don't even have to start with.

    And much of the bill contained things that truly have nothing to do with job creation, but rather to provide relief for those who are without jobs. I don't have a problem with that either but call it what it is- relief and not stimulus.

    Plus, a lot of Pelosi's pet projects have more to do with concerns about healthcare costs down the line- a legitimate concern, but one which should be addressed separately as that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy OR helping in the long term recovery.

    There's also the timing issue. A lot of economists agree that stimulus spending is almost always too late to do any good- because there's a delay before the jobs can actually be offered, and by that time many more people have lost their jobs and then consumption spending goes down and more companies have to lay off people, etc. That's one reason conservatives tend to argue for tax cuts (esp if they can happen immediately in the case of individuals, to start reducing the withholding from your paycheck right away) or to businesses so that they can consider the reduction in tax burden when analyzing whether or not they can continue making payroll.
  • Stimulus doesn't have to be just about job creation, infrastructure spending or tax breaks. I'd say there is a good argument for trying all three, so we cover our bases. But at the same time we should be addressing the major concerns of the country.

    Come on though, it's impossible to say that healthcare spending or unemployment spending won't stimulate the economy. We have a gigantic healthcare industry that employs many people, and if we can help the sick and keep those people employed or create news jobs, that's great.

    It's more or less the same thing with unemployed people. They need to spend money just like the rest of us, they just don't have it. Every dinner they buy, every ounce of gas they put in their car, every suit they buy for an interview stimulates the economy.

    That's why it's a little crazy to me that people think these spending provisions wont provide a stimulus. They will, you just dont like what the money is being spent on, and that's a different issue altogether.
  • CStanley
    Pelosi made several comments about reducing healthcare burden by reducing the need for healthcare spending though, which isn't about creating jobs in the healthcare industry. She made this argument for the contraception spending (great idea, by the way- if we didn't have all these damn people, we wouldn't need to spend any money at all, you know?), and then they've also put a pricey smoking cessation into it.

    Again, there's nothing wrong with some of those goals to reduce the burden of healthcare costs, but that doesn't create jobs or increase consumer spending in the short term which is what this is supposed to be about.

    As far as getting money to the unemployed to stimulate the economy, the only problem with that argument is you have to compare it to what other potential uses of the money are available. If spending the money elsewhere creates a job for that person more quickly, then that would be a better course of action than giving him extended unemployment compensation. Plus, these things are always discusses as though there is no waste or 'soft fraud.' One of the provisions I believe is to provide unemployment insurance for part time workers who lose their jobs. Well, that sounds good if you're talking about someone who was working two jobs and loses the part time one, and then doesn't have enough income to sustain his/her family. But so many part timers are not in that situation- they're often kids, or people working just to earn some extra cash, etc. Are you going to tell me that such folks are going to refrain from collecting the unemployment benefits and defer to those who really need it? We just can't afford to spread this money (again, which we don't actually have, and which costs far, far more than the dollar amount shown when you add in the interest costs) around so much.
  • CStanley
    you just dont like what the money is being spent on

    It's not personal, Chris. I do object to the money going to Dem contributors like teachers unions and ACORN, but that's about as ideological as my opposition gets. That does to some extent go to motive- do Pelosi and Co. really think they're appropriating money to meet specific economic goals for the country or for their party?

    But if you're thinking that my opposition is due to a personal feeling about what people 'deserve' (ie, unemployment benefits) then nothing could be farther from the truth. When I was growing up, my dad was unemployed for an extended time and my parent's did have to use benefits, and I currently have several friends who've lost jobs and have no prospects in sight. It's not a lack of empathy, but just a belief that we need clearheaded thinking about the best ways to spend public money as efficiently as possible.
  • CStanley
    Re: the headline....don't look now, but it looks like the American people vote against the American people too:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...
  • People have to make the contraception drugs, people have to sell, people have to administer them. It's short term spending with long term gain. Again, it's about the fact that you don't like contraception spending, not that it wont help the economy.

    Money is fungible. If we give a woman X amount of dollars to spend on contraception, then not only will that X amount of dollars go to the healthcare industry, the X amount that she saved can go to things like food or car payments or something else that creates jobs.
  • CStanley
    I don't like the contraception funding, but that's beside the point. Pelosi herself, when asked how that's a stimulus, didn't justify it the way you did (which I think is pretty weak tea- the bulk of the money will go to Planned Parenthood which is already flush with cash.)

    Her rationale was that this needed to be in the bill because of concerns about rising healthcare costs for the states- because preventing births will save costs when women have fewer kids. I oppose that argument too, but the main point here is that it doesn't belong in this bill and even she didn't justify it on the basis of economic stimulus, but rather on cost savings. I've made the point before- all of that needs to be separate from the 'emergency' bill. This would be comparable to a scenario if the past GOP Congress had put all kinds of pet conservative causes into the Patriot Act (and then kept taking to the airwaves to make sure everyone felt a great sense of urgency that justified quick passage of the bill without full review.) You know very well that you wouldn't approve of that kind of process, so please stop acting as though that's not what's going on here. I get that you approve of all of the pet liberal causes that they're dumping in here, but just admit that's why you approve of it and not because you think it's going to provide a short term stimulus greater than the dollar amount that's being appropriated.
  • Sometimes, throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a problem isn't the solution.

    I hope we haven't devolved back into the "This is my view, and anyone who disagrees with it hates America" type of talk.

    Obama supporters, be wary. Knee-jerk support of the President wasn't a good thing when Bush was in charge, and it isn't a good thing now that Obama is in charge.
  • gabriellestates
    The sad thing is, I don't think they realize how bad the situation is. Look at how many people need to use Offshore pharmacy medications just to make ends meet. Something really does need to be done.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC