House Democrats Reveling in New Bully Role
Long time readers will know that it’s a rare day indeed when I find myself agreeing with Michelle Malkin. (I’m pausing to think if I’ve ever linked to her from TMV.) But following last night’s disastrous failure by the House of Representatives to achieve any sort of bipartisan consensus on a stimulus package, I think she is correct in saying that the House version of the bill has turned into a gigantic “crap sandwich” and the Democrats own it 100%.
Personally, I don’t even find it all that excessive to refer to the House version of the package as the “Generation Theft Act of 2009.”
There are two areas of collapse in the process we are witnessing.
One, of course, is the failure to develop a laser accurate spending package which focuses on the immediate task of stimulating the economy and creating jobs while limiting the burden of increased debt. The package is festooned with a metric ton of spending which even the most generous supporter could not say (at least with a straight face) is designed to stimulate economic growth.
But the other, and perhaps more significant failure, was a complete breakdown in President Obama’s efforts to find common ground between House Democrats and Republicans and get the job done in a “post-partisan” fashion.
One of the nice things about working with a stable of fine writers such as we have here at TMV is that a variety of opinions can be aired and we can often disagree without being disagreeable. With that in mind, I will include some comments from my colleague Michael Stickings, who examined this issue already. Michael titled his piece, Republicans Vote Against the American People.
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.
If I am to accept the premise that the House GOP voted against the people of America today, then the Democrats voted against the next several generations of Americans to come. And as I watched this battle play out in the media, my observations didn’t match up with Michael’s at all.
Yes, the Republicans often focus far too much on tax cuts and miss seeing the forest for the trees. But for the stimulus package, the GOP found a number of items in the bill which they strongly supported. These were generally the massive investments in infrastructure for roads, bridges and the nation’s power grid. Some of them were even willing to go along with expanding unemployment insurance options during a time when so many Americans are losing their jobs.
Had the Democrats been willing to strip down the bill a bit and focus only on spending which would produce immediate, tangible results, I’m confident that this bill could have sailed through the House with wide, bipartisan support.
Instead, we witnessed a tour de’ force of the newly minted, Democratic superpower. One of the most telling features of the evening for me was watching the facial gestures and body language of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Unlike many of her previous, stern appearances, the Speaker sat at her bench and smiled broadly, seeming to be on the verge of giggling a number of times, as the Republicans lined up to vote against the bill. At least for me, there was a very clear message being sent. And that message was, “we don’t need to work with you any more. I have the votes and I have the power. We’re not just going to appropriate money to address the economic crisis here. We’re going to fund a whole bunch of things we’ve been trying to get through for the last eight years. We know you don’t agree, but you’re going to sit there and take it. You did it to us when we were in the minority. Let’s see how you like it.”
I also think the GOP opposition spoke directly to a point that Michael was trying to make earlier.
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.
Sorry, Micheal, but I have to respectfully disagree on that one.
What happened to the need for “urgent, immediate action” to address the economic crisis? When did the stimulus bill turn into some sort of massive, omnibus appropriations juggernaut?
Helping people is wonderful and many of the Democrat’s proposals for social programs are worthy of consideration, but they don’t really speak to the stated purpose of this emergency action. Each of those other projects are worthy of and deserve vigorous debate on their own merits. What would be the harm in leaving them aside for a few weeks and then bringing them up in appropriations bills of their own?
No, what this smells of to me is a combined case of political cowardice and new majority bullying. By sneaking all of these other programs into the bill, the Democrats hope to buy themselves some future cover, saying, “We had to pass all of those things! The economy was crumbling and a stimulus package was required!”
It was also, as I noted above, a chance for the long bullied Democrats to rub the Republicans’ collective noses in it. If you ask me, Speaker Pelosi didn’t want any Republicans to vote for the bill. She wanted to show them that there’s a new sheriff in town and to put them in their place.
Sadly, I think she did it at a tremendous cost to the nation.
Our debt is eventually going to come due, and the numbers are quickly growing beyond any imaginable way to pay them off.
76 Responses to “House Democrats Reveling in New Bully Role”
Davebo: the 40% of the package that is tax cuts was Obama's recommendation. Did you forget that he made those campaign promises to cut taxes?
And the corollary questions to yours about making tax cuts permanent include why we're enacting changes to the rules to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. Adding more funds to cover the people who will fall into the existing qualifications makes sense, but expanding the program is the same kind of long term turf grab that you're seeing on the tax issues.
Besides, Davebo, I don't think there are any permanent corporate or capital gains tax cuts in the bill, are there? I've seen changes to the write off rules and tax credits for businesses that avoid layoffs or make new hires, and that's about it (and I'm pretty sure those are both temporary changes anyway.)
Which was a built in concession to Republicans and their tax cut mentality.
I guess only Republicans can POSSIBLY support the idea of tax cuts during a recession, and Obama only started espousing the idea to appease. [rolls eyes]
It's a shame that each party has become so dogmatic, with too many Republicans saying that tax cuts are always the answer and the Democrats refusing to even consider the wisdom of targeted business tax relief. There was a time when some Democrats proposed ideas based on reality instead of ideology, like in this classic speech by JFK. Mind you, I'm not saying that the situation then was analogous to today or that we should do the same thing that he did then; actually my point is that you can see from his rhetoric that he's NOT just using boilerplate, kneejerk solutions but instead giving an explanation for WHY certain actions would be expected to have certain results.
Jim S
You are completely confused. Tax cuts Did not create the current financial mess this country is in. Government regulation which stopped actually regulating anything and encourages trillions in risky loans to keep the economy flying is what caused this problem.
You can rail all day against tax cuts yet 1/2 of your democratic stimulus package is TAX CUTS written by the Democrats.
Republicans support tax cuts all the time. That's about the only principle they have left, besides the belief that Ronald Reagan is some sort of god.
Obama actually supported a reworking of the tax code, so the rich owed more while the middle and poor classes owed less. As for business taxes, he supported lowering the rate on small businesses while removing the loopholes that gave us an effective rate much lower than that of other competitor nations.
Meanwhile, back when JFK was President, the top tax rate was something like 90% and now it's closer to 30%. I'm not sure what kind of lesson for today you can really glean from that. I'd argue that 90% is too high, but that 30% is too low. Tax cuts are good when taxes are too high, tax cuts are bad when taxes are already low enough for growth and the government needs more $$$.
CS-you're back to working the stones again, I see?
The only “business tax cuts” in there are only 2 euphemisms for tax cuts–some bonus depreciation and extending the NOL carryback period. These are both actually only “timing” differences in when taxes get paid (unless the NOL would have expired before utilization). Bonus dep is pure stimulus to capital equipment purchases.
So, by all means, agree to give Davebo 5% of them back–he'll just be cutting low income tax credits for the most part.
Heh, yeah, glutton for punishment I guess, CO.
Chris, did you bother to read my full comment? Why do you think I wrote that I didn't post that link to make a direct comparison to the economic climate of that time, but instead to show how the rhetoric has changed (for the worse, to much more simplistic and dogmatic terms- on both sides.)
And of course, the message you want to hammer home yet again is how the GOP is too dogmatic (ignoring the evidence I just showed about how that's been the change on the Dem side.) And then you give your simplistic dogmatic formula.
“The only “business tax cuts” in there are only 2 euphemisms for tax cuts–some bonus depreciation and extending the NOL carryback period.”
Actually that's not true. Taking a temporary tax cut and making it permanent seems to be a tax cut to me. Just as those such as you claimed that allowing a temporary tax cut to expire is a tax increase.
As for your “stones” claim. I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Rolling Stones but I did meet them and fly them on their Steel Wheels tour back in the day.
I'll ask again, Davebo- what tax cuts are being made permanent here?
Patrick E–
I'd be interested to see your source for your assertion about unemployment insurance.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'd like to see your sources on this, as on so many other things you assert.
The Republicans are being too dogmatic, based on a reasonable idea of centrism. This bill contains 30-40% tax cuts, and the rest is spending on various programs and infrastructure. Republicans get their tax cuts and Democrats get spending on their programs. Seems pretty damn centrist to me. I'm sure you'd prefer if the Democrats would completely acquiesce to Republican demands but that's not a fair expectation. So what do you want?
And if you'd like to read a reasonable progressive opinion on the bill, go here: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2…
There's lots of talk of Republican principle here.
It seems to me that the House Republicans decided to vote as a solid block so they could make a statement. If you want to say their statement was one of fiscal responsibility, maybe you should expect a little skepticism in response. If you want to hope they actually mean it this time, now that they are out of power and can't actually do it, good luck.
To me, it's a statement that Republicans prefer playing politics to the difficult work of finding solutions.
If Republicans want to be serious about fiscal responsibilities, let's see their proposed spending cuts.
Chris, why won't you or anyone else address the fact that Obama is the one who proposed the 40% portion of tax cuts, and that he campaigned and got elected on a promise to cut taxes for 95% of the country? How can you keep insisting that this is a concession to throw bones to the GOP Congress in order to get them to sign on, when clearly Obama thought that tax cuts were needed after we plunged into this deep downturn (if you look back, I'm pretty sure his campaign rhetoric changed right after the Wall Street crash in early Sept.) What, you're claiming he was being proactive on offering this as a concession in a future legislative battle?
George, one piece of evidence that shows that there's principle involved is that many of the same GOP (not enough of them, but some of the new leaders like Cantor) were also fighting the bank bailout legislation back when Bush was still in office and a fair number of them also voted against Bush's stimulus package last year.
I guess what I don't get is why you care one way or the other. Their votes are just symbolic, they can't obstruct. If there's ever a time to vote your conscience, certainly it's a time when you think that an awful bill is going to pass no matter what you do- at least then you can vote no without feeling that you are obstructing whatever good might be in the bill.
Republicans get their tax cuts and Democrats get spending on their programs.
Almost all of the tax cuts are distributionist, not supply side, so that's not a concession to the conservatives. Obviously you probably agree with the type of tax cuts they put in, but since they're not mainly pro-business, you can't keep insisting that this was done to appease Republicans- they were mostly the tax cuts that the DEMOCRATS wanted.
And for the umpteenth time, that's fine too, they're the majority and they can do that if they want to. But you don't get to have your majority power cake and eat your bipartisan comity too.
BTW, it's increasingly obvious how politically savvy Obama was on the tax cuts. He announced before the legislature even came into session that he was recommending 40% of the package as tax cuts, and it ended up as somewhere around 33%. Apparently he started a bit on the high side and gave the Congressional Dems room to bargain downward while they're still claiming that they gave something up to the GOP to no avail.
Christine, you have more patience than I could ever dream of. Good luck and good night.
CStanley–
You ask why I care. Fair enough.
I just noticed via Memeorandum that House Republicans have also voted to obstruct something that passed the Senate unanimously:
It seems to me they're just playing politics, and have no interest in the hard work of finding solutions.
I don't think that's a good thing.
But, as I said above, if you're happy with this strategy, there's no reason why they should stop.
There's been some talk on this thread about the stimulus bill being unpopular.
A Gallup poll published yesterday showed 52% of adults favored passing the stimulus bill.
Here is a 3-point analysis of the politics that suggests this was a considerable miscalculation on the part of House Republicans.
And here is conservative writer Daniel Larison questioning the wisdom of John Boehner:
LOL, I am going to have to sign off now too, CO.
I haven't been following the digital tv thing at all, George, so I can't comment specifically on that (it seems like such an odd thing for them to be taking up right now with serious problems to address, is my personal opinion.) What I think you might be picking up on as a broader theme though is that there are big differences in the makeup of the House GOP and Senate GOP right now, and there is also a better working environment in the Senate- so more compromise there is inevitable in general.
You can take that to mean that the House GOP are more principled, or that the Senate GOP are more devoted to compromise, or that the House leadership is being so heavy handed that they're getting more pushback, or whatever interpretation suits you best I suppose.
The reason for addressing the television issue now is simple. It has a deadline in a matter of weeks.
The reason to address the digital TV issue now is simple. Obama owes an adviser of his a favor. Said adviser is the CEO of a company that benefits greatly from this delay and who coincidentally suggested this delay to Obama.
Austin Roth–
The digital TV bill passed unanimously in the Senate. Are you saying the Senate Republicans are in the tank for Obama?
Jim Sattersfield is right about the deadline. If there are problems with the switch, won't the House Republicans own those problems?
Well, what I meant about not 'getting it' is basically- why should I care whether we receive mind numbingly vacuous tv signal over the airways or via digital transmission. No matter how many channels we get or how its delivered, it's almost all worthless. Maybe I'm missing something but I never understood the mandated change anyway, or why the government should be involved in this at all.
CStanley:
You don't care about the TV bill? That's fine.
But it did pass the Senate unanimously, meaning the Senate Republicans care. So I'm not sure why the House Republicans would decide to throw their weight around and obstruct it despite that.
I also think TV is a bunch of junk.
But I'm aware that lots of people like it.