Time To Cowboy Up, President Obama
There is much analysis on the House passing the $819 billion stimulus package. Fellow TMV colleagues Michael Stickings and Jazz Shaw have posted their interesting thoughts here and here. But what I’m also seeing is how “crappy” attitudes won out over President Obama’s words of bipartisanship.
I’m not portraying President Obama as an innocent victim here. He’s the POTUS and carries tremendous power. I fault him for not being more proactive in delaying this stimulus bill in order for a better compromise. And I fault him for wanting to rush this bill through. Some experts, pundits, and politicians have made “delay” a dirty word in talking about the stimulus bill. But we are already in a economic mess and delay for a more well-rounded bill (with Republican and Democratic ideas and plans) would have outweighed the negatives. It would have looked like American leaders, as a whole, were willing to go out there together with a Economic Stimulus Plan For America. Now we have the biggest government bill of a lifetime pushed through with the familiar us vs. them motif.
Why play us vs. them in a bill so vital to America’s future? So that one side gets all the blame and another all the praise? Do we really want to see one political party go up in nuclear flames while the other gets raised on high? Do we want to see one idea set and worldview reign supreme without any differing thought? That’s what I feel many Democratic and Republican politicians want when in power (and probably a sizable amount of those outside the beltway). To reign supreme as THE WAY FOR AMERICA INFINITE. Sorry ladies and gentleman. To go that way is not what America is about.
When I look at former President Bush and President Obama, I see two strong similarities. Both have strong convictions. Both are men of faith (whether you like it our not). It led Bush into a vision of America: The Righteous Warrior. We were attacked. We will defend ourselves. And we will win with justice on our side. Righteous warriors throughout time have been reckless and headstrong. But I never thought Bush wanted war because he was bloodthirsty and evil. He believed strongly in that he was right. And that firm belief won him an early victory of bipartisanship (the Iraq War vote) that Obama has not won yet. But how can I compare war where lives are lost to a stimulus bill where lives… are… are…
lost
Yes, it is the same in many ways. And unlike war where we have brave volunteers who willingly put their lives on the line, economic hardship destroys more lives in ways that can make people less brave, more reckless, more depressed, more violent, less understanding, etc. Obama has strong convictions in his ability to unite. Make fun of that conviction or praise it. Doesn’t matter how we feel about that conviction. All that matters is that he believes it and he is the President Of The United States. As Bush was able to turn his strong conviction into tangible action, President Obama needs to do the same. He now has a choice: let the “crappy” attitudes of partisanship stomp on his conviction or, as we black folks are fond or saying, “break his foot off” in partisanship’s butt and steer this bill into the land of Democratic AND Republican ideas. Time to turn into a bipartisanship cowboy on this one, Prez. Dust that hat off and make it happen.
The stakes are too high to shoulder all the load President Obama and Democrats. Way too high.
11 Responses to “Time To Cowboy Up, President Obama”
I think taking time to make sure the bill is better sounds good.
I don't necessarily think making the bill bi-partisan will achieve that. The House Republicans counter-proposal was 100% tax cuts with no data on the price tag. Since the bill is already 30-40% tax cuts, aren't we at that compromise point anyways?
And there's always the problem that the longer a bill stays in Congress, the more bloated it gets.
Considering the size of the Stimulus Package — more than the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, some say — a short delay would not have been ruinous.
Also, the Package should — IMHO – have been re-tooled as an Infrastructure “Rebuilding America” sort of deal…fixing the roads, bridges, airports, and public buildings…that we are all told are falling down.
Given that these are in every member of Congress' district…it would have been hard for many GOP to vote against it, I believe.
I disagree with T-Steel to some extent, though. Obama did at least reach out and talk with GOP leaders.
Pelosi gave them the finger.
Of course, that plays well with many Democrats. Pelosi's similar actions during the Bailout debate produced a similar response from the GOP.
But it does seem to me (I may be wrong) that Pelosi is undermining Obama's strategy.
It would be unfortunate if this establishes the template for the Obama Presidency.
I agree that both Chris and Marlo are essentially correct.
I harbor no illusions that time for review, hopefully occurring in the Senate, would do much to make this truly bi-partisan. If however that time is used to analyze what is truly in there, and focus it towards true stimulus rather than just so much pork projects, that would still be an improvement. The downside, as Chris says, is the high likelihood of even more bloat being the result.
If it can truly be focused, perhaps that will result in at least some Republican crossover, as it won't seem like it was shoved down everyone's throats.
Chris – I cannot say for sure how true this is (especially coming from the NY Post), but it is an example of why time to analyze this bill is needed:
The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.
But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new “stimulus” bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.
“Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund,” Democrats wrote in Section 2101 on Page 354 of the $819 billion bill. In other words, the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself.
“This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place,” said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.
AR,
I'm not sure what the problem is here. We have states around the country going bankrupt. They wont be able to supply unemployment benefits or keep government workers paid. The Feds are the only ones that can effectively borrow money and give it to them.
Without that money, the recession will certainly worsen.
I agree with this article. I believe our President should stand up and get rid of some of these ridiculous goverment spending parts of this bill. He is the only one with the power to do it. I also can relate to the Dems concerns over the tax cuts proposed by the Repubs.
They both agree on the infrastructure and unemployment benefit extensions so why not simply have a bill just for that. I am a civil engineer(roads and utilities) and deal with failing infrastructure routinely(obviously work is slow as I am on this blog). We are going to have to spend money on the infrastructure sooner or later, this I can assure you. I believe at this time we can get more bang for our buck since contractors, engineers(including me) laborers, etc are willing to work for less cause of the economic conditions. This in turn would give a lot of peope work and hopefully they would use it to buy goods and services providing people not in the infrastrucure industry jobs. I do not claim to be an Economist but why not spend money now that is certain, let me repeat, certain to be spent at some time in the near future and maybe help this economy out.
The American Society for Civil Engineers(ASCE) put out a study on our failing infrastructure that I would recommend people read.
Chris – not trying to be rude (really, I am not), but the reason you see no problem is you are not old enough to remember the social, economic, and political ramifications the unfettered welfare state caused in the 70's and 80's.
Even the vast majority of elected officials, at state and federal levels, along with economists and sociologists agree that in hindsight it was a brilliantly successful bill. Gutting it does not stimulate the economy, and in fact it will have the exact opposite effect, and there is plenty of real-world evidence from the passing of the Welfare Reform Act to support that contention
But this is quibbling over the details of one item in the bill. I was trying to make a bigger point – that a reasonable amount of time must be set aside to do real analysis of what is in that bill, and the likely impacts of the key pieces.
AR,
I do think that the infusion of money to state welfare programs should be temporary. I just think these are extraordinary circumstances that warrant changing the law.
Perhaps he just remembers that the Republicans exaggerated how much of society's problems back then came from welfare. Maybe he realizes that the 5 year ceiling on receiving benefits over an individual's entire lifetime is an asinine concept when we are in a recession so bad that jobs will be impacted for several years in just this one downturn.
And maybe you forget the Democrats exaggerating how it would lead to inner-city riots.
And if the goal is to protect those who have lost their jobs and will likely have to wait longer than normal for conditions conducive to re-employment, then extend and expand unemployment benefits, not welfare. That makes a lot more sense.
On this one Jim, you can piss into the wind all you want. Almost no one except the truly rabid claims that Welfare Reform did anything other than over-perform and exceed expectations, in all areas.
Prove that there were claims about riots. Not only do I not remember claims like that but have not been able to find any proof that such claims were made. If someone did it was presumably someone well outside the mainstream. As for your claims that it was a complete and brilliant success with no legitimate complaints about its effectiveness here's just a few counterpoints. I don't need to piss in the wind, I just need to piss on the bs you present as truth no matter how far it actually lies from it.
A balanced article on the subject from 1996
A study from Brookings
This study concludes that welfare reform did not make a significant dent in poverty. This is one of the claims of its supporters.