House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t happy that the Senate wants to cut $86 billion from an $800-billion-plus economic stimulus package the House passed about two weeks ago. Here is what she’s been saying, according to a recent article in Politico.
“These cuts are very damaging — [the House bill] was put together very carefully. … The funding goes directly to school districts, they are stimulative because they maintain jobs instead of cutting jobs.” …
The new Senate cuts, if passed, “will do violence to the future,” said Pelosi, who is also pressing a reluctant Obama to repeal Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy before they expire at the end of 2010.
It seemed that finally Pelosi understands the arguments she should have been prepared to make weeks ago when the bill first passed in the House — that the bill “was put together very carefully,” and that all the spending in the bill is so critical, so necessary to our economic future that making any cuts whatsoever will “do violence to the future.”
If only Pelosi had realized at the outset that winning these arguments would be absolutely crucial to getting this bill passed! If only she had, Democrats might have been able to compel at least a few House and Senate Republicans to support a far better bill than what is currently on the table.
But, unfortunately, she clearly didn’t.
Instead, Dems immediately agreed to remove a multi-million-dollar expenditure on contraceptives. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin theatrically tore a page from the bill, saying all the Republicans’ complaints amount to only a tiny fraction of the bill’s overall price tag. And Obama had this to say about the debate over whether the bill is as good as it should be:
“Legislation of such magnitude deserves the scrutiny that it’s received over the last month, and it will receive more in the days to come,” Mr. Obama said. “But we can’t afford to make ‘perfect’ the enemy of the absolutely necessary.”
The Democrats’ response wasn’t to defend the spending in the bill — but merely to try to cast the critics as petty nit-pickers for raising these sorts of questions in the first place. As far as Pelosi and her fellow Congressional Dems were concerned, the idea that this bill was “put together very carefully” was to be swallowed whole without any strong justification — and anyone who dared to suggest otherwise would be frowned upon and dismissed. As far as Obama was concerned, lawmakers should vote for the bill even though it wasn’t actually put together very carefully at all.
Republicans LOVE IT when Democrats try to use frowns, disapproval and evasion as a substitute for legitimate debate.
The following excerpt from a Newsweek column pretty much sums up the tactics Republicans have successfully employed to convince a large majority of Americans that the stimulus bill will do more harm than good:
The interview was nearly over. on the Fox News Channel last Wednesday evening, Sean Hannity was coming to the end of a segment with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, the chair of the House Republican Conference and a vociferous foe of President Obama’s nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. How, Pence had asked rhetorically, was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts going to put people back to work in Indiana? How would $20 million for “fish passage barriers” (a provision to pay for the removal of barriers in rivers and streams so that fish could migrate freely) help create jobs? Hannity could not have agreed more. “It is … the European Socialist Act of 2009,” the host said, signing off. “We’re counting on you to stop it. Thank you, congressman.”
Pence’s opposition to the bill may be stupid overall, but his questions aren’t unreasonable. Why was $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts included in this stimulus legislation? Why was $20 million for removing “fish passage barriers” included?
If you want to argue, as Pelosi does, that the bill was “put together very carefully,” then you have to explain persuasively that these items reflect careful thought. Why is it better to spend $70 million on these two items when that same $70 million could be spent on something else?
Unfortunately, Democrats have utterly failed to respond to these sorts of questions. And now, many Americans are looking at the giant void where answers should be and are wondering if the void exists because Democrats can’t answer them. And as Americans start to worry that Dems may be stuffing their bill with pork, Republicans are taking advantage of these growing doubts.
Where Democrats have refused to defend the specific provisions in their bill, Republicans have filled the void with ceaseless attacks:
The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect. The president’s claims of bipartisanship were mostly a sham, as he skillfully maneuvered Republicans into a no-win position: either support a Democratic program; or oppose it — and seem passive and uncaring.
— Robert Samuelson, Washington Post
In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted. …
In testimony this week, Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, raised the possibility of separating the temporary from the permanent measures and focusing independently on each. “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package,” Rivlin testified. “The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.”
– David Brooks, New York Times
The final bill was privately agreed by most and publicly conceded by many to be a big, messy, largely off-point and philosophically chaotic piece of legislation. The Congressional Budget Office says only 25% of the money will even go out in the first year. This newspaper, in its analysis, argues that only 12 cents of every dollar is for something that could plausibly be called stimulus. …
What was needed? Not pork, not payoffs, not eccentric base-pleasing, group-greasing forays into birth control as stimulus, as the speaker of the House dizzily put it before being told to remove it.
— Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
It’s possible that Congressional Democrats didn’t defend their bill because they were just lazy. It’s also possible that they didn’t defend their bill because they didn’t want to dignify their critics with a response. Or, it may be that they didn’t defend their bill because the bill was simply indefensible from a political standpoint. Is giving $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts defensible? Can any Democrat reasonably expect to convince a majority of American taxpayers that spending $50 million of their money on the National Endowment for the Arts is urgently needed to save our economy?
Unfortunately, the time for making that argument has come and gone. Facing no Democratic push-back whatsoever, Republicans have made so much headway in selling their argument that the bill is stuffed with pork that now Democrats have no choice except to force a bill through, partisan-style, using fear-based arguments. Obama says it is “irresponsible and inexcusable” to delay passage of the bill, and warns of “catastrophe” if it doesn’t pass.
In other words, Obama and the Dems must use fear and partisanship to sell a bill they have been unwilling or unable to defend. Does this remind you of any other political party from, say, about seven years ago?
As I’ve argued before, the blame for this unfortunate turn of events falls on the shoulders on Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats who originally drafted a bill without a plan to rigorously defend it. I totally agree with Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi:
What happened with Obama’s economic stimulus plan also stings. Democrats couldn’t wait to push as much of their liberal economic agenda as possible, as quickly as possible, whether or not it helped Obama’s post-partisan agenda. Their nearly trillion-dollar package merely reordered the funding priorities that have existed for decades.
“We have his back,” declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a retreat for House Democrats in Williamsburg, Va. This expression of solidarity came after Pelosi allowed her members to stab Obama in the back. With Pelosi’s acquiescence, the House-passed bill was packed with items that are easy for taxpayers to think of as old-fashioned spending, not economic jump-starting.
Meanwhile, Senate majority leader Harry Reid happily confirmed that he will make sure his home state of Nevada benefits from the stimulus package, via spending targeted for Las Vegas’s airport and casinos. To average citizens, that sounds like pork-barrel business as usual. A deal was struck late Friday for a pared-down stimulus package. It must be approved by the full Senate and reconciled with the House version. …
The president has yet to sell the stimulus package as the best answer to the country’s economic woes. That’s partly because last year’s stimulus package did nothing to stop the slide, let alone turn it around; and partly because his own party hijacked it.
Obama’s two daughters have been lobbying for a canine pet for awhile. Maybe they instinctively know what Harry Truman learned from experience.
If you want a friend in the nation’s capital, get one that barks but doesn’t bite.
I hate to have to say it, but the leader of the Democratic party is Barack Obama, not Nancy Pelosi. The spending in the House bill, put together with Obama’s blessing, to the point where Obama was willing to take public ownership of the bill — to allow it to be called the “Obama stimulus” — was justified (the Filipino vets thing was put in only the Senate bill, and should be stripped from the final package and handled separately).
NEA? It’s spending. Ice breakers? Spending.
Stimulus is spending. Again and again, we need to repeat: stimulus is spending. Do you want an economic stimulus that works? Spend. That’s the definition of stimulus. There needed to be more of it, in fact. Singling out Pelosi — who did fail in her duty, no doubt — misses the larger picture, in my view. Look at Obama’s speech in the Rachel Maddow video: that should have been Obama’s approach two-three weeks ago. Democrats should have asked for much more — because, frankly, much more is needed — knowing they would have to give some of it up.
The American people should be posed with a couple questions if they’re having trouble deciding where they stand on the stimulus.
1. Do you want the free market to do what it will or do you want government intervention in the economy?
2. If you want government intervention, do you want cost-effective intervention or wasteful/useless intervention.
If you want the market to play itself out, do nothing.
If you want ineffective government action, cut taxes.
If you want effective intervention, spend.
The issues are not much more complicated than that, as far as I can tell.
Comment by Lee — February 9, 2009 @ 4:19 am
If you agree that all spending is stimulative — and that it doesn’t matter what you spend the money on — then you’ve for to admit the Democrats in Congress were utterly stupid in the way they put this bill together.
They could have proposed spending that Republicans would feel compelled to support — such as spending on construction projects at military bases, massive road re-paving projects, etc. Instead, they proposed spending on items that any legislator with a brain in his skull would expect Republicans to object to, like the NEA, condoms, ice breakers, etc.
In other words, Democrats could have passed a huge spending bill with massive Republican support if only they had shown an iota of self-restraint in putting together the bill.
But they didn’t.
Instead of showing self-restraint, they loaded up the bill with items that will obviously offend Republicans. And then, you’re reduced to saying “Well, it’s spending!” as though the specifics don’t matter.
The question is, why did the Dems decide to spend the money on NEA spending, rather than something else. If you can make the argument that spending it on the NEA is THE MOST STIMULATIVE USE OF THAT MONEY, then make the argument. But the argument that all spending is equally stimulative and no government spending can possibly be wasteful hasn’t been made effectively.
You can blame Obama. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. And it is certainly correct that the Democratic Party’s success or failure will hinge entirely on Obama’s success or failure. That’s why House and Senate Dems need to understand that OBAMA IS IN CHARGE. Obama should be calling the plays, because he is the only one who can transform short-term anger at Republicans into long-term support for Democrats.
I agree with the logic of your comment: Obama is the leader of his party, and any Democrat who resists Obama in any way is merely weakening the party and increasing the chances that Dems will be successful. Do I understand you correctly?
Comment by Ian — February 9, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
The Republicans and centrist Democrats did not say: remove these items and we’ll pass your bill. They reduced aid to state governments and other perfectly reasonable provisions either because they either hate spending period (Republicans) or because they want to pose as centrists without offering policy explanations for why they’re cutting what they’re cutting (so-called centrist Democrats). I repeat: if the issue was NEA funding or icebreakers, both of which are completely justified forms of spending, then those could have been removed and redirected instantly.
I don’t think you understand the logic of my argument. Obama is the leader of the Democratic party, so when there is an initiative that he wants to see passed and the Democratic party wants to see passed he is going to be the go-to person in the project of defending the proposal.
If Obama undermines the success of the plan he wants to see passed by not vigorously defending that plan, by tepidly talking about postpartisan this or bipartisan that, he ought to be blamed when the plan falls well below the lower threshold of what he himself admitted was necessary.
If Democrats want to resist Obama, there’s no particular reason for them not to do so. If they succeed in their resistance, then Obama should be mad at their success. If they fail, then Obama should be happy at his success.
I think the American people would have been much better off if Congressional Democrats had resisted Obama’s postpartisan approach and had pitched a 1.3 trillion dollar pure spending bill, and then after a repeat of the fight we just saw agreed to reduce it to 900 billion of a spending/tax combo.
That’s what you would do if you were buying a used car. The same negotiating principles apply for passing national-level legislation.
Comment by Lee — February 9, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
I also ought to say: the comment above, about negotiating tactics, isn’t an academic argument to be appreciated by scholars in some remote part of the country.
If Obama and the Democrats want to be more successful in the future, they need to learn from their mistakes. Their approach to this stimulus was a mistake. I’m happy to say that Pelosi and the House Democrats made serious mistakes — including failing to stand up for their perfectly justified spending provisions.
But it still seems to me that the biggest mistake was Obama’s “postpartisanship,” which initially proposed an insufficient stimulus and is leaving us now with a hugely inadequate stimulus.
Comment by Lee — February 9, 2009 @ 7:03 pm