WSJ's False Reporting On The Stimulus

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 08:48:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Wall Street Journal "reports:"

[T]op lawmakers struggl[ed] to bring the price of the two-year package down to $800 billion. That would be well below the $838.2 billion plan approved Tuesday by the Senate on a 61-37 vote, but would reflect pressure from influential moderates in the Senate to hold down costs.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is false reporting by the Wall Street Journal. The "Senate moderates" (read Nelson, Collins, Specter and Snowe) were perfectly willing not to cut the costs of the biggest pieces of pork proposed in the Senate bill. These came from Republican Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa (with his insistence on the inclusion of the Alternative Minimum Tax fix at a cost of $70 billion) and Johnny Issakson of Georgia (with his insistence at the inclusion of a home buying tax credit of $15,000 at a cost of $35 billion). Ironically, neither Senator actually voted for the stimulus package.

More . . .

The "Senate moderates" do not oppose the high cost of the bill, they oppose effective stimulus spending, such as aid to states. If they truly were focused on the "cost" of the bill, they would not object to stripping the Grassley and Isaakson provisions, which would save $105 billion. Such savings would allow for the inclusion of truly effective stimulus spending such as aid to states.

The Wall Street Journal is not telling the truth in its reporting. The "Senate moderates" are not concerned with the cost of the bill (or the efficacy of the bill for that matter, the Senate bill creates 625,00 fewer jobs than the House bill at a cost $20B higher). It is in fact hard to figure out what exactly they are concerned about, unless it is sabotaging the effectiveness of the stimulus bill.

Speaking for me only

< Modern Punditry: Analysis Of Style Not Substance | Ohio Gov Objects To Timidity Of Stimulus Bill >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

WSJ's False Reporting On The Stimulus | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Opposing the aid to the states (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:06:37 AM EST

is really insidious. It's almost as if the "moderates" want people to feel as much pain as possible from service cuts.

".....hard to figure out.......?" (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by NYShooter on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:19:43 AM EST

No it isn't.

Didn't you see these "moderates" preening for the cameras? If the cameraman panned outward, you would see the Hypocrites, with their frozen on smiles, batting eyelashes, and laser stare into the camera as they solemnly proclaim, "we worked soooo hard to cut out the pork in order to save our haaaard working taxpayers and their haaaard earned money?" The politician's managers are standing next to the cameraman and looking at their clients, making a square with their index fingers and thumbs, yelling. "that's a wrap."

Real hard working men and women are working 24/7 to stave off disaster, and these wretched "moderates" are making campaign commercials!!

Disgusting

Someone who knows, please explain. . . (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:36:28 AM EST

These came from Republican Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa (with his insistence on the inclusion of the Alternative Minimum Tax fix at a cost of $70 billion) and Johnny Issakson of Georgia (with his insistence at the inclusion of a home buying tax credit of $15,000 at a cost of $35 billion). Ironically, neither Senator actually voted for the stimulus package.

how and why this happens? I understanding horsetrading to get someone's vote. By why bother if the you don't get a vote out of it?

Probably the idea at this point (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:39:17 AM EST

is that taking those out would antagonize Collins, Specter, and Snowe. Personally, I would make sure they were the first things to go.


At this point. . . (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:36:43 AM EST

I have to say that I dare the Republicans to stop the bill. They'd get clobbered.

However, that's just me talking style over substance. . .


: I really (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by CST on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:16:54 AM EST

Want to see them on tv with cameras, in their local news, filibustering the economic stimulus on a news day where hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost (I'd rather see the right bill passed, but if they are gonna be a-holes, let them be, where everyone can see them).
They wanna play chicken, fine, let's see who blinks first. My money is on Specter.

I just read the home credit will be out or (none / 0) (#8)
by Teresa on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:47:28 AM EST

reduced but it looks like the AMT is still in. The auto purchase credit is also out or reduced. I think the money to the states is going to stay out.

This is if we trust AP reporting.


: Who knows (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:49:47 AM EST

I don't know about the AMT (none / 0) (#12)
by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:40:42 AM EST

But the other provision passed the Senate as an amendment to the bill. It would be hard for the negotiators to take out something that the Senate wanted added. Now when it gets to conference, that's a different issue, but as far as changing the bill within the Senate....


Meanwhile, Boxer on the floor of the Senate (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:39:53 AM EST

celebrating Bill Clinton's partisan 1993 budget.

not at all: (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by cpinva on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 10:02:16 AM EST

Ironically, neither Senator actually voted for the stimulus package.

and damn few, if any republicans, will vote for it, regardless of what's done to salve their wounded "fiscal" pride. anything seen as even the least bit (and believe me, this stimulus bill definitely qualifies as "least") succesful for pres. obama and the congressional democrats, is to be avoided at any cost, by the republicans.

that's their game, and they'll stick to it, regardless of the damage done to the country.

Conflation (none / 0) (#3)
by bocajeff on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:22:04 AM EST

It seems like you are conflating their desire to keep the costs down with how they want to keep the costs down.

Remember, there is no doubt as to government spending creating jobs - that's the easy call. The tougher call comes from the long term damage to the economy by increasing the spending. Yes, you can create x amount of jobs now, but in 5 years you can create y amount of less jobs...

: Willful blindness (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 09:32:29 AM EST

the House bill cost $20B less than the Senate bill.

Just out of curiosity (none / 0) (#13)
by Faust on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:00:01 AM EST

Lets say the House Dems are successful here (I hope they are).

What happens when this thing gets back to the Senate? Does it become a game of chicken? It seems that all the rational arguments are on the side of people who want an effective stimulus (almost a tautology). But nothing in the behavior of the Republicans makes me think they care at all about rational arguments. They appear insane to me.

So for the politically savy here, andgarden, BTD, how does this play out in a best case scenario?

I called both my senators' offices to find out (none / 0) (#15)
by suzieg on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:43:32 AM EST

how the voting after the reconciliation worked - no one could explain it to me. Who votes on the reconciled bill? Is it voted on by the full house and senate? I also called the DNC and they didn't know.

They both thought because the bill was already voted on and passed by the two houses, that it came down to the conferees solely, who vote and that's that! I also wanted to know who chooses who to deliberate/negotiate - they didn't know and I'm hoping someone here can enlighten me, please!

BTW I also asked if their calls were pro or against the stimulus,they said majority against, then again I live in Houston and both my senators are republicans.


It is actually pretty straight forward (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:46:18 AM EST

A conference bill is hammered out in, well, conference.

It goes to the House and is voted on without the possibility of amendment.

If it passes, it goes to the Senate, where, without possibility of amendment, it is subject to Senate voting rules, to wit, a 3/5 vote requirement as accepted now. Mike Ditto has put forth a persuasive argument that it is in fact NOT subject to such requirement. But no one important has taken that position.


Thanks,just another question - who decides (none / 0) (#17)
by suzieg on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 11:54:44 AM EST

who will be the conferees?


The respective caucus leaders (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:07:34 PM EST

: i don't remember the list, but (none / 0) (#20)
by NYShooter on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:36:34 PM EST

correct me if I'm mistaken our guys'gals were none too impressive.
can someone set me straight please.

So this goes back to my question (none / 0) (#19)
by Faust on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:34:04 PM EST

As a neophyte in political matters such as this I ask: how does a bill that gets made better, and thus completely unpalatable to our insane theology driven "friends" in the opposition party, pass the senate with the 3/5 rule? Does something about the way it gets hashed out in conference increase the chances that it will make it through the senate the second time around? What are the forces that will cause the same posturing centrists to messed up the bill the first time through vote on a bill that doesn't conform to their "high standards" the second time around?

I'm speaking out of ignorance here. The concrete machinations of how the sausage gets made are something I'm learning about but it's suprisingly hard to get information about since most people talk about the high level politics and not the nitty gritty details. But if there is a real chance of a better bill being passed, then there must be some route people are seeing through the deadlock that I don't see. Unless the whole thing really does boil down to a game of political chicken.


: You got it (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by CST on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 12:37:35 PM EST

In your last sentance I think.
"the whole thing really does boil down to a game of political chicken."

conference committee (none / 0) (#22)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 01:42:27 PM EST

The conference committee is 100% Dems so they can write about anything they want. Get a grip.

Nor are a whole host of media outlets (none / 0) (#23)
by vicndabx on Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 02:34:02 PM EST

The Wall Street Journal is not telling the truth in its reporting.

I've given up relying on the "news." If I want the real story, I either come here or watch C-Span. The silver lining is that in spite of the media spin, citizens still support the Dems overwhelmingly.