home

The Relationship Between The Post Partisan Unity Schtick And The "Centrist Pose"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:19:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Commenting on Atrios' point on the false idea of "centrism," Krugman writes:

[C]entrism is a pose rather than a philosophy. And to support that pose, the centrists are demanding $100 billion in cuts in the economic stimulus plan — not because they have any coherent argument saying that the plan is $100 billion too big, not because they can identify $100 billion of stuff that should not be done, but in order to be able to say that they forced Obama to move to the center.

As a self admitted Centrist poseur, this is what shocks me - that anyone thinks of "centrism" as anything but a pose. But then "post-partisanship" is just a schtick. But it harms policy if the person doing the schtick does not realize it. Now Obama is saying ALL the right things, and I am happy for it, but is the damage already done? Krugman asks:

[S]houldn’t Obama have made a much bigger plan, say $1.3 trillion, his opening gambit? If he had, he could have conceded to the centrists by cutting it to $1.2 trillion, and still have had a plan with a good chance of really controlling this slump. Instead he made preemptive concessions, only to find the centrists demanding another pound of flesh as proof of their centrist power.

Krugman calls the question obvious. I think he knows the answer is obvious as well. Of course. Oh by the way, for those who want to be the progressive flank of the Democratic Party - the answer is obvious on how they should interact with Obama - demand MORE Progressivism. Always. Let him move to the "center" off of progressives, not be forced to the right by the likes of Collins and Nelson.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Rove, Congress, the Special Counsel, and Handcuffs >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Relationship Between The Post Partisan Unity Schtick And The "Centrist Pose" | 88 comments (88 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Russ Feingold is not a hero in this (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    instead of fighting to make the package bigger from the start, he joined the nattering earmark brigade.

    Reid Tough Words (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    Reid lampooned an amendment by Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) aimed at ending unauthorized spending for earmarked projects.

    "Please, someone write about how foolish this earmark [issue] is," Reid said, arguing that Congress has already passed legislation to make earmarks more transparent.

    link via digby

    [ Parent ]

    if true (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:32:05 PM EST
    hugely dissappointing.

    With Nelson's ludicrous cuts it s becoming apparent that those serving in the US Senate have an astonishing ignorance of macroeconomics.  I am not an economist, engineer and lawyer here, but this is pretty basic stuff just looking at the components of GDP.  Nothing but government spending is likely to raise GDP.  Beyond that, people need to work and get paid.

    No one wants Uncle Sam to spend $900 billion and take over a huge chunk of the economy, we have no other choice if we seek to avoid at least a decade of deflation and negative growth.

    [ Parent ]

    if true (none / 0) (#7)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:32:06 PM EST
    hugely dissappointing.

    With Nelson's ludicrous cuts it s becoming apparent that those serving in the US Senate have an astonishing ignorance of macroeconomics.  I am not an economist, engineer and lawyer here, but this is pretty basic stuff just looking at the components of GDP.  Nothing but government spending is likely to raise GDP.  Beyond that, people need to work and get paid.

    No one wants Uncle Sam to spend $900 billion and take over a huge chunk of the economy, we have no other choice if we seek to avoid at least a decade of deflation and negative growth.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep. (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    Government spending is the only thing that will help us fix our infrastructure. Which needs it desperately.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh crap. (none / 0) (#34)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    Getting rid of earmarks is a tremendously BAD idea that relies on a superficial understanding of what an earmark does (Thanks a lot John Mccain)

    [ Parent ]
    I would (none / 0) (#51)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    argue that if something is so important that it not be called an earmark, then it can stand on its own in its very own bill.

    [ Parent ]
    Shrug (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    An earmark is nothing more or less than Congress deciding where a given sum of money gets spent as opposed to someone in the Executive Branch making the decision.  The same amount of money gets spent whether the funds are earmarked or un-earmarked.  And if there were some kind of ban on earmarks, that would just mean everyone has to send their lobbyists to the Executive Branch instead of the Legislative Branch.

    I certainly wouldn't mind seeing every significant measure considered on its own merits, but that's just not realistic given the size of the country and the scope of the federal budget.  There aren't enough hours in the day for Congress to have full debate on every single line-item.

    [ Parent ]

    ALSO... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    getting rid of earmarks now would eliminate an important barganing tool that could help the passage of this bill.

    [ Parent ]
    That would change substantially (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    how things are done in Washington. THat kind of change may (or may not be) be worthwhile, but now is not the time for it.

    Mccain is arguing over peanuts.

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt that you could get much done (none / 0) (#80)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    without some earmarks. Those incentives are needed to get deals done.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup. (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:52:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, Obama has the opportunity to (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    turn this to his advantage. The last few days are absolute proof of the frivolity of the Republican party. He should use their lack of seriousness to justify shooting for the moon, now.

    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    The Republicans "lack of seriousness", as you call it, is winning the message wars over this stimulus bill.  Obama, Nancy, and Harry are looking kind of silly to many people out there, and more people every day are not happy about this package.  I would argue that the message coming out of DC is that this bill is not necessarily about stimulus, but about lots of pork spending that should be debated in other bills.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:37:48 PM EST
    As Obama said yesterday:
    What do you think Stimulus is???  It's Spending.

    You call it pork, I call it necessary.  BTW, who cares about messaging now.  There is no election now.  The next election will be about whether the bill worked or not, not whether people thought it should be passed before hand.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    But some of the "spending" isn't necessary right now and has nothing to do with "stimulus".

    And when Congressional offices get phone lines clogged with complaints, something is going on.

    This is turning out to be the "gang that couldn't shoot straight".

    [ Parent ]

    More spending is necessary (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:43:31 PM EST
    All of it is is not only necessary, but imperative.

    [ Parent ]
    I would argue (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    the right kind of spending is necessary, not just spending for spending's sake. And that's where the R's argument looks good to ordinary people who aren't following this moment by moment.

    [ Parent ]
    Define "right" kind of spending (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:53:26 PM EST
    Here's the kind that the "centrists" want that is a ludicrous joke as stimulus:

    The AMT fix.

    The auto purchase tax credit.

    The home purchase tax credit.

    Those 3 "centrist" proposals cost 200 billion. You think the "centrists" want to take it out?

    [ Parent ]

    Will this work? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    Lets have people and business only pay 1/2 of the income tax this year.   I heard IRS collects about 2.7 trillion a year.  That would leave 1.5 trillion in the pockets of the people and the business to spend

    [ Parent ]
    Barney Frank said it best, as usual (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:29:28 PM EST
    From Lance Mannion:

    I liked how Barney Frank went after Jim "Let It All Come Crashing Down Around Our Ears Just Give My Friends Their Tax Breaks" De Mint last week.

    "No tax break built a road," Frank told him.  "No tax cut puts a cop on the street."

    Lance has a good sum up as well:

    Like I said, it's a jobs jar.  Reach in, pull out a piece of paper, and almost certainly what's written there is a project that should have been started and finished eight years ago.

    It's not a frivolous orgy of gift giving to special interests.

    That's what Republicans are for.



    [ Parent ]
    Message Wars and Words (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    Yes, the Barney Frank statement is one that everyone immediately gets. Tax-cuts-don't-build-roads is the kind of declaration that is both easy to understand, to the point, and not clothed in vague philosophical concepts. (By the way, for a vaunted economist, Paul Krugman talks in a language that is open and honest as well.) My point: We Democrats need to take the straightforward message like the one in the Rocky Mountain News this a.m.: Beattie's cartoon shows a suited Elephant saying to a man with a 'need work' sign around his neck that "All you need is a tax cut!--The man responds 'For which...The income on the job I don't have, the bonus I didn't get, or the 401(k) that's no longer worth anything?'  Cartoons don't cloak things too much in these kinds of situations; and, in these kinds of situations, we need to go on the attack offensive in much the same way. Sure, I have heard the taxes-don't-matter-that-much-when-you-don't-have-a-job comment here and there. BUT, the argument needs to be stated loud & often. Distill the philosophy (and the meandering defensive reaction) to the kind of forthrightness that President Obama showed in addressing the Democrats in VA last night. We all can and should 'make nice-nice' later. Right now, we need to come to grips with the neatly crafted war of words being waged here. We need to get out front before ceding control of our own message.

    [ Parent ]
    Won't work, IMO (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    not unless you can dictate how it is spent, which of course you can't. Taking that same money and use it for something tangible is a sure stimulus.

    [ Parent ]
    We'd have to cut spending. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    Which never ever happens.  If they don't use our taxes to pay for this stuff now then we'll be taxed with interest in the future (if they borrow) or through inflation (if they expand the money supply).

    [ Parent ]
    Bush's tax rebate (none / 0) (#81)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:46:05 PM EST
    put money into people's pocket but was very ineffective as a stimulus because too many people used it to pay down debt. That is why the money needs to go to specific projects or to low income people who will have to spend it right away. What we need so desperately to stimulate at this juncture is demand, not savings.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    Any attempt to subsidize industries or maintain overpriced asset values is just post-dating an economic bomb - just like lowering rates to 1% in 2003 in response to slow growth.

    Say we give GM a $2,000/car subsidy - well GM is going to produce vehicles  that cost just under $2,000 more to make than Japanese imports (this includes whatever tariffs we impose as well, just another form of subsidy).  

    How does the government get them to invest in more efficient production?  We know costly oversight is a longterm negative and still unenforceable.  Some proponents say that we give GM a deadline for the subsidies.  Well if GM's last experience with the government is that they swoop in and save them in times of financial duress - why would the execs not take advantage of this precedent yet again?  

    [ Parent ]

    post-dating an economic bomb (none / 0) (#59)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    I like that.

    I hate tax deductions for mortgages, tuition etc.  To me they are just an excuse for the provider of whatever it is being subsidized in this way to raise prices.  Bush's prescription drug deduction is a prime example, just a massive transfer of funds from the public treasury to drug companies.  I have not seen a study but I am willing to bet drugs that sold for $100 before the deduction sold after for close to $100 plus whatever the average benefit of the tax deduction is to the buyers.

    Obviously mortgage deductions are viewed as sacred by most but I wouldn't weep if they were abolished, in time rates would come down in response.  

    [ Parent ]

    Regarding Mortgages (none / 0) (#66)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:25:12 PM EST
    The government should avoid altering legal contracts after the fact.  Simultaneously the Fed should not swap US Treasuries for mortgage backed securities.  These two things happen and next thing you know lenders - who loathe dealing with foreclosed homes - will find a cost/benefit point in which renegotiation is mutually beneficial.

    Ofcourse - the Fed already played it's role.  If large banks get a break then it's only fair to give a  break to homeowners one could argue.  That does neglect all the non-players.  Everyone who doesn't have a mortgage or agreed to a mortgage they could actually pay picks up the tab for both the lenders and the borrowers.  Either in subsidization - or in the event of government rewriting contracts: increasing uncertainty and increasing the cost of lending post-recession.

    [ Parent ]

    That would work as a short term (none / 0) (#82)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    stimulus to buy cars that already have been made but the stimulus would have to be very short-lived and incentives for efficient vehicles would need to kick in.

    [ Parent ]
    Which arugment looks good? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    That the bill be 100% tax cuts?

    That the bill be $300 billion less?

    That we not weatherize homes?

    That we not hire folks to teach kids about STDs (so much better to let them find out for themselves)?

    They have and will continue to produce endless arguments because they want no bill, or at minimum, an ineffective bill.  They do not care if ordinary men and women go jobless, not their problem, not their constituency.

    [ Parent ]

    From the same GOP who brought us 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    Consider this from The Confluence , if people at the highest levels in the Bush Administration were willing to let 9/11 happen and capitalize on it for political gain - why wouldn't the GOP leadership push the economy over a cliff - especially on Obama's watch? Yes, I know, RiverDaughter is a PUMA, but even a PUMA can be right once a day, i.e. she compares Krugman to Richard Clark:

    Remember the accounts of Richard Clark and George Tenet at the 9/11 Commission hearings about how they were running around the White House with their hair on fire trying to get Condi's and W's attention in the summer of 2001?  They knew something bad was going to happen and even went to the trouble of delivering a presidential daily briefing called "bin Laden determined to strike within the US" to Bush while he was on vacation.  Remember how they said he told them it was harshing his mellow and he didn't want to hear about it anymore? [snip]

    Well, Paul Krugman, aka "The Shrill One", must have written his last column with his hair on fire.  Our economy balances on the edge of a knife.  One false move and we're right back to the "Buddy Can You Spare A Dime" days.  You know, I don't think he's kidding.  The layoffs are coming fast and furious and pretty soon, the economy is going to shrink in a big way.  But it's Obama and the Republicans playing games that has Krugman worried...



    [ Parent ]
    If Bush was in office now (none / 0) (#68)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    He'd be pushing the stimulus.  He wasn't exactly a fiscal conservative.  Lowering the interested rate to 1% in 2003 is essentially the same thing - just seems less socialist since all the money runs through banks and not directly from the government to business.

    All this bantering is between congress folk that know very little about economics and should not at all be considered a reference for the real issue at hand.  

    "keynesian academics comprise the vanguard of intellectual apologists for socialist intervention"

    [ Parent ]

    He would be pushing 'A' Stimulus (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ai002h on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    just not this one. Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative (who really is??) but he was definetely held captive to that failed ideology that tax cuts solve every problem. If I had to guess, he would be pushing a $400 billion bill with about 80% tax cuts and the rest going to extended unemployment and minimal state aid.

    [ Parent ]
    Tax Cuts (none / 0) (#74)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    Aren't actually tax cuts when you up spending.  Debt today results in taxes tomorrow.  Same with printing money - results in inflationary tax in the future.  

    When democrats spend in huge quantities they at least fund it partially with taxes eliminating the added cost of future interest.  Well, we'll see for now.

    So both parties like to spend lots of money.  One gets us into wars on provoking physical fear, the other institutes social programs by provoking economic fears and falsely framing morality.  They both support lowering interest rates to provoke growth and always address symptoms, never causes.

    [ Parent ]

    You Are Either Trolling (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    Or you have really poor judgement, imo.

    If Bush was in office now He'd be pushing the stimulus.
     

    Krugman: Look at what just happened, we had a proposal I think it was McCain's proposal for an economic recover package, his version of it which was all tax cuts, a complete, let's do exactly what Bush did, have another round of Bush-style policies.

    dday

    I do not know what you are smoking but it must be good.

    [ Parent ]

    No Trolling (none / 0) (#75)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    I'm being serious.  

    McCain submitted this proposal while campaigning towards the Republican base.  I know this doesn't mean he may not be pushing the same exact thing now...but we can hardly trust what he says while campaigning.  Bush said he wouldn't engage in nation building while he campaigned and that did not happen.

    Republicans use tax-cuts as bribes while upping spending and guaranteeing we all pay more taxes in the future.  The Bush years - even ignoring taxes entirely - saw huge increases in net spending despite everything he campaigned on.  The modern day republican party - like the democratic party - will take any opportunity to spend either current or future tax payer money.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    No question that spending went waaaaaay up with the GOP, but the point is what whet up and what spending had a knife taken to it.

    Bush would never go near this stimulus package as measly as it is.
    Bush was sure that his methods were working and it was just the Dems that were mucking it up.

    BushCo would double the deficit if he could and then use it as a way to gut SS and other entitlement programs, like public schools and healthcare.

    The house R votes sent you smoke signals as to how Bush would view Obama's stimulus plan. Did you notice?

    [ Parent ]

    Like McCain's Proposal (none / 0) (#77)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    The voting of the republicans can't be taken at face value because it has no real affect on what will come out of our government - as is noted on this blog - it's up to the dems it seems.

    If Bush was willing to sit quietly as the interest rate went to 1% in 2003 while wasting taxpayer cash and cutting taxes for the sake of funneling money out of our hands and into those of his associates, I doubt he'd pass up an opportunity to manage hundreds of billions of additional spending. That's not measly - that is a lot of our money and our future in the hands of people that have no reason to concern themselves with accountability.

    The dems and republicans both gut SS.  It's legislated required savings for every wage earner that is then taken - and not saved - but spent in the same fiscal term.  Bush wanted to get even more inane and place a portion on the stock market - without reducing spending - meaning an additional foreign debt of equal value.  His explanation was that the stock market was returning 6% while foreign debt was at 3-4%.  The notion itself was hilarious because it presupposes that there are just billions of dollars sitting around waiting to be made at 0 risk...and they were referring to the additional 100bil or so in debt as a "transition cost"...whatever that was supposed to mean.

    Bismark instituted the first SS program.

    [ Parent ]

    What Bush actually said was (none / 0) (#83)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    "Now you've covered your a_ _". Very mature, professional response to such a serious briefing. I still would like someone to explain why they reacted that way. It was truly bizarre and should have been hung around Bush's neck like a flaming tire.

    [ Parent ]
    Off topic- Need Restaurant Recommendation (none / 0) (#16)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    In San Juan.  This is almost as important as the stimulus package.

    [ Parent ]
    I was there yesterday (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:55:34 PM EST
    You there now?

    My favorite is Chayote. link to a review.

    [ Parent ]

    My mom and brother (none / 0) (#19)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    Hopefully I can come join them next week for a long weekend.  

    [ Parent ]
    I am backin NY now (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:57:14 PM EST
    From 80 to 20 in 4 hours.

    [ Parent ]
    The jetstream is shifting (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    so maybe you brought some of the warm back with you.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:14:23 PM EST
    It was 36 degrees in Tampa yesterday...  Must be a serious heat wave in PR.

    [ Parent ]
    Do those dramatic temperature changes (none / 0) (#88)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    Mess with you?  I can imagine getting sick a lot with those kind of changes.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh Man (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Shouldn't have looked at that link, gotta get some food now, that menu got my mouth watering big time.

    [ Parent ]
    All of it? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    Is there any limit?  How much is too much?  

    [ Parent ]
    Examples of pork in this bill please (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:18:20 PM EST
    so we can see whether it is, indeed, pork.

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt we'll here anything (none / 0) (#41)
    by Radix on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    on this. Because they will have to explain how hiring people is not stimulative.

    [ Parent ]
    Not needed 'right now' (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    Maybe not, but what makes you think the economy is not going to need stimulus in a couple of years when some of these projects really kick in?  I wish I was that optimistic.

    [ Parent ]
    All right (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    This bill, as we are being told, is to stimulate the economy right now.  That means, there should only be things in this bill that will help out in less than a year. There are many great things in this bill that I support and think we definitely need more funding for, but they aren't going to jump start anything, so therefore, they should be debated on and voted upon in other funding bills.

    In my opinion, this bill should only contain a few things:

    1. Some type of relief for homeowners.
    2. Extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA insurance and Medicaid
    3. Infrastructure projects that will start this year (Currently only $30 billion, or less than 5% of the total bill is for infrastructure projects, some which won't start for several years). And by "infrastructure, I mean roads and bridges, and such.
    4. Maybe a little relief for credit card debt (not saying people shouldn't pay their debt, but since banks got help, they should have to allow a little leeway with consumers).
    5. A jobs package.
    6. Some tax cuts.
    7. Some initial health care assistance.

    That should be it in this bill.

    What do I think is "pork" (at least at far as this bill is concerned and not necessarily in general)?

    -$650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
    -$50 million for the NEA.
    -$1 billion for Amtrak (who hasn't been profitable in 40 years)
    -$7 billion to modernize federal buildings
    -$150 million for the Smithsonian.
    -$54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits.
    -Part of the "infrastructure" projects that are supposedly lined up to go include:
        - Euless, Texas, wants $15 million for the    
          Midway Park Family Life Center
        - Hercules, Calif., wants $2.5 million in
          for a "Waterfront Duck Pond Park," and
          another $200,000 for a dog park
        - Miami is asking for $94 million for a          
          parking structure at the Orange Bowl.

    Again, it's not that these other projects won't put some people to work, or they aren't worthy undertakings, it's just that these don't belong in this bill. We are being told the world will basically end if something isn't done right now, so why are the critters wasting time arguing over all the stuff in a 675-page bill??

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    Why is $7 billion to "modernize federal buildings" (I believe it's to make them more energy efficient) pork as opposed to stimulus?

    [ Parent ]
    I keep hearing about all (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Radix on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    this "pork" but nobody identifies any of it. Perhaps you might like to try and state what is good spending and what is bad spending?

    [ Parent ]
    Damage done? (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    Possibly.  We'll see.  On the other hand, this may all serve to wake up Obama to the insanity of treating today's GOP as just another reasonable group of people with different ideas.  If the lesson is learned then it will serve Obama and the whole country well over the next four years.

    I agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    He should have just pushed full steam ahead, but, once he hesitated and asked the GOP for their thoughts, then the GOP saw a weakness and exploited it to the fullest. Obama made the first move and it was the wrong move. He needs to show his strength and hopefully he has learned from this big mistake. This is not the local Ill trading marbles group. This is the big time. No more whimpy pampy.

    [ Parent ]
    Damage done? (none / 0) (#23)
    by magster on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    I think the most damaging thing Obama has done with his kumbaya is appoint Gregg, thereby losing a potential vote to 60 on the bill.  I don't think partisan Obama would have changed Nelson, Landreau, Lieberman, Lincoln, Pryor, Collins, Snowe.  The egotistical nature of these Blue Dogs would have likely doomed any decent stimulus package, especially with the weenie leadership of Reid.  

    Obama approached this wrong and Hillary's mocking in the primaries was prescient. But watching this game play out, I am certain the Blue Dogs are the most obvious culprits next to, of course, the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    It's really disappointing to find out (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    to find out that one of the big changes brought by this election was more power for Ben Nelson. 58, 59 Democrats in the Senate, 250+ in the House and Ben Nelson gets to call the shots.

    ONLY if Obama lets him (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:39:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Disagree (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:11:02 PM EST
    Nelson, Lieberman, Landreau, Pryor, Lincoln would be grandstanding for power regardless.  The post-partisan schtick, I agree, is useless as anything other than a campaign slogan. But those Blue Dogs have staked their reputations on being like they are, and Obama's powerless over them regardless of his approach to them.

    [ Parent ]
    According To Reid (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    We have the 60 votes for the current Stimulus bill.

    [ Parent ]
    Only after the Blue Dogs gut it (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by magster on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    and add more tax cuts.  If I'm not mistaken, the ratio of spending to tax cuts is 60/40 after the Blue Dogs are done with it.

    Maybe Obama should threaten a veto.

    [ Parent ]

    He Has (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:25:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Link to veto threat? (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:40:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    Reid said Obama "instructed" him to work with the bipartisan group of senators, but he rejected calls from some senators to overhaul the bill. "If they think they're going to rewrite the bill, Barack Obama is going to walk away," he said.

    Politico

    [ Parent ]

    Nebulous (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:44:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. I read (none / 0) (#55)
    by dk on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    it as that he is fine with whatever the Nelson-Collins group comes up with (which, at the end of the day, will not be much different from what Obama originally proposed, i.e. a watered down bill).

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    I just went looking and the only veto threat I saw was on Jan 13 over the TARP funds.  

    [ Parent ]
    I was waiting to see the ratio (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    I don't like that at all. I wish he would threaten to veto it.

    [ Parent ]
    Veto (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:27:42 PM EST
    Reid said Obama "instructed" him to work with the bipartisan group of senators, but he rejected calls from some senators to overhaul the bill. "If they think they're going to rewrite the bill, Barack Obama is going to walk away," he said.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    But they are rewriting large chunks of (none / 0) (#48)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    the bill.

    [ Parent ]
    I Reckon (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    That they will vote by tonight, that is the deadline Reid gave the bipartisans.

    We'll see.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, thanks (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    I see. But the V word isn't used.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess it depends on what you call (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    overhaul.

    [ Parent ]
    Which apparently has (none / 0) (#31)
    by dk on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    done, with this stimulus bill, at least.

    [ Parent ]
    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    It's almost as if you're suggesting that the "price is right" theory didn't make any sense.

    Start off negotiations with a big number, then agree to take a little haircut when the other side complains?  That's crazy talk!  No sensible person negotiates like that.

    I would not let Nate Silver (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    walk into a car dealer with me.

    [ Parent ]
    I Wish That Obama Had ... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by santarita on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    started out with a vision for the stimulus package - some grand overarching theme, like Investing in Infrastructure for the Future.  Instead he chose to focus on the theme of bipartisanship - the how we get there rather than the what we are getting - the form rather than the substance.  If he had focussed on some grand theme, then he wouldn't look like he is defending pork spending.  Don't get me wrong, I think that what the Republicans are doing is cowardly and disingenuous.  But Obama should have seen that coming a mile away.  It is in the Republicans' political interest to let the Dems carry the water on this stimulus package.  

    Perhaps, Obama doth protest too much... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:54:45 PM EST
    Remember, Obama didn't run as a populist and he surely doesn't intend to govern as one. Like the Blue Dog Dems, Obama may believe it is in his own long-term, corporate-friendly, "political interest" to let the GOP and the Blue Dogs gut the bill.

    Imo, it's all CYA theater: first the  'pre-concessions' and the whole bi-partisan unity schtick, and now the 'teleprompter tossing' tough talk; all of which will end with him signing a bill that is of little benefit to Main Street. Perhaps Obama has never planned, or expected, to do otherwise.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course, centrism IS a pose ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:12:06 PM EST
    ... just as moderate, left-wing or right-wing are also convenient labels for those political poseurs who possess no moral center or compass, and thus retain no core values other than a personal dedication to intellectual self-indulgence and mental masturbation.

    I don't think you have that problem, so I were you, I wouldn't concern myself with any political label.

    You obviously know who you are and what you're about, and while I don't necessarily agree with or subscribe to all your views, I freely acknowledge that far more often than not, you arrive at your decisions, conclusions or positions only after careful consideration and thoughtful deliberation, and that your viewpoint should be respected as such.

    I consider myself a staunchly left-of-center by personal nature, yet in politics I'm actually very pragmatic and grounded, and therefore not inclined to play Sancho Panza to another's Don Quixote, when I've determined that they're jousting with windmills.

    Having managed political campaigns and worked in legislative environments, I've learned from experience to choose my battles wisely, and to think strategically before I react tactically, because I don't like to lose mindlessly or needlessly.

    I don't believe that there are moral victories in politics. If a cause is noble and just, then it's worth whatever short-term sacrifice is necessary to attain the long-term goal. I'll take the half-loaf if offered, because I know I'm coming right back for the rest when the immediate opportunity arises.

    I'm actually somewhat fiscally conservative, in that I truly believe that you must always live within your means, but I also think that government can be a force for good, and that strangling government by its own purse strings is inherently foolish, and at this point in time, potentially devastating to our nation and people.

    I believe that if you as a resposible elected public official recognize that you have to take an action for the greater public good, then have the courage of your own convictions. Do what you believe is right and necessary, even if it isn't politically popular, and then be honest, forthright and unapologetic with your constituents regarding the rationale for your action. They may not wholeheartedly agree with you, but they'll both respect you and listen to you in the future. That, I believe, is the true definition of leadership.

    Because I lost my father in the Vietnam War, I'm firmly to the left on issues of war and peace, in that I believe in negotiating with potential adversaries, and that a formal call to arms should always be the very last resort as an instrument of national policy.

    Yet I also respect the military and its proper role in our society, because I believe that it serves no useful purpose to appease tyrants and bullies, and that the threat of armed force or retaliation is indeed a credible deterrent, provided that it's wielded correctly, judiciously and wisely.

    Having been raised in the Roman Catholic faith, I consider myself personally pro-life, and abortion is an anethema to me. Yet I also realize that as a man, I have no right to dictate to a woman what she will do or cannot do with her own body, and that such decisions are best left to the woman and her own conscience, which renders me pro-choice politically.

    I have an inherent moral code that I try to live by, and while I'll freely share my own concept of spirituality when asked, I believe that those who so publicly wear their religion on their sleeves do so because there's little or no room in their hearts for love of their fellow man.

    It is my contention that true faith should compel you to always strive to be a more loving, caring, thoughtful and empathetic person than what you currently are, while blind faith cloaks you in a false sense of moral superiority, thus rendering you impervious to either personal criticism or the feelings and needs of others.

    I think that some of us defy labels and reject categorization, but if the above makes me a centrist / progressive / quasi-neo-fascist social dilletante in some people's eyes and minds, then I proudly wear all such labels as badges of personal honor, and will make no apologies for myself and my beliefs.

    And quite obviously, so do you. And believe you me, that's a good thing, because we'll most always know what we're about and where we're going, even as others flail about in the dark.

    Aloha.

    I would call myself (none / 0) (#4)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    a pragmatist rather than a centrist.

    psychologically, post-partisanism is not a schtick (none / 0) (#29)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:12:23 PM EST
    There are layers of organizational functionality/dysfunctionality.

    The healthiest of them is when people work together to solve problems...the worst is civil war.

    In between are blame, verbal abuse, etc.

    Obama is basing this on solid principles, and during Bush it was getting really dysfunctional.

    I give you...post partisanship for the sake of itself is a schtick. but for the sake of a functional and effective government?

    I agree (none / 0) (#70)
    by ai002h on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    lets not get overboard and just start slamming postpartisan as an idea. But when the rubber hits the road, its probably not practical in this environment and with the republicans that still remain in congress.

    [ Parent ]
    moderate (none / 0) (#64)
    by jedimom on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:14:54 PM EST
    I am moderate and I want the education left alone not cut, it is one of the only sectors growing employment right now, I also as we all know by now want HOLC, but I don't want to fund many things in the bill, if there is another 150 billion to be spent, spoend it on housing

    and wth is wrong with a cut in personal taxes that results in lower payroll taxes right away? that is a tax cut i can get behind. moderate isnt hypocrite I dont know about 'centrist' sounds kinda like moderate to me but without the reasoning...

    VOINOVICH drops out of Senate talks per ROLL CALL...

    I want to send to (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    Congress and President Obama the song
    "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks....

    Forgive, sounds good
    Forget, I'm not sure I could
    They say time heals everything
    But I'm still waiting  (a whole country is effing waiting for help; people are hungry, angry, frustrated...what part don't they get?_

    I'm through with doubt
    There's nothing left for me to figure out
    I've paid a price
    And I'll keep paying (what's to figure out....trickle down did not work 30 years ago, or 8 years ago.....the rich got richer, and the middle class got smaller, the poor got poorer, and hungrier and angrier)

    I'm not ready to make nice (screw McConnell, Demint, and all the other selfish, self serving neocons)
    I;m not ready to back down (damn the media, the right and the blue dogs spinning for the right again)
    I'm still mad as hell and
    I don't have time to go round and round and round
    It's too late to make it right (for those people who lost forever friends and loved because of a health care system that works like a caste system...the richer you are the better your health care, it's too late....we can't get back the people we lost)
    I probably wouldn't if I could
    'Cause I'm mad as hell (no surprise there)
    Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should

    I know you said
    Can't you just get over it
    It turned my whole world around
    And I kind of like it (I like that the crap of W has apparently awakened some, but not enough)

    I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
    With no regrets and I don't mind sayin'
    It's a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
    Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
    And how in the world can the words that I said
    Send somebody so over the edge
    That they'd write me a letter
    Sayin' that I better shut up and sing
    Or my life will be over (that's the freakin' mentality of the wingnuts and those that support them)

    I'm not ready to make nice
    I'm not ready to back down
    I'm still mad as hell and
    I don't have time to go round and round and round
    It's too late to make it right
    I probably wouldn't if I could
    'Cause I'm mad as hell
    Can�t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

    I'm not ready to make nice
    I'm not ready to back down
    I'm still mad as hell and
    I don't have time to go round and round and round
    It's too late to make it right
    I probably wouldn't if I could
    'Cause I'm mad as hell
    Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should

    What it is you think I should

    Forgive, sounds good
    Forget, I'm not sure I could
    They say time heals everything
    But I'm still waiting

    The truth is that I am not even a country music fan but the Dixie Chicks spoke to me......their anger was my anger.  
    And it's still there and I want to see the dems get angry as hell and tell the McConnells, the Demints, the media and the Blue Dogs, the ones immediately looking to cut education money, health care money, food stamp money out...
    a**holes is what they are.  
    Education does create jobs......for teachers, aides, ets....granted that a greater majority are female but sheesh....women too are comsumers and a huge amount are the heads of households.
    Health care creates jobs.....

    Sorry, playing nice with selfish jerks does not work.....ever.

    We've been very busy (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:18:51 PM EST
    I've had mostly the standard American exposure to all this.  I've never considered reading and participating in BTD diaries anything near standard American exposure to anything :)  It doesn't seem too late to me at all.  My husband thinks ground has been lost though from a leadership perspective.  In his own words it is easy to come in too hard and have to soften up as a leader, it is very hard to come in too soft and then try to tighten things up.  I don't know if I'm right or my husband.  Nobody has ever lit me up before though so I'm willing to lean a bit more towards my husband's point of view and real life warfare of all kinds :)

    Is your husband a teacher? (none / 0) (#86)
    by coigue on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 07:53:13 PM EST
    Cause that really works in the classroom

    [ Parent ]
    He is teaching right now (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:40:36 PM EST
    He hopes to finish his career teaching.  He's still a soldier in uniform though right now, just teaching at the moment.

    [ Parent ]
    The Relationship Between The Post Partisan Unity Schtick And The "Centrist Pose" | 88 comments (88 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment