home

More On The "Bipartisan" Stimulus Negotiations

I know you might be getting tired of my obsession with the economic stimulus, but I can't help it. In any event, it seems to me that the Democrats are getting their act together. On CNN right now, David Axelrod, when asked by Wolf Blitzer "what was more important, bipartisanship or passing a bill," Axelrod said "this is not a process question," the issue is economic recovery.

Speaker Pelosi echoed that thought:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as “process” arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill — and warned Senate Democrats against slashing proposed increases to education spending.

And Leader Reid is also in the fray:

Sens. Ben Nelson and Susan Collins just wrapped up a meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Senate Democratic leadership meant to hammer out details of a compromise stimulus package. Asked how she was feeling as she left the meeting with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), Collins responded, "Not as good as I felt earlier."

Reid presented the bipartisan group with his own set of stimulus cuts, said Nelson after the meeting, which had been drawn up by the Senate appropriations committee. "As you might imagine, they had a different idea of how to go about this," Nelson said.

Indeed. Reid has said "enough" to the pushback from Republicans and Republican allies like Ben Nelson. Now here is a funny thing about Ben Nelson, he does not have a coherent thought in his head on the economics of the stimulus. As discussed before, his idea is to be closer to the GOP than the Dems. The efficacy of the stimulus is the last thing on his mind:

The final package, said Nelson, is likely to be significantly lower. "I think it will be below 800 [billion]. For me it's not symbolism, it's an economic matter. At some point it's just too big," he said. Asked by the Huffington Post if that meant he thought 800 billion was the specific point at which it was too big, he said, "It's whatever gets 60 votes, 61 votes." The final package, said Nelson, is likely to be significantly lower. "I think it will be below 800 [billion]. For me it's not symbolism, it's an economic matter. At some point it's just too big," he said.

Clearly, Ben Nelson has not the first bit of knowledge about economics and he is talking through his hat. He is the very model of a Centrist poser. Reid is calling his bluff. Take out the tax cuts if you are serious about the "too big" nonsense.

The Dems seem to finally have their act together.

Speaking for me only

< Reid Puts Eliminating GOP Tax Cuts On the Stimulus Negotiating Table | Time For an Up-Or-Down Death Penalty Vote in MD >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ax on Hardball too (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    He's doing good I think.

    Olympia Snowe (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    Tweety asks why no "up or down" vote.

    Interesting answer, I think snowe is a vote for cloture myself.

    I wonder what it is going to take. She seems to be wavering.

    Parent

    The tax cut question (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:14:57 PM EST
    will destroy her imo.

    I think Reid is hitting her where it hurts.

    Parent

    She and Collins routinely (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:17:19 PM EST
    vote together. So hammer away to the two of them on cloture, and that's the ballgame.

    I'm glad to hear this.

    Parent

    Did you see her? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    I'm pretending to do real work. . .

    Parent
    Watch at 7 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    Sure, I'll take a look (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    Is it my imagination or (none / 0) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    is Axelrod saying one thing while the Admin & compromise/Congressional Dems do another?

    Parent
    I hope it isn't too late (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    Thought experiment: would this have been any harder if the original bill were for $2.5T? I think the answer is clearly not, and what we needed was $2T. There is no room whatsoever to negotiate, now.

    The Terrible Trillion (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by s5 on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:16:08 PM EST
    I agree that $2T is the right amount, but the word "trillion" is too scary to the public, and that fear is easily exploited by the know-nothings in the Republican caucus.

    Parent
    The people were going to support (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    almost anything Obama wanted.

    Parent
    Who are "The People"? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    Is that like "They say..."

    Parent
    Well, once you get up to $ 1 trillion, (none / 0) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:51:22 PM EST
    it's a small step to 2---just 1 more trillion, instead of 200 billion!
    I remember in 2000, Bush got off the hook for mistating budget numbers by 1 trillion, when I doubt he would have been forgiven for being off 500 billion.

    Parent
    Pull the bill (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by magster on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:15:59 PM EST
    and have the house pass another stimulus bill under a different number that is 100 % partisan and then attach it to a military supplemental.  Make the Republicans vote against the citizens and their troops.

    It;s Ludicrous (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    On and on this silly game goes, each day new revelations occur and nothing is done about them. Looks to me like they are all working hand-in-hand to keep the U.S.Treasury as their personal "piggy-bank". They are "all" on a roll and still don't want "we the people" to upset their collective ongoing scam.

    Complete the equation.

    Love It Love It Love It (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by WS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    Love how they used bipartisanship as just a "process" argument.  Focus on results for the American people instead of bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake.  

    I seem to remember (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:27:30 PM EST
    that it was the conservative Democrats who truly stuck the knife in Clinton during the 1993-94 period.

    Obviously, whoever occupies the midpoint of the 100 Senators is going to have some degree of power, the way Justice Kennedy holds the swing vote on the Supreme Court.  But the successful President has to find a way to either co-opt or work around that centrist element.  There is no way Obama can afford to let Ben Nelson hold the power of life and death over his presidency.

    How did Bush do it? (none / 0) (#19)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    They just rubber stamped it and rammed it through regardless if anyone liked it or not.

    Parent
    Republicans are much better (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:35:56 PM EST
    at marching in lockstep.

    Parent
    Yes they are (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    and they've marched the rest of us right along with them into into deep sh*t 9.


    Parent
    As well as framing the debate (none / 0) (#24)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:56:15 PM EST
    and selling their message with easy to remember, seemingly rational talking points.

    Parent
    And yet (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    they've been slaughtered in the last two elections, which makes me generally hesitant to proclaim "oh noes! Republicans are winning the spin wars!"

    Others are not as hesitant.  I think they are mostly snakebitten by the fact that these particular sound bites and talking points did, in fact, win elections for Republicans in the past.  I'm trying my best to put those nightmares behind me.

    Parent

    It is just because (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by BernieO on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 05:57:07 PM EST
    things are so obviously bad that the public turned on Republicans. But I am hearing right wing talking points everywhere - from acquaintances, callers to NPR (NPR!!), and most troubling the mainstream media. People are definitely buying into the spin that spending is bad because it will run up debt for decades. This is not surprising when you think about how one of Bush's clear failures was driving up debt.

    It takes a lot of work to get people to understand why, after running up debt what we need is even more spending and more debt. It goes against common sense and the Republicans are capitalizing on that. Their message that more debt is bad is simplistic and therefore extremely easy to sell. As is their "what we need is tax cuts" talking point. Democrats need to work very hard to explain their more complex, fact-based approach.

    I have not heard one Democrat point out that we drove debt up more than 54% of GDP in WWII, then spent on the Marshall Plan, the GI Bill and the interstate highway system yet the economy in the fifties was great and the debt quickly returned to reasonable levels. And they usually fail to define just what we are trying to stimulate - demand - and why that will take government spending in this environment. But people are hearing that the New Deal was a complete flop.

    The public may not like the Republicans right now but that does not mean that they have rejected all those ideas that have been been marketed to them so successfully since Reagan. Ideas - like tax cuts paying for themselves - that are very appealing and that Democrats did not argue against, adding to their credibility. I doubt that most people get that those really are Republican views since Dems have acquiesced to them so often. They still have great appeal even if the Republicans don't. Right now at least.

    Parent

    The problem is the Democrats who (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:18:45 PM EST
    espouse Republican principles. You don't see the reverse---staunch Republicans praising Democratic ideas. Never.

    Parent
    They've Been Slaughtered (none / 0) (#29)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    at the polls and yet they continue to hold the deciding hand. To me it seems to show that, when it comes to power, elections are for suckers; "the opiate of the masses".

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    You can watch Obama explain all it all Monday night in primetime.

    Hope they have an answer by then.

    And then Obama goes on the road (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 06:16:48 PM EST
    to sell the plan, starting in the devastated heartland -- where we're still clinging to our guns and God but need a lot more.  The report from my state today on job losses is beyond the worst expected.

    This, this could be good -- get Obama back on the road, away from the Beltway and Repubs.  He can start winning his second term now, in the heartland.

    Parent

    Depends what happens on the weekend (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    No doubt (none / 0) (#15)
    by SOS on Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 04:26:18 PM EST
    people will get upset because it interrupts their stupid shows.

    Parent
    Oh, (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:09:00 AM EST
    He's going to be on primetime I think 3 times this month - and yes, the networks are upset because this a sweeps month, and it cuts into ad revenue, which is where they pay their bills.

    Parent
    you dream, BTD. (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 01:40:52 AM EST
    The Dems seem to finally have their act together.

    i don't believe it now, nor will i believe it when the measure is passed, until i actually read the final version, and am able to cofirm, for my own accountant's eyes, that this measure actually does more for laid off joe sixpack factory worker, than for freddy krueger bank/investment house ceo., wanting his billion dollar bonus, with none of it subject to tax.

    show me the money!