Why Republicans May Be Barack's Best Buddies at the Stimulus Luau
Right now, House and Senate Republicans are doing Barack Obama a huge favor. The Congress is setting up the places for the Stimulus Luau, and as much as it pains me as a Democrat to say it, our folks are doing their best to make pork the main course.
I know it just makes all of y'all in the Dem side of the Congress positively giddy that Obama has such huge coattails. After years of having all of those nifty programs that you've wanted to fund scotched over and over again by the GOP, you are just chafing at the bit to get some of that work done.
What better way, then, to speed that process along by using an omnibus federal spending package?
Come on, people. Millions for an anti-smoking campaign and a dozen more highly off-the-wall projects?
While you will seldom find me agreeing with the Republicans about much, they have a point here.
The reason that we don't have one party rule is because the Founding Fathers were pretty smart fellas who realized that the pull from Left and Right keeps the country roughly moving down the middle of the political highway.
The system breaks down when you have an isolated Executive, as was the case with the W. Administration, which did not cry foul when either party moved to excess.
The easiest thing and the hardest thing to do at the same time as a president is to be able to police your own partisans. You are their leader, but at the same time you need their good will, or, in the case of Bush, their extreme fear of reprisals by the Republican Party hierarchy, to be able to govern.
Obama's centrist approach has been textbook brilliant. Many have criticized his outreach to the Republicans, and pointed at the polarized vote in the House on the Stimulus package as an example of its failure.
From his standpoint, though, it was a huge success.
Obama has nothing to lose by talking to the Republicans. For Republicans who seek a safe haven for their policy out from under the Neo Con whip, they have nothing to lose either.
Republican detente serves two purposes for Obama:
- It is a win-win in statesmanship. If the Republicans vote with you, it shows that you were able to persuade them. If they vote against you, particularly on a stimulus bill in this economy, it looks far more like they are sticking their necks out for partisan purposes, marginalizing the more extreme members of the tax-breaks stimulus brakers in the G.O.P. as hindering the healing of the economy that they had a very large hand in tanking.
Even the more reasonable members of the GOP who enjoy winning re-election know that, with the country teetering around the edge of the economic bowl, something big must be done. They can nitpick around the edges of this bill, but Republicans who do want to hold their jobs don't want to stop the plan, just look like they "changed" it substantially enough to keep what the fictional "Gov" William J. Lepetomaine of "Blazing Saddles" once called "Their phony baloney jobs..."
They don't like the public being reminded that it was GOP stalwart Phil Graham's crusade for the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act, that was put in place after the Great Depression to protect the financial system from this kind of rapacious Republicanism, that was, in large part, the hole in the greed dam that put the economy where it is today.
The advice of Satchel Paige, "Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you," has never rung truer than for a Republican in the post-Bush era. The GOP may carry on like three year olds with bad haircuts, but there are many influential fiscal conservatives wholly irate with their Republican congresspeople for having given the Neo-Cons the free reign that turned Bush into the biggest big government guy in U.S. history. - The congressional Republicans are Obama's Rabbi. They keep pork off of the menu and keep the whole process Kosher, and more transparent.
Republicans opposing the plan are doing more to help the Obama 2012 re-election campaign than his Democratic colleagues who are trying to add all of the extra dishes of social programming to the party.
They are participating in the process the way it is supposed to work when it works. Obama could have gone after his party's partisans and told them to strip out all of the excess, but then it would deprive the opposition of their role in doing just that. One of the key aspects of successful leadership in the executive is not to dictate policy, but rather to helm the process and let it work. It is refreshing, after the five-thumb management of George W. Bush and Co., to see that government still works after eight rusty years of gridlock.
To keep the feast that this country has been enjoying for more than a century running, Obama has to strip away the worst inclinations of politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Pitting them against each other constructively, and setting the tone for civil and low-drama debate is slowly restoring the notion of our government as a place of public service, not self-service, in spite of the best inclinations of members of both political persuasions to keep the status quo.
Are there going to be unpaid tax bills and a few appointees whose records in private service may stink like six day old fish?
Always.
Restarting the economy means first restarting proper governance. Obama is doing that, with leadership that is healing a system that has been broken for decades. Being partisan, we like to think it is the other guys who are the problem.
Democrats and Republicans alike are to blame for making the mess over thirty years, and we are going to have to work together, in spite of our general differences of perception, to clean it up.
Dems are going to have to wait for the proper time to bring many of these programs up before committees and debate them.
You don't bring tobacco to a luau anymore.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I get that Dem feel extremely stiffled by the past 8 years and suddenly feel "freed", but way they've treated this "stimulus" bill is completely ridiculous...they're making nearly impossible for the American people to take this bill seriously because it doesn't seem they take the PURPOSE seriously. And, they're making it hard for the people to take them seriously, and to by extension, they're hurting the president's reputation because he's of their party (and it's speaking out against thier garbage enough).
The Welfare Kings of Wall Street should be locked up, and any Democrat taking advantage of this crisis to fill the stimulus with pork should be their cellmate.
However, aside from clever luau metaphors and one referenced anti-smoking campaign, what are some examples of pork that I am supposed to be so upset about?
And how about an article dealing with the bulk of the stimulus, I would like to know where it is going other than the education part I keep hearing about. Come on, media! Isn't that kind of your job?
You and many others seem to be oblivious to the fact that these programs, even the programs you call "pork" all require additional personnel to implement--meaning MORE JOBS! Just in case you are not aware, our unemployment rate continues to climb at alarming rates, any program that can add personnel is certainly a justified economic stimulus!!! People need to remember that over the past 8 years, many necessary programs and services, and much of our infrastructure were severely underfunded, meaning that jobs were lost not only now but throughout the past 8 years. Our population has not shrunk over the past 8 years, it continues to grow--people keep having babies! As such, not only do we need to provide jobs for those young recent entrants in the job market, but for those who lost their jobs over the past 8 years--many of whom have been under-employed ever since. What better way of creating more jobs than to also provide the much needed services that have been lacking over the past 8 years!
Programs, including non-smoking programs, mean some jobs. The question is what kind? If you are stimulating the economy, you want to put construction people back to work. Buildings, roads, bridges highways. That shores up the companies that normally make money on housing, and shores up the people who bought a lot of that housing on the back of a decade-long building boom. In turn, that rehires more of the mortgage people laid off, and gets the banks healthy faster. The healthy banks in turn lower their barriers to loaning money to other corporations.
Construction is the core that was unhinged in the bust. It will be the key to the next boom. Infrastructure needs an overhaul. Let them do it.
Most people define "pork" as something they're personally opposed to. If they're for it, they refer to it as a "good investment in something the public needs" or "a wise use of taxpayer money".
Your "pork" is my "good investment in something the public needs"; my "pork" is your "good investment in something the public needs".
We have to get past the obtuse, reactionary---and often deliberately deceptive---use of the word "pork" every time we hear of a government expenditure. Review and assess each one closely, on its merits and its potential benefits, and then make a decision about it. Don't just condemn "pork" because it involves the spending of government funds.
Pork is when you try to put a smoking bill into a roadway proposal or a bridge to nowhere in a healthcare bill. VERY SIMPLE. All of those items are well and good, but they either need to be re-routed into things like an omnibus healthcare bill or an omnibus construction bill. The stimulus package has very simple goals and should have equally simple streamlined delivery of resources:
Homeowners and very simple, easy stimulus to the businesses like construction that can be doing infrastructure work while the housing market recovers.
If a line item in this proposed bill includes say building certain highways, how do you think they are going to be built? with more JOBS!! The biggest problem in our economy today is that we have been bleeding jobs over the past 8 years, it is not like all of a sudden we woke up and there appeared a 7% unemployment rate! There has been a consistent bleed over these past 8 years, that now needs to be fixed. What better way to do that than by providing programs that are badly needed by the American people!
Brian,
Your facts are wrong in several places here. For one thing, you need to remember that in 26 of the past 28 years, the Republicans have controlled the White House, or the Congress or both. It's nonsense to say that both parties are equally to blame for the horrendous mess the United States is in today.
This sentence in particular highlights the weakness of your argument:
"The system breaks down when you have an isolated Executive, as was the case with the W. Administration, which did not cry foul when either party moved to excess."
Now, tell us, specifically, when the Democratic Party "moved to excess" during "the W. Administration"? When exactly did this happen? What exact "excess" are you speaking of?
What did the Democrats do that you would define as "excess" during the reign of George W. Bush? And, if you can answer that question, why didn't Bush "cry foul" if the Democrats were moving "to excess"?
I await your detailed response.
Look up most of the bills for the first four years of the Bush Administration. Left or right, you could have tacked enough pork into a bill to make Oscar Meyer blush and as long as the primary legislation was being served, both Bush and the Republican leadership let a lot of pet projects slide through the system.
I will get back to you with specifics if I can spare some time to scan through some of the funding resolutions that passed during that time period for details.
You should read your history beofre you use it to bolster an argument. The forefathers didn't set up political parties. Political parties were an anathema to them. It was believed that a man should vote his conscience, not his party. Politics is not statemanship. We need a stimulus bill -- not to make one party or another look good, but because the economy hangs in the balance.
Brian didn't say that the Founding Fathers did set up political parties, he only referred to the pull of the Left and the Right. And while it is true they did not care for political parties, they most DEFINITELY engaged in politics.
The founding fathers were part of intellectual tribes that became the roots of political parties. Whether they had official bumper stickers or not, the country's early poltical intelligencia separated, usually along states rights or federalist ideologies. The system was set up to allow people of differing ideologies work together. The arguments have changed over time, but the fundamentals remain largely between a more state-controlled and a more federalized type of government.
I wonder what would happen if each individual was allowed to say EXACTLY how they want tax money deducted from their paycheck spent...each and every paycheck.
To understand why this is a bad idea, please refer to Joe the Plunger's recent display of economic acuity.
I agree with you on this one. I'm a registered Democrat and the stimulus bill passed by Pelosi and friends in the House is ridiculous. I hope you are right about Obama.
I really don't give a damn how republicans feel. This whole debacle is their fault. They need to step aside and allow the Democrats to do what they were elected to do. Stimulate the economy by pumping money into it. It's a tried and true method and it doesn't matter where you put the money as long as it gets out there.
Well said -- we need a centrist tack, and both Democrats and Republicans need to realize that the game has changed because WE CHANGED IT. Not them, not their idealogies. Moderates finally had enough. The people in the middle elected a guy because he was aiming at the middle.
If they don't figure that out -- on either side of the aisle -- then we need to show them the door. This isn't the time for extremes from either direction.
Yeah, because we all know that the Democrats who have been caving for the last two years, and who, led by the President, went and acted in a bipartisan manner with regards to the stimulus package, are the one's acting partisan. Not those nice Republicans who voted 100% AGAINST it!
If you listen to the reasonable conservatives, they are making the point that the stimulus bill has some idealogical elements that they just can't accept. I'm okay with that - the bill can be cleaned up and made non-idealogical for the here and now. The left will have opportunity over the next 4 years to make the case for their ideals -- right now is not the time.
Are the Rep's being obstinate in 100% refusal? yes. But if they remain rooted in obstinance to a clean bill, they'll have nothing to hide behind, and their obstructionism will be hanging out for all to see. And that's very embarassing.
While I can understand your point I don’t think I quite agree.
My biggest problem is calling stimulus pork. I am unable to tell the difference at this point. If we spend government money, and put people to work, even if it is building a museum or a clinic it is still providing work in multiple ways. As long at people are not getting rich off of the bill and we get some new and improved civic works then I am all for it.
Just make it known that we are going to be looking for cheats and profiteers and they will be dealt with harshly.
I personally have more of a problem with all the tax cuts for the rich that are in the bill. I pay somewhere in the range of 20 or 25 percent of my salary to the Federal Government, but the fat cats have accountants and tax shelters and they pay next to nothing and now we are going to make it easier for them?
Second that!
Thanks for saving my fingers! That's close to what I would have posted.
I agree! We're looking for jobs and need early kindergarten. We're looking for jobs and need schools to be brought up to code. We're looking for jobs and need family planning (also for those long-sighted folks in the crowd will save money in the long term!). .........need jobs and want to help to update battery plants to compete with Japan. Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? Since when is killing 2 birds with one stone a bad thing? Okay, not literally...... :)
You seem to be referring to infrasructure projects. I'm all for them, but they account for only 3 percent of this bill.
No I am talking about the government spending money.
So part of the bill is tax cuts. What is the rest? If 3 percent is infrastructure what is the rest of it called? If we spend money on a service such as Family Planning it is not infrastructure but it is worthy, needed and will generate jobs.
Nice for consumption. Hard to do. Look at today. $500,000 cap for executives of bailout companies. The traders on the floor and the market makers make the majority of the bonuses that people are objecting to. They aren't covered. Should they be? If you want them out there hustling, this is what they get for their services, and the Obama Administration did nothing to hit the biggest bonus babies of the bunch.
I didn’t say a word about pay caps. I was referring to the same kind of things they used to call War Profiteers. People will try to over bill because it is stimulus money, they will try to get paid for projects or services that don’t get completed. This must be dealt with ruthlessly. If you try to defraud the government you got to prison, and not one with a golf course.
If you hustle and make money then you earn you pay. But if you kill your company then you don’t get your pay. And one of these days maybe we could convince Big Business that outsourcing and labor reductions only supply momentary increases in profit. (Which is shared among the big dogs.)
The economy will be booming in a few months and it will have more to do with the Fed restocking the money supply last year than anything happening now.
uh.... huh...... And when Spring time comes we will all be blessed by a giant rabbit handing out baskets full of candy too!
We need to start outing those who are grandstanding and holding up our progress!
Brian, you are right on.
The Democrats are being childish and ruining the momentum the president had coming into this administration. Obama needs to use his pull to get the party going in the same direction. Mop up all that drool on the floor and get your pet projects funded through the normal budget process. This is not supposed to be the federal budget or the farm bill. Too much pork! I don't want to be paying for this 20 years down the line. There is over 8 billion in non-civil defense spending in the bill!! WHY? We don't spend enough on war now?
Sickening. Scrap it and start over. Time may be of the essence, but this bill has so many riders it's dead on its feet
I agree as well. It could be much more streamlined and focused. There will be plenty of time to push pet projects through in other bills. They need to focus. I wish Obama would get more involved with what is in the bill, not just on getting it passed.
Presidents don't, as a rule, get involved in the nitty gritty of the bills. That is seen as a violation of the separation of powers. The White House can, however, communicate its displeasure to Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi. Again this is why cranky GOP members may give Obama more leverage with the Democratic caucus to pass something more focused with less in the way of extraneous and ideologically motivated stuff from both sides of the aisle. The Dems have to lose the anti-smoking campaign, and the GOP is not going to get the kind of tax cuts that it wants either.
That's politics.
The reason that we don't have one party rule has nothing to do with the founders. They didn't want ANY political parties, just each Representative voting for the good of their constituents and the Senators voting for the good of their states, and the President to tie it all together into a single nation!
Whether they wanted them or not, by extent they created them simply by holding states rights and federalist viewpoints. All of our politics since then has been a variation of those fundamental disagreements about the organization of the country.
I understand that they had parties within one Presidential election, but you claim that they set us up without one party rule, which is just not true. They set us up with NO political parties, and then the very nature of humans set up the parties!
This is my view as well. I hope we are right...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
