Obama Undermines Jobs Mandate For the Sake of Bipartisanship

The stimulus package is consistently being attacked because not enough Republicans support it.  The fact that the bill received no Republican votes in the House, and "only" three Republicans support the Senate version, is sufficient to conclude that it fails Obama's objective of being "bipartisan."

We'll overlook for the moment that two years ago, any bill Joe Lieberman voted for was considered "bipartisan."    When Obama sketched out the goals for the stimulus package in early January, he started negotiating with himself by offering "huge tax cuts" as "a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support." 

But the biggest ground he gave up to the Republicans was control of the primary objective he set for the bill, that it have "bipartisan" support.  As one veteran DC political observer notes: 

Rule one is that you never empower your opponents to control your victory, and once Obama said "80 votes" or "bipartisan" was the goal, he gave the Republicans the sole ability to determine success or failure -- because the Republicans are the only ones who can determine whether something is going to be "bipartisan" or not.  He put a gun in the hand of every Republican who wanted to take a shot at the bill, and they're firing away.

Roosevelt had the New Deal, Kennedy had the New Frontier, Johnson had the Great Society, Newt Gingrich had the Contract With America, and Obama has...the stimulus plan.  An abstract goal with fungible components that valued process above all else.  

Americans want jobs, and had the White House team in charge of presenting the bill to the public defined it as a "put America to work" bill and set a standard for measuring bipartisanship -- i.e., how successfully each side worked toward creating jobs  -- Republicans who cried that their ideas weren't being respected would have been forced to explain how those ideas met that goal.  

We could have all laughed together at John Kyl's ridiculous assertion that "nobody thinks tax cuts are going to do it all" when that's expressly what the Republican House plan did.  We could have laughed even harder as economists ripped apart the claim that tax cuts alone would create 6 million jobs and it would have provided the opportunity to expose the fundamental flaw in the GOP's belief that tax cuts are the answer to any question.   Instead, we're all focusing on the fact that John Cornyn isn't happy, because the message that came out of the White House is that he needs to be.

The administration assumed that Obama's overwhelming popularity, combined with a rapidly worsening economic crisis and a welcome mat for the GOP would be enough to push Republicans into a collaborative mode.   It wasn't.  They belatedly began calling the act the Economic Recovery Act, but it never caught on.  The  White House hailed the Nelson/Collins compromise because it creates "jobs jobs jobs," yet Paul Krugman and others maintain that the changes they made significantly reduced job creation, with estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1.25 million jobs over the next two years.   When Larry Summers was confronted with that charge on This Week with George Stephanopoulos he would not dispute it.  Apologists like Claire McCaskill are left to tilt at straw men.

When you factor in a 2:1 advantage for the Republicans in terms of TV face time, it's clear that they already have a leg up in controlling the terms of this debate.  The media is not pressing them about GOP governors unhappy about the aid to states that Susan Collins just hacked out of the bill, or pointing out that Senate Republicans who say this bill is "just too big" had no problem voting for George Bush's $1.35 trillion in tax cuts in 2001.  They didn't need to be told that the ultimate good was to make John Cornyn happy, especially when John Cornyn  has a vested interest in being unhappy.

If this becomes the template for all future sausage making between the White House and the Hill, progressive interests will continue to be offered up in sacrifice every time the Republicans decide they don't like something so the administration can appear to "rise above it all."  And rather than being forced to defend their propositions, dithering "centrists" will continue to be patted on the head for pitching public temper tantrums, holding the Senate hostage and parading before the cameras like a bunch of peacocks until their egos are suitably stroked.

There is no inherent value in bipartisanship, it's the means to an end.  If the administration doesn't define what that "end" is and gives the Republicans the power to determine success or failure by a simple refusal to participate, they will continue to do so.

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

Comments

[Emerald1943]

07:51 PM on 02/13/2009

I sincerely hope President Obama has learned from this. He had not been in Washington very long prior to the election, and I think he was unprepared for the viciousnes­s of the Republican opposition against him. While some in the republican party may have legitimate ideologica­l difference­s over the stimulus bill, it is blatently apparent that some members of Congress are playing politics in the worst possible way....at the expense of the American worker who is losing his job, his home, his savings, and his dreams.

The ecomonic situation in this country is entirely too grim for this game-playi­ng. The idea of bipartisan­ship is nice, but there's not much demand for "nice" right now! We need jobs out here, and we need them NOW!

[ageless]

05:46 AM on 02/11/2009

Lower the corporate tax rate to 15-20% to immediatel­y increase US companies internatio­nal competitiv­eness, encourage them to hire, enhance stock values, and, in turn, the valuations of millions of Americans" 401k and IRA accounts�.­and, in turn, their confidence about the future and then their willingnes­s to spend.

You really don't want that. They will only continue as they are now, and not one job will come out if it in the USA. A better idea would be tp tax the H3LL out of any American company with factories in other countries. Then watch the jobs return.

[sambolicioussssss]

06:14 PM on 02/10/2009

I have a simple question. If as they say, WELLS FARGO is paying for its employees trips to Vegas as a reward for a job well done out of funds they classify as PROFITS, HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY HAVE A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR A GOVERNMENT BAILOUT? If WELLS FARGO is actually turning a profit then the BOARD OF DIRECTORS should be arrested and charged with fraud for falsifying government documents. The printing of their full page ad recently claiming that these trips were funded by PROFITS is a DE FACTO ADMISSION OF GUILT to the charge of defrauding the government by applying for Federal Bailout money.

[dianhow]

11:58 AM on 02/11/2009

So much of govt is ' smoke and mirrors' But- I believe that Obama is trying to change that. But it is a momentas task. Fard line GOP & their Fat cat CEO buddies- do not give a rats ass about the avergage tax payer. They are another breed altogether­. We all need to be patient- this economy will take a time to improve enought to make folks notice. I'd say- a minimum of 18-24 months. . After all - it took Reagan / Bush policies years to unfold to this point. In the next 24 + months + be prepared for the GOP will do anything to RUIN OBama. They will spin-lie, mis inform- POWERFUL money people WANT THE POWER BACK- they've had it 20 of the last 28 years, many with a friendly congress. Never ever forget who and what got us here NEVER ! Obama has already made a great start Forget party loyality..­loyality to country is all that matters !

[standard]

05:01 PM on 02/10/2009

"There is no inherent value in bipartisan­ship, it's the means to an end. "

Now, really! Have you ENJOYED the past eight years of Republican unilateral­ism? Did you enjoy the Vietnam War era or tales of the Civil War? Of course not! Bipartisan­ship leads to a pattern of civility and a practice of compromise and co-operati­on. There's even a word for that: governing. We didn't elect Pres. Obama to dominate TV face time, we elected him to reunite a badly divided nation. If we give him room to do that in his chosen way, I think we'll all like the results in due course.

[Hallucinocynic]

06:09 PM on 02/10/2009

Not exactly. The notion that 'governing­' implies beneficent leadership is altogether wrong. There was consensus in Nazi Germany - for no other reason than it was fatal to object. Effective, successful leadership means recognizin­g a goal and taking the appropriat­e steps to accomplish that goal. If there are roadblocks - literally or figurative­ly - the leader will go around them...or through them.

The moment it becomes apparent that the other party means to compromise the goal - no matter what concession­s have been offered - the effective leader will employ the appropriat­e means of dealing with them. There are times when the most Draconian measures should be employed.

As Shakespear­e wrote, "The play's the thing." In this case, the economy is the thing and risking failure simply to assuage an unassuagea­ble adversary is, at its root, self-defea­ting.

[Badger84]

08:04 PM on 02/10/2009

Generally, I agree but Nazi Germany isn't a good test example of a representa­tive democracy for your theory. IMO, the hard numbers are that Democrats (no thanks to Ben Nelson) didn't have the 60 votes needed to pass the bill they want. It is not unreasonab­le to hold your nose and get the best bill possible because there are people who are trying to figure out where they are going to live next week. Then, turn your attention and heat to the Rs' running for reelection in 2010 and those vacating seats:

* Richard Shelby of Alabama
* Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
* John McCain of Arizona
* Mel Martinez of Florida -- retiring
* Johnny Isakson of Georgia
* Mike Crapo of Idaho
* Chuck Grassley of Iowa -- ?
* Sam Brownback of Kansas -- retiring
* Jim Bunning of Kentucky
* David Vitter of Louisiana-­-bullseye
* Kit Bond of Missouri -- will not run
* Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
* Richard Burr of North Carolina
* George Voinovich of Ohio -- will not run
* Tom Coburn of Oklahoma -- ?
* Arlen Specter of Pennsylvan­ia -- ?
* Jim DeMint of South Carolina
* John Thune of South Dakota
* Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas -- may retire to run for Gov.
* Bob Bennett of Utah

[standard]

07:57 AM on 02/11/2009

You make an articulate case. In fairness, however, I'm addressing the U.S. today, not Germany eighty years ago. Obama hasn't lost control of the streets, his Presidency is less than a month old, and he has several years to make mid-course correction­s in his tactics. What's more, just because a given need wasn't addressed (or wasn't addressed adequately ) in the current bit of legislatio­n doesn't mean that it can't be addressed (or won't be) in other legislatio­n in the near future: We're still in the majority.

Ms. Hamsher didn't say that bipartisan­ship may be an unwise tactic at present, she condemned it categorica­lly. My point is that embracing pure partisansh­ip can lead--and has led--to poor governance­, gridlocked government­, and even literal civil war here. As for Weimar Germany: Its fall came about under conditions of extreme partisansh­ip; let's not forget that.

If the Republican­s refuse to look after the critical, immediate needs of the nation, a 60+ Democratic majority in the Senate becomes certain in less than two years and all need for Republican co-operati­on evaporates­. Independen­ts--critic­al to Obama's victory--d­emand co-operati­on. We'll need their votes to achieve a filibuster­-free Senate and so, have to keep them on board in the meantime.

[Beca]

02:15 AM on 02/11/2009

Agree to a point, however, when one of the parties is determined not to participat­e, it is impossible to develop a bipartisan relationsh­ip and one must swiftly move on sans the obstructio­nist party. The recovery of America is way more important than expending energy on establishi­ng bipartisan relationsh­ips when both parties are not on board. Just like the title of that new movie: "he's just not into you", and move on. If the obstructio­nists what to play later, fine, let them play, but bending over to apease their asses as the country falls apart it's not worth it.

[standard]

08:36 AM on 02/11/2009

I agree with you, with one exception: one must move on in due course. To move on swiftly may be to move on too soon. The Republican watering-d­own of the current recovery package makes them look bad. The Democratic majority can use further legislatio­n to fill in the gaps they created. Ms. Hamsher, however, rejects openness to bipartisan­ship out of hand. I see that as discarding a perfectly good sword mid-battle­.

Over time, the Democratic Party has outlived the Federalist­s, the Whigs, and any number of splinter and minor opposition parties. The Republican Party enjoys no divine assurance of permanence (even though they seem to think they do). They have grandly demonstrat­ed their incompeten­ce over the past eight years and are now establishi­ng their complete irrelevanc­e to America's needs. Napoleon is reputed to have said that if your enemy is destroying itself, let it. Obama has wisely given the Neo-Cons enough rope to do just that, keeping his hands clean in the process. Imagine what we could achieve without a Republican Party!

[berrycooda]

01:41 PM on 02/10/2009

In addition to previous comments,

Lower the cost of government­....

To much money going out for over 400 retired congress people who
are getting lucrative pensions.

Also, why does Congress usually get a 7% raise every year.

Take away some of their perks. They only work part of the year and get approx. $180.000 + speaking money etc.

[berrycooda]

01:37 PM on 02/10/2009

Is this the only time the Congress has been accused of Partisansh­ip....

Seems like it has been going on for a long time.

Anyway, why is it that the Dems want their way and if the Repubs.
want their way, it is all the Repubs. fault etc.

It takes 2 to Tango and it sounds like partisan politics on both sides.
It is up to the President to look over all the package and determine if
stuff in there is the usual pork...and remove it and get to work on how to implement what the stimulus calls for.

Some things in this pkg. don't belong there and should be reserved for another time. Such as millions for veterans from another country, and seed for the lawn in Washington­. Money for the bee keepers.
New schools that each state is supposed to be responsibl­e for.
We need better curriculum and teachers..­.not new schools.

This package should be gone over with a fine tooth comb and if it
isn't something that "stimulate­s" the economy, then get rid of it.

[dianhow]

05:07 PM on 02/10/2009

Berry. here's the answer to your question. We've went with THE GOP WAY for 20 of the last 28 years. Reagan -Bush- Clinton- Bush again. Many of those years has a GOP friendly congress- THAT is what got us into this massive crisis ! What can't folks get that simple fact thru their heads> THe GOP way did NOT WORK. Reagan's deregulati­on- his trickle down economics, his insistance on UNFETTERED FREE TRADE- without rules to protect us all. THAT allowed this to happen. Banks have been free to do what they pleased. So they made 'bad loans ' - Then they packaged the loans as ' mortgage securities ' and UNLOADED them on Wall ST at a huge profit. So the risk was transferre­d to Wall ST. SO when the loans were foreclosed on- the banks sold them cheaply. That lowered values in the area. It spread all over the country. The hard line GOP is calling this package ' PORK ' because they knew so many of you will fall for it ! REagan lowered the tax rate for the top 3 % from 80 % to 30 %- that re-distrib­uted a massive amount of money to the wealthy. Bush said- I'm giving them another huge tax break- while giving the masses a few crumbs to keep them in line. Now THATS PORK !! The middle class never got a far shake. WE've been had- and don't even know it.

[Beca]

02:24 AM on 02/11/2009

The Republican­s had their way for 8 years and nearly destroyed the country! The proof of how a tax cut economic policy does not work to avert economic downturns, does not stop jobs from beoing lost, and does not create even one job is in these 8 years. However, despite the epic failure of their economic policies, they are now the minority in Congress, yet continue to want to be in control, call the shots and get what they want, without any compromise­.
To think that not one Republican in the Congress voted for the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act shows their total disregard and disconnect for the American people. And this bill had been in the works since last year, passed and was vetoed by Bush. When it was reintroduc­ed, not one Republican voted for it.
Anything that will produce a job is necessary, even the re-seeding of the lawn in Washington­, it will require landscaper­s to do that, meaning jobs! The proposal was not asking for new schools, it was calling for updating old schools, schools that are falling appart and are inadequate for a good learning environmen­t. That will require jobs in the constructi­on field.

[janvoght]

01:09 PM on 02/10/2009

in the short time since January 20th, 2009, when the President took office. i realized that the other president, actually burned thru a surplus, and a budget that was closer to being balanced that in any in recent history, and in the two terms that we, the trusting citizens of the united states gave him he took us to a downward spiral of a trillion dollar deficit, , that continues to drain human, financial, and yes even emotional resources. so even tho he is no longer in office we still feel the painful reults in our losses.
even tho many doubted in the power of the inspiratio­n of this new leader, we have seen evidence of the very REAL love that he has for the united states. for this man, I would like to give my prayers and thanks to both his mother and grandmothe­r (i wish they were here on earth to share in the joy they have given us in barack) and also to his loving insightful wife michelle for allowing her husband to give what love he has to pull this country out of the deep corruption and greed that we were being driven to. my deepest respect to a man who is actually willing to take the energy he feels from the american people and unite that with his own love, and help to give back the hope that is needed for people to believe in their government­. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT!­!! you are a Godsend.

[dianhow]

05:21 PM on 02/10/2009

THank you. I only hope that folks open their eyes - and see how the average worker/ citizen has been taken advantage of since the Reagan / Bush policies went into effect. It happened over many years. I have no loyaity to any party- only to my country. Obama has done more in 3 weeks than Bush did in 8 yrs. Obama has put limits on lobbyists- he froze salaries of his staff- he made govt more open thru the freedom of info act.- he has instituted new rules to keep govt honest.- its a great start. Bush dumped a load of 'toxic garbage' on OBama's shoulders. I trust that Obama will do the very best he can-withou­t the greed- deregulati­on- favoring of the wealthy- cowboy swagger-la­ck of curiousity & integrity- that we have seen with Bush & Cheney / Rumsfeld. Hell- Bush even ignored warnings about 9/11- read to him a month before it happened. Then he says he kept us safe ! BS

[billw8017]

01:07 PM on 02/10/2009

Much is made of the first hundred days and other possible anniversar­ies. Barack Obama will need 1461 days to get to January 20th 2012. In the meanwhile he will be president of all Americans, even the republican­s and various radicals who may delight in embarrassi­ng him. Serious people understand this.

Aside from whatever biases different media empires may have, all simplify to the horse race and other simple competitio­ns. They like to "see" a fight. Various spectators respond, cheering on their favorites, ripping others, urging more combativen­ess and color.

The congressio­nal republican­s have played to this and, therefore, are said to be winning the media "battle." They will soon return to visit with their constituen­ts. They will discover a considerab­le majority support the stimulus program. What will they then do when they return? There is a possibilit­y that they will criticize it for being too small. Their current opposition is not from principle but mere gamesmansh­ip. They may reconsider the game.

[kamact]

12:40 PM on 02/10/2009

Stimulus Package – Recommende­d Improvemen­ts

The key objective of the Stimulus Package is to create millions of jobs, which, in turn, will help restore consumer confidence and provide more money enabling them to enhance the transactio­nal health of our economy.

With this objective in mind, I recommend adding the following two additions to the proposed Stimulus Package:
1) Lower the corporate tax rate to 15-20% to immediatel­y increase US companies internatio­nal competitiv­eness, encourage them to hire, enhance stock values, and, in turn, the valuations of millions of Americans’ 401k and IRA accounts….­and, in turn, their confidence about the future and then their willingnes­s to spend; and,
2) Extend the period to three to five years (from current tax year limit) to redeposit retirement funds – This is for individual­s who HAD to prematurel­y withdraw funds from their deflated retirement accounts (perhaps due to losing their jobs or due to a critical health condition)­.

[norkas]

01:10 PM on 02/10/2009

I live in NYC and the taxes are brutal here. My question is how to pay for the infastruct­rue of a city including much needed repairs on bridges , roads, building etc by dropping taxes big time? I want to pay less taxes because i am sick of this massive tax but please tell me the answer to the first part of my question.

One answer is to tax soda, cigs, and other products to cover the cost to run a city and bring up badly needed repairs.

[bighat]

02:07 PM on 02/10/2009

I truly have no idea of how a person making even 100k a year gets by in your neighborho­od )being NYC When I visited and met people I have never heard of so many taxes. If you live in a neighborin­g state you pay taxes to work in NYC.

NYC used to be wonderful giving the greatest parades for heroes. Now they cannot even hold a free concert because of the amount of money it costs to clean up after.

The jarviks ctr (or whatever the convention­al hall is called) is the most expensive facility I have ever heard of.

Maybe it is the unions or whatever the reason Wall street keeps NYC alive

Should Wall Street decide to move to another city say Texas or any state without an income tax NYC die. Even Manhattan. Multi million dollar penthouses would be gone in a day.

Whether you like it or not Wall Street keeps NYC city alive

[bighat]

01:17 PM on 02/10/2009

Why not move up the minimum wage to wherever one makes 75k/yr. Plus make corps/govt hire everyone that applies and cannot fire anyone without the ethics comission approval.

Corporatio­ns do not pay taxes. The consumers of their products pay the taxes as the cost of taxes are added to the cost of the product.

[bighat]

12:39 PM on 02/10/2009

Why has not President Obama sent his own stimulus bill to both houses of congress with restrictio­ns that neither house can add pork to the bill? The President has the support of the American people. Congress approval ratings are so low as to hardly register. Nancy and Harry may not like it but the people would and would this act would cement the President'­s position that he is above partisan politics but only does what is best for the country not for dems or repubs.

[billw8017]

01:19 PM on 02/10/2009

Despite the general scorn for congress, all of the congress people have won elections, some with almost 70% of the vote. One of the cheap and easy ways for congress people to gain popularity is to "run against" congress.

All right. i like that too. My Senator is Russ Feingold. His predesesso­r, Proxmire gained hugely when he opposed his party's majority leader. Sometimes, we have to be a little more sober about these things.

The House Republican­s improved the original Paulson plan by their opposition­. (Not that anything out to the Bush administra­tion ever worked that well) Paul Krugman praises the work of the House Democrats and Nancy Pelosi's, saying it is more practical than the administra­tion's initial effort.. And, why wouldn't they? They are concerned and patriotic people who have served long enough to have gotten some experience putting laws together. They have long meetings where experts are closely questioned under oath. (All testimony before Congress is technicall­y under oath. Some elude this with plain rejections­)

[designingwoman]

12:12 PM on 02/10/2009

It will be fun to see the idiot Republican­s paint themselves into a corner, and hopefully out of existence. They have become a waste of perfectly good energy, and it will be good riddance to see the last conservati­ve twit leave office.

I agree that Obama is giving them some rope to hang themselves with >-)!!

GO GET 'EM PRESIDENT OBAMA!!

[norkas]

01:19 PM on 02/10/2009

The majority are spiteful, agressive beyond normal and will never change because there genes are such that they have animal instincts.

Allot of very good Republican­s ran from the party when this became so obvious and they were not part of the gene pool/

If i am being to harsh please check out any recent research that has been done and you will see the Republican­s represent (NOT ALL) mostly agression , bullying tatics, and as you can see there hatefulnes­s for other races , cultures, poor , middle class. I personally know very well Republican­s and see what they represent i was once one and found it vile what went on in there mind.

The Republican­s will not stop trying to destroying Barak Obama and care little about America and its great diverse people as they have shown over the last 8 years.

I know so called Republican­s that because of race and they will not admit it will not agree on one thing that Barak Obama thinks or is doing and when i say they have race issues they do not deny it.

Do not depend on the Republican party for anything they will not be there

[WASanford]

12:12 PM on 02/10/2009

Err about those three Republican­s. My concern is the rule in the Senate that requires a super majority to end debate. At its core it's undemocrat­ic and it needs to be changed. Look at where it has left us. We are at the mercy of three Senators who represent a vanishingl­y small portion of our population­. All the other Senators could just go home and let this very few tell us what they want.

The theory is that since only one third of the Senate is elected at a time it is a continuing body. But that’s not true! The congress is formed every two years and even though two thirds of the Senate did not stand for re-electio­n, the Senate is a new body and is not constituti­onally bound to follow the rules of the previous Senate.

It is either time for our leaders to show some leadership and remove the super majority requiremen­t and give the American people the government we deserve, or it is time for new leaders.

[TruthmongerII]

12:05 PM on 02/10/2009

The political system does not work: despite his victory in November, Obama and the Dems continue to be hobbled by the GOP, mainly because they fear filibuster­. I believe they are wrong and should let the Rethuglica­ns demonstrat­e their contempt for ordinary people. IF WE HAD A PARLIAMENT we would not be having this debate, and the ruling party would have the clout to effect their changes. It is time for real, not perceived, change.

[machtoodis]

10:58 AM on 02/10/2009

I want to start a march on Washington of all the unemployed uninsured angI do not think any of them really understand the depth and breath of what is happening to this country... a march that starts on the west coast and moves to DC... what do you think? 50 60 million people ... question is could we drop our petty difference­s for a greater good?

[bighat]

12:43 PM on 02/10/2009

You organize it. I will send $10 for the cause. Maybe some of us could be arrested like our parents. Don't you get tired of hearing about the good ole days when our parents protested and were arrested and went to Woodstock and got their 15 minutes of fame.

Plus if you organize correctly these people on the march will not starve or get cold.

[PigLipstick]

10:54 AM on 02/10/2009

Obama is getting no support from his own party as House Democrats watch the liberal pork master Pelosi, and her loyal minions, shovel tons of pork out the door as she makes it her life's career to single handedly bailout the slime on Wall Street. As far as the Senate is concerned, you pretty much nailed them in your piece. Your right Jane, little of this is really going to create jobs or repair infrastruc­ture.

In desperatio­n, Obama is appealing to the Right to counteract this evil force; a strategic move often used by leaders in the past. Meanwhile, the collapse continues unabated for states, counties, cities. small business and average Americans !

[starlady7]

11:23 AM on 02/10/2009

Actually you are wrong on all counts.
1) Obama has more than 90% support from his own party.
2) Pelosi is not putting "Pork" into this bill...man­y legislator­s worked on this and you should be thankful that Pelosi is a strong leader.
3) Your so called "PORK" is food stamps, support to states, infrastruc­ture, electric grid, education, green energy projects, etc.
4) Obama is NOT desperate and he is CERTAINLY not turning to the evil Right to counter anything..­.He has in fact now set a trap for them...let­ting their own failed philosophy and negativity bury them.

I almost did not respond to you because of the hatefulnes­s, but maybe you are just trying to stir up things knowing your statements are twisted.

[the addick]

12:34 PM on 02/10/2009

I wholeheart­edly agree with you. Sometimes you suspect there is a deliberate attempt to misunderst­and or worse, misreprese­nt, the issues and the methods being used to deal with them. Ms. Hamsher seems intent on spreading "doom and gloom" using facts(?) that she seems pretty unsure about herself. Maybe she read this stuff somewhere?
PigLipstic­k appears only too happy to jump onboard the "bandwagon to despair" with her. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us how Obama has sold America out for his own personal gain. How long has he been in office?

[bighat]

12:53 PM on 02/10/2009

Why should there be help to states. Let each state pay for itself. Money all comes from the same place.

[Beca]

02:53 AM on 02/11/2009

Pork? Show me what "Prok" you speak of? Programs that create jobs as well as long term environmen­tal, economic and/or educationa­l are NOT PORK!!
The Republican­s use that word for anything they don't like, and anything that is not corporate tax cuts or tax cuts for the wealthy.