He'd rather have good policy than bipartisanship. (h/t Balloon Juice)
For the Beltway commentariat, however, transcending partisanship is the most meaningful of issues, more important, one senses, than the economic problems that trouble those people at town-hall meetings. "Nothing was more central to [Obama's] victory last fall than his claim that he could break the partisan gridlock in Washington," wrote the Washington Post's David Broder a few weeks ago, in an altogether typical expression of media perceptions.
The way I remember it, the No. 1 issue in the election was the collapsing economy, followed at some distance by the Iraq war. On both of these questions, Mr. Obama prevailed because he was the candidate who promised most convincingly to reverse Republican policies -- not because he planned to meet the GOP halfway across the charred ruins of American prosperity.
(snip)
It is supposed to be high-minded stuff, this longing for a bipartisan golden age. But in some ways it is the most cynical stance possible. It takes no idea seriously, since everything is up for compromise. The role of the political parties is merely to cancel each other out, so that only the glorious centrists remain, triangulating majestically between obnoxious extremes.
-------------
Does anyone in the media commentariate realize that the "golden age" of bipartisanship (the 1950's and 1960's?) was a function of the schizophrenic New Deal coalition, which pitted conservative Democrats from the confederate states of America against more moderate Democrats and Republicans from the North, and since then the golden era of bipartisanship there has been a regional and ideological realignment of the parties?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Ted Kennedy
Ted Kennedy, apparently in need of continuing rehab or other medical attention related to his recently discovered cancer, will not be present for the Senate vote on the final passage of the stimulus bill. The pro side will probably, hopefully, still gain 60 votes, however.
Nonetheless, and I hate to be inpolitic, but at what point should the appropriate decision makers and thought leaders in the party encourage all involved that (a) Kennedy should retire and (b) the Democratic governor of Massachusetts should appoint a Democratic successor to Kennedy's seat, someone who can be on hand for the important decisions and votes ahead?
Nonetheless, and I hate to be inpolitic, but at what point should the appropriate decision makers and thought leaders in the party encourage all involved that (a) Kennedy should retire and (b) the Democratic governor of Massachusetts should appoint a Democratic successor to Kennedy's seat, someone who can be on hand for the important decisions and votes ahead?
Conservatives and "fiscal discipline"
After eight years of "deficits don't matter" the new Republican minority is now in danger of ridding the world of fainting couches. The blatant absurdity and hypocrisy of it all is staggering. But fortunately not all observers are buying it:
A Republican party that added more than $30 trillion to the future debt in a time of boom has no credible answer but raw partisanship for opposing $800 billion in the swiftest downturn in employment since the Great Depression. That's the bottom line. The party that campaigned for eight years on the principle that "deficits don't matter" has no good faith standing to oppose a measure that provides the minimum to ensure some kind of bottom in the looming depression. To take their fiscal conservatism seriously at this point and in this crisis is to engage in some kind of instant amnesia............
The GOP has passed what amounts to a spending and tax-cutting and borrowing stimulus package every year since George W. Bush came to office. They have added tens of trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit - all in a time of growth. They then pick the one moment when demand is collapsing in an alarming spiral to argue that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable. I mean: seriously.
The bad faith and refusal to be accountable for their own conduct for the last eight years is simply inescapable. There is no reason for the GOP to have done what they have done for the last eight years and to say what they are saying now except pure, cynical partisanship, and a desire to wound and damage the new presidency. The rest is transparent cant.
A Republican party that added more than $30 trillion to the future debt in a time of boom has no credible answer but raw partisanship for opposing $800 billion in the swiftest downturn in employment since the Great Depression. That's the bottom line. The party that campaigned for eight years on the principle that "deficits don't matter" has no good faith standing to oppose a measure that provides the minimum to ensure some kind of bottom in the looming depression. To take their fiscal conservatism seriously at this point and in this crisis is to engage in some kind of instant amnesia............
The GOP has passed what amounts to a spending and tax-cutting and borrowing stimulus package every year since George W. Bush came to office. They have added tens of trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit - all in a time of growth. They then pick the one moment when demand is collapsing in an alarming spiral to argue that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable. I mean: seriously.
The bad faith and refusal to be accountable for their own conduct for the last eight years is simply inescapable. There is no reason for the GOP to have done what they have done for the last eight years and to say what they are saying now except pure, cynical partisanship, and a desire to wound and damage the new presidency. The rest is transparent cant.
The Republican Opposition
Via Andrew Sullivan, Booman makes what I think is a pretty valid analysis of future presidential-congressional relations:
The Republicans wanted to demonstrate some strength at the outset of this administration. They wanted to prove that they can maintain cohesion in opposition to things they truly oppose. It was important for them to send this message even though it was a discordant rejection of Obama's olive branch. They probably would have sought to send such a message on any major vote, so the stimulus wasn't necessarily the primary cause of their reaction. But there is something important about how the stimulus was put together that also helps explain Republican behavior. The stimulus package wasn't written using 'regular order' and did not come up through the committee and subcommittee process. There was a good reason for this...expediency. But that doesn't change the fact that the Republicans had no opportunity to influence the bill in committee.
Going forward, individual Republicans will have the option to work in a constructive way with the Democrats on the committees on which they serve. This is basically the only way House Republicans can have any influence over legislation over the next four years. Republicans that learn how to play this game will get to co-sponsor bills and bring home projects and appropriations to their home districts. Those that don't learn how to play this game will have nothing tangible to show for being a member of Congress. It might be comforting to be a member of the opposition and a champion among Republican activists, but it doesn't make for much of a day job.
What I'm basically saying is that the Republicans, as a group, want to oppose Obama at every turn. But it will not be easy to keep a unified opposition in place over time. I predict it will fall apart quite quickly. And then the Republican leaders will have to choose their battles very carefully because it will be hard to keep the caucus unified for more than a few key votes. Even on the stimulus, the Republicans lost. They won some important concessions, but they lost.
It will also be impossible to attack Obama as successfully as the Republicans attacked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a deeply flawed person who won a plurality of the vote. Barack Obama cannot demonized so easily.
So, no, the Republicans are not going to embrace bipartisanship or suddenly begin wishing the Obama administration well. But they're also not going to maintain a rock solid opposition. They can't.
The Republicans wanted to demonstrate some strength at the outset of this administration. They wanted to prove that they can maintain cohesion in opposition to things they truly oppose. It was important for them to send this message even though it was a discordant rejection of Obama's olive branch. They probably would have sought to send such a message on any major vote, so the stimulus wasn't necessarily the primary cause of their reaction. But there is something important about how the stimulus was put together that also helps explain Republican behavior. The stimulus package wasn't written using 'regular order' and did not come up through the committee and subcommittee process. There was a good reason for this...expediency. But that doesn't change the fact that the Republicans had no opportunity to influence the bill in committee.
Going forward, individual Republicans will have the option to work in a constructive way with the Democrats on the committees on which they serve. This is basically the only way House Republicans can have any influence over legislation over the next four years. Republicans that learn how to play this game will get to co-sponsor bills and bring home projects and appropriations to their home districts. Those that don't learn how to play this game will have nothing tangible to show for being a member of Congress. It might be comforting to be a member of the opposition and a champion among Republican activists, but it doesn't make for much of a day job.
What I'm basically saying is that the Republicans, as a group, want to oppose Obama at every turn. But it will not be easy to keep a unified opposition in place over time. I predict it will fall apart quite quickly. And then the Republican leaders will have to choose their battles very carefully because it will be hard to keep the caucus unified for more than a few key votes. Even on the stimulus, the Republicans lost. They won some important concessions, but they lost.
It will also be impossible to attack Obama as successfully as the Republicans attacked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a deeply flawed person who won a plurality of the vote. Barack Obama cannot demonized so easily.
So, no, the Republicans are not going to embrace bipartisanship or suddenly begin wishing the Obama administration well. But they're also not going to maintain a rock solid opposition. They can't.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Democratic unity
One of the aspects of the stimulus debate in the Senate that I'm a bit surprised hasn't gotten more attention is the fact that it has gotten unanimous support from Democrats. That's not really a given, with Mary Landrieaux from La., the two Senators from Arkansas, who have been known to buck the party, along with both Nelsons (FL and NE) sometimes only nominally in the Democratic column. And, let's give credit where credit is due, Joe Lieberman has voted with the Dems as well; again, not a given with his performance during the recent campaign. And of course historically, Democratic unity has not always been forthcoming. If this blog did research it might be able to show whether any Democratic senators went against President Clinton's own, much smaller, stimulus bill in 1993. Off the top of my head, I'd guess he didn't get all of them.
League of Morons
And WATB's.
John Cole says, Get them a binky:
I guess next time you want a final say in the shaping of a piece of legislation (and you already had a ginormous say in the current legislation) in the conference committee, you probably should bring more than three votes to the table in both houses. Kind of funny how that works, as all the people who voted for the bill on the GOP side are right there working with the Democrats to finalize the bill.
You WATB’s demagogued, lied, whined, and had a hissy fit about the bill, then voted against it en masse even though it contained a number of provisions you wanted and you had inserted in the bill, and then took to the air waves pleased as punch with yourselves. The adults watched you and then decided you needed a timeout. This is bad and wrong, why?
You can whine about this, or you can make sure it doesn’t happen again. Any guesses which path the GOP takes?
*** Update ***
Two quick things. Bush’s signature issue in 2000, a tax cut bill a bill designed to deal with the surplus from the Clinton years, was passed in 2001 with 12 Democratic votes in the Senate, 28 in the house, all in the aftermath of a very contentious election and basically written precisely as the Republicans wanted it (with a few concessions, such as sunset provisions).
By comparison, on the heels of an enormous victory, with large majorities in the House and Senate, facing economic collapse, the Republicans were able to provide a whopping three (3) votes to a bill that before it even was introduced was loaded with tax cuts designed to appease Republicans, and then went through a huge revision to remove things that many republicans found offensive to their delicate sensibilities. Three. Votes. The entire Republican party, in both houses, voted overwhelmingly against tax cuts for the middle class because it was beneficial to them politically. Country first, or something.
John Cole says, Get them a binky:
I guess next time you want a final say in the shaping of a piece of legislation (and you already had a ginormous say in the current legislation) in the conference committee, you probably should bring more than three votes to the table in both houses. Kind of funny how that works, as all the people who voted for the bill on the GOP side are right there working with the Democrats to finalize the bill.
You WATB’s demagogued, lied, whined, and had a hissy fit about the bill, then voted against it en masse even though it contained a number of provisions you wanted and you had inserted in the bill, and then took to the air waves pleased as punch with yourselves. The adults watched you and then decided you needed a timeout. This is bad and wrong, why?
You can whine about this, or you can make sure it doesn’t happen again. Any guesses which path the GOP takes?
*** Update ***
Two quick things. Bush’s signature issue in 2000, a tax cut bill a bill designed to deal with the surplus from the Clinton years, was passed in 2001 with 12 Democratic votes in the Senate, 28 in the house, all in the aftermath of a very contentious election and basically written precisely as the Republicans wanted it (with a few concessions, such as sunset provisions).
By comparison, on the heels of an enormous victory, with large majorities in the House and Senate, facing economic collapse, the Republicans were able to provide a whopping three (3) votes to a bill that before it even was introduced was loaded with tax cuts designed to appease Republicans, and then went through a huge revision to remove things that many republicans found offensive to their delicate sensibilities. Three. Votes. The entire Republican party, in both houses, voted overwhelmingly against tax cuts for the middle class because it was beneficial to them politically. Country first, or something.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Stimulus enough to work?
A couple of articles today have me feeling a bit better about the stimulus bill, and its potential effectiveness, despite its weakening in the Senate version.
First is this article in the NYT reporting the amount of money going to education even after the Senate version's cuts:
The Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers proposed unprecedented levels of education spending in both the House and Senate stimulus bills. And even after cuts made Friday by a bipartisan group led by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the Senate bill would still provide $80 billion in emergency spending for public schools and state universities, well above the Department of Education’s current $59 billion discretionary budget.
Both the House and the Senate would hugely increase spending on Title I, a program of specialized classroom efforts to help educate poor children, and on education for disabled children.
The House bill would raise Title I spending over two years by $13 billion; for the current fiscal year, spending would rise to $20 billion from about $14.5 billion. The two-year increase in the Senate bill would be $11.4 billion.
Both the House and Senate bills would also increase federal spending on special education by $13 billion over two years.
That even the Senate bill would provide more money than the Department of Ed's annual discretionary budget sounds rather impressive.
And then there is this post by Kevin Drum detailing the combined impact of the stimulus bill along with the expected budget deficits to run over the next few years:
So: With the cut, total fiscal stimulus over the three years starting last October comes to $2.7 trillion and 12 million jobs. If we had kept spending at its higher level, it would have come to $2.8 trillion and perhaps 12.5 million jobs. That's a difference of about 3%.
Now, the nature of that 3% is hardly defensible. State aid and school construction are way better uses of the money than a lot of stuff that was left in the bill. Still, the fact remains that the total amount of stimulus over three years is $2.7 trillion, not the $800 billion number that dominates the discussion. That's a helluva lot of stimulus, and if it doesn't do the job it's doubtful that $2.8 trillion will do it either.
I'm a little dubious as to how accurately X amount of government spending leads to X number of jobs. But if this is the bigger picture as Drum suggests, the ultimate effect of national policy should be a positive one.
It also reinforces something I posted about last week--the ultimate role played by the upcoming budget proposals and discussions, and the filibuster-insulated Reconciliation process that governs it. The stimulus money obviously can get fast-tracked sooner, while the money to eventually to come out of budget reconciliation is several months down the road. Still, the stimulus is far from being the end point of government intervention in the economy.
First is this article in the NYT reporting the amount of money going to education even after the Senate version's cuts:
The Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers proposed unprecedented levels of education spending in both the House and Senate stimulus bills. And even after cuts made Friday by a bipartisan group led by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the Senate bill would still provide $80 billion in emergency spending for public schools and state universities, well above the Department of Education’s current $59 billion discretionary budget.
Both the House and the Senate would hugely increase spending on Title I, a program of specialized classroom efforts to help educate poor children, and on education for disabled children.
The House bill would raise Title I spending over two years by $13 billion; for the current fiscal year, spending would rise to $20 billion from about $14.5 billion. The two-year increase in the Senate bill would be $11.4 billion.
Both the House and Senate bills would also increase federal spending on special education by $13 billion over two years.
That even the Senate bill would provide more money than the Department of Ed's annual discretionary budget sounds rather impressive.
And then there is this post by Kevin Drum detailing the combined impact of the stimulus bill along with the expected budget deficits to run over the next few years:
So: With the cut, total fiscal stimulus over the three years starting last October comes to $2.7 trillion and 12 million jobs. If we had kept spending at its higher level, it would have come to $2.8 trillion and perhaps 12.5 million jobs. That's a difference of about 3%.
Now, the nature of that 3% is hardly defensible. State aid and school construction are way better uses of the money than a lot of stuff that was left in the bill. Still, the fact remains that the total amount of stimulus over three years is $2.7 trillion, not the $800 billion number that dominates the discussion. That's a helluva lot of stimulus, and if it doesn't do the job it's doubtful that $2.8 trillion will do it either.
I'm a little dubious as to how accurately X amount of government spending leads to X number of jobs. But if this is the bigger picture as Drum suggests, the ultimate effect of national policy should be a positive one.
It also reinforces something I posted about last week--the ultimate role played by the upcoming budget proposals and discussions, and the filibuster-insulated Reconciliation process that governs it. The stimulus money obviously can get fast-tracked sooner, while the money to eventually to come out of budget reconciliation is several months down the road. Still, the stimulus is far from being the end point of government intervention in the economy.
$3 Trillion > $800 Billion
Despite all the hand-wringing from Senate Republicans--and their cable teevee enablers--36 out of 41 of them voted for $3 trillion worth of tax cuts last week.
Krugman:
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
Krugman:
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Safer food, safer consumers
Hopefully, amidst all the anguish surrounding the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and media gobbledigoop, the little matter of making sure our food is safe and the people who eat it less at risk won't get swept under the carpet.
Fortunately, someone now appears to be on the job (hat tip, Americablog).
---------
WASHINGTON - The peanut recall offers a prime opportunity to merge all federal food safety oversight into one agency, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Friday.
Right now, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture share oversight responsibilities, along with other government agencies, dividing authority along lines that don't always make sense. For example, the FDA oversees eggs in the shell, while the Agriculture Department is responsible for processed egg products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency share some food oversight as well.
"You can't have two systems and be able to reassure people you've got the job covered," Vilsack said. "This is a grand opportunity for us to take a step back and rethink our approach."
A salmonella outbreak blamed on Peanut Corp. of America has sickened at least 575 people in 43 states. At least eight have died. More than 1,300 foods that used ingredients from the company's processing plant in Blakely, Ga., have been recalled. While the outbreak appears to be slowing down, new illnesses are still being reported.
Fortunately, someone now appears to be on the job (hat tip, Americablog).
---------
WASHINGTON - The peanut recall offers a prime opportunity to merge all federal food safety oversight into one agency, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Friday.
Right now, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture share oversight responsibilities, along with other government agencies, dividing authority along lines that don't always make sense. For example, the FDA oversees eggs in the shell, while the Agriculture Department is responsible for processed egg products.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency share some food oversight as well.
"You can't have two systems and be able to reassure people you've got the job covered," Vilsack said. "This is a grand opportunity for us to take a step back and rethink our approach."
A salmonella outbreak blamed on Peanut Corp. of America has sickened at least 575 people in 43 states. At least eight have died. More than 1,300 foods that used ingredients from the company's processing plant in Blakely, Ga., have been recalled. While the outbreak appears to be slowing down, new illnesses are still being reported.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Yes we can make it worse
What the GOP really wants
Ezra Klein:
Jim DeMint just offered an amendment to the stimulus package. Via Dave Weigel, here's what it contains:
• Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
• Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
• Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
• Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
• Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
• Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
• Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
• Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
• Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.
The amendment was beaten back, but all but five Republicans voted for it. It reminds me of something John Cole wrote earlier today. "I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane," he said.
----------------------
I was going to comment or make some analytical point here, but I think it sort of explains itself.
Jim DeMint just offered an amendment to the stimulus package. Via Dave Weigel, here's what it contains:
• Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
• Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
• Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
• Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
• Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
• Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
• Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
• Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
• Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.
The amendment was beaten back, but all but five Republicans voted for it. It reminds me of something John Cole wrote earlier today. "I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane," he said.
----------------------
I was going to comment or make some analytical point here, but I think it sort of explains itself.
To our league of morons in Congress
Steven Pearlstein: (h/t TPM)
Actually, what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.
What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn't being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.
Many, including John McCain, lined up this week to support a proposal to make the sales tax and interest payments on any new car purchased over the next two years tax-deductible, along with a $15,000 tax credit on a home purchase. These tax credits make for great sound-bites and are music to the ears of politically active car salesmen and real estate brokers. Most economists, however, have warned that such credits will have limited impact at a time when house prices are still falling sharply and consumers are worried about their jobs and their shrinking retirement accounts. Even worse, they wind up wasting a lot of money because they give windfalls to millions of people who would have bought cars and houses anyway.
What adds insults to injury, however, is that many of the senators who supported these tax breaks then turned around and opposed as "boondoggles" much more cost-effective proposals to stimulate auto and housing sales, such as having the government replace its current fleet of cars with hybrids or giving money to local housing authorities to buy up foreclosed properties for use as low-income rental housing.
Personal economic trainers would confirm all this. Until they're on board, however, here's a little crib sheet on stimulus economics:
Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.
Actually, what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.
What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn't being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.
Many, including John McCain, lined up this week to support a proposal to make the sales tax and interest payments on any new car purchased over the next two years tax-deductible, along with a $15,000 tax credit on a home purchase. These tax credits make for great sound-bites and are music to the ears of politically active car salesmen and real estate brokers. Most economists, however, have warned that such credits will have limited impact at a time when house prices are still falling sharply and consumers are worried about their jobs and their shrinking retirement accounts. Even worse, they wind up wasting a lot of money because they give windfalls to millions of people who would have bought cars and houses anyway.
What adds insults to injury, however, is that many of the senators who supported these tax breaks then turned around and opposed as "boondoggles" much more cost-effective proposals to stimulate auto and housing sales, such as having the government replace its current fleet of cars with hybrids or giving money to local housing authorities to buy up foreclosed properties for use as low-income rental housing.
Personal economic trainers would confirm all this. Until they're on board, however, here's a little crib sheet on stimulus economics:
Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Why the, or at least "a", stimulus bill will pass
Via LG&M, Kevin Drum explains:
If Republicans really did put up a united front and filibuster the legislation, the Democratic leadership would just turn around and consider the bill under budget reconciliation rules, which require only a majority vote to pass. Sure, they've already said they'd prefer not to do that, but if they have to they will. And since the bill is all about short-term spending, it would obviously qualify under reconciliation rules.
So all the public handwringing seems like standard DC negotiating kabuki to me, not a genuine effort to kill the bill. If Republicans filibuster, the public will view them as bitter obstructionists and the bill will pass anyway. It's hard to see what's in it for them to go down this road.
If Republicans really did put up a united front and filibuster the legislation, the Democratic leadership would just turn around and consider the bill under budget reconciliation rules, which require only a majority vote to pass. Sure, they've already said they'd prefer not to do that, but if they have to they will. And since the bill is all about short-term spending, it would obviously qualify under reconciliation rules.
So all the public handwringing seems like standard DC negotiating kabuki to me, not a genuine effort to kill the bill. If Republicans filibuster, the public will view them as bitter obstructionists and the bill will pass anyway. It's hard to see what's in it for them to go down this road.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Underwhelmed
I've just skimmed through the Congressional Budget Office's report on the Stimulus bill and I have to admit I find it pretty underwhelming--the stimulus that is. Apparently, so do a few others.
It also occurs to me that the price tag frequently cited--usually in the neighborhood of $800-$900 billion dollars--probably overstates the scope of the bill, since this amount will be spread over three years. Here is the CBO statement:
Combining the spending and revenue effects summarized above, CBO estimates that enacting the Inouye-Baucus substitute for H.R. 1 would increase federal budget deficits by $233 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $461 billion in 2010, by $142 billion in 2011, and by $884 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
It also occurs to me that the price tag frequently cited--usually in the neighborhood of $800-$900 billion dollars--probably overstates the scope of the bill, since this amount will be spread over three years. Here is the CBO statement:
Combining the spending and revenue effects summarized above, CBO estimates that enacting the Inouye-Baucus substitute for H.R. 1 would increase federal budget deficits by $233 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $461 billion in 2010, by $142 billion in 2011, and by $884 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
Monday, February 02, 2009
"Israeli operations in Gaza..."
From the land of Newspeak we have somebody named Soner Cagaptay on Turkey, Israel, and the West:
-------------
Turkey is a special Muslim country. Of the more than 50 majority-Muslim nations, it is the only one that is a NATO ally, is in accession talks with the European Union, is a liberal democracy and has normal relations with Israel. Under its current government by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), however, Turkey is losing these special qualities. Liberal political trends are disappearing, E.U. accession talks have stalled, ties with anti-Western states such as Iran are improving and relations with Israel are deteriorating. On Thursday, for example, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a panel at Davos, Switzerland, after chiding Israeli President Shimon Peres for "killing people." If Turkey fails in these areas or wavers in its commitment to transatlantic structures such as NATO, it cannot expect to be President Obama's favorite Muslim country.
(snip)
Then there is foreign policy. Take Turkey's status as a NATO ally of the United States: Ankara's rapprochement with Tehran has gone so far since 2002 that it is doubtful whether Turkey would side with the United States in dealing with the issue of a nuclear Iran. In December, Erdogan told a Washington crowd that "countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons."
The AKP's commitment to U.S. positions is even weaker on other issues, including Hamas. During the recent Israeli operations in Gaza, Erdogan questioned the validity of Israel's U.N. seat while saying that he wants to represent Hamas on international platforms. Three days before moderate Arab allies of Washington, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, gathered on Jan. 19 in Kuwait to discuss an end to the Gaza conflict, Erdogan's officials met with Iran, Syria and Sudan in Qatar, effectively upstaging the moderates. Amazingly, Turkey is now taking a harder line on the Arab-Israeli conflict than even Saudi Arabia.
For years, Turkey has had normal relations with Israel, including strong military, tourist, and cultural and commercial ties. The Turks did not emphasize religion or ideology in their relationship with the Jewish state, so Israelis felt comfortable visiting, doing business and vacationing in Turkey. But Erdogan's recent anti-Israeli statements -- he even suggested that God would punish Israel -- have made normal relations a thing of the past. On Jan. 4, 200,000 Turks turned out in freezing rain in Istanbul to wish death to Israel; on Jan. 7, an Israeli girls' volleyball team was attacked by a Turkish audience chanting, "Muslim policemen, bring us the Jews, so we can slaughter them."
Emerging anti-Semitism also challenges Turkey's special status. Anti-Semitism is not hard-wired into Turkish society -- rather its seeds are being spread by the political leadership. Erdogan has pumped up such sentiments by suggesting Jewish culpability for the conflict in Gaza and alleging that Jewish-controlled media outlets were misrepresenting the facts. Moreover, on Jan. 6, while demanding remorse for Israel's Gaza operations, Erdogan said to Turkish Jews, "Did we not accept you in the Ottoman Empire?" Turkey's tiny, well-integrated Jewish community is being threatened: Jewish businesses are being boycotted, and instances of violence have been reported. These are shameful developments in a land that has provided a home for Jews since 1492, when the Ottomans opened their arms to Jewish people fleeing the Spanish Inquisition. The Ottoman sultans must be spinning in their graves.
The erosion of Turkey's liberalism under the AKP is alienating Turkey from the West. If Turkish foreign policy is based on solidarity with Islamist regimes or causes, Ankara cannot hope to be considered a serious NATO ally. Likewise, if the AKP discriminates against women, forgoes normal relations with Israel, curbs media freedoms or loses interest in joining Europe, it will hardly endear itself to the United States. And if Erdogan's AKP keeps serving a menu of illiberalism at home and religion in foreign policy, Turkey will no longer be special -- and that would be unfortunate.
------------------------
This might just be the least self-aware op-ed I've ever read. That or it's the most evasive piece of bamboozlement I've ever read. Either way, the column is obstensibly about Turkey's apparent backing away of a "Pro-West" position, but seems primarily a reaction against the country's critique of Israel.
The writer seems so offended that anyone, least of all some country as irrelevant as Turkey's PM would consider "Israel's operations in Gaza..." to include "killing people" he (or she) can't seem to acknowledge the obvious facts of the PM's complaint.
And of course that the Turkish PM would dare meet with "Iran, Syria, and Sudan" (such obvious bad guys) amidst "Israel's operations in Gaza" or remark that " 'countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons' " are also actions and statements that seemingly require no explanation.
-------------
Turkey is a special Muslim country. Of the more than 50 majority-Muslim nations, it is the only one that is a NATO ally, is in accession talks with the European Union, is a liberal democracy and has normal relations with Israel. Under its current government by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), however, Turkey is losing these special qualities. Liberal political trends are disappearing, E.U. accession talks have stalled, ties with anti-Western states such as Iran are improving and relations with Israel are deteriorating. On Thursday, for example, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a panel at Davos, Switzerland, after chiding Israeli President Shimon Peres for "killing people." If Turkey fails in these areas or wavers in its commitment to transatlantic structures such as NATO, it cannot expect to be President Obama's favorite Muslim country.
(snip)
Then there is foreign policy. Take Turkey's status as a NATO ally of the United States: Ankara's rapprochement with Tehran has gone so far since 2002 that it is doubtful whether Turkey would side with the United States in dealing with the issue of a nuclear Iran. In December, Erdogan told a Washington crowd that "countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons."
The AKP's commitment to U.S. positions is even weaker on other issues, including Hamas. During the recent Israeli operations in Gaza, Erdogan questioned the validity of Israel's U.N. seat while saying that he wants to represent Hamas on international platforms. Three days before moderate Arab allies of Washington, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, gathered on Jan. 19 in Kuwait to discuss an end to the Gaza conflict, Erdogan's officials met with Iran, Syria and Sudan in Qatar, effectively upstaging the moderates. Amazingly, Turkey is now taking a harder line on the Arab-Israeli conflict than even Saudi Arabia.
For years, Turkey has had normal relations with Israel, including strong military, tourist, and cultural and commercial ties. The Turks did not emphasize religion or ideology in their relationship with the Jewish state, so Israelis felt comfortable visiting, doing business and vacationing in Turkey. But Erdogan's recent anti-Israeli statements -- he even suggested that God would punish Israel -- have made normal relations a thing of the past. On Jan. 4, 200,000 Turks turned out in freezing rain in Istanbul to wish death to Israel; on Jan. 7, an Israeli girls' volleyball team was attacked by a Turkish audience chanting, "Muslim policemen, bring us the Jews, so we can slaughter them."
Emerging anti-Semitism also challenges Turkey's special status. Anti-Semitism is not hard-wired into Turkish society -- rather its seeds are being spread by the political leadership. Erdogan has pumped up such sentiments by suggesting Jewish culpability for the conflict in Gaza and alleging that Jewish-controlled media outlets were misrepresenting the facts. Moreover, on Jan. 6, while demanding remorse for Israel's Gaza operations, Erdogan said to Turkish Jews, "Did we not accept you in the Ottoman Empire?" Turkey's tiny, well-integrated Jewish community is being threatened: Jewish businesses are being boycotted, and instances of violence have been reported. These are shameful developments in a land that has provided a home for Jews since 1492, when the Ottomans opened their arms to Jewish people fleeing the Spanish Inquisition. The Ottoman sultans must be spinning in their graves.
The erosion of Turkey's liberalism under the AKP is alienating Turkey from the West. If Turkish foreign policy is based on solidarity with Islamist regimes or causes, Ankara cannot hope to be considered a serious NATO ally. Likewise, if the AKP discriminates against women, forgoes normal relations with Israel, curbs media freedoms or loses interest in joining Europe, it will hardly endear itself to the United States. And if Erdogan's AKP keeps serving a menu of illiberalism at home and religion in foreign policy, Turkey will no longer be special -- and that would be unfortunate.
------------------------
This might just be the least self-aware op-ed I've ever read. That or it's the most evasive piece of bamboozlement I've ever read. Either way, the column is obstensibly about Turkey's apparent backing away of a "Pro-West" position, but seems primarily a reaction against the country's critique of Israel.
The writer seems so offended that anyone, least of all some country as irrelevant as Turkey's PM would consider "Israel's operations in Gaza..." to include "killing people" he (or she) can't seem to acknowledge the obvious facts of the PM's complaint.
And of course that the Turkish PM would dare meet with "Iran, Syria, and Sudan" (such obvious bad guys) amidst "Israel's operations in Gaza" or remark that " 'countries that oppose Iran's nuclear weapons should themselves not have nuclear weapons' " are also actions and statements that seemingly require no explanation.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Still bitter
After blindly supporting a torture-approving, war-mongering Republican, conservative evangelicals still quibbling over Obama's Christian bonifides.
Wonder how that challenge to President Obama's birth certificate is going?
And by the way, Daddy Dobson...Suck. On. This.
Wonder how that challenge to President Obama's birth certificate is going?
And by the way, Daddy Dobson...Suck. On. This.
Hillary confirmed as SOS
94-2.
The two hold-outs? The very dishonorable David "Yeah I was in the D.C. Madam's little book of john's, what of it?" Vitter, of Louisiana, and Jim DeMint of S.C.
The two hold-outs? The very dishonorable David "Yeah I was in the D.C. Madam's little book of john's, what of it?" Vitter, of Louisiana, and Jim DeMint of S.C.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Israel's Olmert bullies Bush and Rice on Gaza resolution
Even given our national leadership's well known subservience to Israel, this is pretty shocking:
WASHINGTON — In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.
“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’ ” Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now,’ ” Mr. Olmert continued. “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”
Israel opposed the resolution, which called for a halt to the fighting in Gaza, because the government said it did not provide for Israel’s security. It passed 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining.
Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, the president called Ms. Rice and told her to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.
The State Department disputed Mr. Olmert’s account. “Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along,” said an official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the matter.
After the vote, Ms. Rice said the United States “fully supports” the resolution, which called for “an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,” but opted to abstain to see the outcome of an Egyptian-French peace initiative.
Ms. Rice did not respond to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, which were unusual even in the context of the secretary’s occasionally bumpy relationship with the prime minister, according to the official.
Privately, Mr. Olmert has said Ms. Rice sometimes had to be reined in for getting ahead of the president on policy. “They have a good relationship, but there have been some ups and downs,” the State Department official said.
UPDATE: Here are Juan Cole's comments.
WASHINGTON — In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.
“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’ ” Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now,’ ” Mr. Olmert continued. “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”
Israel opposed the resolution, which called for a halt to the fighting in Gaza, because the government said it did not provide for Israel’s security. It passed 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining.
Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, the president called Ms. Rice and told her to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.
The State Department disputed Mr. Olmert’s account. “Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along,” said an official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the matter.
After the vote, Ms. Rice said the United States “fully supports” the resolution, which called for “an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,” but opted to abstain to see the outcome of an Egyptian-French peace initiative.
Ms. Rice did not respond to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, which were unusual even in the context of the secretary’s occasionally bumpy relationship with the prime minister, according to the official.
Privately, Mr. Olmert has said Ms. Rice sometimes had to be reined in for getting ahead of the president on policy. “They have a good relationship, but there have been some ups and downs,” the State Department official said.
UPDATE: Here are Juan Cole's comments.
Friday, January 09, 2009
U.S. Politicial-Media Establishment Hits Rock Bottom
I was wondering when this would occur and what it would look like when it happened. Well, Israel's latest war seems to have produced about as good an approximation of it as any.
First, Big Media (via Glenn Greenwald) goes Orwellian in describing the Israeli attack/invasion of Gaza as "Israel's war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza".
Then, predictably, a bipartisan chorus of "subservience" erupts on Capitol Hill to declare "Israel's enemies our enemies, and Israel's wars our wars".
Fortunately, the NYT did allow op-ed space to Rashid Khalidi to provide some much needed "balance".
First, Big Media (via Glenn Greenwald) goes Orwellian in describing the Israeli attack/invasion of Gaza as "Israel's war on the Islamist rulers of Gaza".
Then, predictably, a bipartisan chorus of "subservience" erupts on Capitol Hill to declare "Israel's enemies our enemies, and Israel's wars our wars".
Fortunately, the NYT did allow op-ed space to Rashid Khalidi to provide some much needed "balance".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)