More Bipartisanship, Less Stimulus

[Dominus Atheos]

The Nation

Determined to pass something in the way of a stimulus package, Senate Democrats on Friday bartered away key elements of the more robust plan approved by the House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and his caucus colleagues got what is being called a "bipartisan agreement." But this is not a case of less being more.

The Senate's $780 billion plan is still a budget buster.

It's just not focused on spending as much of the money as the House sought to on renewing the economy.

In order to get the votes of two Republican (Maine's Susan Collins and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter) and perhaps another (Mainer Olympia Snowe) that were needed to undermine the threat of a GOP filibuster, Reid surrendered $86 billion in proposed stimulus spending. In doing so, the Democrats agreed to cut not just fat but bone, and to warp the focus and intent of the legislation.

The Senate plan is dramatically more weighted than the House bill toward tax cuts (which account for more than 40 percent of the overall cost of the package). This is despite the fact that there is a growing consensus -- among even conservative economists and policy makers -- that tax cuts will do little or nothing to stimulate job creation in a country that lost almost 600,000 positions in January alone. As French President Nicolas Sarkozy, no liberal, said Friday of countries that opt for tax cuts rather than stimulus: The approach "will bring them nothing" in the way of economic regeneration.

The Senate's increased emphasis on tax cuts comes at the expense of the aggressive spending in key areas that might actually get a stalled economy moving.

Spending for school construction that would actually have put people to work -- while at the same time investing in the future -- has been slashed. (Almost $20 billion slated for school construction is gone.)

Money for Superfund cleanup, Head Start and Early Start child care, energy efficiency initiatives and historic preservation projects -- all of which create or maintain existing jobs -- has been cut.

Supplemental transportation funding has been hacked.

The House's proposal to help unemployed Americans maintain their health benefits has been chopped down.

Axed, as well, has been $90 million that was to have been allocated to plan for and manage a potential flu pandemic that economists and public health experts worry could shutter remaining businesses, bring the economy to a complete standstill and throw the country into a deep depression.

The bottom line is that, under the Senate plan:

* States will get less aid.

* Schools will get less help.

* Job creation programs will be less well funded.

* Preparations to combat potential public health disasters -- which could put the final nail in the economy's coffin -- will not be made.

In every sense, the Senate plan moves in the wrong direction.

At a time when smart economists are saying that a bigger, bolder stimulus plan is needed, Senate Democrats and a few moderate Republicans have agreed to a smaller, weaker initiative.

And Republicans are still delaying passage. It could be Sunday, even Monday, before a vote is taken. And who knows what more will be lost -- in time and stimulus spending before President Obama signs a bill.

These are the fruits of bipartisan fantasies and the compromises that follow upon them. President Obama, who should have been on television addressing the nation and doing everything in his power to rally support for a sufficient stimulus plan, will be lucky if he gets anything by the President's Day deadline he set. (Even after the Senate measure passes, a difficult process of reconciling the very different House and Senate bills must take place. Then there will be more votes before any legislation gets to the president's desk.)

The White House still wants to advance this measure, as do Senate Democratic leaders. And, considering the urgency of the moment, they are probably right to try to do something. But if the final "stimulus package" proves to be insufficient to jump start the economy -- and if what is left of public confidence in the prospect of turnaround collapses as a result -- this Friday night compromise will be remembered with pained regret.

[Dominus Atheos]

Looking over the N&P forum, there seem to be a lot of Stimulus-related threads. Maybe we should have one big official thread for all this news, like the "Has John McCain already won" and "Has john McCain already LOST" threads were for the election?

[Dominus Atheos]

More:

Abandoning (Bipartisan)ship

I sometimes dream of writing a Republican-to-English dictionary for members of Congress. A Devil’s Dictionary of modern politics where I explain that in today’s GOP jargon, "justice" means "prolonged and possibly unjustified detention," "freedom" means "the U.S. is free to build permanent bases in your country after blowing it up" and "bipartisanship" means "GOP by any other name."

The buzz word of the last several weeks, as Congress plods its way through the stimulus bill, is "bipartisanship," and like "justice" and "freedom," it’s quickly becoming a word devoid of any meaning. A political slogan, if you will.

The intense focus on bipartisanship is understandable given the emphasis Barack Obama placed on the concept during his campaign. The president has barely been in the White House long enough to unpack, however, and the press (and Republicans) are already quick to claim that by pushing for passage of the Democratic stimulus bill, the president has tossed "bipartisanship" to the wayside.

I will confess to breathing a sigh of relief when the president, after days of letting the GOP dominate the discussion on the issue, finally began forcefully defending the stimulus package himself. But this predictably frustrating process, whatever its outcome, provides an opportunity for me to draft that first dictionary entry on "bipartisanship," in the hope that Democrats will abandon it entirely.

It’s not that Republicans shouldn’t be invited into the White House for cookies and conversation, or that the more sane and moderate of the lot shouldn’t be treated with respect and their opinions solicited.

I take no issue with the type of bipartisan process the president emphasized during the campaign. It’s the myth that a bipartisan solution calls for a bipartisan process that I think should be damned into the ninth circle of political hell (which, incidentally, is right below the D.C. cocktail circuit).

That conclusion is the result of a deeply held belief I have that Democratic policies are, by their nature, bipartisan, and Republican ones are not.

Fixing our broken health care system, ending the war in Iraq, increasing funding for education, improving our infrastructure and preserving the Constitution are all universally applicable policies. Every citizen, red or blue, rich or poor, young or old, swing voter or not, benefits from such policies aimed at the greater and common good. Nancy Pelosi has used the word "nonpartisan," and that likely is the more accurate descriptor. But at their core, these policies benefit Republican and Democrat alike.

On the Republican side, Republican policies cannot give rise to bipartisan solutions. When the core philosophy of a party is that government cannot work and should do as little as possible, that philosophy benefits only those who have the resources necessary to sustain themselves regardless of whether the government is massive or whether it's so small you can drown it in a bathtub. From the chant of tax cuts at any cost to the fanatical focus on depriving the neediest of resources under the banner of "entitlement reform," Republican governance is aimed simply at helping those who need help the least.

The fundamental flaw in clamoring for a bipartisan process in light of the above is the erroneous belief that the fruit of any open-handed endeavor is necessarily a bipartisan (and universally acceptable) solution. One need only look in the rear view mirror to disprove such a naive notion. It has been the most bipartisan of processes that have sprung forth the most odious and partisan results.

The Iraq War resolution, passed thanks to Democratic support in both chambers, has served only to profit the war industry that operates unbridled in the GOP's shadow.

The bankruptcy bill, heralded as a bipartisan victory, was a victory only for the corporate interests that form the very heart of the Republican Party.

And of course, the Patriot Act, kumbayaed into existence with photo-ops galore, was the perfect embodiment and enactment of Republican governing philosophy: power trumps principle, and a government trumps its people.

The end result of these and myriad other kabukis of "reaching across the aisle" is that the political parties rarely met in that aisle. Rather, it was inevitably the Democrats, who reached out for the GOP's extended hand like a child blithely reaching out to pet the dog that has twice bit him, that were thereafter yanked to the right.

It was there, on the Republican side of the field, that Democratic objections were whittled down to mere splinters, and it is there where this process--this hideous process lauded by the press as the beauty of proper governance --created a climate that only benefits a class of people that looks eerily similar to the Republican base.

At the end of this hand-holding process, what have Democrats gained? When the byproduct of bringing both sides to the table is a bill that is 98% Republican and 2% Democratic, the only thing to be gained is the illusion of effectiveness draped over the coffin of true progress.

Behold, then, the malformed offspring of bipartisan "process"—a "compromise" in which the only thing that gets compromised are Democratic principles.

It is those Democratic principles, however, that offer the most bipartisan (or nonpartisan) solutions.

If "bipartisanship" then is to be part of this new era of politics, let it be a relentless loyalty to bipartisan or universally-applicable solutions. Let's abandon this disastrous fixation on a "bipartisan" process in which the now-minority Republicans hold veto over Democratic policies.

Republicans should be consulted, and their support should be solicited. But the process leading up to a bill's passage shouldn't be about making a bill more Republican or less Democratic. It should be about getting the votes for a Democratic proposal. Period.

Democrats must shake off this stale stench of the minority that still wafts about them. They need not cling to the vessel of bipartisanship as if there were no other manner by which to reach the shore.

They need to realize that their efforts are buoyed on the backs of some 68 million strong that voted in favor of bold Democratic principles. As several Democrats (including the president) have noted, the American people voted for change. By selecting a man labeled as the most liberal Senator to the White House and by strengthening Democratic majorities in both chambers, they rejected the Republican policies that have left Americans alone to tread water for so long.

Abandoning the type of bipartisan process that serves only to dilute Democratic policies is the right course. It may be counterintuitive, for Washington has done things so wrong for so long, but traveling relentlessly towards bipartisan solutions is the best way--perhaps the only way--to right this ship and set our nation on a better course for generations to come.

God I sure hope this is the end of this ridiculous, naive "Bipartisan, Post-Partisan" bullshit. I'm not counting on it though.

[ray245]

Dominus Atheos, you keep complaining about the idea of post-partisianship. Post-partisianship is a good thing. The problem with the status quo is the wrong group of people are bending over.

The Republicans should be the ones that seek a bipartisianship policy right now.

[Dominus Atheos]

Dominus Atheos, you keep complaining about the idea of post-partisianship. Post-partisianship is a good thing. The problem with the status quo is the wrong group of people are bending over.

The Republicans should be the ones that seek a bipartisianship policy right now.

One side has admitted they want to:

• continue torturing people even though they probably don't know anything
• oppose the stimulus package just because they want to other side to fail even if it takes the whole country with them
• endless war
• serious restrictions, if not outright removal of, free speech, privacy, and freedom of (and from) religion

Bipartisanship would be only having one endless war instead of two, or only torturing people when we're sure they know something but still using torture-drawn as evidence against them in a military tribunal, or passing a watered down stimulus that barely does anything, then spreading the credit around for the few things that do work.

It's not partisanship when one side is full of corrupt racist warmongering totalitarians, and the other side is trying to prevent them from enacting as much of their destructive agenda as possible.

[KrauserKrauser]

Ok, so you just spewed a bunch of bullshit on the page, now back those wonderful bullet points up with actual quotes. I know being conservative is a mortal sin on the board and you can normally get away with that bullshit because no one is willing to chalenge you on it, but come the fuck on. Republicans are not the devil and the Democrats are by no means saints. Can't we have just a tiny bit of reality thrown in there for fuck's sake.

For one thing, even with the non-watered down version of both the House and Senate bills, the Stimulus was not designed to cure actual problems with the economy, simply to prop it up again ala TARP. The approach is fundamentally flawed and as such deserves opposition in the hopes of getting a useful bill passed in the future. Do I fully endorse the compromise bill and the iems removed by the Republicans? No, I do not. I do oppose the bill in the former and present forms as they do not, in my mind, spend the money appropriately and in this supposed new age of increased governmental transparency trying to sneak 750 pages of new spending without critical analysis is anything but.

Mods, you wonder why the board has an observed bashing of conservatives, this is a prime example. Spewing exaggeration after exaggeration and not being challenged for it.

[ray245]

Ok, so you just spewed a bunch of bullshit on the page, now back those wonderful bullet points up with actual quotes. I know being conservative is a mortal sin on the board and you can normally get away with that bullshit because no one is willing to chalenge you on it, but come the fuck on. Republicans are not the devil and the Democrats are by no means saints. Can't we have just a tiny bit of reality thrown in there for fuck's sake.

For one thing, even with the non-watered down version of both the House and Senate bills, the Stimulus was not designed to cure actual problems with the economy, simply to prop it up again ala TARP. The approach is fundamentally flawed and as such deserves opposition in the hopes of getting a useful bill passed in the future. Do I fully endorse the compromise bill and the iems removed by the Republicans? No, I do not. I do oppose the bill in the former and present forms as they do not, in my mind, spend the money appropriately and in this supposed new age of increased governmental transparency trying to sneak 750 pages of new spending without critical analysis is anything but.

Mods, you wonder why the board has an observed bashing of conservatives, this is a prime example. Spewing exaggeration after exaggeration and not being challenged for it.

That's because there are relatively few conservative that is able to make a proper argument to began with.

[KrauserKrauser]

So assharttery and bullfuckery is allowed to stand when brought to task, as long as it bashes Reublicans and/or conservatives?

Great argument there.

[ray245]

So assharttery and bullfuckery is allowed to stand when brought to task, as long as it bashes Reublicans and/or conservatives?

Great argument there.

Nope, I am not saying that, and if an assumption based on a liberal position is being made, without any proof to back it up, people will flame the members for saying that. Hell, even as a liberal, I was flamed again and again by members of this board.

Besides, you are the first person who challenged what Dominus Atheos said, so I find it weird for you to say the mods are allowing him to say bullshit. No one even replied and agree with Dominus Atheos when you made your post.

Also, you are asking why is the bashing of conservatives the norm here. If a reasonable argument can be made on both sides, like a death penalty debate or a gun ownership debate, people would be less inclined to bash conservative. Hell, the liberals in this forum bash each other all the time whenever they disagreed with each other.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Mods, you wonder why the board has an observed bashing of conservatives, this is a prime example. Spewing exaggeration after exaggeration and not being challenged for it.

DA has posted what appear to be a bunch of op/eds. So, are you going to provide a point-by-point refutation of what DA has posted? Or are you simply going to whine about how TEH EVIL LIBERALS R OPPRESSIN TEH CONSERVATIVES!!11shift+1 and throw around accusations of moderator bias?

[KrauserKrauser]

One side has admitted they want to:

• continue torturing people even though they probably don't know anything
• oppose the stimulus package just because they want to other side to fail even if it takes the whole country with them
• endless war
• serious restrictions, if not outright removal of, free speech, privacy, and freedom of (and from) religion

Bipartisanship would be only having one endless war instead of two, or only torturing people when we're sure they know something but still using torture-drawn as evidence against them in a military tribunal, or passing a watered down stimulus that barely does anything, then spreading the credit around for the few things that do work.

It's not partisanship when one side is full of corrupt racist warmongering totalitarians, and the other side is trying to prevent them from enacting as much of their destructive agenda as possible.

Ok, point by point analysis coming up.

• continue torturing people even though they probably don't know anything - Source please. please prove that this was the general opinion of the entire Republican party and not just a lone viewpoint.
• oppose the stimulus package just because they want to other side to fail even if it takes the whole country with them - I'll assume that you are referring to Rush's "I want Obama's Socialist programs to fail" Sure I could arge semantics on this, but I seriously doubt that will lead to anything constructive. The GOP currently opposes the stimulus package in its current form, that is true.
• endless war - I definitely want a source for this one. I know I didn't check off "Endless War" in my super secret GOP Only decoder ring ballot. Support this with actual reports.
• serious restrictions, if not outright removal of, free speech, privacy, and freedom of (and from) religion - And yet it's been Democrat Congress members bringing up the fairness doctrine for freedom of speech. From Religion I'll give you, but freedom of Religion, back that up, sources for that would be greatly appreciated. Privacy restrictions? Yeah, Patriot Act and all, but personally some sacrifices may need to be made to reduce the incidence of terrist attacks, I'll give you that one as well, but personally it's more of a grey area that either of the other two.

The rest is just shit to insult and illicit a response, especially as the "other side" is currently the side in power. There was an election, and the country voted in a more liberal than before COngress and President, that doesn't suddenly allow majority rule because "hurr hurr, we won, fuck off"

[Illuminatus Primus]

I love how easy it is to pick up on who is a 24/7 Rush/Hannity-listening cockgobbler. There is no good evidence that reinstating the Fairness Doctrine is a serious policy by the Democrats. Its just a shrill boogeyman brought up by the Right to try and make sure their followers keep circling the wagons.

[KrauserKrauser]

You know what, IP, I agree that to be the case. However, the fact remains that those were Democrats sending feelers out for the re-establishment of the fairness doctrine, not Republicans.

My quote remains accurate, yet you continue your vendetta against me.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Are you serious? The GOP in this country has tried to pass flag burning amendments, has tried locally to put the Ten Commandments into public buildings, and passed the Patriot Act. And the best you can come up with is "some Democrats send out feelers" over the Fairness Doctrine?

[Samuel]

Republicans are not the devil and the Democrats are by no means saints.

They just managed to run the country into the ground.

* continue torturing people even though they probably don't know anything - Source please. please prove that this was the general opinion of the entire Republican party and not just a lone viewpoint.

Because they put it into practice? I was under the impression that you could tell a parties policy by their actions.

# endless war - I definitely want a source for this one. I know I didn't check off "Endless War" in my super secret GOP Only decoder ring ballot. Support this with actual reports.

The war on drugs ring a bell?

# serious restrictions, if not outright removal of, free speech, privacy, and freedom of (and from) religion - And yet it's been Democrat Congress members bringing up the fairness doctrine for freedom of speech. From Religion I'll give you, but freedom of Religion, back that up, sources for that would be greatly appreciated. Privacy restrictions? Yeah, Patriot Act and all, but personally some sacrifices may need to be made to reduce the incidence of terrorist attacks, I'll give you that one as well, but personally it's more of a grey area that either of the other two.

The fairness doctrine doesn't restrict speech- it requires you provide a rebuttal. Also you didn't confront the question- you did a "well you do it to".

Freedom of religion is covered by freedom from religion. Or do you think that the religion that is being forced upon people is deism?

My quote remains accurate, yet you continue your vendetta against me.

IP isn't attacking you- he is attacking your political opinions. The closest he got was accusing you of being a mindless listener to FOX.

You know what, IP, I agree that to be the case. However, the fact remains that those were Democrats sending feelers out for the re-establishment of the fairness doctrine, not Republicans.

So if an individual Republican does it, it isn't policy, but when a Dem does it, it is proof they are clamping down on civil liberties? Does that mean we can count the batshit insane members of the Republican party as what it wants for America?

[General Zod]

# endless war - I definitely want a source for this one. I know I didn't check off "Endless War" in my super secret GOP Only decoder ring ballot. Support this with actual reports.

The war on drugs ring a bell?

The "war on terror" would be a better example. Hooray for waging war against an abstract concept?

[KrauserKrauser]

The war on drugs ring a bell?

I know right, the War on Poverty also sucked a ton. He definitely was referring to the war on drugs and definitely not the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The war on terror, yeah, did Clinton have any catchy catch phrases for his actions in Somalia or the Cruise missles he lobbed at Iraq? God damn Bush and his use of catch phrases and three word sound bites to lable the current actions to reduce and eliminate terrorism. That fucker should burn.

The fairness doctrine doesn't restrict speech- it requires you provide a rebuttal. Also you didn't confront the question- you did a "well you do it to".

Freedom of religion is covered by freedom from religion. Or do you think that the religion that is being forced upon people is deism?

It requires you to provide a rebuttal in equal length due to government fiat. Find the constitutional legitimacy for this, please, I would love to see some evidence of this being anything other than government mandated limits to free speech.

For the freedom from Religion I was simply referring to his "(and from)" and actaully agreed with him.

IP isn't attacking you- he is attacking your political opinions. The closest he got was accusing you of being a mindless listener to FOX.

He inferred that I was a "24/7 Rush/Hannity-listening cockgobbler" which is not true as I do not listen to either of those 24/7 and do not in fact gobble cocks. Those were personal attacks when I had not referred to him or in any way instigated said attacks.

So if an individual Republican does it, it isn't policy, but when a Dem does it, it is proof they are clamping down on civil liberties? Does that mean we can count the batshit insane members of the Republican party as what it wants for America?

I don't understand the reference, do you have a source showing that Reblicans in Congress have called for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine? if so, please provide it. Did I say any old member of the Democrat Party? No, I didn't, you obviously didn't read the part where I said members of the Democrat party who have been elected to Congress have made motions towards to the Fairness Doctrine, not just the batshit regular members of the party.

[General Zod]

The war on terror, yeah, did Clinton have any catchy catch phrases for his actions in Somalia or the Cruise missles he lobbed at Iraq? God damn Bush and his use of catch phrases and three word sound bites to lable the current actions to reduce and eliminate terrorism. That fucker should burn.

Clinton was smart enough to realize that calling something a "war against an abstract idea" sounds stupid for anyone that spends more than three seconds thinking about it.

[KrauserKrauser]

So as long as you don't attach the "war" tagline to your actions, everything is okie dokie?

[General Zod]

So as long as you don't attach the "war" tagline to your actions, everything is okie dokie?

What part of "waging war against an abstract idea is stupid" do you not comprehend?

[KrauserKrauser]

War on Poverty of LBJ or "the moral equivalent of war" with respect to the energy crisis with Carter mean anything to you? Both parties have a tradition of this shit, it's not unique to Bush Jr., Bush Sr., or Reagan. Hell I can say we just took a page from the Democrat playbook.

If anything it's an American tradition to always be at war against something.

[General Zod]

War on Poverty of LBJ or "the moral equivalent of war" with respect to the energy crisis with Carter mean anything to you? Both parties have a tradition of this shit, it's not unique to Bush Jr., Bush Sr., or Reagan. Hell I can say we just took a page from the Democrat playbook.

If anything it's an American tradition to always be at war against something.

I fail to see how that changes my point. Quite frankly the fact that you're saying "but, but, it's tradition!11!" makes me wonder if you actually bothered thinking out your position at all.

[KrauserKrauser]

I took issue with DA's opinion that Republicans support "Endless War" and asked for sources. The proposed sources from you and Samuel proposed were War on Terror and War on Drugs, both of which are Wars against an abstract idea.

LBJ had his War on Poverty and Carter had what he deemed the "moral equivalent of a war" against the energy crisis, so I provided examples of how the Democrats also have a history of promoting wars against abstract ideas, which would invalidate the point that Republicans are somehow unique in their support of "Endless War", using the war on drugs and the war on terror as your provided examples.

[General Zod]

I took issue with DA's opinion that Republicans support "Endless War" and asked for sources. The proposed sources from you and Samuel proposed were War on Terror and War on Drugs, both of which are Wars against an abstract idea.

Since abstract ideas cannot be destroyed, they are in effect endless wars. The war on terror has inevitably cost more money and lives combined than any abstract war on ideas the Democrats may have cooked up.

LBJ had his War on Poverty and Carter had what he deemed the "moral equivalent of a war" against the energy crisis, so I provided examples of how the Democrats also have a history of promoting wars against abstract ideas, which would invalidate the point that Republicans are somehow unique in their support of "Endless War", using the war on drugs and the war on terror as your provided examples.

Nobody's saying the Republicans are unique in this, you stupid twat. Idiots like you always miss the point and think it's about absolving the Democrats of anything instead of realizing that the Republicans share an even larger portion of the blame than anyone else.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What a moron. When Democrats go to "war" against abstract ideas, maybe some money gets wasted or it wasn't well thought out. When Republicans do it, they kill hundreds of thousand of people for abstract political purposes.

EDIT: So do Democrats, but at least their principles don't include being enthusiastic about it.