February 16, 2009--Explain This One To Me
The other day Rona had a good point. Let me see if I can remember how she unfurled the thread. It had to do with the votes in both the Senate and House to pass Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. More specifically why so few Republicans voted for it.
She began by asking if I knew the precise vote in Congress. I had to look it up. 246 to 183 in the House and 60 to 38 in the Senate.
“And how many Republicans?” No need to look that up. It had been widely reported, over and over and over again that none voted for it in the House and only three, an essential three in the Senate.
“So much for bipartisanship,” I said.
“I think you’re wrong about that,” Rona said. “To get those three Republican senators to vote for it the Democrats, including the White House, had to include quite a few specific Republican kinds of things in the language of the final bill. There are many more tax cuts than Obama or congressional Democrats would have liked. Like there are quite a few tax breaks for corporations. I read that Senator Olympia Snow slipped in a provision that cut corporate tax rates retroactively. Since there are not that many profits now to tax, one of her amendments will allow them to get retroactive reductions for the past five years when there were profits. But this is not my point.”
“What is it then?”
“Again, about who did and did not vote for the bill.”
“OK.”
“Let me add another element.”
“Shoot,”
“We listened to Senator Gregg on Thursday when he withdrew his nomination for Secretary of Commerce and both of us were struck by how honest he seemed when he said that he had been a senator for 30 years and liked being his ‘own man,’ I think that’s how he put it. And that he wouldn’t be comfortable being in Obama’s cabinet or, he added, in anyone’s cabinet. That he was too independent for that.”
“Yes that’s what he said, but before that he had issued a written statement in which he said that he was withdrawing because of ideological differences with Obama. That he couldn’t support the stimulus bill—in fact he voted against it the next day. Two very different kinds of statements—one political and one personal.”
“Yes, more flakey than independent.”
“What’s the New Hampshire state motto? ‘Live Free or Die’?”
“Exactly my point. Forget for a moment all the bipartisanship talk. Though I think it’s a good idea to try to govern that way and I’m sure Obama will keep trying to do so, as long as good things get done I don’t care how many Republicans vote for something. But aren’t people in Congress famous for claiming that though they are elected by their constituents they consider themselves to be independent minded, especially on critical issues when the fate of something important hangs in the balance?”
“Yes, they do say those kinds of things.”
“Again, how many Republicans are there in Congress?”
“Let me Google that. Give me a moment. All right, a total of 219. 178 in the House and 41 in the Senate.”
“So all of three of those 178 were, quote, ‘independent’ enough to vote yes. Including the dozen or so Republicans who have already announced they are retiring from Congress two years from now, including live-free-or-die Senator Gregg, who in his schizophrenic press conference was full of praise for the stimulus bill. Even six Democrats in the House voted against it.”
“It is hard to explain especially since the Republican alternative for how to get the economy moving is more tax cut and less government spending.”
“We know how well the Bush tax cuts worked. And the Republicans for the past eight years were the biggest spenders in history.”
“In fact, in this morning’s New York Times, Paul Krugman writes about the results of the latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a once every three years report on the assets and liabilities of Americans where the bottom line is that there has been basically no wealth creation since 2001. That the net worth of the average American household, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was then.” (Article linked below.)
“So much then for Republican credibility and the economy. Though I suppose most wouldn’t be unhappy that the wealth of those at the top, until a few months ago at least, did increase dramatically.”
“What then is your bottom line?”
“Calling themselves independent-minded is obviously hypocrisy. What this is all about is plain and simple: the party whose campaign slogan during the last elections was ‘Country First’ put politics first. They hope the stimulus plan fails, that things get worse here for Americans in order to regain control of the Senate and House so they can reclaim their committee chairmanships and get the tax cuts and earmarks rolling again.”
“That sounds about right to me.”
She began by asking if I knew the precise vote in Congress. I had to look it up. 246 to 183 in the House and 60 to 38 in the Senate.
“And how many Republicans?” No need to look that up. It had been widely reported, over and over and over again that none voted for it in the House and only three, an essential three in the Senate.
“So much for bipartisanship,” I said.
“I think you’re wrong about that,” Rona said. “To get those three Republican senators to vote for it the Democrats, including the White House, had to include quite a few specific Republican kinds of things in the language of the final bill. There are many more tax cuts than Obama or congressional Democrats would have liked. Like there are quite a few tax breaks for corporations. I read that Senator Olympia Snow slipped in a provision that cut corporate tax rates retroactively. Since there are not that many profits now to tax, one of her amendments will allow them to get retroactive reductions for the past five years when there were profits. But this is not my point.”
“What is it then?”
“Again, about who did and did not vote for the bill.”
“OK.”
“Let me add another element.”
“Shoot,”
“We listened to Senator Gregg on Thursday when he withdrew his nomination for Secretary of Commerce and both of us were struck by how honest he seemed when he said that he had been a senator for 30 years and liked being his ‘own man,’ I think that’s how he put it. And that he wouldn’t be comfortable being in Obama’s cabinet or, he added, in anyone’s cabinet. That he was too independent for that.”
“Yes that’s what he said, but before that he had issued a written statement in which he said that he was withdrawing because of ideological differences with Obama. That he couldn’t support the stimulus bill—in fact he voted against it the next day. Two very different kinds of statements—one political and one personal.”
“Yes, more flakey than independent.”
“What’s the New Hampshire state motto? ‘Live Free or Die’?”
“Exactly my point. Forget for a moment all the bipartisanship talk. Though I think it’s a good idea to try to govern that way and I’m sure Obama will keep trying to do so, as long as good things get done I don’t care how many Republicans vote for something. But aren’t people in Congress famous for claiming that though they are elected by their constituents they consider themselves to be independent minded, especially on critical issues when the fate of something important hangs in the balance?”
“Yes, they do say those kinds of things.”
“Again, how many Republicans are there in Congress?”
“Let me Google that. Give me a moment. All right, a total of 219. 178 in the House and 41 in the Senate.”
“So all of three of those 178 were, quote, ‘independent’ enough to vote yes. Including the dozen or so Republicans who have already announced they are retiring from Congress two years from now, including live-free-or-die Senator Gregg, who in his schizophrenic press conference was full of praise for the stimulus bill. Even six Democrats in the House voted against it.”
“It is hard to explain especially since the Republican alternative for how to get the economy moving is more tax cut and less government spending.”
“We know how well the Bush tax cuts worked. And the Republicans for the past eight years were the biggest spenders in history.”
“In fact, in this morning’s New York Times, Paul Krugman writes about the results of the latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a once every three years report on the assets and liabilities of Americans where the bottom line is that there has been basically no wealth creation since 2001. That the net worth of the average American household, adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was then.” (Article linked below.)
“So much then for Republican credibility and the economy. Though I suppose most wouldn’t be unhappy that the wealth of those at the top, until a few months ago at least, did increase dramatically.”
“What then is your bottom line?”
“Calling themselves independent-minded is obviously hypocrisy. What this is all about is plain and simple: the party whose campaign slogan during the last elections was ‘Country First’ put politics first. They hope the stimulus plan fails, that things get worse here for Americans in order to regain control of the Senate and House so they can reclaim their committee chairmanships and get the tax cuts and earmarks rolling again.”
“That sounds about right to me.”
posted by Steven Zwerling at
6:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home