August 5, 2009--You Can't Win For Losing
Sometimes I’m a little slow and need help understanding things. OK, I am slow and almost always do. So here’s something that I don’t understand and need help with. First, a little context.
Shortly after Barack Obama was sworn in as president he got Congress to pass and he signed a bill that is popularly known as the Economic Stimulus bill. All but three Republicans voted against it, and one of those, Arlen Specter, is now a Democrat.
Since that time there has been a steady chorus of criticism about how ineffective the stimulus bill has been in creating jobs. I have chimed in, calling into question how many of the alleged shovel-ready infrastructure jobs have gotten off the ground. I even reported anecdotally about my 700-mile drive along I-95 and how few men and women I saw at work. But most of the criticism has been from Republicans who for one reason or another didn’t vote for it. Perhaps for ideological reasons, perhaps for political reasons, perhaps even because they do not want to do anything to help Obama succeed. But for the moment, while context building, I will try to stay away from assigning motives.
Then in June, with GOP Senator Susan Collins taking the lead, Congress narrowly, mainly along party lines (just three Republican senators voted for it) passed a “cash for clunkers” bill. They appropriated $1.0 billion for this. It was designed to enable people who have broken down gas-guzzling cars to trade them in for new ones, for cars that are more fuel efficient, and when doing so receive a government-funded rebate for between $3,500 and $4,500 dollars.
Whatever the reason again for all the GOP opposition, one thing that is undeniable is that the program is such a huge success that it had to be shut down this past weekend since so many people drove and towed and pushed their old cars onto dealers’ lots and bought hundreds of thousands of new, mainly American-made ones. This exceeded all expectations—the number sold, the fuel efficiency of the cars and SUVs purchased (28.3 miles per gallon for cars; 21.9 for SUVs)—that the House, before it adjourned, with White House encouragement, passed a $2.0 billion extension. And it looks as if the Senate will also do so this week before they leave town.
Again, the extension vote in the House was mainly along party lines and it is expected that only three or four Republicans in the Senate will support it.
We’re getting to my question: If there has been valid criticism that the stimulus bill has not yet worked as promised—it was oversold—why would those who criticized it initially as not doing enough to help create jobs vote against a bill that by current trillion-dollar standards costs peanuts . . . and is working? The more cars that get sold the more auto-industry-related jobs are created and the more money that flows though the larger economic system. OK, Rush Limbaugh is ranting that he opposes the clunker bill because it represents a pander to union workers and thus, by definition, is evil.
But then there is the logic on display by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has thus far voted against every piece of Obama-supported legislation. Again, I understand why, and it is fine.
There is, though, something he said that I need help understanding. From yesterday’s New York Times, he was quoted as saying on the Senate floor “That the Obama administration had botched the execution of the [clunker] program by miscalculating how popular it would be [and] this was the reason to be more deliberate in acting on health care overhaul.” (Extra emphasis added.)
He, in effect, appears to be saying that, “I was right in the first instance to vote against the cash for clunker program because it would turn out to be popular. And I’m surely not going to be fooled this time—I plan again to vote against this over-successful program. And, to boot, I will also vote against healthcare reform because that too may turn out to work.”
Please, help me out here.
Shortly after Barack Obama was sworn in as president he got Congress to pass and he signed a bill that is popularly known as the Economic Stimulus bill. All but three Republicans voted against it, and one of those, Arlen Specter, is now a Democrat.
Since that time there has been a steady chorus of criticism about how ineffective the stimulus bill has been in creating jobs. I have chimed in, calling into question how many of the alleged shovel-ready infrastructure jobs have gotten off the ground. I even reported anecdotally about my 700-mile drive along I-95 and how few men and women I saw at work. But most of the criticism has been from Republicans who for one reason or another didn’t vote for it. Perhaps for ideological reasons, perhaps for political reasons, perhaps even because they do not want to do anything to help Obama succeed. But for the moment, while context building, I will try to stay away from assigning motives.
Then in June, with GOP Senator Susan Collins taking the lead, Congress narrowly, mainly along party lines (just three Republican senators voted for it) passed a “cash for clunkers” bill. They appropriated $1.0 billion for this. It was designed to enable people who have broken down gas-guzzling cars to trade them in for new ones, for cars that are more fuel efficient, and when doing so receive a government-funded rebate for between $3,500 and $4,500 dollars.
Whatever the reason again for all the GOP opposition, one thing that is undeniable is that the program is such a huge success that it had to be shut down this past weekend since so many people drove and towed and pushed their old cars onto dealers’ lots and bought hundreds of thousands of new, mainly American-made ones. This exceeded all expectations—the number sold, the fuel efficiency of the cars and SUVs purchased (28.3 miles per gallon for cars; 21.9 for SUVs)—that the House, before it adjourned, with White House encouragement, passed a $2.0 billion extension. And it looks as if the Senate will also do so this week before they leave town.
Again, the extension vote in the House was mainly along party lines and it is expected that only three or four Republicans in the Senate will support it.
We’re getting to my question: If there has been valid criticism that the stimulus bill has not yet worked as promised—it was oversold—why would those who criticized it initially as not doing enough to help create jobs vote against a bill that by current trillion-dollar standards costs peanuts . . . and is working? The more cars that get sold the more auto-industry-related jobs are created and the more money that flows though the larger economic system. OK, Rush Limbaugh is ranting that he opposes the clunker bill because it represents a pander to union workers and thus, by definition, is evil.
But then there is the logic on display by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has thus far voted against every piece of Obama-supported legislation. Again, I understand why, and it is fine.
There is, though, something he said that I need help understanding. From yesterday’s New York Times, he was quoted as saying on the Senate floor “That the Obama administration had botched the execution of the [clunker] program by miscalculating how popular it would be [and] this was the reason to be more deliberate in acting on health care overhaul.” (Extra emphasis added.)
He, in effect, appears to be saying that, “I was right in the first instance to vote against the cash for clunker program because it would turn out to be popular. And I’m surely not going to be fooled this time—I plan again to vote against this over-successful program. And, to boot, I will also vote against healthcare reform because that too may turn out to work.”
Please, help me out here.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home