Thoughts on the Stimulus Deal

Jay Newton-Small:
.
So…this is good or bad for your country?

Stuart Zechman,
Isn’t it our country? And do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you of what’s happening and let you draw your own conclusions?
JNS

Regardless of promises made, is it even possible to negotiate a bill transparently? Do we really want a webcam in the sausage factory?

WHAT?!?!? Obama’s been President for 45 minutes, and HE STILL HASN’T PERFECTED THE WORLD?!?!?
I want my money back!

I know this one! It was a little bull**** served up to get elected which, Thank God, he did. Next.

Meh.
.
You can’t make generalized policy objectives fit every governmental activity. If the administration had taken time to make the stimulus bill sufficiently “transparent” to satisfy everyone, including the knee-jerk anti’s, the economy already would have tanked. We’d all revel in “transparency” while we sell apples on the street corner and watch the brave men as they dive from the fourteenth floor.
.
As for bipartisanship, the prez set up a win-win – he was going to come out of the process either with praise for his consensus-building or a broader recognition that it takes two to tango. The Publicans opted to give him the latter, to their own detriment.
.
My guess is that the nits picked by Newton-Small, Stevenson and Dickerson will look pretty feeble in comparison to the success in achieving unprecedented action. It’s true that “pointing out this contradiction is not going to undo the bill.” It’s also true that those who focus on such a contradiction in the face of a major accomplishment have missed the call.
.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
– Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself”

JNS
.
The premise of those articles is so stupid its hard for me to stop laughing long enough to type about it. But lets start from the bottom and go up. First of all to reform Congress the President has to have Congress’s help in introducing legislation. He never said he would put a stimulus bill on the back burner while they worked on a bill to put cameras in every negotiation. So how in the hell does that factor AT ALL into whether he got everything he wanted?
.
Second President Obama puts all bills on the whitehousedotgov website for five days of public comments so if anybody wants to look through the legislation they will be more than welcome to do so AND weigh in on their dissappointment or their support. Thats pretty damn transparent if you ask me.
.
Third just as a very simple matter a Congressional conference to reconcile a bill is NOT a part of any White House negotiations. I realize that Rahm Emmanuel sat in on the meetings but, contrary to popular belief, the Congress and the White House are not the same entity even when one party head up both parts of government.
.
So let me get this straight to recap. President Obama got
.
1. A bill that is only slightly bigger than what he asked for to begin with.
.
2. A bill that included the middle class tax cuts he campaigned on.
.
3. A bill that included all of the major elements he asked for including putting the school funding back in.
4. A bill that will be on his desk before the Congress recesses as he requested.
.
Oh and just to be clear, President Obama didn’t come out and predict he would get X number of Republicans to vote for the bill. That was some “leaked” bullsh*t from unnamed sources. Do you think he gives a damn how many Republicans sign on to the bill when he got everything he asked for in it? If you do you haven’t been paying much attention.

“Stuart Zechman,
Isn’t it our country? And do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you of what’s happening and let you draw your own conclusions?
JNS”

snap!

JNS: Many more Republicans will likely vote for the final product but in reaching across the aisle, Obama has grabbed a lot of air thus far — a calculated bet by the GOP that, while embarrassing Obama now, could backfire in 2010 if the economy turns around.
.
I think the frame of this is absolutely wrong. The correct frame is that the stimulative effectiveness of the bill was reduced to appeal to to republican ideology in the hopes of bringing them on board, and they still wouldn’t support it. The correct frame is that, in order to get even three republican votes in the Senate, they needed to cut 500,000 jobs out of the stimulus package and force states to fire police, firemen and teachers. The correct frame is that “the Republicans liked the legislation but voted against it because their feelings were hurt.”

The deal also shows the limits to Obama’s seemly limitless power.
.
It’s like you went to a journalism school for special needs children.
.
I know you forgot about the whole “seperation of powers” thing while Bush was in office, but the Office of the President isn’t actually a dictatorship.
.
And also, everything, every single thing, that John dickerson writes is a waste of ink, paper, and time.

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Thank you so much for your rapid response; your engagement with the Commentariat is helpful and appreciated.
.
Isn’t it our country?
.
Yes, it certainly is. It is both yours and ours. I used the second person possessive as a small rhetorical device with which to remind you that the story you’re covering has more importance to our nation than simply tactical considerations (“…limits to Obama’s seemly limitless power…“).
.
I am actually very, very much grateful for this piece, Jay Newton-Small, especially so because of your focus on the practical applications of “transparency” (“The time for transparency is when a decision is being made, not after it has been issued. Once a piece of legislation has been agreed to, or a project has been put in motion, pointing to a Web site doesn’t create much moral pressure to undo the deed.“).
.
As far as an opinion relating to the welfare of our country being necessary to complete your piece, I regret that I did not make myself clear. I meant that the context of your piece should probably be grounded in the good of our nation, as opposed to what Obama does or doesn’t want or get. The emphasis on the tactical or conflict-oriented as the framework for the reporting (“Obama got what he wanted when he wanted…he didn’t get it in the way he wanted…courtship and attention…“) tends to lend to a lack of focus with respect to conclusions about…the welfare of our country.
.
I made a little comment, and I regret that comment, however.
.
I apologize, this was largely a good piece of work, and my criticism was probably unnecessary, Jay Newton-Small.
.
Thanks again for this piece.

wvng: Or how about: The GOP, in a calculated bet to embarrass the president, is willing to sacrifice middle class jobs.
-
I wrote to my House rep (R) and pointed out that as a former sheriff, he really shouldn’t buy the line that government jobs aren’t “real jobs.” But he’ll vote against it anyway, I predict.
-

In case demowoman is about, see Paul Krugman Talk like a pirate

This is not news, to anyone that’s followed this pandering MOOP’s alleged career.

“For all his courtship and attention, he only got three Republicans on board…”

RINOs are not Republicans.

Never have been.

Never will be.

A-pep, more from the shrill one:
.
The return of shrill
.
Via Angry Bear, Will Marshall says I deserve a “Pulitzer Prize in hyperbole” for saying that “the dastardly centrists would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut vital health care and food programs, while offering a fat tax break to affluent homeowners”
.
whereas the truth is that … the centrists would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut vital health care and food programs, while offering a fat tax break to affluent homeowners. But shhh! You’re not supposed to say that!

Dickerson: the stimulus deal was so opaque even the people negotiating it weren’t in on what was in it
-
Maybe I’m thick, but I didn’t get that from the original NYT piece. The compromise bill was negotiated in committee. The House side of the committee was late to the meeting because they were wrangling over their own position before they showed up to wrangle with the Senate side. That’s not the same as the people negotiating not knowing what’s in the bill.
-
Anyway, with the GOP refusing to play ball on a crisis of this magnitude, now is not a propitious time for Obama to “work to reform Congressional rules,” as much I agree with the sentiment.

Obama promised his administration would be so transparent that its deliberations would be shown on C-SPAN. . .. Isn’t it our country? And do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you of what’s happening and let you draw your own conclusions? It would have been helpful if the media had covered the debate in a serious way – had actually informed us what was happening – which would have added greatly to the ability to have a transparent process. But instead the media covered it as a competition, where the winner is in the “center.” And the actual things that mattered about the process – how to make the bill most effective – were only rarely discussed:
.
EXPERTISE…. When a war dominates the news, those with military expertise tend to appear on television news quite a bit. When a hurricane is the big story, meteorologists get a lot of airtime. If a medical issue is the focus of attention, medical professionals keep busy on TV. So, in light of the economy and the stimulus bill, economists have been all over the cable networks? . . .

The whole point of negotiations is to create some space in which to move around. I’ll say it: they SHOULDN’T be completely transparent. Unless my issues get screwed, then they should.

Unfortunately, you will see no economic recovery, even if President Obama injects $10 trillion in ‘stimulus’.
Transparency there is a comedy:)..but whitewash rules.
You do not have a stimulus ‘plan’, all you have is a stimulus ”attempt”. The global market gave you a good indicator of what the world markets think of the ‘plan’ – For others, it has to take time to tell a tale, but it has no fairytale finish under the status quo.

If everyone in government cannot ascertain that ‘unemployment is the actual ‘root cause’, how do you expect a ‘solution’??

http://sites.google.com/site/newenergyworldfirst/

So let me get this straight: With our economy in dire straights,
Obama reached out to the Republicans in an attempt to be “bipartisan” in doing a stimulus bill . Except for 3 “moderate” Senators, the Republicans completely refuse his overtures. End result – A bill will pass, giving Obama most of what he wanted.

JNS(aka villager conventional wisdom): Republicans get a political win by embarrassing Obama?

Apparently ‘transparent’ means something different to different people. I just want to know what it is about Obama that inspires so much Villager whining. It isn’t pretty.

Lets put this in perspective. The press corps just spent 8 years covering an administration SO secretive that they’ve actually managed to blackmail the NEW administration to continue to hide their crimes. And you want to suddently talk about transparency. gimme an effing break!

Hmmmm. Matt Yglesias tells me that: The White House is already touting some positive impact of the stimulus legislation as Caterpillar says they’ll re-hire laid-off workers, telecom companies get ready for a surge of broadband work, and even contractors in Michigan are feeling optimistic.
.
Imagine that.

“Isn’t it our country? And do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you of what’s happening and let you draw your own conclusions?”
.
If that was what you were doing, then yes, I would agree. It’s the little added comments regarding “grabbing air” that show you are NOT “simply informing us”.

PD, perspective is so like totally retro. They’ve turned the page – so why can’t you just get over it.

The great orange satan himself has some stats on repuglican trending states, and ends with an interesting thought: I’m sure, however, that cutting school construction funds from the stimulus will allow Republicans to bounce right back.

Republicans get a political win by embarrassing Obama?
-
That’s what it’s all about! Who scored points. The endless football metaphors during campaign season are not an aberration.

Answering my own question, Senator/Lobbyist Diane Feinstein (Lobbyists – CA) has apparently failed her corporate sponsors, as her Net Neutrality-killing provisions do not seem to be included in the package.

Interesting: The compromise plan announced last night includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years. With that in mind, Steven Waldman argues, persuasively, that when the vast majority of congressional Republicans oppose the package, they’ll be voting against the biggest tax cut "in history."

stuart, afguy,
-
I take offense to JNS’s post.
-
Here’s why! The article has centered on transparency. JNS’s post was about Obama having a limit to his power and reaching for air in trying to be bipartisan.
-
There is simply no correlation between what she was linking to and the post made. In fact, there was nothing there but vapid, empty rhetoric. “Oh, Mr. President, how do you feel about A-Rod getting caught doing roids?” Meanwhile the villagers sleep on the streets, in cardboard boxes or with the door open awaiting the Sheriff’s office to come enforce an eviction notice!
-
Do you get what I am saying? And I am not alone. The posturing of competence and relevance does not belong merely to the House Republicans…it is wholly consumed by the MSM.
-
My God, do you guys even realize how silly, sad and pathetic your comments and posts are at a time of great national peril. Do you realize how close this country came to failing to exist on September 15, 2008? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INAGMSARPYw
-
Have you not heard about the two wars, the almost nuclear Iran, an Israel gone extremist, people struggling to survive in America supposedly the greatest nation in history? I guess Nero was not the only person to fiddle.

wvng,
-
That is just brilliant! Sheer eloquence in framing!

SZ
.
Isn’t there a chance that the story was just a rumor to smear DiFi in the first place? Like I said yesterday, nothing about it the story sounded plausible in the first place.

“do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you”

well, “while embarrassing Obama now”, seems like opinion to me. I think the GOP have acted immature and should be embarassed. I don’t know if they are embarassed because I haven’t asked them. Either someone asked Obama or they’re just speculating wildly. I guess speculating wildly is what the Villagers get paid for.

F@ck all of you in the media complaining about unsatisfactory levels of transparency. F@ck you, f@ck you, f@ck you. Especially JNS. In the run up to the Iraq invasion, did the media put supposedly neutral military voices who were in favor of the invasion? And did it turn out that these people were being paid to sell the war? And did these people have any potential financial conflicts of interest vis-a-vis their connections to defense firms? Did the media inform their viewers/readers of this in the interest of ‘transparency’? So again:

F@ck the media and it’s criticisms of Obama’s level of tranparency.
.
Those who don’t practice transparency should, in the interest of common courtesy and manners, shut the f@ck up about matters of transparency. Mmmmmmmkaaaay?

I would like to see the White House and Congress help push forward on the Millennium Development Goals and help make the goals possible by the target date in 2015. These are the Millennium Development Goals:
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
Goal 5: Improve maternal health
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hungry had a shortfall of $30 billion dollars. Last year the U.S. Government spent $520 billion on the U.S. defense budget and $170 billion on the U.S. war budget. I hope to see the new administration channel more money into helping the world’s poor and to see a change for the 800 million people that go to sleep hungry every night. Check out http://www.borgenproject.org for more information about global poverty.

For all his courtship and attention, he only got three Republicans on board for the top priority of an immensely popular president on an issue everyone agreed something had to be done.
.
First, this is a comment on the state of Republicans’ concern for party vs country.
.
Second, as I’ve been saying all along, let’s wait until the bill hits his desk. Preliminary votes during the process of creating the legislation is one thing. Votes that people don’t understand, like cloture votes, along the way, is another thing. But what really matters is the final vote, on the final bill. A no vote will be featured in advertisements in the 2010 and 2012 Senate races.
.
Let’s not talk about how many votes Obama has corralled until the actual vote comes to pass.
.
(I continue to be surprised by the frequency with which professional writers misuse words. I suppose “seemly” could have just been a spelling error or maybe JNS means “seemly.” But I’m pretty sure she meant “seemingly.”

SG:
.
It appears that the origin of this story is a leaked document in which Diane Feinstein appears to attach the foul measure to an amendment by Inyoue:

Referred to the Committee on llllllllll and
ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mrs. FEINSTEIN
to the amendment (No. 98) proposed by Mr. INOUYE
(for himself and Mr. BAUCUS)
Viz:
On page 56, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
(11) In establishing obligations under paragraph (8), the Assistant Secretary shall allow for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement.

.
The problem is that the document’s authenticity is as yet unsubstantiated by the group posting the leak. I have an email in to them requesting such substantiation.
.
So you’re right, SG, this is effectively a rumor at this point.

Sorry, that should be “Inouye”.

The article has centered on transparency. JNS’s post was about Obama having a limit to his power and reaching for air in trying to be bipartisan.
.
bryanfromhouston:
.
It seems as if you’re having a much stronger objection than I had:
.

I meant that the context of your piece should probably be grounded in the good of our nation, as opposed to what Obama does or doesn’t want or get. The emphasis on the tactical or conflict-oriented as the framework for the reporting (“Obama got what he wanted when he wanted…he didn’t get it in the way he wanted…courtship and attention…“) tends to lend to a lack of focus with respect to conclusions about…the welfare of our country.

.
I’m simply grateful for the focus on transparency, even if the context was horse-race-as-usual.

Hey, c’mon – haven’t any of you guys seen “Yes Minister” from the BBC. Have a look on youtube for Sir Humphrey Appleby’s explanation of “Open Government”…

Hey, c’mon – haven’t any of you guys seen “Yes Minister” from the BBC?
Have a look on youtube for Sir Humphrey Appleby’s explanation of “Open Government”…