Pelosi Drops Opposition, Stimulus Set To Pass

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 19:14


Deal done. It will pass before the recess, after all:

Moving with lightning speed, Congress and the White House agreed Wednesday on a compromise $790 billion economic stimulus bill designed to create million jobs in a nation reeling from recession. President Barack Obama could sign the measure within days.(...)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Reid's partner in negotiations over more than 24 hours, initially withheld public approval in a lingering dispute over federal funding for schools. But her spkesman, Brendan Daly, said more than two hours after Reid's announcement, "We are moving forward with this legislation, which will create or save more than 3 million jobs."

The deal isn't perfect, but it is still probably the best piece of legislation to pass Congress in, oh, 15 or 16 years. As such, it brings up memories of the 1993 budget fight, which was even more grueling. In fact, here is how similar the political situation is to 1993:

Sunday, August 08, 1993

Head.  Wall.

We finally have a Democrat in the White House, and guess what happens?  His economic recovery plan runs up against a solid wall of batshit insane Republican opposition and then is left to twist in the wind by some asshole "centrist" Democratic senator from Nebraska.  Damn, I hope this nonsense never happens again.

16 years ago, the last Democratic trifecta managed to pass some good legislation which, despite also being watered down, still had very positive effects for the nation. Hopefully, the same thing will happen this time, but with one big difference. Instead of the political situation deteriorating, and no major progressive legislation following the initial trifecta victories, let's work to make sure that this stimulus package is a starting point from which our legislative and political prospects only improve.
Chris Bowers :: Pelosi Drops Opposition, Stimulus Set To Pass

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Pelosi Drops Opposition, Stimulus Set To Pass | 32 comments
Thanks for the positive note! (4.00 / 6)
While I agree that this is a huge step in the right direction, congress and the president still need to hear how pissed we are about this "compromise".

Leaving in the $70 billion for AMT while insisting the overall size be cut to $789 billion? Senator Collins just flipped us all the bird.

The way this "compromise" came about must not be repeated again. One way to do that is to tell congress and the president how pissed we are that this is what we got. Call them, email them, whatever - do it every day until Obama signs the bill.

Except (4.00 / 2)
it will be done this way again.  It will be seen as a successful negotiation.  Harry Reid will gush and thank Collins, Snowe and Specter, and Ben Nelson will be a hero.

Maybe they won't compromise so much with the first cut of the bill next time, but largely, this is how I see things working in the Senate going forward.  It's pretty sickening.

Essentially we got more tax cuts and the schools got stiffed.  Zilch for school construction.  Man, that sends a bad message.

Overall, I guess I'm glad it will be passed because it will get things moving.  But they'd better be back with more, smaller and targeted packages, and soon.  And I really wish Nancy had stuck with her people.  But if I'm guessing correctly, Obama came down on them and said "pass it," and that was that.  

[ Parent ]
The solution... (4.00 / 3)
Is to just get the super-majority we need in the Senate in 2010 (or get rid of or raise the requirements to filibuster).  It's silly that we need such a massive majority just to pass decent legislation without compromise, but that's the position we're in.  Let's make sure we get there in 2010.
[ Parent ]
if jobs aren't created from this, we'll have less seats (4.00 / 3)
in 2010.

and if more people continue to be thrown out of their homes, we will too.

[ Parent ]
Then progressives (0.00 / 0)
will NEVER govern the country.  
[ Parent ]
first they'd have to be supported and elected -- instead of "more" Blue Dogs and (0.00 / 0)
conservatives -- because various DC Congressional committees don't support liberals even when they're already running.

that's what's needed first.

[ Parent ]
It's all DC's fault (0.00 / 0)
It's their fault Mark Pera was defeated in Illinois by a Blue Dog? It's their fault progressives in red states down win elections?  
[ Parent ]
Snowe and Franken? (4.00 / 1)
I noticed Snowe stayed largely out of the compromise talks.  Am I right she is more liberal then Collins?  Obviously, every additional easy vote helps, but perhaps Snowe and Franken alone will give us the majority we need.
[ Parent ]
Silly me (4.00 / 1)
I keep wondering when we'll have power that is somewhat in proportion to the majorities we have in Congress, and somewhat reflective of the political capital we have right now.

How long will it be before someone tells us that we have to work harder and give more money in 2010 because "we don't have the votes?"  And after we do "have the votes" how many Ben Nelsons will defect every other vote?

[ Parent ]
stimulus, fair pay, SCHIP all passed so far (4.00 / 2)
It's not a bad start.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
A Huge step .. toward pandering to Wall Street, AGAIN. (4.00 / 1)
What was taken OUT by the Senate?
The President's own demand of capping the recipients pay to $500,000.

WE the people got fu**ed again, by the sniveling losers Reid Nelson  and Lieberman.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Yes, rather than the end (4.00 / 4)
of progressive legislation, as happened with Clinton, this is just the beginning.

The "Head Wall" link was amusing.  Something about centrist Dems form Nebraska.  That one was Bob Kerrey I presume.

Pelosi does the right thing (4.00 / 2)
2/3 of a loaf is way better than no loaf. Especially when this is compromise is a clear defeat for the GOP firebreathers. More progressive legislatiion can go forward, the GOP being beaten back.

And remember, in 1993, Clinton only needed 50 + VP (4.00 / 3)
For this , Obama needed 60, a much harder task.
Not Obama - thank Harry Reid. (4.00 / 2)
Mitch McConnell and his gang pegged Harry Reid early on and knew just how to play him.

The choice of Hoyer and Reid as Congressional leaders - dictated by a small cabal of Emanuel and Schumers' campaign committee donors, were the two biggest mistakes the Democrats ever made.
All pro-war, pro-business DLC wankers left over from the Clinton years, they've permanently ruined all hopes of rallying around some strong new blood in the party. Only when they're dead and gone can the Dems hold their heads up and be proud of their accomplishments

And now??   Seeing Obama drop so far down to please the Right, while joining with the Clinton crowd to disrespect and throw Gov. Dean out in the street -after he's worked his ass of for four years, is a good indication of what will happen to the future of the Democratic party.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Deal. (4.00 / 7)
Let's make sure this is a floor, not a ceiling.

Montani semper liberi
16 years? Try 28. (4.00 / 2)
The deal isn't perfect, but it is still probably the best piece of legislation to pass Congress in, oh, 15 or 16 years.

If that is true, then pretty much by definition this is the best piece of legislation in 28 years.

Clinton budget (4.00 / 5)
had a lot of very good stuff in it.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
and we had jobs then too -- many many millions more (4.00 / 1)
than nowadays -- and than this "stimulus" will create.
[ Parent ]
Let's just say (4.00 / 3)
that I hope there are some special elections in the Senate in the coming months.  I assume we'll have US Attorneys in office who will find evidence of investigations that were squashed, and such.  One can hope.

Of course, with this Senate, you never know what might be found about Dem Senators either.  

Did I ever tell you how much I dislike the Senate?  They are the cause of so many problems in this country.

I'd like to see the details (4.00 / 4)
before celebrating too much and the gangsters clearly had a big hand in the final legislation, however this is pretty damn good considering and has a lot of good stuff in it.

In addition, if we can get this good of a product for the stimulus I feel pretty good about other legislative battles to come.

Energy: Snowe and Collins are better on energy then many Democrats. By then Franken and Newman will also likely be seated. Franken is a clear energy champion and it seems that Newman will be in the Snowe/Collins camp on energy.

Budget: Only needs 50 votes (Biden can break a tie) so assuming D's are up to 59 we can lose nine Democrats. According to what my digging turned up only 11 Democrats participated in the "Gang" at all. There is no way Bennett will vote no on the budget (he was a longtime backer of Obama and could face a primary from the left), and it seems very unlikely that all the rest of the members would vote no (like Udall who never seemed to play a big part in it). So the budget can be very, very good (like Clinton's first budget, maybe better).

Healthcare: According to Jon Cohn healthcare will be "central" to Obama's budget. It's not entirely clear what that means but my guess is that in order to avoid the Byrd rule he will put healthcare reform in the budget and thus only need 50 votes to pass it. Once again that means we can get a much better product. In addition Democratic gansters Warner, Shaheen, McCaskill and Landrieu have signed onto the HCAN statement which essentially means they are likely to support any plan Obama puts forward.

So while this wasn't perfect it's needed and has a lot of good in it. I also think Obama and his team have learned some lessons about negotiation and selling the package to the public.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Age in Senate (4.00 / 4)
42 of the 99 Senators are 65 or older.  When Franken joins it will be 42 of 100.

20 of 41 Republican Senators are 65 or older (48%) including this year's new member Risch of Idaho.  If Bonnie Newman replaces Judd Gregg, she'll add some age at 63 but won't change this figure.

Four Senators, all Democrats, are over 80: Byrd (91), Lautenberg (85), Akaka (84) and Inouye (84).

That's their age now.  Two years later, the ages will be even higher.

Old and out of touch.  I'd just love for everybody who loses the $100 bucjs to contact the Maine ladies.  Let all the fired teachers write them, too, along with Mr. Magoo, Ben Nelson.

Those 42 are some of our most reliable (4.00 / 1)
votes though.  Some of the younger ones are not so reliable.  We have to be sure to replace them with strong progressives when they retire.
[ Parent ]
3 (or Obama's 4) million jobs -- with this bill?!? never. (0.00 / 0)
this is a piece of sh*t -- if this is the best we can do with majorities in the House, Senate and a supposedly Democratic President, we're f*cked.

there is no "major progressive legislation" possible with co-Presidents Obama, Snowe, Collins, Spector, Lieberman and Nelson -- at all.

unless "progressive" now means "far too weak" and "conservative", that is.

will "entitlement reform" be spun as "progressive" too?

I have no idea (4.00 / 2)
how many jobs this bill represents anymore.

Instead of adjusting the number honestly, they started saying that the bill will "save or create" four million jobs, even though we know that 600K jobs were lost by the Senate compromise.

I'm also confused about the infrastructure money.  I had been seeing figures of $49-50B for infrastructure, then today Collins came out and said there was $150B for infrastructure.  I think they may have reclassified some of the money and called it infrastructure.

It always did amaze me at how much time in the debates was spent talking about infrastructure jobs, and how relatively little money was in the bill that was actually going toward infrastructure.

I really hate misleading and dishonesty, regardless of which side it comes from.

[ Parent ]
sdf (0.00 / 0)
ROFL! you're funny.
[ Parent ]
Progressive legislation (4.00 / 1)
I don't have all the details on what is in the compromise bill yet.  I'm going to read through it today.  But you can't say that there is no progressive legislation in there.  There's money for transportation, smart grid, etc.  That never would have happened under Bush.

I'm frustrated about the way this played out too.  I feel that we had to compromise way too much for three Republican votes.  But we can't say that we won't get any progressive legislation.  Because we will, and we have.  

It makes me ill to watch all the praise going toward Nelson, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Lieberman, etc.  Because they are not the people who have been pushing for years and fighting to get to this point.  But Senators are some of the most egotistical beings on the planet, and I know that they are lavishing them with praise, and giving them the spotlight, so that they will feel so good about it, and perhaps get lots of positive feedback from their constituents, that they will become almost a permanent group who will vote with us.  If this strategy works, perhaps we'll need to compromise less and less to get their votes.  Well, that's my take on it anyway.

Be of good cheer, as much as you can anyway in this situation :)  Think positive (in between rants born of frustration) ;)

[ Parent ]
How might the Democrats (4.00 / 3)
have played this, instead of caving to the Senate Republican "centrists"?

Many House members think Democrats should force Republicans to filibuster, saying it would be politically damaging to appear to be blocking progress amid disastrous economic news. "Let them filibuster," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. "You have 58 votes.  Three votes shouldn't be allowed to blackmail the whole country."

Link.

Does anybody doubt that that is what the Republicans would have done, if the shoe were on the other foot? (Of course, the Republicans wouldn't have had this worry anyway. Any "centrist" Democrats who would have pre-caved for their benefit, sparing them the trouble of demanding a filibuster.)

Well they wouldn't be allowed to (0.00 / 0)
seeing as we need 60 votes to pass this regardless of filibuster.

Nadler needs to read the Budget Act.  

[ Parent ]
Your point is what? (4.00 / 1)
Nadler argues that the two Republican votes should have been obtained by daring them to obstruct. So it wouldn't matter whether it was a filibuster or just subject to the Budget Act.

Sure, he may have phrased it wrongly. But what matters is not the wording but the question of whether or not that kind of political theatre should have been given an airing.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Daring them to obstruct does what exactly? (0.00 / 0)
cause the economy to fail? Score one for the Republicans. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO HAPPEN!  
[ Parent ]
Clinton's stimulus bill (0.00 / 0)
never made it out of the Senate and his budget lost a bunch of Democratic votes.  So things are already better than that.
Pelosi Drops Opposition, Stimulus Set To Pass | 32 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox