We Made Them Do It On the Stimulus

by: David Sirota

Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 20:37


I'm not happy that the stimulus bill was made less stimulative by reactionary Republicans and embarrassingly incoherent Democrats. I'm also not happy that direct spending on infrastructure/social programs comprises a miniscule 4.6% of all the government funds spent to deal with this economic crisis. However, considering how far progressives have pushed the debate, I'd say the deal on the economic stimulus package is a huge victory.

Remember, only months ago, the incoming administration and the Congress were talking about passing a stimulus bill at around $350 billion. Remember, too, that Obama started out pushing a stimulus package chock full of odious tax cuts. Now, we've got a bill that's $790 billion (including a sizable downpayment for major progressive priorities) and stripped of the worst tax cuts.

To those who said we should have just shut up and fallen in line from the beginning, and to those who said we should have just quieted down and "trusted" President Obama to "do the right thing," I respectfully counter that your equation has been proven to be bankrupt by the results that our movement has helped create. Had progressives simply shut up and fallen in line - had we simply succumbed to subservient Dear Leader-ism - this bill clearly would have been far smaller and far worse.

It's not perfect - not by a long shot. And the key term is "downpayment" - we're going to have to keep pushing for the kind of sustained investment in public priorities (infrastructure, education, health care, etc.) as Wall Street tries to crowd out those priorities with demands for more bailouts. But right now, we should be high fiving. As many of us said all along, we needed to both push against the bad stuff in this bill, but push forward this bill to final passage. And our voices, our work, and our pressure helped create the "Make Him Do It" Dynamic on the stimulus. That is, we helped forced them all - the Congress and the White House - to pass what (upon expected final passage) looks like a solidly good if unspectacular outcome.

UPDATE: I can see the rabble is sufficiently roused, by the angry comments below. Well, I guess that's good - if you are unhappy with the stimulus bill and want it to be better, that's a great thing. Keep pushing, and get ready to push in the coming months and years because these battles are only going to get tougher. If you are, however, spending your time personally attacking me, pipe down and get a friggin' life. We've got lots of important stuff to work on. If you don't like me, if my tone or my style or my haircut or if any other personal trait of mine offends you, screw off. It's a big Internet - go somewhere else. Otherwise, get in the game and start trying to do what all of us at Team OpenLeft are trying to do: Make change.
David Sirota :: We Made Them Do It On the Stimulus

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
We Made Them Do It On the Stimulus | 56 comments
LOL. Great comedy, David (4.00 / 1)
Thanks.
everyone can decare victory (4.00 / 6)
Honestly, I think this was just a dress rehearsal for health care.  We need a few Republican votes there, unless there is sneaky way to do it in the budget process. This can be taken a positive sign in terms of getting a few votes.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Well (4.00 / 4)
Jon Cohn said that Obama aides have told him that it will be "central" to their budget. And rumor has it that Byrd regrets blocking reconciliation for healthcare reform in 93. Byrd broke down crying after Kennedy left the Senate for a day, they are tight. Teddy is not going to be around for much longer, if he personally appeals to Byrd to let reconciliation be used I don't know how Byrd could refuse and then we only need 50 votes.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
This is hilarious (2.22 / 9)
are you an arbitration lawyer or an analyst?

After telling your troops that the bill is poison you turn around and try to sell it as a great victory.  

And you think people will believe you the next time you cry wolf?

I agree. (4.00 / 1)
"...the deal on the economic stimulus package is a huge victory."

With all due respect to Mr. Sirota for his many outstanding contributions to American journalism, I still have to say...

This shit is delusional!

It's like the old Monty Python skit about the dead parrot...




At some point, we have to emerge from denial and admit that we got killed!

[ Parent ]
Unfair (4.00 / 9)
What's your problem? David's stance on the stimulus bill has been consistent all along:

Today:

It's not perfect - not by a long shot. And the key term is "downpayment" - we're going to have to keep pushing for the kind of sustained investment in public priorities (infrastructure, education, health care, etc.) as Wall Street tries to crowd out those priorities with demands for more bailouts

Monday:

that doesn't mean the stimulus bill should be rejected, even in the overwhelmingly mediocre state it's in - but it does mean that we should have a little perspective and stop judging everything by conservatives' know-nothing parameters.

Yes, it's great that the government is going to spend something on public priorities - that's a step forward from the Bush era. But 4.6% is a relative pittance of progressivism in an ocean of continued kleptocracy. It's the absolute least that should be spent on health care, energy and jobs programs - and we should use this fleeting moment of legislative negotiation to demand far more.

Jan 30

In the last month, we have seen a rat-a-tat-tat of examples of the progressive movement working with its congressional allies to administer progressive pressure on the new Obama administration - and with some pretty amazing results. We've gotten Obama to drop some of the most odious corporate tax giveaways he originally floated, we've gotten his original infrastructure spending proposals boosted - and now, overall, as CAF's Bernie Horn says, the stimulus bill is shaping up to be pretty damn good.*

* That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing to make it better - we should absolutely keep pushing. But it does mean that we're headed in the right direction.

You ought to try a little fact checking next time.

[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for pointing that out - sometimes other commenters just listen to the voices in their heads rather than spending 5 minutes researching what they're talking about. I appreciate the assist.
[ Parent ]
Like the voices in your head which told you Obama was a progressive (0.00 / 0)
I see. I fear like many this stimulus is worse than nothing, it will lead to the progressives being rounded defeated in 2010, because it is too tiny to work and the republicans will claim if they would have written the bill it would have worked.
[ Parent ]
Hilarious (4.00 / 4)
Who said the bill was "poison?" Who said that? Certainly not me, or Chris or anyone here at OpenLeft. Perhaps the voices in your head did, but not us - we railed on specific proposals in the bill, for sure. But the whole bill? Poison? Get a grip, dude - that's the voices in your head.
[ Parent ]
Stimulus versus Bailout confusion? (4.00 / 2)
Or head voices.  I could believe either.
[ Parent ]
your friend (3.20 / 5)
cherry-picked a quote, while dropping the predicate:

While some Obama administration water carriers are claiming with a straight face that the current stimulus is a landmark triumph for progressivism, the New York Times Paul Krugman is far more honest and accurate, noting that the public at large should be utterly outraged that just 4.6% of the government's emergency spending money is being devoted to helping the public at large.

That was two days ago.  Yesterday, you called the compromise a 'substantively stupid plan'.  

So, we should be utterly outraged at this substantively stupid plan yesterday, but today we should applaud ourselves for our great progressive victory.

Please.

[ Parent ]
Thank you - I appreciate it (4.00 / 1)
I appreciate you making your dishonesty so patently stark. Because, as you know, what I wrote was:

quickly ram through the Senate "centrists" substantively stupid plan to make the stimulus bill less economically stimulative

Yes, the amendment to cut spending out of the bill and replace it with tax cuts is substantively stupid because it makes the stimulus less economically stimulative. But that doesn't mean - nor have I ever said it means - that it means the overall bill is bad. You said that, not me - or at least the voices in your head said I said that. But I sure didn't.

And in this exchange, you have shown just how dishonest you are. You read exactly what I wrote - you read exactly how I specifically criticized the Senate centrists' amendment - and then you tried to lie about it. Nice try...but you're busted, pal.

[ Parent ]
Sirota (4.00 / 1)
what are you arguing?

Yesterday, the compromise was substantively stupid but today it doesn't matter because, well, I am not sure why.  

I would think that a bill that is an outrage (on Monday) because of its lack of spending on regular people would be even more of an outrage after Ben Nelson and Susan Collins got done with it.

I am not suggesting that you advocated spiking the bill.  My problem is that you are calling the bill such a success that we should be 'high-fiving' each other.  

It's pretty rich for you to call me dishonest.  I made the same argument you make in this piece for the entire duration of the debate.  Then, when the debate is over, I see that you have joined in to take credit for a progressive victory.

I don't mind advocating for a better bill at all.  I mind the whiplash you create when you turn on a dime and try to join the Obama water carriers you excoriated for weeks.  

And all the caveats in the world don't change what you are attempting to do here.  

[ Parent ]
Go back home BooMan (4.00 / 3)
Wow, talk about cherry-picking quotes. What is in your blockquote that says anything like "the stimulus is poison" or is in any way not consistent with the opinion that the stimulus is a flawed but necessary piece of legislation?

The second piece you linked to specifically referred to the Nelson-Collins cuts as substantively stupid, not the entire stimulus plan itself. But that doesn't stop you from fraudulently misapplying those words in your next line. Do you really think we're too stupid to notice your little switcheroo?

Are you just a liar, or is it just that you don't know the difference between the truth and a lie?

[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 2)
with BooMan. But that is not a troll worthy comment.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
OK . . . (0.00 / 0)
. . . you shamed me into un-troll rating it. But I still think it is a patently dishonest comment.
[ Parent ]
I dunno (0.00 / 0)
the payroll tax was reduced, Collins-Nelson slashed tens of billions of good spending, the alternative tax remained in the bill, the car and house taxes (which were debatable as policy, but aimed at struggling consumers and the auto/construction industries) were slashed.

That's what changed since Monday when this bill was an outrage than only Obama water carriers could consider a progressive success.

[ Parent ]
I'll try this one last time (4.00 / 2)
David never said "this bill was an outrage." He was specifically criticizing the "bipartisan centrist" modification of the bill. The money quote (emphasis mine):

House Democrats have finally thrown down the gauntlet on the economic recovery package. According to the Hill newspaper, they are refusing to quickly ram through the Senate "centrists" substantively stupid plan to make the stimulus bill less economically stimulative by watering it down with tax cuts.

Note that David also made the following comments in that same post:

Democrats believe - and rightly, IMHO - that the conference committee should (re)strengthen the stimulus; that Senate Democrats will be able to force a few rational Republicans to support it on final passage; and that Obama will be forced to sign the better bill. . . .

I certainly agree that . . . we need the stimulus bill passed ASAP as well.

 

This post is completely consistent with the other posts I referred to above. I rest my case.

[ Parent ]
I tend to agree (4.00 / 2)
But it does not personally attack anyone or go way overboard. Passionate debate is not troll worthy. If it's dishonest argue with it.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
I remember back before 2006 (4.00 / 1)
you were telling everyone we couldn't push the Democrats to stop the war, because their weren't enough votes to pass it, then afterwords you said we couldn't push them because they were too comfortable and there was no need.

We all have factional biases.

[ Parent ]
Again (4.00 / 1)
I don't see how this is troll worthy.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
It's something, but I don't think it's enough. (0.00 / 0)
We managed to get somewhere David, but for all the calls I made to my congressmen, all the letters I wrote, all the impassioned arguments I've had - we didn't enough. I look at the size of the the problem and yeah, we got a down payment, but are we going to follow through with what it'll take to get the boost we need? I'd hate to see this as a victory wasted.

I dunno, man. I'm can't help but be skeptical, but I'll continue to have hope and keep pushing.

Talk to me: http://twitter.com/Mike_Ace

Hey I agree (4.00 / 2)
I'm not happy...but 30 years of crappy policies ain't gonna be fully turned around in a few weeks. This is a step - a real one - but it's only one step.
[ Parent ]
Aren't there too many brackets in this celebration? (0.00 / 0)
I don't agree with some of booman's criticism, but it seems to me that a very small segment of the stimulus and bailout has been bracketed, and then presented as cause for celebration.

4.6% of the whole package is aimed at stimulating the economy, and 95.4% of it is a gigantic boondoggle to rescue the stockholders of failing banks.

To put it another way...

Geithner/Paulson/Bush/Obama stole a fortune from taxpayers, and left them a tip.

The tip will be spent in a few months, but $9.7 trillion in debt will descend to our grandchildren, and there isn't any real evidence that any of it will do any of us any good.

[ Parent ]
Do ya really think (4.00 / 2)
anyone in Washington listens to anything we have to say here? really?  
"Your" equation, not "you're" equation (0.00 / 0)
Grammar counts if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.
Does this mean I don't have to STFU now? (4.00 / 1)
Confusing!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
I really don't get all the harping here (4.00 / 3)
Did we get the plan we really need? No. Not even close.

Did we get a better plan today than we had yesterday? Yes.

Did we get a better plan today than the one Obama originally proposed?  I'd say yes.

Is it a great plan? No.

Look, I'm just as disgusted as anyone with the timidity being displayed by Obama and Congress on addressing our collapsing economy. And I've been pretty brutal in my criticism toward the lot of them. But considering the way this bill has developed, we really got a better deal in the end than expected. Does that mean we should all go skipping along, basking blissfully in a warm sense of security that all will be perfectly fine now? No, of course not. And not ONE SINGLE WORD in Sirota's post suggests that we should.

The point is, allow yourselves a fraction of relief that we got more than expected with this bill and start hitting the pavement working toward the things that this bill fell woefully short on addressing. Get moving now, because when Washington realizes that this first bill isn't going to cut it (it won't and they will), we need to be ready to push hard for one that will.

Amen to this (0.00 / 0)
You nailed it.
[ Parent ]
Expect you write as if you know what's going to happen (0.00 / 0)
How do you know this bill, as written, won't work?
[ Parent ]
*Except* (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Because. . . (4.00 / 1)
The projected economic shortfall of the 2 year period this bill is intended to address is over 2 Trillion. This bill, minus tax cuts, only makes up for - at best - roughly 500 Billion of that loss. That still leaves us 1.5 Trillion in the toilet. And that's a mighty big toilet.

Also, when you throw in TARP and the other bank bailout efforts, the same banks receiving bailout money are turning around and gouging their credit customers with exorbitant APRs approaching 30% and over. A large portion of any benefit consumers see from this stimulus is going to get gobbled up by increasing personal debt payments, and will not find its way back into the general economy.

A stimulus is about boosting the demand side of the supply/demand equation (one reason supply-side Republicans hate stimulus bills so much). In order to do that, you have to get enough benefit to consumers that they have the means and the sense of security to spend, thereby creating demand. I don't know anyone, even considering this stimulus, that feels comfortable going on a spending spree anytime soon.

[ Parent ]
Math (0.00 / 0)
Remember those charts people kept posting about multiplier effects?  The impact on the GDP is based on the final number calculated with the multiplier, not the initial input.

There is at least $600 billion of good stuff in this bill (including the lower income tax cuts) with an average multiplier around 1.4 or 1.5.  That means the $600b actually fills a GDP hole in the $840b to $900b range.

And even the bad stuff still helps, it just has a multiplier effect around 0.3.  Crappy use of money, but still stimulus.

This single bill won't solve all our problems.  But it is a good start.

[All numbers by memory, but I'm pretty sure they are close.]

[ Parent ]
I stand corrected (0.00 / 0)
by about 400 Billion. That still leaves us at least 1 Trillion in the hole. And you're exactly right. Multipliers weren't exactly maximized in this bill and we're still going to need more action. I agree that it is a decent start, so long as it is considered just a start and not the final word.
[ Parent ]
See... (4.00 / 1)
That's what I respect about you... you GET IT...

Don't sit and bitch about the stimulus bill.  Keep fighting and working to get more passed, or to improve our standing on Bills in the future.  Too many people on here just bitch and moan and never seem to actually DO any thing... You express regret and disappointment but you also include a call to action!  That's the kind of thinking and leadership needed for the progressive movement to have long lasting power in this country.

The Whole "Screw-Off" Attitude is Interesting (0.00 / 0)
And I mean that seriously.  Normally when I see a blogger rip into his/her readership and tell a bunch of them to go fuck themselves and read something else, it strikes me as counter productive.  Don't you want people to read your blog?  Isn't telling them not to read your blog a bad idea?

I guess it just doesn't work that way with such a flexible medium; there's a lot of easily reachable audience to be had, so if you want to narrow-cast your writing to those more willing to express agreement with you, you can get away with it.

Any other medium--any other business, really--telling your audience to eat a dick sandwich and go someplace else is just a bad idea.  Not so on the blogosphere.  

Can't tell if this is a good or bad thing...

Nah (4.00 / 2)
Nah, the only people who were told to fuck off in this piece are people who have been telling the community here that we're wrong to do what the mission of this place is. Sorry, but if you are fundamentally opposed to what we're trying to do here, then you're not welcome here. Go somewhere else.
[ Parent ]
For the Record (4.00 / 1)
Before everyone breaks an arm patting themselves on the back, just a reminder - On January 8th President-elect Barack Obama confirmed to CNBC that he planned to lay out a roughly $775 billion economic stimulus plan.  
speaking of coming battles -- "entitlement reform" pls (4.00 / 1)
it's already happening -- and no one is in front on this at all.

we're already being portrayed as ok with it and silent, in fact --

... Strikingly, however, Obama appears to be getting unusual room to maneuver on entitlements by most of his liberal allies. On the subject of entitlement reform, in fact, Obama's honeymoon continues - at least in the unlikely precincts of the Democratic left, a counterintuitive development that has buoyed the spirits of reformers who would like to see drastic changes in the way Social Security works.

Opponents of significant changes to Social Security benefits were jarred in January, when the then-president-elect echoed George W. Bush's claim of an entitlement "crisis," warning of "red ink as far as the eye can see" in Social Security and Medicare. Obama promised that those programs would be a "central part" of his plan to reduce the federal deficit.

Social Security defenders were surprised again last week, when Obama named a leading voice for reining in entitlement spending, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, to his Cabinet.

But despite some grumbling in the ranks, the powerful, organized movement that effectively defended the Social Security status quo from Bush's ambitious reform effort in 2005 has been one of the key dogs that haven't yet barked at Obama.

The relative silence of liberal activists who smashed Bush's hopes of slowing entitlement spending is a mark of the deep trust Obama enjoys from the left of his party - and it's also giving hope to those who would like to see major shifts in the way Social Security and other programs are funded and managed.  ...

-- Left silent on Social Security, Medicare -- http://dyn.politico.com/prints...
We Made Them Do It On the Stimulus | 56 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