February 17, 2009
Bipartisanship then and now
Genuine bipartisanship, assumes an honest process of
give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by
how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or
lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be
constrained — by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed
electorate — to negotiate in good faith.
If these conditions do not hold — if nobody outside Washington is
really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs
. . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion
dollars or so — the majority party can begin every negotiation by
asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse
any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise'
of being 'obstructionist.'
President Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, 2006
Oddly enough, Congress didn't seem to get this memo. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid railroaded through a wish-list of social welfare programs [including rolling back the Clinton-era welfare reforms] in a hastily-drafted, pork-laden monstrosity calling itself "stimulus." House Republicans were not invited in the drafting, nor were they permitted to amend it in any significant way. Senate Republicans were similary frozen out once three votes could be bought to prevent a filibuster.
This is not bipartisanship. This is the reality of single-party rule. President Obama will sign this atrocity today in Denver, and our grandchildren will still be trying to pay for it.
This is not bipartisanship. This is the reality of single-party rule. President Obama will sign this atrocity today in Denver, and our grandchildren will still be trying to pay for it.
"But it's an emergency!" we have been told. Whenever I hear a salesman start telling me I have to act now, this special won't last--that's called high-pressure. He's lying to me. This is such a big emergency that as soon as the "compromise" bill went through on the same party-line vote as the original pieces, the President promptly took a long weekend off before today's signing ceremony/photo-op.
This bill isn't about "stimulus" or "the economy." It's about pork, political payoffs, and increasing the control of the State over businesses. Especially health--but that's a topic for another post.
Posted by: Douglas Oosting at
08:55 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Posted to category: Quotes
1
I'd heard three Republicans voted in favor of the legislation, but I didn't hear how they were courted (or bought). I'd like to read more about that, if you have a link.
Posted by: Ben Ostrowsky at February 17, 2009 02:13 PM (m2neM)
2
I believe that's correct, Ben. Though all three griped about it not being a very good bill, they seemed to think it was better than doing nothing. I believe at least one (and maybe two) Democrats voted against it as well.
Posted by: Kevin Pettway at February 28, 2010 07:34 PM (80DX0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 09, 2009
Stimu-Pork!
Congratulations, Democrats. You got your 20-year wish list voted through, with a big helping of hysteria and fear-mongering publicity from the White House. Our kids--and theirs yet unborn--will be paying for your pork for years to come!
Here's a hint: irresponsible deficit spending
caused the current crisis, how can anybody think the cure for it is MORE of the same?
Posted by: Douglas Oosting at
07:49 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Posted to category: Creeping Socialism
1
If you believe that those in Washington are foolish, then they probably believe that the current crisis was caused because there wasn't enough deficit spending (or, more likely, that it was caused by the "bad" deficit spending of the
other party, not the "good" deficit spending that they'd do).
If you believe that they are actively malicious, then the current situation, in which a crisis entirely of someone else's making is forcing them against their will to usurp unprecedented power unto themselves may not privately be considered a problem at all. In which case, heaping on another helping of the underlying cause makes perfect sense.
Generally, I tend to suspect stupidity over malice in most human affairs. I may, however, make an exception to that rule of thumb where congress is concerned.
The frustrating thing here is that there's no good outcome. If the current plan utterly fails, then us saying "I told you so" will come as little consolation. (and will undoubtedly be met by claims that this stimulus bill just wasn't big enough). But I doubt that will happen. The economy will recover. Probably some of this stimulus bill will help that happen. Most of it will probably hamper it. The very existence of it will help some (the current situation is as much psychological as it is financial, so the perception that something is being done, along with President Obama's undoubted charisma, will have a positive effect, although probably not enough to offset the damage done by either). Unfortunately, that will certainly lead to the perception that this response was the right response.
Here's an idea, maybe we should take a page from the environmentalist playbook and start selling "pork offsets". I smell an opportunity... or maybe that's just bacon.
Posted by: Lazlo at February 09, 2009 08:43 AM (yHdD+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
14kb generated in CPU 0.0103, elapsed 0.0288 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.021 seconds, 68 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
