House Passes Stimulus with Zero Republican Votes
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats passed an $819 billion “stimulus” package without a single Republican vote.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at a news conference on the economic stimulus package. (Ruth Fremson/The New York Times)
All but 11 Democrats voted for the plan, and 177 Republicans voted against it. The 244-to-188 vote came a day after Mr. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill to seek Republican backing, if not for the package then on other issues to come.
Mr. Obama, in a statement hailing the House passage of the plan, did not take note of the partisan divide but signaled that he expected changes to be made in the Senate that might attract support. “I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk,” he said. “But what we can’t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do.”
Mr. Obama followed the House vote with a cocktail party at the White House for the Congressional leaders of both parties, from the House and the Senate. The House Republicans, including the minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, were fresh from their votes against the recovery package.
Both Obama and the GOP are acting shrewdly here. The Republicans are acting as a strong, principled opposition party and Obama is playing it cool by continuing to reach out to them.
Others disagree.
Kevin Drum says, “I think it’s now safe to say that the GOP caucus has decided to pick up where it left off last year, in full-on obstruction mode.” Recall, though, that they were obstructing a bailout boondoggle proposed by a Republican president. It turns out that they were right to do so. And it would seem evidence that the vote is principled rather than partisan. That’s a good thing. With this vote, the Republicans take a huge step towards re-establishing themselves as the fiscally conservative party, a mantle they had lost much right to during the Bush years. So long as they make this about principle rather than partisan politics, it benefits them.
Michelle Malkin‘s headline “This crap sandwich is all yours, Dems” is right, too, so far as it goes. But that’s no the way to spin this. The economy’s in the toilet and the GOP can’t be gleeful in standing in the way of the president’s agenda to fix it. Rather, the point is “we respectfully dissent.” We want to work with you to find a solution but one that meets our principles.
Andrew Sullivan makes the obvious counterargument: “The GOP sure rewarded the president for coming to the Hill and talking it through with them for hours, didn’t they?” And he’s right so far as it goes: if the Republicans won’t play ball, there’s not much point in involving them in the negotiations. If the Democrats are going to pass bills on party line votes, they may as well pass bills about which they’re enthusiastic. But, of course, there’s the Senate. Even with a strong majority, it’s going to be hard to get this boondoogle through the upper chamber. Not only will most Republicans likely be opposed there, too, but so will a lot of Democrats.
Bruce McQuain disagrees, figuring that one or more Republican Senators — he names McCain, Collins, Specter, Graham, and Snowe as likely culprits — which cross the aisle. Maybe. But there are plenty of Democrats that represent relatively conservative states who have strong incentive to vote against this thing.
Jon Henke, meanwhile, thinks the Republicans are following “a losing strategy.”
The only way to beat the hand Obama is playing is to take the initiative, to change the subject, with new policies and arguments that put Democrats off their game. And even that will take quite some time.
I don’t see much evidence that Republicans are able to do that right now. There’s just no larger, unifying framework for a transformative policy agenda, and no apparent policy innovation being done. Without the unifying agenda and policy innovation, Obama will continue to set the agenda, and Republicans will lose ground at every step.
A president with majorities — strong majorities — in both Houses of Congress will always set the agenda. And that’s as it should be. Sure, the opposition party can write up contracts for America and otherwise argue for a bold alternative vision. But it’s rather much to expect them to do that mere days after the results of the last election have gone into effect. Right now, their job is to voice principled objection to the new president’s policy offerings, do what they can to smooth off the sharpest edges, and ultimately lose vote after vote.
If, two years from now, the country is in much better shape, then the Democrats will, rightly, hold on to power. If, as happened in 1994, the Democrats drop the ball, then the Republicans need to be ready to pick it up and have a game plan for advancing it towards their end zone.
Not to mention, if the GOP totally plays ball on these things, and it succeeds, Obama isn’t going to go around the country praising the GOP for their support-Obama and the democratic congress will lay full claim to the accolades.
I think the best point in this piece is that the GOP needs to choose its battles carefully and base the arguments on principle-there are some hills worth dying on, but there are some battles that aren’t going to be worth it.
I am willing to admit I am wrong on this stimulus bill-but I think it is a giant boondoggle and mostly another spending bill dressed up as stimulus.
The party that put Chris Cox at the SEC retreats from the field.
(There are a dozen examples like that, where Republicans during the Bush years removed the safety features from our lightly regulated economy, to make it even less regulated … as they piled on speed and headed for the bend in the road. Now that it’s over (how many days since the inauguration?) Republicans are on the Malkin vibe, wanting desperately for the mess they made to be a “Democrat” problem.)
And, as Kevin Drum also noted, it wasn’t the House Republicans’ only no vote yesterday. They also overwhelmingly opposed the bill to delay the digital TV conversion, which passed unanimously in the Senate. There’s lots of partisan politics going on (on both sides).
I agree, “just me” that this isn’t a beautiful stimulus bill … but given the limits of modern macroeconomics, we don’t really know how bad it is either.
At some point spending might be spending, and if this is a serious contraction, if the “spender of last resort” is called for … there it is.
(Just a couple years ago many, including conservatives, took comfort in Bernanke’s “money from helicopters.” Is this bill really less focussed than that?)
That will be where the wheel hits the road. If the bill isn’t brought to the floor because Democrats alone can’t end a filibuster, it’s politics as usual in Washington.
If the bill is brought to the floor and passes without Republican votes, it will be signed into law. While that might constitute principled opposition on the part of the Republicans, it’s both a losing strategy and (if you agree with the Republicans) bad for the country.
If the bill is brought to the floor and voted down with both Republican and Democratic votes, it would be a rebuke to a hyper-partisan House that shoved a bad bill out the door.
I’m guessing it’ll be one of the first two choices.
I think that’s just flat false. Obama is, I think, quite sincere about trying to “unpoison” our politics. If the Republicans cooperated with him, and the stimulus succeeded, I’m sure he would allow them to share in the success. Case in point about the unpoisoning: Did anyone else catch the look on his face when Biden made the lame “My memory’s not as good as the Chief Justice’s” crack during the swearing in of Geithner as Treasury Secretary? He was mightly unpleased. And I note that Joe got on the phone right quick to apologize to Roberts. Republicans who don’t take his attempts at bipartisanship seriously are going to screw themselves royally. You don’t have agree with him, and you don’t have to vote with him, but you’d better not go around accusing him of bad faith in reaching out. That will come back to bite you in the ass bigtime. To its credit, the House Republican leadership seems to get this, judging from some to the interviews I saw on TV.
I doubt we’ll see a filibuster attempt in the senate. That’s just horrible optics.
Vote against the bill. But filibuster it at your peril.
They just have to be careful about which votes the win. If this stimulus bill is successfully stopped, then every bad financial report that comes out (and they will be there, with or without this bill) will be hung around the necks of House Republicans. If the bill passes, credits for success go to the Democrats, and those bad financial reports are shrugged off as “it takes time to turn it around”.
On the other hand, the Republicans did get some concessions in the House bill already, so they can simultaneously get some of what they want, without signing their names to the whole thing. It really didn’t make much sense for any of them to vote for this bill, so long as it ultimately does pass.
Republicans will have to choose their battles, yes, but their concern should be about which ones the win (and therefore own), not which ones they lose.
I don’t think that was Geithner’s swearing in, unless Biden made the same bad joke then too.
Do you trust Scientific American? They say U.S. infrastructure crumbling
Screw that, let’s cut taxes!
The thing is, apart from principled opposition and tax cuts (which got us here), I have no idea what the Republicans stand for. As to a filibuster on the first important bill from a popular president? Can we say “nuclear option”? (Which is why it will not happen).
Odo – 11% of the bill goes to infrastructure. A majority of it goes to health and education industries which both have < 4% unemployment. I don’t think voting to go along with the bill to get along makes sense. It’s not stimulus – it’s porkulus. Not for a second do I think the GOP wouldn’t have pushed for the same crap if they were in control – but if it’s bad form to stand up to this then I think they did the right thing by standing up on this.
A majority? I thought about half was a tax cut?
I think the real problem is a practical contradiction: to be “real” stimulus you should fund “shovel ready” infrastructure, but there isn’t enough shovel ready infrastructure to make a stimulus.
So what do you do? Accept the contraction in the economy, or do something messier?
As I said in another thread, Bernanke was famous for saying that he’d prevent a depression, even if it took throwing money out of helicopters.
Do you think that helicopter money meets the new, constrained, Republican definition of “real” stimulus?
Congressional Republicans came out of their meeting with Obama, praising Obama for listening and having thoughtful discussions. Obama got something out of it, and Obama’s interests are not coextensive with that of the Democratic House.
odograph, I think one of the problems with your argument is that the infrasture spending does not appear to be geared towards America’s “crumbling” infrastrure. I believe there is a list of the worst roads, bridges and dams in the country; I’d support a program to fix them. But a lot of the worst infrastrure is probably not shovel-ready; and our federalist system probably requires money to be spread to every state and district, regardless of need (at least as long as it is directed towards economic stimulas). And don’t forget that the states are figuring out how to transfer federal infrasture money into funds for general operating costs and pensions.
So, no I’m not buying the “crumbling” infrasture argument unless we actually had a bill that was directed towards that goal.
I’m not sure what their “principles” are, but most mainstream economists recognize that governments have to spend in order to stimulate the economy.
The Republicans were basically saying that the economy is fine which strikes me as quite out of touch with reality.
Apparently, there are people who have forgotten the stone wall the Democrats were in terms of Bush policy, for eight years, despite his bending over backward to accomidate them.
A strong President with strong majorities in both the House and the Senate should set the agendaa. Yet the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Package does not resemble the bill Obama sent to the House. The PRODB was written by Mrs. Pelosi’s minions, and reflects her ideas, not Obama’s.
If Obama want to lead, he needs to stand-up to Mrs. Pelosi. I don’t think he capble of doing it.
Another note, it matters not if Obama is sincere or not. What matters is that Obama is naive to the max. Obama believed that he could talk the House republicans into supporting the Debt Package. Obama failed totally. Likewise Obama believes he can talk Iran out of going nuclear. Again Obama is doomed to failure.
Of sure, Obama can talk the talk, but goverance is more deeds than words. Buy Obama a clue or two.
I believe PD, that the bridge-fixin’ is in there, hidden amongst the junk.
Bithead,
“Apparently, there are people who have forgotten the stone wall the Democrats were in terms of Bush policy”
Even by your standards, that is amazingly wrong.
The 2001 tax cut got 28 Democrats in the house.
The Iraq War Resolution got 82 Democrats in the house.
This vote got as many Republicans in the House as supported Clinton’s 1993 Tax Bill — none.
lol
Yeay, I agree. This is not something that can be judged today, but 1 or 2 years from now the dems will be viewed as the heros who saved the economy if it works out.
Strategically, the republicans made a huge mistake. They will always share or even hold the blame for this mess, and now they have divorced themselves from a solution. They aren’t coming out with any tangible new ideas so they would have been better off throwing in some votes to muddle it up if we are creating more jobs than loosing in 2 years.
OOoohhhh,… AAAaahhhhhhh.
Obama’s pork got 11 Dems to vote against it. At what point between 11 and 28 does these numbers become a big deal?
Oh, and did anyone notice the Rasmussen polling this morning, showing only 42% think the bill is a good idea?
Nobody’s mentioned it here yet, but the bill, as it went to the house had about 40% of it devoted to tax cuts and the Democrats even stripped out the contraceptive funding. In other words, they gave the Republicans things they asked for and the House GOP decided to give a big middle finger to the president. This is where all this b.s. about “principled opposition” comes into stark focus. When you are working on a bill like this, NOBODY is going to get everything that they want, so you have to compromise. The Democrats took out things that their base approved of and added tax cuts to draw Republicans in and they wanted none of it. I see no efforts from the Republicans at compromise here; offered 40% in tax cuts they, probably would want 70% if they could get it. That’s now how it works, especially when the president appeared to be acting in good faith, despite the fact that he could basically pass the bill over their heads without their input. You don’t get to call the shots when your party has been thoroughly rebuked by the population in the last two elections.
Bithead,
“Obama’s pork got 11 Dems to vote against it. At what point between 11 and 28 does these numbers become a big deal?”
Are you trying to be obtuse, or does it just come naturally to you? 28 is infinitely larger than 0, which is the relevant comparison.
You’re right-it was senior executive staff.
And besides (to all the above), the bill will still have to go to conference, and I’m pretty sure the Senate will make some (not insubstantial) changes to it. Some House Republicans may well come on board in the end.
Mike p.
Are the republicans not supposed to vote the way the people who voted them into office want them to? I guess you do not believe in representative government. Polls show most people don’t think government spending is the answer. Government does not make money, it takes money from one place to give it to another. How is stealing from Peter to pay Paul going to fix this? I would hate to see your credit card bills.
Zelsdorf,
I have no problem with representative government, but the polling on this issue is all over the place and I don’t think that every single voter in every single district represented by every single Republican who voted against the bill is anti-stimulus.
What I am simply saying is that sometimes to get things done, you have to give something up. I understand principles but you can’t always get what you want.
And my finances are quite ok, thank you. 🙂
No, they’re saying Obama has presented us with the wrong answer… one that will make things worse. It always has.
So, when a small band of Democrats initially vote for a Bush measure, it’s a major deal. But when 11 dems vote against Obama, it’s not?
Why not just forgo having elections and just use polling data to decide everything.
And no, representatives should not automatically vote according to the average will of their constituents.
They replaced it with larger funding for STD education and prevention, which I suppose one can do with contraceptives.
I should correct myself the STD education was always in the bill, so it didn’t replace the separate contraceptive provisions.
To its critics, the bill is going to be defined by its stupidest provisions — it might be the anti-smoking provisions since we need the commerce and states need the tax revenue.
I’m not really surprised or bothered by this proceedings. The Republicans have apparently figured out what it took the Democrats 6 years to do, which is that they are the Opposition Party. It’s their job to present alternatives and criticize the Dominant Party’s positions and legislation.
It has been my experience Democrats do not vote as their constituents wish, unless they are representative of the leftist agenda represented by the likes of the evil Nancy Pelosi. I call the Democratic leaders evil because they do not rob me with a gun, they use legislation to take away money I earned to spend it on things I do not support. If you came to my house to rob me, I could defend myself with deadly force. Against the evil creaping of the left, I only have the Republicans.
I believe PD, that the bridge-fixin’ is in there, hidden amongst the junk.
Which is the real problem with this bill.
If the bill were in reality bridge fixing and tax cuts the GOP may have supported it, but it was full of junk that looked like nothing more than the typical pork-earmark type stuff you find in every other bill. It was full of a bunch of liberal pet projects they wanted to fund, and some of the areas it sought to stimulate were areas that aren’t in need of stimulus.
When you are talking about spending almost a trillion dollars, the bill needs to be limited in scope to actual stimulus. If you have to think more than 3 seconds why something is stimulus and not pork,. then it goes in the pork column.
And I will grant that some of the stuff in the stimulus bill may be good-and may be needful, but it needs to be a bill based on its own merit, not added to a stimulus bill and promoted as stimulus.
That is where the house democrats went wrong-they decided anything and everything they could give money to was stimulus. It is in most part a spending bill dressed up as stimulus.
I think we would do better to do nothing than pass this piece of crap.
That’s the rub, “just me”. I’m open to that argument, but to make it you have to really say that the economy will recover, and not suffer undue pain, without any stimulus whatsoever.
Is that true? If the economists could make that as a clear case (and not a classic left-right, he said, she said), we might all rest easier.
In other words, the only people saying “we don’t need stimulus” are people who have had their wagons hitched to lower taxes and sending .. really their whole lives. Just as people who are gleeful about stimulus have loved spending their whole lives.
… it is the battle of the stopped clocks!
That’s the rub, “just me”. I’m open to that argument, but to make it you have to really say that the economy will recover, and not suffer undue pain, without any stimulus whatsoever.
Define undue pain.
Because the one thing about a recession is that it comes with pain.
I am necessarily opposed to actual public works/infrastructure spending. You are going to have to convince me though that funding STDs, condoms, computer programs, etc fit this bill. I have seen four different liberals defend this stuff with four different answers-that indicates to me these are more somebody’s pet projects than actual stimulus.
Maybe the best way to vote on a stimulus package is to break it into tax cut/tax policy portions and spending portions, where each item-area of spending is voted on, because like i said this trillion dollar stimulus bill looks like your typical earmark/pork barrel-“let me add my pet project” bill that goes through the house.
But if we are going to spend a trillion dollars and dig an even deeper debt hole, then we don’t need to rush and we need to make sure every line item on the bill is actually something the majority of people can see as being stimulus. Four different answers as to why an answer is stimulus doesn’t necessarily make it a bad idea, it just means it isn’t stimulus.
Bithead,
“So, when a small band of Democrats initially vote for a Bush measure, it’s a major deal. But when 11 dems vote against Obama, it’s not?”
So when you initially said “the stone wall the Democrats were in terms of Bush policy, for eight years, despite his bending over backward to accomidate them.”, you meant that the very leaky wall that the Democrats built having roughly 15% of their caucus supporting the measure proposed by the President of the opposite party, and Republicans should emulate them by not voting in lockstep in opposition to that President and instead providing 20+ votes here. Got it.
Define undue pain.
6.41% Of ALL Mortgages Late or In Foreclosure
I really don’t know, Just. Are we at the end on that or in the beginning?
More here:
It seems an unanswerable question, which is better, messy stimulus, or the wait for a “natural” bottom in home ownership?
Here is a link to a page that has links to summaries of each of the major sections on the House bill: House Stimulus Bill.
Here’s the paragraph with the links (if you don’t want to go the main page cited — or if you fear your soul will be ineradicably stained when you find yourself at HuffPo):
A couple of things here: The press and republicans are missing the fact that when you upgrade the countries energy infrastructure, when its done you’ve created opportunity for new private industry. Right now solar and wind-farm companies have the means to jump start alternative energy but lack the infrastructure to do it. Just like AT&T got money in the 30’s and all the commerce generated from that. So, maybe short term it won’t create all the jobs we need, but long term it does. Additionally, short term the working class — who are hit really hard — get some additional opportunities, but the skilled work force also get some. You need labor to build bridges, but engineers to design them before that.
Also, can anyone point to 4 or 5 items that are absolute pork that are in the current bill? I have not read the whole thing, but the portions I have don’t seem like pork to me. Its like the ethanol subsidies debate: I think they are pork, but farming states don’t. I want to know with fact and figures what pork is in the bill…4 or 5 items…
Good to see where Sullivan’s coming from: Obama bought the Republicans dinner, so now they should be obligated to put out. Hey, maybe Sully’s a conservative after all!
So, let me understand this. To be a stone wall, the Dems have to vote as a unit? Funny thing; THe Republicans have never voted as a unit in the last eight years, with this one vote being the exception. And yet we hear that the Republcians have been stonewalling Democats for that timeframe.
Which way we goin’ with this, anyway?
Bithead,
“To be a stone wall, the Dems have to vote as a unit?”
Yes, that’s pretty much the definition.
“Funny thing; THe Republicans have never voted as a unit in the last eight years, with this one vote being the exception.”
As the British say, pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
“Which way we goin’ with this, anyway?”
Showing that the real world is nothing at all like what the voices in your head tell you.
Is bit actually some sort of Rod Blagojevich doppleganger? It would explain the lack of contact with reality…
Two danger signs ahead:
1. Obama’s (or Algore’s for that matter)call to rush this through is evidence that it can’t stand the light of day. Analyze it to death -educate the masses why it’s bad and use what liberals use – fear, envy, anger, to get it done.
Innovative policy is what gets us into trouble. Wasn’t the innovative CRA the sub-prime puncture in our economic raft what sunk us in the first place? Innovation is the holy grail of the left (think of FDR’s inovations turning a recession into the great depression)- try instead using simple basic remedys that have proven themselves over time.
Start referring to those who are shouting fire in a theatre when it’s only the popcorn burning, as what they are -panic mongers and harmful to the cause and probably (dare I say it MSM)unpatriotic partisans, all the way.
DL,
“think of FDR’s inovations turning a recession into the great depression”
Wow. Just wow. Can I have a hit of what you’re smoking, please?
So, the Democrat compaints about Republican stonewalling even when they’ve been in the minority and not voting as a block in the past, is all nonsense? You really sure you wanna go this route?
Wow. Just wow. Can I have a hit of what you’re smoking, please?
It’s called “reality”.
Look into it. I’m sure you’ll find it an interesting concept, should you ever manage to grasp the basics of it.
I’ll say it again, flatly this time: FDR made the situation worse, turnninga recession into a full-on depression. I think this a bit above you, Dantheman, but give this one a try. Or, this. And this.
Bithead,
“FDR made the situation worse, turnninga recession into a full-on depression.”
You sure have a funny way with terms. When GDP drops 25% from 1929 to 1932 (see chart), it’s a recession. When it starts rising again, it’s a full-on depression.
Don’t quit your day job to go into economics.
That answer is clear indication you dind’t actually read any of the links provided.
Try again.
Bithead,
No — I read the first 2, and my company’s browser rejected the third. It’s just that they are simple polemics with no data behind them, a certainly no attempt to actually deal with the sort of data I cited. I said months ago that you were like the folks in the 30’s cursing “that man in the White House”. It’s nice to see you are consistent.
Heh. I was right. Here’s a clue. Do better than skimming.
And while you’re at it, try arguing with ULCA
Here’s two clues.
1. the University is typically abbreviated UCLA, not ULCA.
2. If you had even skimmed as far as the title, you’d see your most recent item speaks to whether FDR prolonged the Great Depression, not caused it. Whether he prolonged the Depression is something which can be argued without sounding like a total fool. Arguing it was only a recession before he took office, as both you and DL said, not so much.