Bipartisanship!

There's something hilarious about the tone of this Washington Post "analysis" article on the stimulus package. Basically, the theme of the piece is that bipartisanship is good, that passing legislation is good, and that bipartisanship is good because it makes it easier to pass legislation, which is good. Lost in the fog somewhere is the point that it's better to pass good bills than bad ones and that this stimulus package is a pretty bad one.

Indeed, the CBO estimated that the most effective stimulus idea would be a temporary boost in food stamps. They concluded that the second most effective stimulus idea would be an increase in the duration of unemployment benefits. Democrats proposed both of those things. But Republicans wouldn't go along with either. So in order to make the bill bipartisan, the best idea was stripped out. And so was the second best idea. I don't necessarily blame the Democrats for making the compromises necessary to get a bill passed, but the fact of the matter is that bipartisanship made this bill worse than a one-party bill would have been.

Comments

"...but the fact of the matter is that bipartisanship made this bill worse than a one-party bill would have been."

It strikes me as naive to think that a democratic version of the bill would have stopped at food stamps and unemployment insurance.

Posted by Helter | January 25, 2008 3:39 PM

Please tell your colleague McMegan about the CBO analysis. Her take on the food stamp program -- that poor people are all disgusting fatties who should eat less anyway -- was as ill-informed as it was offensive.

Posted by DC Reader | January 25, 2008 3:40 PM

Please tell your colleague McMegan about the CBO analysis. Her take on the food stamp program -- that poor people are all disgusting fatties who should eat less anyway -- was as ill-informed as it was offensive.

Posted by DC Reader | January 25, 2008 3:40 PM

DC: McCurdled probably thinks that the poor are supposed to eat the actual stamps.

Posted by Jamey | January 25, 2008 3:48 PM

..but the fact of the matter is that bipartisanship made this bill worse than a one-party bill would have been.

Well, not better than a one-party bill would have been. It entirely depends upon which part.

Posted by Mark | January 25, 2008 3:49 PM

Bad html, sorry

Posted by Mark | January 25, 2008 3:50 PM

But Mathew, wait for the sanctified non political one, Obama, he will make bipartisaship work. He does not need no stinking party.

Posted by stellaa | January 25, 2008 3:51 PM

McCurdled probably thinks that the poor are supposed to eat the actual stamps.

Nah, she just thinks that her glibertarian fanbois should stamp on the poor, after deploying their 2x4s.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 25, 2008 3:54 PM

There is an ontological argument problem with the above analysis. Assuming that the bill that gets passed (which may differ from the House bill) is better than nothing, then a one party bill could only be better than the bipartisan bill if it would pass. Since bills that became law are ontologically better than bills that do not.

Posted by Lon | January 25, 2008 3:55 PM

But a one party republican bill would have been worse, from your perspective (and, it happens in this case, the CBO).

And, of course, from the perspective of people who voted for republicans, this bill was better than the one that only gives money to poor people.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that a bill labeled a "stimulus bill" is supposed to be a stimulus bill. Leaving aside that this is unwarranted (consider, if you will, the idea of ethanol programs that are said to reduce the need for imported oil), you should have noticed that pretty much all the programs that have been put into place in the last seven years don't do what their labels say they do.

It is certainly true the that assessment of the efficacy of a program should not be dependent on the process that brought it about. But it is also true that a bipartisan program is less likely to be completely awful (from either perspective--the one who wants to give everything to the poor or the one who would like them to hurry up, die and be done with it so that we can reduce the surplus population.)

Posted by jayackroyd | January 25, 2008 4:15 PM

But a one party republican bill would have been worse, from your perspective (and, it happens in this case, the CBO).

And, of course, from the perspective of people who voted for republicans, this bill was better than the one that only gives money to poor people.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that a bill labeled a "stimulus bill" is supposed to be a stimulus bill. Leaving aside that this is unwarranted (consider, if you will, the idea of ethanol programs that are said to reduce the need for imported oil), you should have noticed that pretty much all the programs that have been put into place in the last seven years don't do what their labels say they do.

It is certainly true the that assessment of the efficacy of a program should not be dependent on the process that brought it about. But it is also true that a bipartisan program is less likely to be completely awful (from either perspective--the one who wants to give everything to the poor or the one who would like them to hurry up, die and be done with it so that we can reduce the surplus population.)

Posted by jayackroyd | January 25, 2008 4:15 PM

Lon, I had basically the same thought. When Giuliani said the best stimulus would be making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he was basically saying there would be no stimulus if he were president, since that bill wouldn't pass. There's no such thing as a one-party bill, unless that one party has 2/3rds of the house and senate, or the presidency, a majority in the house, and 60 votes in the senate.

Posted by Dan | January 25, 2008 4:16 PM

Here in chicago land a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas. A dozen eggs, well if this great economy continues on the same track, will cost more than a gallon of gas in a few months. Oh and 6 grain loaf of bread is over $3.00. I can't even bring myself to talk about the electric or gas bill compared to last year. Poor folks are not the only people having a problem with the current great economy.

Posted by tin foil | January 25, 2008 4:24 PM

"Since bills that became law are ontologically better than bills that do not."

Not at all true. Here are a few examples.

The Bankruptcy bill.

The Kyle Lieberman bill.

The authorization to use military force against Iraq.

Sometimes less is definately more.

Posted by Davebo | January 25, 2008 4:37 PM

Matt misses the point entirely. The point of bipartisan bills is not that they're ideal. It's that they pass. This bill will become law. If either party had gone it alone, there would be no stimulus bill. Sad, but true.

Posted by J.B. | January 25, 2008 4:39 PM

The best line goes to Ehrenreich:

"With all the talk about how to stimulate it, you’d think that the economy is a giant clitoris."

OBAMA 08!

Posted by Peter K. | January 25, 2008 4:42 PM

The point is that the GOP is blinded by ideology over substance, so they favor bad ideas that won't stimulate the economy, like making the Bush tax cuts on the rich investor class permanent. Democrats are open to convincing if their ideology somehow suggests a bad idea.

Posted by bob | January 25, 2008 5:08 PM

We sent your job to China and doubled your cost of living. Here's your check for $300.

Posted by rapier | January 25, 2008 5:12 PM

Indeed, the CBO estimated that the most effective stimulus idea would be a temporary boost in food stamps. They concluded that the second most effective stimulus idea would be an increase in the duration of unemployment benefits

Where does the CBO say this?

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 5:22 PM

Where does the CBO say this?

Many places in this paper, but see Table 1, pp. 20-22. CBO does not come out with explicit advice, but this is quite close to that.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8932/01-22-TestimonyEconStimulus.pdf

It strikes me as naive to think that a democratic version of the bill would have stopped at food stamps and unemployment insurance.

You are underestimated the ideological diversity within the Democratic party. The Dems increasingly include the conservative, moderate, and liberal parties for a sane country.

If the Republicans vanished and the Dems split into a sensible business party and a left-wing party, that would give the best policy.

Posted by mq | January 25, 2008 6:09 PM

Many places in this paper, but see Table 1, pp. 20-22. CBO does not come out with explicit advice, but this is quite close to that.

I see nowhere in that paper where the CBO makes the claim Matt attributed to them. Table 1 ranks various stimulus policies on three criteria but doesn't say anything about which one would be "most effective."

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 6:26 PM

Hint: the ones where the effects would be "large" and "fast" are better than the ones where the effects are "medium" or "small" and "slow". Less uncertainty is better than more uncertainty, etc. Don't know how much more obvious it needs to be for you.

CBO is prohibited by law from recommending specific policies, so you will never find a line in a CBO report that says "you should do X". When they wish to make something clear, they rely on having people with the minimal intelligence necessary to draw obvious conclusions from their reports.

Posted by mq | January 25, 2008 6:35 PM

Hint: the ones where the effects would be "large" and "fast" are better than the ones where the effects are "medium" or "small" and "slow". Less uncertainty is better than more uncertainty, etc.

The CBO doesn't rate them by the size of the effect. It rates them only on cost-effectiveness, lag time, and uncertainty. Obviously, a policy that ranks highly on all three of those criteria may still be inferior to one that ranks lower if its effect would only be modest rather than large. Perhaps that is one reason why the CBO declined to give an overall ranking to the various policies.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 7:04 PM

"Lost in the fog somewhere is the point that it's better to pass good bills than bad ones and that this stimulus package is a pretty bad one."

Lost in the fog of Matt's brain is the concept that this is not a stimulus package at all. It's just an election year vote buying package financed with your children's money.

Posted by kafka | January 25, 2008 7:11 PM

It rates them only on cost-effectiveness, lag time, and uncertainty.

Cost-effectiveness is the size of the effect. It's the economic stimulus effect you get per dollar spent by government. I don't know how much clearer they need to be; apparently you aren't very bright.

As I said, they are prohibited by statute from making explicit policy recommendations.

Posted by mq | January 25, 2008 10:03 PM

Cost-effectiveness is the size of the effect. It's the economic stimulus effect you get per dollar spent by government.

Huh? Cost-effectiveness--"effect per dollar"--is most definitely not the size of the effect. It doesn't tell you anything about the size of the effect. Is this really so hard to understand?

There are obvious reasons to think a much greater stimulus effect is possible through broad policies like general rebates and tax reductions than through narrow policies like increases in food stamps and unemployment benefits. The latter two apply to only a small fraction of the national population and are therefore unlikely to be able to produce a large effect, even if the small effect they can produce is more cost-effective or subject to less uncertainty than the effect produced through broad-based tax manipulations.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 11:05 PM

I run a small business and would love to have the tax cuts. I also know that any tax cuts they make will take months to codify and get passed down. Cutting corporate taxes wont make a difference for quite a while. The big advantage of the food stamp thing is that you can just press a few buttons on some computers and have instant change. Rebate checks will take a bit but may get to people fast enough to make a difference.

I am not sure that we really need a stimulus package right now, but if we decide to do it lets make it time effective.

Steve

Posted by Steve | January 26, 2008 7:20 AM

Tried this at Krugman's blog. Apparently too late.

Anyway ....

Not to get your hopes too high, but this thing may not be over yet. Nothing like the raw terror of an incumbent Republican Senator in the face of economically strapped constituents to focus the mind on compromising those vaunted Conservative "principles" and adding in some unemployment benefits and other fiscally sound features to the stimulus package.

Bush is clearly spooked on this. Absolutely no way is he able to keep the Republicans from breaking ranks on this one in an election year. Do nothing? Schmoo nothing Congress. That one won't play. This is jail break time, baby! Now if only mild mannered Harry Reid could understand that.

P.S. Though Olympia Snowe is not up in 2008, Susan Collins is. And guess who will be the first Republican senator to sign on to any increase in unemployment benefits proposed by Snowe?

Posted by Ed | January 26, 2008 9:14 AM