Stimulating

Chris Hayes looks at the pretty disappointing stimulus package that's apparently been agreed to and argues "I think progressives have to do some very long, deep, sustained thinking about why this congress has been such a failure." I dunno about that. The man's not single-handedly to blame for every problem with this congress, but the main reason the congress has been so disappointing has been that George W. Bush is still President.

The initial Democratic proposal was much better than what eventually got agreed to. The Republicans were, however, fanatically opposed to using the food stamps or unemployment insurance programs as stimulus levers, and, as ever, focused on trying to make the thing as helpful as possible to rich people. Go to Kevin Drum for the details. The result is, it's true, a not-very-good package. But the reason it's not very good is the Republicans not some mystifying failure on Nancy Pelosi's fault.

Comments

the main reason the congress has been so disappointing has been that George W. Bush is still President.

I disagree. See the FISA debate for an example of the Dems acting with zero regard for what the country wants. See Iraq for the Dems failing to stand up to him out of a deeply ingrained fear of being subjected to GOP foot-stamping.

The Democratic Congress is bad because it's uninterested in and afraid of good.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 24, 2008 2:04 PM

There are thirty Dems in the House who think they've dispatched their entire obligation to the party when they don't vote for a Republican Speaker. Subtract that from 230 or so, and you don't have a working majority.

On anything except organizational votes, there is no 'Democratic majority', not so long as the Salazars and Borens and Schulers and Berrys are elected in the numbers they are.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | January 24, 2008 2:18 PM

This legislation was pretty much veto-proof and filibuster proof... either of those actions on the part of Republicans would have sent the markets into a tail spin, so, for once, they would have grudgingly accepted whatever the Democrats passed.

That being the case, the Dems did a very poor job of exploiting this opportunity.

Posted by Spike | January 24, 2008 2:22 PM

And blue dog democrats vote consistently with republicans, making it difficult to get meaningful legislation out of the House.

Posted by blindjoedeath | January 24, 2008 2:22 PM

I disagree with Elvis on the stimulus.

As far as FISA, Harry Reid has shown tremendous backbone. All he needed was a real Democrat to use it against.

Posted by crack | January 24, 2008 2:22 PM

Elvis:
I don't think framing the congresses motivations and preferred outcomes in a good/bad frame will improve our understanding here. Rather, I think the Democrats (especially in the Senate) display relatively large intergroup differentials in terms of policy priorities when compared to the GOP which makes organizing and passing legislation difficult. Hence, the hoary old "its like herding cats" analogy.

I think you're closer in terms of motivation--many congressional Democrats still believe that the American Public is to their right and will punish them if they vigorously pursue a strong liberal agenda (e.g. see Reid on the Fisa bill).

Posted by Rice | January 24, 2008 2:29 PM

The problem is that there is no force outside of the Congress to punsish and push back on the Republicans for acting in an intransigent destructive manner. It used to be you would be called a bad American for acting the way the minority House Republicans and Senators are acting, not anymore. The media system blends them out of the story to tell a fairy tale about "both sides" and "hyper partizanship" and "bi partisanship".
If one side acts rationally and the other acts like a serial killer but isn't called on it, well there is no incentive for him to stop killing. Basic game theory. Only the big corporate media can call an end to the republican blockage and for whatever reason they choose not to do so.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 24, 2008 2:29 PM

Sorry, Matt, I'm with Elvis on this one. If Congress were controlled by the GOP with razor-thin majorities, can you imagine the f*%$@#* b*%&$@ "stimulus" that would be crammed down our throats?

I'm beginning to believe the age-old adage about the water in Washington. Since Reagan it's been a Republican town in spirit if not in numbers, and everybody there has internalized this to a pathological degree, despite the clear desire expressed by voters in '06. I don't see any solution in sight except to toss them all under the bus, starting with Reid and Pelosi.

The crucial mistake, of course, was trusting moderate Republicans.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 24, 2008 2:30 PM

Why would anyone want to use the food stamp program for stimulus? That would make sense if we specifically wanted to stimulate demand for food, I guess, but that's not really what we want. It might also make sense if the food stamp allowance was inadequate, but it's not (despite claims by some ...my wife and I eat very well by spending less than the food stamp allowance, in an expensive urban area, without even really trying that hard.)

Posted by ed | January 24, 2008 2:34 PM

Moderate Republican

see also: vegetarian crocodile.

Doubtless a member of each type can be found - but how hard must one look?

Posted by sashaqz | January 24, 2008 2:39 PM

No, Matt, that's textbook incompetence dodge logic. The fact is that Bush is President and the Republicans are crazy and only support economic measures that help the very rich. The question is what, in light of this, will the Democratic leadership do to keep their caucus in line? How about we rattle some cages? Say that the committees will not fund Bushdog X in the manner to which he or she has grown accustomed. Say that party big names won't campaign or fundraise for Bushdog X. Say that you will burn Bushdog X and his fellow Bushdogs publicly and/or in the press for being the votes that prevent the stimulus package. It's a goddamn 30 seat majority, with an inordinate number of vulnerable Republicans facing tough re-election races, and who are vulnerable to economic attacks from their left. Mathematically, it doesn't make sense, unless you have people who should be helping to make things better blowing the Dems off and suffering no consequences.

Posted by MSB | January 24, 2008 2:45 PM

The dumbest bit, raising the conforming limit, is Barney Franks' idea. Score one for the Democrats.

The Democrats want to give a hand-out to their voters, who don't pay taxes. There's no reason to cut the stimulus at $150,000 (remember, those folks aren't rich, according to big three Democrat presidential candidates). But regardless of stimulus effect, the hand-out must be paid for, and so it is.

ed has it right on the stupid idea to push money out through food stamps. MY won't defend these ideas, he'd rather attack those who oppose them. MY, how about some courage: explain why this obviously stupid idea is worth enacting?

Posted by Thomas | January 24, 2008 3:03 PM

Hello: Many folks in the net roots have a flawed understaning how hard it is to get things done in the American system. This was a good thing during the first six years of the Republican administration with a Republican majority in Congress, which despite the huge amount harm done, much was blocked (and much more should have been blocked). The facts are the Democrats have only a narrow control of Congress. The Senate is divided 50-49, with Lieberman, more pro-war then Bush, only ostensibly a Democrat, and militant Republican - Conservative wing in the House willing to sustain any veto, anything this Congress passes into law will be a flaw compromise, especially since Bush is not particularly interested in doing anything that will make the Democrats look good. The only thing I am bitter about is FISA, since the Democrats could simply not bring the matter up and blame Bush and the Republicans for threatening both U.S. security as well as scuppering the rights of U.S. citizens in their obstinacy and lust for power. The Democrats could have hearings where they parade long lists of U.S. citizens, preferably white and blonde, who are on no-fly lists and have suffered harassment from the FBI because they called friends or business associates in Egypt, Jordan, etc. Lawrence Wright mentioned the impact on his daughter of the apparent wiretapping of his phone while he was researching the Looming Tower in his article on Admiral McConnell recently in the New Yorker.

Posted by Rickster Sherpa | January 24, 2008 3:10 PM

I'm not sure that we need "stimulus" as much as we just need relief to tide people over while the mess shakes out.

Extending unemployment benefits and food stamps will help people during rough times. Maybe a small advance on a tax refund might help too. However, any efforts to prop up the housing industry, like raising the conforming limit, are ridiculous. The housing industry can just take their lumps, as far as I'm concerned, and any suffering caused by it can be abated by the aforementioned relief ideas.

Using this crisis as an excuse to extend tax cuts is no different than looting an electronics store during a natural disaster-- it's just trying to grab what you want by taking advantage of chaos.

Posted by Tyro | January 24, 2008 3:12 PM

I agree with Matt. The kinds of things that Bush proposes as parts of a "stimulus" proves either that his administration doesn't know what stimulus means, or they don't care about producing a stimulus except as a way of pushing policies they otherwise favor (e.g. the "temporary" tax cuts we still have). The latter is much more likely. Bush doesn't care about getting anything at all to pass and would happily veto everything that doesn't advance some policy goal. This is a lame-duck admin with no legislative agenda. The GOP in the Senate is basically the same.

In a normal situation, the majority would have something to hold over the president's head in order to get some compliance. In this case they have nothing, and have to do everything with zero, or almost zero, GOP cooperation. Americans and particularly Democrats don't understand this, but it's very hard to get anything done in the Senate without some cooperation. Reid does seem to be rolling over on some issues like FISA, but this idle speculation about how the American people would rise up in support of the Dems if they put up a real fight seems a bit far fetched to me.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | January 24, 2008 3:20 PM

Stimulus packages are almost always disappointing since they're almost exclusively done to score political points rather than affect the economy in any measurable way.

Posted by Ron | January 24, 2008 3:23 PM

Politics 101: first you put up the bill that you can get the people to support.

Second, if the bad guys block it (Bush veto, Senate filibuster, whatever), you use every tool at your disposal to make sure they take the rap for it.

In the case of a Senate filibuster, this would involve actually making the GOP filibuster the stimulus bill. This would be the ideal make-'em-filibuster opportunity this year.

Lastly, if the 'good' bill gets killed anyway, you finally compromise.

Fucking fuck. Doesn't any goddamn Democrat in this town know how to lose well?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 24, 2008 3:46 PM

Doesn't any goddamn Democrat in this town know how to lose well?

Well, they're real good at losing, but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

Posted by rea | January 24, 2008 3:55 PM

"The result is, it's true, a not-very-good package. But the reason it's not very good is the Republicans not some mystifying failure on Nancy Pelosi's fault."

Dream on, Matt. The dems whore for the same special interests as the reps. It's our 1 party repulicratic political system hard at work.

Posted by kafka | January 24, 2008 4:40 PM

Harry and Nancy caving on FISA in August completely destroyed even the minimal trust I had in the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Why do they even bother to pass laws at all if the telcos can just buy their way out of breaking them?

Could we maybe take up a collection so we can do the same thing? I mean, I know we're not rich, but maybe we could buy our way out of some traffic violations or something. Or getting sued by the RIAA...

Posted by lambert strether | January 24, 2008 5:30 PM

I agree with Matt if the question is, why hasn't the Congress been able to get better legislation through? But the real question, at least for me at this moment, is, why in the name of God they make the concessions they do?

Take the current bill as an example (similar stories could be told about SCHIP, Iraq funding, the 2008 budget, etc.). The Dems started with an objectively better, more popular policy stance than the Republicans. The President offered several important concessions right out of the gate (his hand being forced by reality, at last - and let's face it, his temporary cessation of obstinance is the only reason a stimulus bill is even being considered). Everyone in Congress, especially vulnerable incumbents, of whom there are more Rs than Ds, wants to get a bill passed quickly. So the GOP goes into negotiations with a weak hand.

What happens? The Dems split the difference with them. Instead of pushing to get a good bill through with a narrow majority, they settle for a bill that's half okay & half god-awful. It may not even pass - in fact i wouldn't be surprised at all if it falls short, between the Rs that won't get behind it under any circumstances (probably w/ the quiet, tacit encouragement of the White House who want more than anything to have the Ds come out looking weak) and the Ds they'll have alienated by cutting this deal. If that happens, it's the worst of both worlds for the Dems: having abandoned their pretty good ideas & goten behind a bunch of rotten GOP ideas, they'll still be stuck with the blame if the bill fails. Even short of that, if the bill gets through, the Rs will get most of the credit.

Pulling my hair out doesn't seem to be helping, so i'll go over & read Chris Hayes to see if his commenters have any bright ideas.

Posted by TW | January 24, 2008 5:46 PM

Unfortunately, the economic crisis we face is much deeper than the ups and downs of the stock market and the problems the stimulus package is meant to address. So it's all the more ironic that the Wisconsin insurance commissioner, of all people, is called on to help save the nation's financial system. Wisconsin insurance commissioner suddenly has some very big, Ambac-size shoes to fill.

Posted by Madison Guy | January 24, 2008 7:36 PM

Lousy post, Matt. You've gotten careless lately. I disagree with what you're saying -- this seems like a big political/policy error to me -- but even if you think you're right you need to defend yourself better and not lazily assume what you're saying is obvious.

Bottom line: the Dems should have insisted that the Reps either strip the business tax cuts or add in something for aid to states or safety net programs. If the Reps sink the package over holding firm on business giveaways while at the same time refusing to aid states or the poor, that's a win. A big fucking win.

Boehner rolled Pelosi.

Posted by mq | January 24, 2008 11:35 PM

"Lousy post, Matt. You've gotten careless lately."

Lately?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 24, 2008 11:44 PM