Ryan Avent asks why Obama would want to get more votes than he needs to pass his stimulus plan.
That's easy: insurance. If you ram through a stimulus package that makes Democrats happy while causing Republicans to scream bloody murder, you run the risk that the plan will not work, and the Republicans will dance on your grave all the way to a convincing victory in 2010. I deduce from Obama's surprisingly aggressive bipartisanship that he fears there is a good chance that his stimulus package will cost a lot of money, and we will still be deep in the economic doldrums two years hence.
This seems like a very reasonable fear. We're in uncharted territory here; anything could happen. Wise, then, to ensure that whatever does happen has the opposition's fingerprints on it, too.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Don't overlook the obvious - he might really need the votes. Moderate Repubs may be easier to buy off than left wing Dems, thus delivering a cheaper consensus than a pure Dem majority would cost.
If Dem congressional leadership is divided or weak, then the cost of buying off his left wing rises dramatically, making moderate repubs even more valuable to Obama.
If the plan doesn't work, it's not going to matter who voted for it.
Republicans will obstruct mercilessly for some months; if Obama wants to get 21 of them on board, they say, then they want to have their say in the bill.
They'll bid it down from 750 billion to something more "responsible." They'll ensure the bulk of it is wasted on tax cuts and non-stimulating pork. They might even strongman the Dems into promising to forestall Obama's tax hikes. Then, when the neutered bill finally reaches the floor, they'll send their 22 safest senators to vote for it, and make damn sure the other 20 put up a huge fight.
The package won't help, the economy will worsen, and the Dems will be out of power by 2012.
And that's exactly what Obama is asking for, by tipping his hand and revealing he wants a massively bipartisan bill. The country is tired of Republicans, and it voted in 59 dems and a dem president promising change. Why Obama is doing this is beyond me. Come up with an excellent bill, bribe Collins, and ram it the hell through.
Broad bipartisan support also sends a strong signal to the markets, I would expect.
Except Obama seemed to forget that in many, -many- instances Democrats voted for Bush's policies and then turned around and attacked him for those same policies. I think Obama himself did this. So why would he set himself up for the same?
I think a simple explanation is not that he is being crafty and trying to lash others to the same sinking ship. But rather he genuinely views this policy has helping. I wouldn't vote for Obama or McCain but why can't we view this policy as genuine?
Too much second guessing going on these days in the wrong areas.
It's the only hope he has to blame his future failures on Republicans......unfortunately, it won't work. He's got the whole ball of wax, and when the Dems display their inability to not only solve the problems they face, but actually make the problems worse, they, and only they, will have to bear the price.........I just hope the damage isn't too bad........
At the end of the day all politicians allegedly have the best interests of the country at heart -- regardless of their party affiliation. If we're all trying to work towards the same broad goal (economic recovery) then why not work together? Why not build political alliances with people in the other party? Why run in a "my way or the highway" mode? There's no reason to have a perpetually adversarial relationship.
Peter:
Have you been awake for the past eight years? Bush was a "my way or the highway" kind of guy. The Republican party is that way too.
Peter, I think I'm interested in trying the "let's all get along" bit when there's next a Republican president. For now, I think we should stick with the rules that we've beeen using for years.
If it's wise for Obama to have Republican fingerprints, it'd be wise for Republicans to vote no. They shouldn't obstruct, they should say no.
With the exception of going to war, I can't think of another issue that the Republicans felt that they had to have cover from the other side. That's not to say there haven't been plenty of issues (like the despicable comprehensive immigration reform measures) where the Republican administration reached across the aisle because there just wasn't enough support on their own side.
In the case of war, there definitely something to be said for not having the party out of power left on the outside, and in their view, free undermine the war effort. But compromising on your principles just because you might get blamed when they pass? SOP on the left, I guess.
The more "extra" votes you have past the required number is cushion against being "held up" by one of the people already in your camp.
If you only have as many votes as you need, then any one of those voting with you can threaten not to and start making demands. If you have a surplus of votes you can disregard such threats.
This RX seems frighteningly reminiscent of what was once derisively termed "voodoo economics" when the same economic logic was practiced by none other than Ronald Reagan. It's easy to print more money and throw a welcoming party, but so far there's a lack of evidence that the country has the discipline to wean itself off oil and endless credit.
I'm ready for the celebration of new leadership in Washington. Heck, I may even buy some commemorative Obama stamps from QVC come inaugural weekend. But the clock is ticking, the bill is ballooning, and I can't help but ask: where's our finacial fix if we forever refuse to pay up?
I'll try to be patient but someone needs to remind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid not to get gidding yet. Washington needs to legislate systemic changes to our economy -- i.e. more business oversight, increased ethics legislation, a reward system for improved efficiencies and better products -- and not just a thumb in the dyke.
CrabbyGolightly.com.
Crabby - Do we not already have a reward system for improved efficiencies and better products? Or do you mean that we need different definitions for the terms "efficient" and "better?" Legislated definitions?
I'm less worried about the votes and the politics than I am the price. What's going to prevent us from becoming one of those countries that can't pay their debts?
'Make sure they're on board for the take-off, if you want them on board for the crash landing.'
Just how is this "stimulus" any different from trying to fill a swimming pool by filling a bucket from it at one end and carrying it to the other end? (Using a leaky bucket...)
Does anyone else see us going through IMF-style restructuring in the medium-future, finally causing SOMEBODY to step in and slash and burn through pork barrel spending, since it will never, ever, ever go away now that the mob has discovered it can vote itself the treasury and a the representatives have discovered how to buy off said mob...?
There's really little to do during an economic contraction other than try to mitigate abject suffering, I'd say. Poking, prodding, dumping inflationary money, restricting access to particular financial markets, whatever, none of it has been proven to do anything but prolong the inevitable and sometimes even to make it worse (and no I'm not really going off of the Great Depression argument that keeps cropping up on the internet, just a general observation from history.)
While I am no economic historian, off-hand I've never heard tell of a stimulus package or for that matter a laissez-faire policy a la post-Soviet Russia that did any good to stave off a recession, Depression, or what have you. It's a fact of life that people will have to at some point suffer or at the very least do without, even in America; at least here this economic downturn will still mean orders of magnitude fewer families going hungry or without some kind of shelter than in most other places in the world.
Megan and other friends may wish to note that two (and four) years hence are not quite uncharted territory. Try this: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Aftermath.pdf
Judging by the historical resord shown in this paper, it is odds against the stimulus package being seen to work in two years, and a real possibility that we will still be in a pretty bad mess in four years. trying to make sure the blame is shared is sound politics; and looking for all the consensus you can get behind policies which may do some good is good economice if expectations play any part in the eventual outcome.
If you ram through a stimulus package that makes Democrats happy while causing Republicans to scream bloody murder, you run the risk that the plan will not work, and the Republicans will dance on your grave all the way to a convincing victory in 2010.
What makes you think that the Republicans wouldn't demagogue against the plan even after voting for it? How many Democrats voted for Bush's tax cuts, the invasion of Iraq, the continued funding of that war, the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales, ...?
If the plan doesn't work, it's not going to matter who voted for it.
THIS
The American people hold the party in power responsible for the welfare of the nation. If things get worse, it won't matter, they'll blame the Dems for not doing enough, or doing to much that was counter productive.
All that matters is results, since the average Joe won't be paying attention to the details. If Obama's planning this for insurance, it's a bad move.
We've had 8 years of the Rovian, politically-driven, 51% strategy, on the heels of a partisan impeachment attempt. That and the domestic, economic and foreign policy disasters we currently face are the legacy of Republican rule.
Obama's entire campaign was based on changing that way of doing business. Most Americans, I think, voted for him with the expectation that he will approach the problems we face seriously, transparently and relatively free of partisan concerns. His approach here is nothing more than doing what he promised to do. (Talk about not overlooking the obvious.)
Is it also good politics? It got him elected, so I'm guessing yes. If Republicans want to be seen not only as the creators of the massive problems we face, but then as obstructing serious efforts to solve those problems, they will be the ones taking a massive political risk.
Paul Krugman addresses this very issue today in a very convincing way ( http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/ ). Basically, he says that to satisfy the R's, Obama risks underdoing the stimulus (and Krugman gives great numbers for this) and then when the stimulus has only modest impact, he'll take the blame.
Most people won't agree...but the fact is that Obama and Bush have a whole lot in common. They are both "big government...big spending politicians". They both reject the free market. They both think that they are smarter than everyone else. Only important difference...Bush is out and Obama is now in.