Previewing the Senate Stimulus Debate: Do They Have the Votes?
As this slow news day moves on, it's a good time to prepare for the Senate stimulus debate that will begin on Monday -- it's shaping up an only slightly more genial cage match than we saw in the House.
One possible X factor arising today is the sideline maneuvering of Sen. Ben "Gang of 14" Nelson. He's staying true to form by trying to build a bipartisan coalition of senators to support major changes to the House bill.
Nelson is talking about increased infrastructure spending, which sounds good, but also cutting health and education aid that leaders in both chambers hold dear. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is reportedly joining in this effort, though it's unclear whether these are the same talks that are also attracting John McCain.
To an extent, these crafty moves on the sideline are part of the Senate culture. It happened on judges with the Gang of 14, it happened on energy with the "Gang of 10," and it even happened during the 2007 debate over cutting Iraq war funding -- which ended with "benchmarks" for progress that Nelson helped write. That these bipartisan meetings are occurring means only that it's a normal workday.
But if Harry Reid called the stimulus up for a vote next week, would he have the votes? He might not have Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), who said on Fox today ...
Look, I'd have a very hard time voting for what came over from the House. While there is much in it that's laudable and good, there are other areas of the package that I think, really, are very questionable in terms of whether they'd stimulate the economy.
The Senate stimulus differs from the House version in some marked ways, including a fix for the alternative minimum tax and more generous business tax cuts. But the Republican who led the charge to add the AMT, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), has blasted the process behind drafting the bill and looks likely to oppose it.
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who backed the stimulus' tax cut portion last week, looks gettable. If Reid loses one or two Democrats, however, he'd need to make up that deficit on the GOP side -- Dems now hold a 58-41 majority, until the Minnesota race is resolved.
And we know how much Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) likes the smell of a filibuster in the morning ...
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Is the colture vote still 60 with only 99 senators? This could be why Coleman is tying up Franken in the courts. One vote could be a big difference if it's going to be close.
January 30, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sixty it is. The FUBAR in MN should be over in a couple of weeks. I believe the legal time limit for the trial is 3 weeks. If it comes down to one vote, Reid can put off the vote for a while.
January 30, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd actually be willing to leave the Pell and NIH increases, important as they are, for later bills IF the tradeoff is more for infrastructure as opposed to more tax cuts.
January 30, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. But all of this exemplifies the reason why the Democrats should have called the GOP's bluff on the "nuclear option". Progressives would do better in the long run if the filibuster didn't exist.
January 30, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let them filibuster while the economy is in free fall...
January 30, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say call their bluffs. If the Republicans and the Republicrat Bush Dogs want to vote against the stimulus let them. Then let Obama demand prime time and go over their heads to the public. People want leadership and they want a President tough enough to face down Republicans and Republicrats.
January 30, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have a label problem here. Stimulus Bill indicates just that...stimulus to grow the pie. But Recovery Bill, which I've also heard, can include both things to grow the pie and to ensure the pie doesn't end up on the floor in the meantime. In other words, we need things that don't stimulate but that stem the bleeding of the American people. Of course, paying increased unemployment and food stamps or creating more gov't jobs of any kind doesn't grow or stimulate the economy in the long run. But the short term problem we have right now is pretty serious and we can make the long term problem much worse if don't do enough to buy ourselves some time.
I think it needs to be made abundantly clear that the goal is twofold here when the Rs argue that certain things are not stimulus. I would prefer the term Recovery Bill.
January 30, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the GOP does indeed filibuster. let's have them forced to do it the right way w/ non-stop floor speeches and actions. I think the public would soon lose any support for their position in being against a Stim Plan and how bad so many Americans are hurting...
January 30, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if that's necessary. Just have an actual vote instead of folding the tent at the threat. Make them get on the record. Bring it back again and again and make them keep voting no. I don't think the R's have the stomach for it and I'm pretty sure the folks back home will have a thing or two to say to them about it.
I really doubt it will be necessary, though. I count a half dozen R's who might be persuaded to vote for it. They may need a small concession or two, but they're gettable. All are from states Obama won and most are up for re-election in 2010.
Collins, Snowe, Specter, Martinez, Gregg, Voinovich, Burr
January 30, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, gotta love the way these Blue Dog assholes were all for throwing trillions down the Iraq rathole and pretending it was free money, but tsk tsk we certainly can't be wasting far smaller sums on frills like health and education. Fuckers.
January 30, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
January 30, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing with the Gang of 14 and all the other gangs is this: The Democrats caved and got NOTHING (unless you count Roberts and Alito as something).
January 30, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans wanted to end the filibuster rule a few years ago. I would hang that duplicity around their necks every single day.
January 30, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inside-the-beltway talk doesn't impress voters. Successful action does.
January 30, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans COULD HAVE ended it years ago and they decided against it. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats will hold themselves up to the same standards if they are able to do it themselves. My guess? No.
January 31, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just sent Conrad an email politely but firmly reminding him that while he has a steady job, lifetime health care and just got a raise, people out here in the real world are suffering and can't wait for the Senate to play their silly games. We need help NOW.
People need to bombard these clowns with letters and emails telling them to knock it off.
I'm from Oregon, so I'm also going to write Wyden and Merkely and thank them for standing up for this.
January 30, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elana, your reporting has been terrific, but I have to disagree with your tea leaves on Grassley. On NPR yesterday, he said, more or less, that he and others are not worried about the price tag, just that there is not enough infrastructure spending. I think Grassley is an excellent bellwether for this process: if he's happy with the addition of more infrastructure spending, this bill will pass with votes to spare.
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=100027453&m=100027436
January 30, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shit I wouldn't vote for it either without a reduction to some of the needless business tax cuts and more infrastructure spending. You must understand, if the bill isn't made with the sufficient amount of what is needed, it shouldn't pass.
January 30, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a stimus bill that is supposed to stimulate the economy, not a welfare bill.
I really wonder if the folks in here whining about the tax cuts have even taken a basic economics class.
Use intelligence and determine what is supposed to actually stimulate the economy and what is just another pork handout to a liberal-leaning cause.
My guess is that there are a lot of liberal-minded folks trying to pass off their cause as part of a real stimulus rather than just telling it like it is. I find this pathetic. This is no different than Bush.
I support ANYONE Democrat or Republican that holds up this bill and votes against it. It is full of pork and will not stimulate the economy very much.
When it fails, does anyone really think congress will accept its role for that? Of course not.
This is all about politics. Once again, politicians are putting their party above the people. If you believe otherwise, you've seriously drank the kool-aid or you don't care because you support them increasing their power.
January 31, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moron. Learn something yourself instead of trying to lecture your betters with your standard brain-dead right-wing drivel. Almost any economist, even conservative ones like Martin Feldstein, will tell you that the job-creation multiplier of tax cuts is substantially lower than for government spending, and that furthermore tax cuts to better-off people who will save most of the money create almost no jobs at all. Ditto the kinds of business tax cuts Obama stuck in the plan as an attempted sop to Republicans.
January 31, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink