House Votes on Stimulus Today: A Look at the Numbers
The House of Representatives is slated to vote on its $825 billion economic recovery bill today, as Republicans fret over the level of bipartisanship on display and Democrats largely look the other way.
But what can we really expect after all the noise of the past few days? Will last night's dinner at the White House really sway any centrist GOPer to support the stimulus? Will the bill's relatively weak spending on infrastructure redevelopment persuade any liberal Dems to vote no? A few lawmakers to watch:
Republicans
The dozen or so GOP House members whose votes are being courted by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are said to be members of the "Tuesday Group," a caucus of centrist Republicans. Its ranks have dwindled in the past few years as Republicans lost races in the northeast and the conference became more conservative, but Ray LaHood, Obama's transportation secretary, was a member during his years in the House.
Whether thanks to Rahm's charm or the dire economy in their districts, Reps. Charlie Dent (PA), Mike Castle (DE), Fred Upton (MI), Steven LaTourette (OH), Jim Gerlach (PA), Mark Kirk (IL), and Vernon Ehlers (MI) are among the Tuesday Group members whose votes could be swayable to the stimulus today.
Democrats
It's more difficult to discern which members of President Obama's party are at risk of breaking ranks -- a straight Democratic vote in support of the stimulus isn't out of the question. One answer could lie in the list of amendments that were deemed in order (scroll to the bottom of this page).
No. 4 on that list is a proposal to increase mass transit money by $3 billion, effectively restoring the House stimulus to the funding level suggested by transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN).
The mass transit amendment is backed by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), and Keith Ellison (D-MN), three influential progressives. If it is rejected, Democratic skeptics of the bill's infrastructure spending could defect -- but they're unlikely to do so in anything but small numbers. As The Hill wrote in a prescient early look at the left wing of the Democratic caucus, they're happy enough with what they've got right now.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
The interesting thing here is not the vote (I predict only somewhere between 0 and 10 GOP votes- maybe 15 at the very outside but I doubt it) but how Obama handles its aftermath. Will he now understand that all his schmoozing and pre-emptive compromise bought him exactly nothing, and that these people quite simply want him (and the economy) to fail and must be dealt with accordingly?
January 28, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama gets a bill roughly similar to what he initially proposed, and the Repugs look like dicks. What part of this went badly for Obama again?
January 28, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. I still think that he gets some gop support and when it comes back from the senate he gets 50% gop support, which is what he wants. On top of it, he gets the bill he wants. Seems like a win, win to me.
January 28, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a big part of the problem right there. Even the initial proposal was too timid, and contained too little infrastructure investment and too many GOP-pork tax cuts; that's what I mean by pre-emptive compromise. All in the vain hope of attracting significant Republican support. I'll turn your question back on you: what part of that is a win for Obama, especially if this package doesn't end up doing the job?
January 28, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment above.
On your point about the bill not doing the job, that is a whole different issue. Should it be larger, probably. Does the few thing cut out impact on that point? Not at all.
If it doesn't do the job, then he has to go back for more, which he will probably have to do in any event. Therefore, by not ramrodding the gop on bs in this bill, he will have a better shot in getting another bill through.
See, win, win.
January 28, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a whole different issue, it's THE issue. If Obama pre-emptively crippled his recovery program to attract Republican support that doesn't even actually materialize, that will be a major lose-lose. Is that what's happening? Nobody knows yet- and won't for the better part of a year at least- but I think there's real reason for worry.
January 28, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's CRIPPLED??? Engage in hyperbole much?
January 28, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's much less $$ than it needs to be and far too much of what is there is non- or dubiously-stimulative tax cuts. That certainly fits the dictionary definition of "crippled".
January 28, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Obama originally started at 350 billion and raised it to what it is. How is that being "crippled" by the gop?
I do agree that the package should probably be greater. I do not agree that the stuff cut out even warrants a discussion and that stuff should not have been there in the first place.
On the tax cuts, those were promised by obama during the campaign and are targeted primarily to the middle class and in fact some of the "cuts" are along the lines of rebates to people who don't pay any taxes. I don't see a problem with the cuts and obama is fulfilling his campaign promise.
January 28, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that he started so absurdly low is in fact damning evidence, right in front of your eyes, that you just refuse to see. Obama's first instinct is always to play it safe, and that just won't cut it in this crisis. And far too much of his economic advice comes from the same people who created the conditions for this mess to happen in the first place.
January 28, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's first instinct is to have a Democrat in the White House when it is time to replace Scalia.
You keep advocating that he throw that away for a one-shot, zero-sum, gotcha political "victory". The fact that he convinced the American people that he wasn't the kind of guy to do that is the biggest reason why he is the President now, and you are a commenter on a political blog.
January 28, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The House wingnut crazies look like children as a result of Obama's outreach. And what was lost? Family planning funding that can be added in a separate bill and funding for National Mall improvements that probably shouldn't have been in there in the first place. Not only do the House wingers look like children, they also look like a bunch of star effers, crowding around the new POTUS to get their picture taken with him and talking about how great it is that he is reaching out to them. Will make them look even more ridiculous when they vote against the package that Obama supports.
That said, I'm not crazy about the House package and I expect/hope for something better to come out once it makes the rounds through the Senate. And as others have noted, whatever the final version looks like, it will have more bi-partisan support in the upper house.
January 28, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent info Elana, thanks. Any word on how Judy Biggert (IL-13) another Tuesday Group member will vote on the bill and amendment 4? She just got $250,000 for Plainfield IL to build a park-n-ride lot for a bus route planned to go up RT 55 to Chicago some day if it gets add'l. funding. Seems like voting for the bill and especially amendment 4 would be a no brainer for her but I'm not holding my breath.
January 28, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm looking at this two ways - One way is to say F the GOP if they want to play politics here and vote down the package. Have the progressives vote it down as well and make a $1T+ package that every progressive every dreamed of.
The other thought is keep the bill with all of the concessions and use the fact that these Reps were purely playing politics when America was desperate for a stimulus against these clowns in two years time. Folks running against these no voters can show how Obama and the Dems compromised and took out things that the GOP said they didn't like and it still wasn't enough because they were intent on voting anything down. That the GOp didn't want to buy-in because they hoped the stimulus would fail so they could run on that fact in two years time - it's all about getting/staying elected for the House GOP rather than trying to fix the country.
January 28, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing, did the concessions Obama made lessen the chance the Stimulus is successful? Did the GOP talk Obama into failing and still not take own partial ownership by voting for the package?
Economists on the left are saying it needs to be much bigger - Obama shrinks it in order to try and appease Republicans, but they still vote it down. So basically nobody is getting the package they want here - the Democrats wanted a bigger stimulus they are not getting, yet still signing on to the compromised offering that the GOP is still voting down.
This whole thing stinks.
January 28, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Today they stripped funding to renovate the National Mall. Which the parks says is desperately in need of funds and took a beating due to the inauguration last week.
So Obama and Dems cave in again, but still not enough. Today's object of fury is STD prevention funding in the stimulus.
http://drudgereport.com/flashsb.htm
Democrats may have eliminated provisions in the "job stimulus" on birth control and sod for the National Mall -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is economic stimulation for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The House Democrats bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease (STD) education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
In the past, the CDC has used this STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus.
January 28, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drudge, yet again, does not disappoint in his efforts to highlight anything even remotely related to sex. And he'll keep that pinned up there all day. He knows this will fire up the repressed homosexuals and women haters who likely make up a not insignificant portion of today's conservative movement. Plus, the traditional media loves them some stories about icky sex stuff. Makes people like Broder squirm and write about how only bi-partisanship can save us from TEH SEX!
EEK! People are having sex in this country? Make it stop....please! We shouldn't be spending money on educating people about sex safe. We should be spending money on stopping people from having sex unless they intend to procreate. An exception to that rule is, of course, GOP congresspeople and conservative religious leaders - who are free to have sex with as many prostitutes, Congressional pages, and altar boys as they like.
January 28, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the recent concessions have hurt the stimulant effect of the package. I think the family planning funding for states is very worthwhile but the GOPers may have had a point that it wasn't necessarily stimulus. (of course, it helps cash strapped states and states do employ a lot of people). I didn't have a lot of sympathy for the money allocated for National Mall improvement so I'm not upset to see that go. I think the problem is not in the concessions made recently but in the original plan itself. There should be much more infrastructure spending in there, more for mass transit, more for long-term investments in our nation. I think this could have been done in addition to offering working/middle class tax-relief. (a promise Obama made repeatedly during his campaign) It may have raised the price tag a bit but, seriously, is there a huge difference between $900B and $1.2 trillion when we're talking rescuing our economy and building for the future? (other than psycological - I know people are afraid of the big "T")
The GOP complaining about not enough money being spent in the next 1-2 years is pure posturing and BS. If the Dems somehow were able to have 90% of the money spent in the next 18 months, the GOP would still complain and would still vote "nay" on the package. For them - especially in the House - it's all tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy and corporations) or it's nothing.
What smart economists have noted is that while money spent on "shovel ready" projects is certainly important, spending that stretches 2-5 years in the future is important as well. As I believe Krugman noted, unemployment stayed relatively high for 2+ years after the recessions of 90-91 and 2001-2002. And the fed kept lowering interest rates for the same amount of time. Lowering interest rates is no longer an option so it's not terrible to have spending that could help create jobs three years from now...because they'll still be needed.
My hope is that after this plan gets past the rightwing crazies in the House and the Dem congresspeople who feel obliged to focus mostly on their (relatively) small local constituencies, the Senate can craft a more reasonable and more bi-partisan bill, one that is more to the liking of economists like Krugman.
But I won't hold my breath.
January 28, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 28, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to disagree on the National Mall provision.
So many Washingtonians play sports on the Mall after work. The ground gets torn up. Then when someone is running, they twist their ankle in a ditch.
I think the National Mall provision is perfectly legit.
January 28, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the bipartisanship Obama is talking about is the same as what people seem to think it means. The objective is not to appeal to Republican Congressmen per se, The real target is their constituents. A plan that is widely favored by all Americans is bipartisan even if not a single Republican Congressman votes for it, although one would hope (and presume) that Congressional votes would reflect the wishes of their constituents.
January 28, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is entirely the whole point. Mr. LaBonne just can't get his arms around that point for some reason.
January 28, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need leadership, not government by opinion polls.
The stakes couldn't be higher. If the Democrats can get the economy back on its feet and deliver on other promises like health care reform, they'll be in power for half a century (which is why the Republicans are so anxious to see them fail.)
Obama should be focused like a laser on what will work- according to the opinions of economists who are not compromised, as Larry Summers is, by having played leading roles in creating this mess in the first place. Lead, succeed, and the people will follow. Fail, and your head will spin at the speed of the Republican revival in 2010 and 2012.
January 28, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is not governing by opinion polls. He is governing for all americans, not just the rabid left. Give me a break.
January 28, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you a break if you stop posting such silly comments. Obama's job is not to read the tea leaves and decide what will be "favored by a wide majority" of uninformed poll respondents on a particular day. It's to FIX THE ECONOMY. Succeed,a and approval- massive approval- will follow.
This is a classic instance of a situation in which good policy and good politics actually point in the same direction.
January 28, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a nice summary, with which I agree virtually 100%, of what worries me- perhaps it might interest you.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/1/28/102318/975
January 28, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I see is a rejection of what Obama promised to be in the campaign, and a snit fit that he is doing what he promised now that he is President. The fact that you agree with that 100% is not suprising; the idea that anybody else would be persuaded is laughable.
January 28, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink