The Potential Beholdenness of Judd Gregg
Sen. Judd Gregg's (R-NH) possible nomination as Commerce Secretary this week is looking like less of an outright victory for Democrats than originally perceived, with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) signaling that New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) would appoint a Republican to fill Gregg's Senate seat.
But a reader points out that nominating Gregg could have another upside: a reliable Republican vote for President Obama's stimulus package. It would be extremely hard to envision Gregg accepting the position and then casting a high-profile vote against the economic agenda he's about to start selling.
Gregg certainly sounded independent of the administration during a Saturday interview with CNBC, when he said he would not support the Senate stimulus in its current form because of the failure to address housing:
Well, I think the Republicans in the Senate would like to have a package, at least I would, that stimulates the economy and it's got to be a big and a robust package. I do feel, however, that the package that is presently pending misses the point and doesn't hit the nail on the head is the way I describe it.The nail is the real estate issue, how we can stabilize real estate prices and how we can keep people in their homes and how we get value under these assets of the financial institutions can basically value their assets and really not enough effort is in this package on that issue in my opinion.
Josh
Matt
Eric
A republican appointee will be easier to beat than an incumbent Gregg, a caretaker followed by an open race even easier
February 2, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that reliable republican vote on the stimulus package. There is so much there that is just hogwash that he would be able to vote against it if he wanted to. I am willing to bet that alot of the crap gets cut out at the direction of obama in the senate and it gets widdled down to what its supposed to be, a stimulus package.
Then, obama will get 80 votes in the senate and over 50% of the republicans in the house and we will move forward together for the good of the country.
Alot of the stuff that is not stimulus can be put in other bills and be part of the give and take of the legislative process. Right now we need action and quick, not pork barrel politics.
February 2, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very misguided comment and frankly suggests a lack of understanding of fiscal policy. The only thing in any version that's NOT effective stimulus is some of the business tax breaks (especially some of the business ones). Any and all of the spending in the House version will create jobs. There's just not enough of it (and too many tax cuts for people well-off enough to save rather than spend them- which DOESN'T create jobs.)
February 2, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I guess that I am misguided.
By the way, how does honeybee insurance create jobs? I mean I know that there are worker bees, but I don't think that they get paid and then in turn spend money on things.
Same thing with the eductation grants and spending. It obviously is worthwhile, but I don't see it as creating anymore jobs.
Same thing with some of the healthcare spending in the bill.
All these things are worthwhile and should be in the normal budget process, not in a stimulus bill.
I guess that I am not interested in the dems returning to the minority in 2010. I would like to see them expand their numbers and crush the republican party. Oh well, I guess that I am misguided as you say.
February 2, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Government spending on any and all of the things you mentioned created jobs. DO you think the recipients are just going to burn the money or throw it in a hole? People are employed in educational institutions, for example, AND their graduates will be more productive than less-educated people, so spening on education, as on infrac=structure, is also an investment in future growth.
Putting money into the economy (rather than into somebody's bank account as will happen, for example, with any tax rebate I get) cretes jobs. This is Ec 101 stuff.
And it's revealing that you got this list of buzzwords from the Republicans AND that you don't seem to have a clue what a small proportion of the total they represent. Again, what's really non-stimulatory in this bill is a large proportion of the tax cuts- that were put there to appease Republicans.
Perhaps you should stop listening to Republican and MSM BS that you don't actually even understand. These are the people who got us INTO this mess.
February 2, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh you are just sooo brilliant. I bow to your vast storehouse of knowledge. Thank you for setting me on the straight and narrow path to the return of the dems to the minority in the house and senate and the return of a republican administration in 2012 under the leadership of rambo of the North. Thank you.
February 2, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What will really bring about a Republican return is an ineffective stimulus. And they know that perfectly well, which is why their demands for "improvements" are not made in good faith. Really, even you should be able to figure that out.
February 2, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Steve on this. We're slashing teachers and programs like crazy in education. If there was money provided, it would immediately be put to use giving jobs to real people. In fact, the quicker the better because we're in the middle of a budget process where more people and programs are getting shitcanned.
As for worker bees, you realize that 30% of American crops rely on them. Honey bees aren't native to America, the feral population is GONE, and Colony Collapse Disorder has put many beekeepers out of business. Additionally, beekeeping is in decline by the fact that nobody's going into the industry. Never mind that the funds will immediately be paid to an insurance company - which does indeed employ people. It will also ensure that those who lose their colonies can continue in the business and that their services are available to increase crop yields, which in turn stimulates the economy. It also encourages investment in beekeeping because the very real risk that all your bees might just up and die is a real downer for someone looking to invest. IMO that's encouraging a vital industry. Some might argue that's stimulus.
And you realize they call 'em health care workers for a reason. How can you say providing money to pay more health care professionals wouldn't stimulate the economy?
February 2, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok,
1. The education dollars are for college tuition grants, not pre-college, where the programs and teachers are being cut.
2. I agree on the bee problem, however, the money was for insurance?????
3. I don't think that the health care dollars in the bill will create one job.
Bottom line, the point is all these expenditures are worthy expenditures and I think that the money should be spent; however, none of these things have anything to do with creating jobs. This bill is supposed to be a stimulus bill, not a pork barrel spending bill.
I would suggest that the education expenses go into an education bill and the healthcare expenses go into a healthcare bill. The honeybee insurance can go into general appropriations.
Why not try to get things to operate normally in washington? I know its a stretch, but why not give it a shot.
February 2, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, Michael D-, your comment is the height of ignorance, as Steve pointed out.
Spending on Education (much of it for retrofitting schools--aka jobs to make the more energy efficient) goes to keeping teachers and other school workers employed.
The honey bee problem is huge in America at the moment and causing a lot of trouble for agriculture. Helping to solve these problems means more jobs in agriculture.
February 2, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, see above comment. Of course nobody is talking about cutting out the retrofitting of schools and school construction. Where did I say that in my comments?
February 2, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Machael D-,
Actually, above you DID say you were against putting eduction spending in the stimulus package because it would not create jobs. Wrong again. All of the education money is NOT for higher education tuition grants only. Much of it goes to school improvements (creates jobs) and for state education funding (saving jobs here in Michigan, for example).
On health care spending. Wrong again. Much of the health care spending will create jobs to create the new electronic health information systems.
You are wrong on this, plain and simple.
February 2, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I guess that I am just completely ignorant and out of touch with reality.
My bad on the education spending. I thought that I made it clear the issue was the tuition grants for college. I guess that my comment could be interpreted that I was against education spending for the kids and building schools and hiring teachers for k through 12. I hate puppies also.
I actually don't have a big gripe on the database either, it's just that it won't produce that many jobs and it makes more sense to have it in a healthcare overhaul.
Now a convincing argument would be that the spending that the republicans are whining about amounts to 7/100ths of 1 percent of the total bill. Now that would be the way to beat back the argument, eventhough I still don't think that the extraneous stuff should be in there. Gee, where did I hear that one? From Gibbs and the obama administration. As opposed to getting into a silly back and forth on non-issues, they are taking the high road. Smart move as always.
Oh well, I just hope that the dems play to the middle and get rid of the stuff that can be played up by republicans so that in the long run the republican party will cease to exist as a viable entity and that we get a legitimate opposition party to elevate the discourse and cut out the special interests and the petty bs. I guess we shall see.
February 2, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also kind of agog at how people in both the MSM and the blogosphere keep taking every word that comes out of a Republican's mouth on the teevee as God's own truth while anything Democrats say is parsed and sliced and wrung out in search of hidden agendas and tactical posturing.
Maybe there's a deal to replace Gregg with a Republican and maybe there isn't. Mitch McConnell hinting that there is increases the chance that such a deal exists by exactly 0%.
February 2, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great, let's appoint a conservative Republican to the Cabinet in exchange for one Senate vote in the first month of the congressional term.
February 2, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, that was a silly conclusion. There is no way that this is being done for gregg's vote. They will have more than enough senators on board to pass this thing.
Now, to virtually guarantee a pick-up in 2010 and to silence a leading voice in the republican caucus, that makes more sense. Also, why not appoint a conservative as head of the commerce department which is to help expand business? Also, adding a conservative voice to sell obama's economic agenda as well. Seems to make sense when you think about it.
February 2, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The entire region has gone Democratic. If they replace Gregg with another Republican, she will get her pants beat off, come the next election. Especially, if Gregg turns out to be a difficult cabinet member. It was a shrewd move that I like more everytime I hear it. I still think in the end, he will turn it down.
February 2, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he was going to turn it down, there would not be leaks all over the press about it. It would look bad for him and obama. I like the move and I think he takes it.
February 2, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No way will Gregg turn this down. This story was leaked because they already had a deal. The Obama team doesn't allow untrue rumors to stick around long without swatting them down.
February 2, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to have to agree with these two, he's not going to turn this down, not after all of this press coverage about the whole thing. He will get appointed, no question about that. The question is who the replacement will be.
February 2, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to what McConnell actually said. It is not what people claim it is.
February 2, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama Administration benefits if there is a moderate Republican named to replace Sen. Gregg. I suspect Obama wants a health care vote out of the seat, something he wouldn't have got out of Gregg. So Lynch is tasked to find a moderate republican who is a universal health care supporter and independent enough to break ranks with the caucus on the issue. Lynch would know all of the players and where they stand on the issues, even if he doesn't ask them outright. The Obama Administration would have talked to Lynch long before Gregg ever knew he was being considered.
Obama kept on Lieberman basically because he was a sure health care vote down the line.
February 2, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is an interesting take and makes sense.
February 2, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll never understand this administration's obsession with Republican votes. Didn't the Democrats win some elections recently?
The GOP doen't run scared like this. When they win, they ram through as much of their right-wing agenda as they can. They don't need no stinking Democrats--and why should they? THEY WON.
Here's an idea, Mr. President--pass the best stimulus package you can, sell it to the public and try to make it work. You're responsible for it anyway.
February 2, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is running scared. Obama is handling this just exactly right. But apparently you equate the acting ability of GOP leaders with reality. Obama knows who won--he even told them so...remember the "I won"?
February 2, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is a little hard for some of us to get used to having a President elected who actually meant the things he said during the race about changing the way things have been done in Washington for the past eight or more years. We are not used to candidates following through on that kind of talk, so we usually think of it as warm, fuzzy window dressing for the masses. But there are a couple reasons why that is not true this time.
1. The election results would have been MUCH closer, and perhaps in doubt, without the votes of a significant segment of the electorate who supported Obama because of his promises to treat the opposition with respect and to collaborate when possible. For many THAT was what change meant. People who bought into that message have as much reason to expect results as do those of us who were very interested in a more progressive agenda, and four years from now those people will judge him partially on that basis.
2. Obama's tenure in the Senate was brief but instructive, and he is a consummate politician. He understands the power of compromise as a means of marginalizing the opposition. Every Republican vote on an administration initiative undermines the strength of the right wing Republican attempt to paint everything in black and white. In less than two years the electorate will make a first judgement on the Congress. In order to maintain the momentum toward a more powerful progressive majority, it is important that the usual off year loss of seats after a Presidential win be averted. Marginalizing hard liners whose districts are moving gradually toward the center is a good way to achieve that goal, especially in a time when the majority of the electorate is looking for effective action from Washington.
3. The route to long term political dominance lies along the path of collaboration, inclusiveness and seductive compromise. This is exactly why the Republicans are stonewalling so desperately at the moment. They know that, as soon as they admit to the possibility of working together, the argument for ditching the anti-American, socialist, godless big government egg heads is fatally weakened, and they will end up sniping ineffectively from a minority position for the foreseeable future.
4. The central problem with our most recent President was not that he was stupid. I'm not saying he was bright, but that was not the real problem. The problem was that he was dim AND incurious AND convinced that he already knew all the answers. As a result, he never actually felt the need to listen, in an authentic way, to anyone who disagreed with view of the world. We on the left excoriated him for that on a regular basis. Listening to divergent ideas with a view to refining and even correcting your own positions is a vital part of good leadership. It is true that you have to wade through a lot of useless blather to find the useful input, but that's what we mean when we repeat that old saw about the inefficiency of democracy. Turns out Obama actually believes this and I, for one, am glad he does.
February 2, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregg wants price stabilization and to make financial assets valuable.
Maybe he should stay out of the Cabinet.
February 2, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink