Another Dem Senator to Oppose Obama's Spending Bill
Uh-oh -- another Democratic senator vowed today to oppose the $410 billion spending bill that is slated to keep the government funded until October.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), appearing at a press conference on the line-item veto alongside Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), joined Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) in urging President Obama to veto the spending measure:
I have typically not voted for omnibus bills because they always end up like this. And you know the president should veto it. And if it sent over there, the president should veto it. He should say, look, I asked for a stimulus bill that had no earmarks in it, and it did not based on the definition we're using in this bill.
As he notes, Feingold's at least being consistent here. But let's take a quick whip count, to see whether Democrats can actually pass this puppy ...
... if Dems lose Feingold and Bayh, that takes them down to 54 votes -- assuming Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) will still be unable to make it, and that Sen. Robert Menendez (NJ) withholds his vote over Cuba policy. That means that six GOP votes will be needed to pass the spending bill, in the worst-case scenario.
If you look at yesterday's roll-call vote on McCain's plan to strip earmarks from the measure, you'll see that nine Republicans, most of them members of the Appropriations Committee, voted with the Dems. So will six of those nine remain gettable by the end of the week? Good question.
Late Update: Some readers have been wondering why Democrats need 60 votes to pass the spending bill, given that budget legislation is immune to filibuster. Although it sounds like a budget measure, this $410 billion bill is pure appropriations and thus open to GOP filibustering.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Feingold's admirers have long turned a blind eye to this side of him, though it's nothing new. Perhaps this will clue them in.
March 4, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What side of him? Another commenter, BlueinColorado, calls Feingold a preening, self-righteous git ... I don't think I'm turning a blind eye when I ask to have those rather defamatory statements qualified. What side of him is he displaying, besides constancy, and how does staying constant to his principles make him a self-righteous preener? Seriously, I want to know. Feingold isn't some weird maverick on a soapbox, he's drawing attention to the problem of earmarks, like he always does, and always has done, and which his constituents continually elect him to do.
Also, fix the incorrect headline please.
March 4, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Along with being a progressive on some issues, he has a streak of old-fashioned, sometimes mindless Midwestern conservatism, which will from time to time lead him astray om bogus issues like "earmarks" (and yes, the hooha about "earmarks" is almost completely bogus, a typical Faux News Republican "issue"). He is not really the thoroughgoing, consistent progressive that some of his fans seem to imagine, especically the ones who every 4 years like to promote him as a Presidential candidate.
March 4, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read a little about progressivism and what it means before you dribble your insufficient thoughts all over the rest of us...
March 4, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
LaFollette is not the eternal Platonic form of a progressive, you know. Or perhaps you don't.
March 4, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely he is.
March 4, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
How DARE you, sir! ;)
March 4, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
From baseless attacks on a good man to the broadbrush smear of an entire region -- is that the sort of progressivism you advance, or is it just plain old fashioned ignorance?
We mindless, conservative Midwesterners tend to think of the first as weak argument and the second as prejudice, but you know how we can be. There's another peculiar thing about mindless-conservative-Midwestern progressives: We expect disagreement. Heck, we even encourage it. We don't toss out any club members just because they disagree on this or that issue. We also kinda sorta admire people who stand up for their principles. The "yes" men, the party puppets, the cowards who toe the lines drawn by the party bosses -- them we regard the same way we do the stuff we scrape from our boots when we come in from the barn.
Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, that mindless, conservative Midwest has produced (to name only a few): George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone, Al Franken, Eugene McCarthy, Paul Simon, Hubert Humphrey, Bob LaFolette, Bob Dylan and a fellow you may have heard of -- Barack Obama. (As well as, more to the Left, Victor Berger, Eugene Debs and Gus Hall.)
March 4, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Labonne comes in here with his mindless bashing of "anyone who doesn't walk lock-step with the party as a traitor who should be excommunicated" bullshit. While, at the same time, castigating Republicans for ridding its party of moderates.
I've never seen such blatant hipocracy, not to mention rank stupidity. There are people here who actually think we (and the country) would be better off if we forced Blue Dogs and moderate Democrats out of the party.
But when you ask them what would happen to all those things they care about if the Dems were suddenly the minority party, their only response is to call you a centrist, compromising troll.
March 4, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Feingold (as pointed out elsewhere in the thread)clearly doesn't even know what he's talking about of course makes no difference to Free Rider, since he suffers from the same problem. Yawn.
March 4, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you always run away like a little girl when asked a direct question? What kind of pussy are you?
Are you too retarded to realize that no one is defending Feingold's stance on this issue? We're defending his as a man and a liberal and a Senator.
You see, unlike you, we're smart enough to realize that you judge a person as a whole rather than on one position on one issue.
We realize that you don't kick out your allies who vote with you 80-90% of the time because they go there on way on occasion.
You're an embarrassment to progressives/liberals. You're the kind of knee-jerk, non-thinking sock puppet who would have the party in the minority forever. You are the flip side of the freep/red state coin--intolerant and impractical.
March 4, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where exactly, in this thread, is it noted that Feingold does not know what he's talking about?
You're the one who doesn't know what Feingold is talking about. He's talking about giving Obama line-item veto power, which Obama wants. He's talking about cutting waste, which both Obama and Feingold (and every other member of Congress) knows (and most, if not all will say) is in the bill.
March 4, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is this "waste" and "pork" he objects to? Fruitfly research in Paris, France, I kid you not? Volcano research? The honey-bee subsidy? $300 million on golf carts? Feingold's press release doesn't mention any of these allegedly wasteful "earmarks" he's grandstanding about. I have little patience for a Democrat engaging in the same lazy, demagogic generalities as McCain.
It's easy to rant about pork and waste and to use a silly, meaningless term like "earmarks" because it denigrates goverment spending in general and makes you sound 'fiscally responsible' at no cost to yourself and without actually engaging in debate. But if you go a milimeter deeper than the thought required to compose a FoxNews talking point or a McCain campaign bumper sticker, you're talking about important, even vital programs.
March 4, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I have little patience for those who don't know the difference between the stimulus bill and the budget bill.
Are you trying to tell us that there's no Democratic in Congress who hasn't slipped his or her version of the Bridge to Nowhere into the spending bill? Are going to pretend that only those "bad" people on the Right do things like that, and we Lefties are simply above rewarding our supportive constituents with pork?
I have little patience for those who look in the mirror and think they see an angel.
March 4, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you got nothin' but hero worship? Sarah Palin and Jindal weren't referring to the stimulus bill. The honey-bee subsidy is also an earmark in the budget bill. The point about the golf carts referred to Feingold's lazy, generic rhetoric, which is a counter-productive echo of the Republican Party.
If there's so much terrible, terrible pork in the budget bill, it should be easy for you to find some and explain how it justifies acting as a useful idiot to the Republicans, hobbling a two-month old presidency, and hurting an already suffering economy (just because the money is in something called a "budget bill" instead of something called a "stimulus bill" doesn't mean the money doesn't have stimulative effects. Let me know if I typed that too fast for you).
March 4, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh.
No, not all spending is equal. Not all spending is helpful. Not all spending is prudent. Does this really have to be spelled out for you?
Feingold didn't give a list of earmarks that he thinks warrant cutting (as McCain did) because what he's talking about is giving Obama the line-item veto so that Obama (not Feingold) can make the decisions about what's good spending and what's bad spending. Gibbs said, by the way, that Obama would like to take the line-item veto out for a test drive (that means both that he likes the idea AND that he agrees there are earmarks deserving of being cut).
Now, as it so happens, I disagree with Feingold on this issue. Here in Wisconsin, we have line-item veto and governors from both parties have abused it. Tommy Thompson used what we called the Vanna White Veto, in which he wrote entirely new legislation into the budget bill by striking out parts of words to create entirely new words and sentences.
Despite my disagreement with Feingold on this, I am in no way tempted to question his progressive credibility, make ugly remarks about his character or call him names. It's different from the way you seem to do politics, but I highly recommend it.
March 4, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's kinda funny to watch you get all Brodery and schoolmarmish about personal attacks and civility, given the nasty histrionics of your posts. Kinda funny, and kinda boring.
And Feingold is not merely proposing a line-item veto. He is announcing that he will vote against the bill. He is calling on Obama to veto it if it passes. He is standing with John McCain, giving "bipartisan" credibility to McCain's demagoguery, strengthening his case that Obama is breaking campaign promises, that Obama is responsible for wasteful spending, and implicitly supporting McCain's argument that all "earmarks" are equal, all earmarks are bad (The fact that Feingold couldn't be bothered with specifics hardly cuts in his favor).
Our political media functions in a certain way, and that will be the upshot of Feingold jumping into the spotlight with his buddy McCain. If Feingold doesn't get how our political media works, he oughta stay out of the spotlight. Shouldn't be hard for the modest shrinking violet that you know personally.
And I am not questioning his "progressive credibility", I am questioning his political judgement and acumen. Feingold is strengthening the hand of the man who will the MSM's go-to critic of everything Obama proposes, including heathcare, the second stimulus that most economists think we're going to need --including foodstamps, unemployment extensions, things presumably Russ Feingold would support. If I weren't so concerned about offending your (selectively) delicate sensibilities, I would point out that in Chicago, we used to call it "Stepping on your own dick."
March 4, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
so then, you obviously have little patience with yourself. explains why you're so snippy and condescending. american dad, hehe.
March 4, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, the snippy and condescending comes from my being an asshole.
March 4, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we should force him out of the party since he doesn't march lockstep with the Democratic leadership?
March 4, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I am wrong...but I am pretty sure budget bills are not subject to filibuster by rule. This only need 51 votes to pass.
March 4, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know the budget can't be filibustered. I'm not sure if an omnibus spending bill (that increases the deficit) falls into that category or not.
March 4, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind the blue dogs voting against it, because it will force more Republicans to vote for it if they want it. Look at the earmark report - six of the 10 highest earmark procurement senators were Republicans.
I say let the blue dogs be blue dogs and let the GOP own half the spending. I want 20+ Republicans to vote for the earmark spending.
Obama should say - it's up to the Senators. If they pass it I'll sign it and if it's cut, it's cut.
March 4, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure this "finish out the year" type appropriations bill only needs 51 votes.
I think Obama is right to say "this is last year's bill, I'm going to sign it and move on." Getting into an asinine fight over earmarks (ie catering to McCain's temper tantrums) not only is a waste of his political time and capital, but is irrelevant - pork can still be economic stimulus, after all. I'm a hell of a lot less concerned about the earmarks in this bill than I am about moving forward on getting Obama's budget passed.
March 4, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
However you allow the GOP to have their cake and eat it to. They come out against it and pin it on Obama when they've neck deep in earmarks as well - spending equal to their evil librul counterparts.
It's the Senate spending - they choose as a body if they want it or not. I'd have Reid arrange it so that the Dems provide exactly have the needed votes and not more more. If it's 51 the Dems can provide 26, if it's 60 then the Dems can provide 30.
March 4, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCUSE ME!!!!...that is NOT Obamas spending bill. That bill has nothing to do with Obama, that is something the CONGRESS came up with.
March 4, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
back in December, no less.
March 4, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciated Feingold's efforts on Iraq, even joined his mailing list and contributed to his PAC. But he's a preening, self-righteous git on stuff like this. I suspect that's why he and McCain get along so well, the reflected glory they see in each other's eyes and egos.
March 4, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, you don't know Russ Feingold. I do. Personally. So I can tell you that the insults you hurl his way miss the mark badly. Whatever his flaws may be "preening" and "self-righteousness" are not among them. So badly do they miss the mark, in fact, that I must conclude that you cannot possibly be as stupid as they make you sound. If you were, you'd be unable to type them.
March 4, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
ah, I think I see the disconnect. I'm dealing with the facts. You're dealing with your own emotions. That's why you haven't addressed what should be, for you, a pretty simple question: What is the spending that St Russ sees as so objectionable? You don't know. You know that Russ shook your hand at a fund-raiser or a townhall meeting once, so you think he's your friend. That's nice.
March 4, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or... I'm a community organizer, progressive advocate and professional lobbyist with more than 20 years of experience. Maybe -- just maybe -- I've wrestled over policy with the senator, had my chops busted over spending issues by the senator, and come to know his character, intelligence, values, principles and worth. Maybe he has earned my respect. As you, as yet, have not.
The ad hominem attack made as a shot in the dark -- since you know nothing about me -- is something less than an effective technique.
March 4, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
a little late for you to get prim and proper over "ad hominem attacks", doncha think (I must conclude that you cannot possibly be as stupid as they make you sound. If you were, you'd be unable to type them.. And in spite of your vast experience in politics and deep and serious discussions with the Sainted Senator, you have yet, in all your screechy, hysterical posts on this thread, to make one substantive point in favor of his empty grand-standing, to cite one example of the terrible, terrible pork he is defending us from.
As I've said, it may be there, but all I've seen Feingold do is chuckle along with his idiot friend McCain. Maureen Dowd, as wrong as she may be, was far more substantive in her comments than St Russ in his. Wow. Out-thought by MoDo. That's gotta hurt.
But rest assured that I shall lie awake all the night, fraught with anxiety and self-doubt, for I have not earned the respect of a self-important, self-styled "community organizer and progressive advocate" who argues politics without once referring to any actual policy.
March 4, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tough to argue policy with someone who doesn't even know what bill is being discussed. Feingold's talking about his bill to give Obama the line-item veto, so that Obama can decide what to cut and what not (which Obama says he'd like). So -- of course -- it would not make sense for Feingold to create a wish list of things he'd like to cut.
Both Feingold and Obama, like other grownups, knows damn well that a bill that size has waste in it. You may wish to pretend otherwise, that's your choice, but we just had an election in which the irresponsible were tossed out and replaced by grownups. It's a good thing, you'll see.
Ad hominem attacks are weak even when I make them, but I don't make them as the only argument I've got, as you did. I make them only because they make a jerk like me chuckle.
March 4, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold's talking about his bill to give Obama the line-item veto,
Wow. You didn't even read the post here, did you?
March 4, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's Spending Bill?????? I don't think so.
March 4, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS
"Reconciliation legislation is subject to a 20-hour debate limitation. Debate on
first degree amendments is limited to two hours, and debate on second degree
amendments and debatable motions or appeals is limited to one hour. In practice,
debate time may vary from these limits, pursuant to unanimous consent agreements."
Check it out. p. 75
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/52675.pdf
GOP = IRRELEVANT ON BUDGET VOTE UNDER BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS
page 75.
March 4, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone who's down on my buddy Russ should do their homework first. He's the most consistently progressive Senator I've ever had the privilege to vote for. Not agreeing to a blank check on principle is a progressive tradition (look no further back than Bob La Follette. Wait... That's as far back as Progressivism goes...) and Feingold is right to oppose this Democratic omnibus bill just like he did the last however many Republican omnibus bills. He's a credit to Wisconsin and the Senate.
March 4, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we're in a situation where that kind of quilted-sampler-slogan fiscal "prudence" is in fact counterproductive to the point of toxicity. Consumer spending is down for the count and won't regain consciousness in the foreseeable future. The only possible source of demand to revive the comatose economy is the government. We need all the spending we can get.
March 4, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I agree that it's a little late in the game to be bitching about the coin toss (as it were) I think it's to Feingold's credit that he makes the point. In the end he may vote against it on principle. I doubt he will if his is the swing vote he's far to smart to think being right trumps doing right.
March 4, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh goody! Some more regional bigotry -- this time seasoned with hyperbole. Can there be a reference to cheese too far off? Your mastery of stereotype has been impressive thus far.
March 4, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regional bigotry? I live in Ohio, moron.
March 4, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely agreed. this is no time for Russ to go into "hey everybody, check out how great I am!" mode. he can specify what his problems are, or he can STFU. yes, that's right, Russ Feingold, the un-criticize-able "progressive" master of making bad political deals with John McCain, can STFU.
yes, he voted against the Patriot act, as all Dems should have. yes, he was against the Iraq war. all good things. all quite a while ago, though. what have you done for us lately, Mr. Feingold? the economy is in tatters, and principled stances about spending in general are of no help to anyone right now.
March 4, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should realize that whatever the platforms and philosophies of LaFollete's party from... what century was that, again?.. the term "progressive" in the year 2009 is simply a remarketing of the stepped-on word "liberal".
I think we all know how that once-proud label got smeared. I hate to see it go, too, but the modern application of "progressive" seems to have escaped the vampires, so far, and gets a pretty good rap in the mainstream. So there's that.
Be that as it may, "progressive" means something else, now, and a modern-day "progressive" (small "p") has no requirement to adhere to the tenets of the "Progressive Party".
March 4, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
its currently the most meaningless word in politics.
March 4, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Russ is right. The president needs to stay in front of the populist wave. He should make a stand against these earmarks and pull the rug from under the GOP talking points.
March 4, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it was inevitable, but the Democrats have disappointed me again.I'm not sure how you might persuade those in vulnerable districts (much less our crooks like Murtha) to "take one for the team" and leave the Republicans holding a bag of turds they so richly deserve but, so it goes.
Luckily, the R's continue to trigger everyone's gag reflex so for now, independents are probably safe. I have no problem with Feingold playing to his base with a freebie.
March 4, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So.... none of St Russ's defenders can identify any of the alleged waste he's so nobly taking a stand against? His buddy McCain has a lot of sneering, adolescent complaints about things like science, environmental protection and transportation infrastructure. I'll guess we'll just have to assume that St Russ opposes these things too?
McCain's complaints are not completely invalid. I'm not thrilled about a $150,000 subsidy to, as near as I can tell, a group that promotes Polynesian tourism in Hawai'i. But I'm not willing to exacerbate the current recession/depression, or gut scientific research, environmental protection, and overdue infrastructure improvements, in order to save $150,000.
I guess I'll never make sainthood.
March 4, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I've never understood the Feingold worshipers, and I guess I never will. He's a good guy in many ways and I'm glad he's in the Senate but he's certainly not infallible, and from time to time he does stupid shit, just like every other human being on earth.
March 4, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Wisconsin and fairly neutral about Russ. I think the anti-earmark argument is strongest not when you talk about "waste" in a generic "all earmarks are waste" sense, but when you talk about how it opens the door to corruption. A member's ability to secure earmarks is an easy way to provide payback to friends, key supporters, and financial contributors. While more ethical members may steer clear of dubious transactions, it's quite clear that the system could have been (and is thought to have been) easily abused.
In that sense, earmarks, then, can be wasteful. Instead of being considered/advocated for on their own merits, they are driven by the relative power behind the backers. It doesn't necessarily mean that the project won't provide some benefit.
Some people would argue that the transparency now brought to the appropriations/earmarking system would significantly reduce the likelihood of corruption. Others argue that it still opens the door for corrupt bargains.
Voting against earmarks on principle isn't necesarily a bad thing in my book. From a good governance standpoint, it helps raise awareness about murky backdoor deals that certainly create the appearance of corruption.
March 4, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER!!!!!!!
How many times do we need to say this?
As long as the Dems have 51 votes they need to make the Republicans keep talking for 24 hours a day until they are shamed into letting the Dems pass the bills that will get this country back on track. The country supports Obama right now and the more the Republicans try to stop progress the more hated they become.
The Senate Republicans from purple states will cave in or lose. The Senate Dems from purple states will be strengthened in their reelection races because they support the popular president and their opponents will try to stop progress.
March 4, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink