Stimulus Lessons
Email
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., said, "one of my colleagues said, ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you.’ My Republican colleague said, ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you.’ I said, ‘Are you going to vote with me?’ And he said, ‘No, I might have a primary.’ And I said, ‘Well, you know very well I’m going to have a primary.’
"I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation," Specter said.
How many?
"I think a sizable number," Specter replied. "I think a good part of the caucus agrees with the person I quoted, but I wouldn’t want to begin to speculate on numbers."
The comments, reported HERE by the Huffington Post, prompt the question: What, if anything, could President Obama have done to get those Republicans to publicly support the stimulus bill that their colleague Specter says they supported only in private?
The St. Pete Times weighs in with a piece on stimulus lessons for the president.
"Some of it is miscalculations on their part, where you create a set of standards that raise expectations to unbelievable levels," Norm Ornstein told the paper. "And then you end up not being able to meet them."
Another lesson: "Our best asset and our best salesperson is President Obama, and when we got out there and started talking about this, the American people stood up right behind him," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-Fla.
Politico’s Glenn Thrush also weighs in with some lessons learned.
"I don’t think he should have set the expectation he was going to get Republican votes," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told Thrush. "He set himself a high bar-and an irrelevant bar… and he didn’t achieve it… He should not have legitimized [the notion of bipartisanship], that prompted their partisan reaction… I don’t think he’s going to make that mistake again."
A member of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership team anonymously acknowledged "we’ve got to do a much better job of keeping individual members much better informed. We’ve got to push out information internally to members, especially committee chairs, in a more efficient way. There needs to be a faster, broader dissemination-hello-how about an E-mail? It would lead to this being a happier place."
USA Today’s Susan Page notes that friends can sometimes be more problematic than enemies. "House Democrats made it easy for Republicans by including pet projects that proved difficult to defend as economic stimulus, among them funding for family planning services and landscaping for the National Mall. The Obama team had left it to the Democratic leadership to write the details of the bill. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, calls that ‘a huge mistake.’"
What would you add?
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
I had strongly suspected that a lot of Republicans who are more moderate (though they dare not show it) wanted this bill. But they are between a rock and a hard place. Vote for it and lose in their next primary to an even more ideological hardcore, or vote against it, therefore voting against the best interests of the country. Take away maybe 5% +/- of this bill and it is hard to argue against it being stimulative (except the AMT reduction).
Posted by: TJ | February 15, 2009, 10:43 am 10:43 am
Republicans are continuing to parse words in a feeble attempt to blame the Democrats for their lack of participation in the bill. They started saying things like “Republicans weren’t involved in the crafting of the bill” after they declined to participate. From this rather coy talking point, they progressed into “Republicans were kept out of the process”, which implies that it was the Democrats, rather than their party leadership that kept them out. Somebody in the press ought to call them out.
Posted by: Flash Override | February 15, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am
Arlen Spector and the other Republican Senators could have voted NO on this stimulus bill and it would not hurt their re-elections.
All they had to do was say is they wanted something better for the taxpayers.
When unemployment continues to rise and inflation starts to climb and Obama comes back for even more money, Spector will have a tough time convincing voters that he did the right thing.
Bottom line – this is not a stimulus bill, but a scam on the taxpayers to push the Democratic socialization agenda forward.
Posted by: Sally J. | February 15, 2009, 11:16 am 11:16 am
This was rushed through so the American taxpayers could not analyze it further.
It was so important to get this bill past quickly, but yet instead of the President signing it immediately, he takes a 3-day vacation to Chicago.
We were hoodwinked and will be paying for it for the next 10 years of economic recession. This is the start of the Obama “Lost Decade” for America.
Posted by: Will Stanton | February 15, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
How about give them time to really read and analyze the stimulus bill???? It makes me nauseous to think that trillions of dollars will be spent in a bill that we basically do not what contains (yes, us, the american people). We don’t even know if it will work, yet we have compromised our future, our children and grandchildren’s future in what might be a lark. It is completely irresponsible.
Posted by: Ellen | February 15, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am
Lets see how the people in his district feel about this bill when he comes up for reelection.
Posted by: Lizzie | February 15, 2009, 11:53 am 11:53 am
The fact that Sen Arlen has revealed his Republican collegues secretly wanted the bill to pass prompts the question for Jake Tapper: what could Obama do better? Really? That’s the question?
Cuz for me it prompts the question: How can Republicans vote against a bill that they believe is good, which, perfect or not, is the only serious proposal to slow our economic collapse, solely for political reasons? It was clear that the three “renegade” GOP senators voted for this bill with the leadership’s blessing because the last thing the GOP wanted was for this bill not to pass. Doesn’t that prompt some more questions for you?
Posted by: S.L. | February 15, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
Obama and his new generation of slackers.
With all of his government handouts he’s sure to get plenty of support for 2012.
Posted by: sammy | February 15, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
Arlen Spector will say anything to make himself look good. He’s a politican.
Posted by: Lizzie | February 15, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
The fact is that most Americans, even some Republicans like myself, support this stimulus package on the whole (even if we disagree with parts of it. The Dems made a tactical error by including pork, but the GOP made an even greater error by refusing to participate in the process. GOP Congress people might be facing primaries against even more hard core opponents, but they will also be facing general elections against an energized Democratic base that can honestly characterize the GOP as obstructionist.
The GOP seems to think it has the luxury of avoiding responsibility for the problem because the Dems control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. However, the financial crisis developed on their watch and due to their policies, at least in part.
Posted by: Marcos El Malo | February 15, 2009, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
It’s a disgrace that, according to even Congressional Democrats, none of Congress ever read the finished product before they voted for it. It’s an outrage and unforgivable.
Posted by: Peach | February 15, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
I would add that Republicans, particularly House Republicans, need to start taking their obligations to the nation seriously and stop taking their political cues from talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. But then, Pres. Obama already tried to say that to them and it created a hubbub.
Posted by: Lisa | February 15, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
You know what I haven’t seen the media ask yet?
Since Obama spent weeks telling us that the spending bill was a national emergency – we had to get money in the economy right away – how come he is on vacation and isn’t going to sign it for 4 days after Congress passed it?
If this is how he reacts in an emergency, we’re in for a long four years.
Posted by: Peach | February 15, 2009, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
There’s a very funny picture on Drudge of the Obama’s with the caption:
What’s the rush? Stimulus on hold.
ROFL
If this were Bush the headline would read, thousands of Americans laid off while president shops and dines
Posted by: Peach | February 15, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
7 Broken Promises:
1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public (republicans shut out)
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You’ll know what’s in it (Republican Senators didnt know)
7. We will put every pork barrel project online
Posted by: A31 | February 15, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
I absolutely believe that many Republicans knew something had to pass, but didn’t care for this bill and didn’t want to vote for *this bill*. Yet they knew they had no ability to force a substantially different bill.
It isn’t a great bill.
President Obama should keep in mind GWB’s undoing came when he had Congress. He couldn’t say no to his party, and he didn’t veto any of their spending bills. Nancy Pelosi can do for President Obama what Tom Delay did for Bush.
Posted by: MayBee | February 15, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
Flash Override writes:
“Republicans are continuing to parse words in a feeble attempt to blame the Democrats for their lack of participation in the bill. They started saying things like “Republicans weren’t involved in the crafting of the bill” after they declined to participate. From this rather coy talking point, they progressed into “Republicans were kept out of the process”, which implies that it was the Democrats, rather than their party leadership that kept them out. Somebody in the press ought to call them out.”
****************************************
NEWS FLASH for Flash: EVEN the Democrat members who voted for this boondoggle have admitted that they did not even have enough time to read it……Nancy pelosi and the “inner circle” did not even involve her own party in reviewing the bill. Does that sound like the Republicans declined “to participate?????”
Hmmmmmmm….maybe “talking points” are coming somewhere from the left.
Posted by: socialism101 | February 15, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
I am tired of reading about the ‘lessons’ for Obama in all of this. If anyone should be learning from this, its those who are not being told to do so. Regardless of whether it succeeds or not, Obama will be judged by this bill. Why are people making it sound like he should have succeeded in getting more repub votes? What would be in it for him? He can look bi-partisan just by trying, can get it passed by using just dems and the few moderates and can claim credit for it by making it work. So why are people talking like he really intended to get more repub votes?
Anyways, thanks to Specter for my job. I hope he wins his next election!
Posted by: Question | February 15, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
Suppose I should be surprised that a politician would vote against what he/she thinks is best for the country just to avoid a tougher election fight, but I’m not. Sadly.
Posted by: CJ | February 15, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
I don’t understand these stupid legislators! What right do they have to want to read or understand the details in the Stimulus bill, or indeed any bill endorsed by Obama. They should shutup and do whatever Obama tells them. He has a mandate from heaven and the American people. And from people worldwide. Stop reading and just vote, idiots!
Posted by: Ed | February 15, 2009, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
Apparently Obama just had to lie that this was a national emergency because the more time Congress took actually debating the bill, the more anti-spending bill sentiment built up.
Even Congressional Democrats said the volume of anti calls compared to those they received when considering the amnesty bill.
Obama couldn’t let any more public sentiment build up against the bribery, oops, I mean spending bill. He had to get that payoff money to his union and ACORN buddies.
Posted by: Re2 | February 15, 2009, 7:26 pm 7:26 pm
When did Shrub EVER set a bill out for discussion? especially the funding for IRAQ? oh, that was on a “supplemental” so it wasn’t real money. Trillions…as did we have a say in it?
*crickets*
I rest my case.
Posted by: bdog | February 15, 2009, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
I am still unhappy with this bill and disturbed that President Obama outsourced the writing of this crucial piece of legislation to the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives. In my more cynical moments, I wonder if he didn’t do that in order to have fall guys to blame should the bill prove to be the unmitigated disaster some of us fear it will be.
Concerning the quotes Mr. Tapper included in this piece, I have to wonder what they are smoking in Massachusetts that they would continue to reelect this odious, clueless man. President Obama was correct in his view that it would be better for the nation if the bill had bipartisan support. Too bad he did not focus more of his energy on strong arming House Democrats into including moderate Republican in the process so that the odds of garnering at least some Republican support would be increased. If Republicans are locked out of the markup of the bill and of the reconciliation conference, what is their incentive to vote for the resulting document? I agree with MayBee’s warning that Pelosi could cause problems for Obama like Delay did for Bush.
Posted by: moderate | February 15, 2009, 9:18 pm 9:18 pm
Bdog, no crickets here.
I should not dignify your anti-Bush rant with a response, but I am compelled to point out that the war in Iraq which you despise so much has not cost nearly so much over the past years as this bill will cost us over the next 18 months.
Additionally, I would like to point out that President Bush did indeed often present his ideas for legislation out for the public to see, using traditional methods like State of the Union addresses and his weekend radio addresses. He often traveled to drum up support for his proposals, just as President Obama has been doing for the stimulus bill. I was not a big fan of the perpetual campaign mode when it was Bush doing the traveling, and I’m not a fan now.
Posted by: moderate | February 15, 2009, 9:27 pm 9:27 pm
Question,
just curious– how did Sen. Specter save your job? I just wonder how directly you feel your job security is tied to some aspect of the stimulus bill (or were you referring to something else?). Or is it just a general feeling you have that the economy will improve now, which will improve the stability of your company, which will preserve your job?
Posted by: moderate | February 15, 2009, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
but I am compelled to point out that the war in Iraq which you despise so much has not cost nearly so much over the past years as this bill will cost us over the next 18 months.
******************************************************
According to the calculations made a year ago by Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, the actual cost was 1.3 trillion dollars. This included the costs and care for wounded soldiers, replacing destroyed equipment, the impact of disrupted oil markets, and other expenses. I don’t know what his calculations are to date.
But if you’re one of the wounded with a blown off face and/or missing limbs, or if you’ve lost a loved one to the war, then the monetary argument isn’t that relevant.
Posted by: kathy | February 15, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
Members of congress represent the people that live in there district or state. Therefore if not voting for the stimulus means they get reelected that implies that they did what their constituents wanted.
Get it.
Most in this country don’t anymore.
Posted by: Ken | February 15, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
Re2: The dumbing down of America truly is incredible at this point. Obama was only selected by the majority he was due to the fact that there really wasn’t much choice on either side – both were candidates that do not acknowledge our Constitution in any manner. Obama a Constitutional lawyer? I think the founder’s would disagree. Insofar as reading bills, the oath of office of every elected official on down to the county sheriff is to the U.S. Constitution – not even to those that placed them in office actually. Seems even Justice Roberts is pretty unfamiliar with it also at this point – and Obama – who had to take the oath twice, although that is the document that gave him the OFFICE of the presidency. The president is accountable to Congress, and to the American people – not a dictator.
Are you a former citizen of the Soviet Union?
Posted by: Betsy Ross | February 15, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
“…the war in Iraq which you despise so much has not cost nearly so much over the past years as this bill will cost us over the next 18 months.”
Somebody needs to check their figures. This statement is just flat-out not true.
Posted by: Pug | February 15, 2009, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm
Kathy,
Yeah, Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize winning economist but then again, so is Paul Krugman. *G* And this Columbia University professor and former World Bank official was and remains a vocal critic of the Iraq War. He is hardly objective in his analysis, in which he claims the “true cost” of the war to be 1.3 trillion. This is a wild speculation intended to stir opposition and to sell books (The big number was the title of his book). He factors in “indirect costs”– which includes manufacturing numbers than are, to put it mildly, subject to interpretation. That is a “what if” number that makes for fun ammunition for the antiwar movement, but is not a realistic, ‘real’ number. If you want to play by those rules, you could balloon out the cost of the stimulus to totally ridiculous levels. I’m not playing that game. I’ll stick with OMB and CBO numbers, thanks.
Posted by: moderate | February 15, 2009, 11:28 pm 11:28 pm
Moderate- I don’t call the inclusion of care for wounded soldiers as a form of “wild speculation” for war costs, either in dollar or moral costs. That’s fine, you can stick to your OMB and CBO data, which don’t include the obvious costs cited by Stiglitz.
BTW, I daresay Stiglitz’s book, which was released in 2008, stirred up much in the way of any further opposition the Iraq War. Americans had already made their disillusion with the war clear before then. But, If it had been released a few years earlier, your claims of controversy would have some ground. And I close with my observation that you display a low tolerance for diversity in viewpoints.
Posted by: kathy | February 16, 2009, 12:29 am 12:29 am
” Fun ammunition for the anti-war movement.”
Get with the times, Moderate. What anti-war movement? The majority of Americans have made their views known on the war by their voting; it’s not something on the fringe working its way into the majority as you implied. And there’s been nothing fun about the war, especially for those who have fought in it. The disrespect you showed extends to millions of Americans, in addition to those who have fought in the war.
Posted by: kathy | February 16, 2009, 12:42 am 12:42 am
The disrespect you showed extends to millions of Americans, in addition to those who have fought in the war.
**********************************************
Correction: The disrespect you showed extends to millions of Americans, INCLUDING those who have fought.
Posted by: kathy | February 16, 2009, 1:13 am 1:13 am
As a resident of the Blue State of North Carolina, home of the best basketball, barbeque, and beaches in the United States of America, I propose use of Federal stimulus funds for a bridge over South Carolina!
Posted by: Bill in NC | February 16, 2009, 10:34 am 10:34 am
The Republicans that didn’t vote for this bill have to be hoping it doesn’t work or their chance for re-election is gone.
My best hopes for this stimulus bill is that it prevents things from getting worse. The damage done by the Bush Administration with a senseless, expensive war, by de-regulating the banking industry thanks to Sen. Gramm and friends, including B. Clinton for signing it, the out-sourcing of too many well-paying jobs while Washington looked the other way, has finally broken our economy. This stimulus bill can stablize us while Washington hopefully passes some good legislation to regulate the banking industry again, puts big incentives in place to develop renewables and limits CEO’s pay like Japan does. All this greed has to be limited again or it will take our economy down further.
Posted by: Lydia | February 16, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm
Lydia:puts big incentives in place to develop renewables and limits CEO’s pay like Japan does.
======
Japan does not limit CEO’s pay.
Posted by: MayBee | February 16, 2009, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
We say, too little, too late, PB0.
It’s not time to give money away now. As two years earlier, get the freeking house price up and land mortgage loans at 3.5% for 30 years now.
Posted by: two cats | February 16, 2009, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
Specter, Snow and Collins helped there re-election effort by voting for this legislation. They come from liberal states, and if they had voted no then those would be three easy pick ups for the Democrats in the next election. Also the Iraq occupation costs up over 500,000,000 dollars a day. We need to cut our funding to that before anyone starts complaining about the stimulus.
Posted by: Rick | February 16, 2009, 11:34 pm 11:34 pm
Hi Folks,
I’m all for improving the economy and the signing of the stimulus package. However, with the economy the way it is at present, did anyone notice that the bill was signed into law with several very expensive Mont Blanc pens!!! Plain government pens would have done the job and symbolized how the economy is at present.
Congrats anyway, Mr. President. You have my “vote” all the way for the next 8 years!
SBelsley
Posted by: Sandy Belsley | February 19, 2009, 6:50 am 6:50 am