As is being widely discussed in the Sphere (and elsewhere) today, the House Passes Obama Stimulus Package (WaPo) on a vote of 244-188, which included zero Republican votes.
Before we all decided that we have the final story on how much support the GOP does or does not end up providing to the stimulus, may I remind everyone that this was not the final vote, not by a longshot. This now has to go to the Senate and likely will end up in conference. As such, this is not only not the final version of the stimulus package, it isn’t the last chance that the GOP will have to vote on it. So, we really don’t know if the stimulus will end up being passed in a way in which there it is considered all the Democrat’s sole responsibility or if it will end up with a the patina of bipartisanship.
One would think that reporters and political commentators would learn to keep their powder dry on congressional actions like this. While it is not insignificant that the House passed the bill with zero Republican votes, we are really only in the early goings of the first half of the game (maybe the late 1st quarter).
January 29th, 2009 at 10:54 am
political commentators would learn to keep their powder dry
It was kind of interesting, though, to see the Republican arguments against the bill.
Their main talking point was that “spending doesn’t create jobs”–which basically reflects a rejection of economic logic.
In today’s NY Times, for instance, Rep. Cantor (R) of Virginia critiqued the bill as “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination.” Well, yes. That’s right. That is exactly how you stimulate the economy. Dan Burton of Indiana made the nonsensical statement that the bill would lead to “socialism.”
By rejecting the whole concept of spending, they either are happy with the current economic situation or are not being guided by an understanding of Keyensian economics.
Maybe it is political posturing as you suggest, but I think the Bush-era penchant for rejecting fact and pragmatism might have permeated the GOP.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:03 am
There is a very real chance that at the end of the day, this is where the GOP will remain.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I agree that we haven’t seen the end of this. And I think the Republicans took their stand a little too early. The current bill includes a lot of tax cuts to get Republican (and Blue Dog) votes; and if they aren’t getting those votes then they may not survive until the final bill.
The main opposition to the bill is that it turned into a free-for-all. When they start acting like there’s a crisis instead of an opportunity to add spending that has nothing to do with the economy then I’ll start believing they’re serious.
Honestly, though, anybody who watched Clinton deal with Congress during his first two years and Bush deal with Congress all but his last year or so can’t be surprised that any disagreement between members of the same party can be overcome with increased spending.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:57 am
There’s a professor of economics at Harvard who (1) is a very big fan of Keynesian economics, and (2) says recent data suggests Keynes’ classic multipliers are probably wrong in today’s economy ( http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/spending-and-tax-multipliers.html ):
His advice is to have actual data — instead of outdated numbers — guide the stimulus.
And there are a few economists who disagree with the stimulus bill altogether ( http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf , three of those names are Nobel laureates).
January 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
[...] Republican Party That Can Say No I am inclined to agree with Steven Taylor (and, by extension, disagree with Nate Silver and Kevin Drum) that it’s a bit early to assume [...]
January 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Dr. Taylor: “There is a very real chance that at the end of the day, this is where the GOP will remain.”
Some have said that this is actually good tactics on the part of the GOP: that if things go badly, the GOP will almost certainly profit, and therefore has no need to support; if things go well, the GOP will almost certainly suffer, and therefore has no gain from supporting.
Max Lybbert Says:
“There’s a professor of economics at Harvard who (1) is a very big fan of Keynesian economics, and (2) says recent data suggests Keynes’ classic multipliers are probably wrong in today’s economy ( http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/spending-and-tax-multipliers.html ):”
Actually, there’s a former Bush hack at Harvard; that’s a far more accurate description of Manwh*re. As to his study, it’s amazing that increased gov’t spending during WWII didn’t have a massive stimulus effect – it couldn’t have been the rationing or something, could it?
“And there are a few economists who disagree with the stimulus bill altogether ( http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf , three of those names are Nobel laureates).”
Considering that I just saw a Nobel laureate (Becker of the U Chic br*thel) ask in a column why monetary policy wouldn’t be sufficient, when it was in 1982 (answer is pretty Econ 101), I’ll take any right-wing Nobel laureates’ advice with a big grain of salt.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Exactly, Steven. All we have had so far is the vote by the one institution that is, by design of its majority (of whichever party) the most partisan of the institutions. So hardly a surprise that they each use this as a chance to stake out positions. It’s more an initial bargaining posture than an indication of the ultimate result.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
See, I don’t think that Keynesian economics hasn’t been proven . . . but neither has the other school of thought. We can’t even agree on whether or not Keynesian spending helped us in the Great Depression or not! To claim that “stimulus will create jobs” is an unproven claim, as is the claim that “stimulus will not create jobs”. The reality is, we just don’t know.
I just wish this so called stimulus did a bit more in the way of stimulating. If we’re going to go with Keynes’ plan, lets follow it rather than creating the Liberal Priorities Omnibus Act of 2009.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:52 am
i’m (more or less) in favor of the stimulus package, but i do think that insofar the repubs shame the dems into taking away some of the pork–as obama suggested he would do–then they’re truly serving the nation well.
i want a bipartisan package for partisan reasons–i think it will serve obama well, and i support obama. but the reps are doing their proper job as the loyal opposition. i think their tone for the most part has been controlled and respectful.
at least the elected officials. the radio personalities on the other hand…
January 30th, 2009 at 7:03 am
[...] Steven Taylor notes, they’re not done voting yet. They’ll get at least one more bite at the apple [...]