2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/01/30/you-spent-a-lot-too-so-shut-up/
0
0
  |   8 comments

The title of this entry is the sense of the attitude I’ve been gathering from liberals over the House of Representatives Republicans’ recent show of unity against the Democrats’ stimulus bill.  The basic argument is that because the Republicans themselves went on a massive spending spree during their years in power, they no longer have a leg to stand on in opposing this bill.  Another way of saying it is basically, “You did this too so now we can do it.”  In other words, it’s the Democrats’ way of justifying their pork-filled bill.

For one, it seems like a weak argument to make, because the Democrats have been in the Republicans’ position before, only a few years ago.  Second: 46% of the population didn’t vote for Barack Obama.  There needs to be an opposition.

Do you remember back when the Democrats were in the minority and the Democrats put forth amendments to troop funding bills to withdrawal from Iraq?  Then whenever the Republicans would announce the Democrats had voted against the troops they’d put their tails between their legs and comply with whatever bill was put forth by the majority?

Well now the tables are turned and the Republicans are showing some resolve (finally), and what do we get?  Blog posts like this one, entitled “Republicans Vote Against the American People.”  Excuse me while I go hack up some phlegm (of a different type than the stuff I have been spending half my recent days hacking up).

Really?  And that’s only what one blogger is saying about this.  So lets go straight to the source; what say you, SanFran Nan?:

“Republicans asked for several things so that they could participate in the process, and we gave them all of the opportunities they asked for,” Pelosi said.

Of course, from what I understand, that’s not quite true.  So says Jazz Shaw, anyway (emphasis his):

Instead, we witnessed a tour de’ force of the newly minted, Democratic superpower. One of the most telling features of the evening for me was watching the facial gestures and body language of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Unlike many of her previous, stern appearances, the Speaker sat at her bench and smiled broadly, seeming to be on the verge of giggling a number of times, as the Republicans lined up to vote against the bill. At least for me, there was a very clear message being sent. And that message was, “we don’t need to work with you any more. I have the votes and I have the power. We’re not just going to appropriate money to address the economic crisis here. We’re going to fund a whole bunch of things we’ve been trying to get through for the last eight years. We know you don’t agree, but you’re going to sit there and take it. You did it to us when we were in the minority. Let’s see how you like it.

So, basically, Pelosi just wants the Republicans to sit down and shut up while the Dems do whatever they please?  You know, that seems awfully familiar.  But the problem with this type of argument, or the one presented in the entry title, is that it’s just childish.  It’s something you might expect in an elementary school playground, not in the halls of Congress.  But it’s more serious, because now the Democrats, or Pelosi, anyway, want blood.  So this smells of revenge.  It’s a poor attitude to have, really.  Unsportsmanlike.

Pelosi should have worked with the Republicans to identify problem areas, but clearly she didn’t, given the vote.  As Shaw says, this bill stripped down to the essentials might have been passable with both parties in line.  Pelosi decided to ignore this in an attempt to assert power.

Which could be fatal for the Democrats in 2010 if this measure doesn’t work.

  1. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83418
    C Stanley Re: the headline and main topic of telling the other party that they can't criticize spending... It reminds me of a caricature of a marriage where the husband is a big spender and the wife feels aggravated that he's buying all kinds of gadgets all of the time, so her attitude is, "If he can do that, then I can also spend money on everything I want." So she runs up the credit cards at the mall and the next thing you know they can't make their mortgage payment. Time to grow up, people. Critcize the recent GOP majority Congresses and Bush adminstration all you want for their overspending, but stop the nonsense about how the current GOP minority shouldn't assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility now. Of course they should- someone has to do it.
  2. Posted by ChrisWWW
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83440
    ChrisWWW I'm glad someone is out there to challenge Democratic and liberal thinking, ultimately it should serve to hone policies and arguments. Unfortunately, the GOP (outside of exceptions like Ron Paul) has little or no credibility when it comes to the arguments they are pushing for this stimulus bill. Their counter proposal was a joke, 100% tax cuts with no cost estimates. Clean up your act Republicans. The country needs vigorous opposition in politics.
  3. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83449
    C Stanley I agree to an extent, Chris, that the counterproposals weren't serious. From what I've heard, most of the GOP was on board with some stimulus spending, esp for infrastructure. I also don't think there's the kind of resistance that there has been in the past to extending unemployment benefits (obviously everyone realizes that the situation now warrants it, unlike in the past when unemployment was still low and Dems championed for this cause.) But instead of putting those things into their alternate bills, they did focus exclusively on tax cuts. Here are the criteria I think they should have laid out for Obama when he met with them, as their bottom line for gaining their support for the bill: 1. Stick to having no less than 40% of the bill as tax cuts just as Obama recommended, and make sure that a good portion of that provides relief to small businesses. 2. Separate out the medium and long term goals and make this bill all about the immediate relief and stimulus. Obama is right to look at the big picture, but you can't rush through and cram all of those goals into an emergency package. 3. Large infrastructure spending as the majority of the job creation part of the package. Key point here would also be to change the process by which these projects are approved; not only is shovel ready important, but also having oversight to insure that high priority projects get the nod ahead of the ones that are only high priority to a particular Congressman. Also need oversight and transparency regarding who gets the contracts, to help prevent political payback schemes. Transparency has been a cornerstone campaign promise by Obama; the GOP should hold him accountable to provide it, especially when this amount of new spending is at stake. I think the GOP is missing an opportunity to show that they're not promoting only the knee jerk tax cut response- but supporting a spending stimulus of this form. I think there'd be widespread public support since most people are aware that our roads and bridges are in need of serious repair. 4. Increase military spending for troops. Providing a large amount of recruitment money will help fill our ranks with new enlistees and take some of the pressure off of our currently overextended ranks. 5. Only include healthcare measures which provide for insurance coverage for people immediately affected by the recession (extending COBRA) 6. Get expert economic analysis to determine the cost effectiveness of every dollar spent toward job creation; what is the actual cost of each dollar being allocated (included future interest on the debt) compared to the value added to the economy and number of jobs created as compared to those that could be created by the private sector if the economy is strengthened by other means. 7. Provide a means of tracking the results of this legislation so that we can gain information useful in future economic downturns. It seems that everyone is still arguing about what got us out of the Great Depression- why not use modern economic theory to develop some evidence based information rather than fighting the same ideological battles over and over again?
  4. Posted by Grewgills
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83484
    Grewgills The vast majority of Republicans that have been in the house or senate for the past 6 or more years don't have a leg to stand on when calling out anyone for wasteful spending. Nor do those same Republicans have a leg to stand on when they complain about procedural moves to deny them a voice. That allows for this type of gamesmanship on the part of the Democratic leaders in the house. That doesn't make it right, but it does make the position of some of the most currently vocal Republicans look partisan rather than principled. On the other hand employing this behavior after complaining about it for 6-8 years (or 12 years) makes the opposition look more partisan than principled as well. Obama attempted to get the right thing done, that is have all voices heard and have all parties given the opportunity for input. Some attempt was made at this (half heartedly on the part of house dems). It appears that Rs realized that they did not have the power to dominate the discussion and so decided to bow out and dems seeing them bow out and realizing they would not get R support stripped away any concessions and passed a bill loaded with unrelated partisan spending. In short there are few if any good actors in the house. Have there ever been?
  5. Posted by c3
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83509
    c3 Grewgills; Do you realize you just reinforced CStanley's point. (Well they did it for x years so they have no right to criticize!!!).
  6. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83517
    C Stanley On the other hand employing this behavior after complaining about it for 6-8 years (or 12 years) makes the opposition look more partisan than principled as well. Well, at least you acknowledge this, which many of the Dems' cheerleaders do not. And this is what I keep harping on in a discussion on a different blog- the bottom line is that no one can have it both ways. The Dems are free to use every benefit of the majority they wish, to pretty much shut out the GOP from policy debates. But if they do so, they can't also keep complaining about partisanship and how bitterly divided everyone is. If they go that route, eventually the moderates who claim to written off the GOP because of partisanship have to be honest and either reject the Dems who behave the same way or come to terms with the fact that it wasn't the principle of bipartisanship that led them to abandon the GOP, but instead they just like Democratic ideology better. What I find so ridiculous is the number of 'moderate' or 'centrist' bloggers who won't admit that they're political ideology leans quite a bit to the left of the center of American politics. There's nothing wrong with having those views (well, I think they're wrong, but I mean everyone has a right to his/her opinion even if it's wrong :) ) but I think these bloggers are trying to claim more turf than they legitimately hold. They want to claim the center ground because eventually that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. c3: My guess is that he knows it but really does think that. My take on it though is that I really don't care whether or not what the politicians' motivations are if his/her actions end up being the correct and responsible ones- especially in a situation where we need that kind of fiscal responsibility so much. Time will tell whether or not the particular GOP leaders who are rising up will have integrity (blocking or voting no to bad legislation while looking for opportunities to vote yes on good bills) or if they're just deciding in advance that they're going to vote down everything and anything. My guess is that they know that the mood of the country won't support them in the latter practice- and even if they only act because of that need for self preservation, who cares? If a reformed criminal doesn't have a heartfelt conversion to avoid crime but does so because he's afraid of going back to jail, it still means he's not committing crimes and acting as a productive citizen.
  7. Posted by Michael Merritt
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83567
    Michael Merritt My take on all of this is that it is better to have an effective opposition than none at all, no matter how hypocritical they may be. Pelosi wants to shut out them Dems, but she can't do that. Not if she wants to retain her position in two years.
  8. Posted by Grewgills
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #83739
    Grewgills
    Do you realize you just reinforced CStanley’s point. (Well they did it for x years so they have no right to criticize!!!).
    I agree with most of what CS said down to what the more effective republican strategy would be. I also think that the house is filled nearly to the brim with partisans on both sides of the aisle. Partisanship isn't necessarily bad, but partisanship merely for the sake of partisanship is and that seems to be most of what is happening here and for the past 12 years at least. Both sides pick their evidence to support their position rather than picking their positions based on the evidence and both sides ignore contravening evidence. The recent Republican partisanship does have the same benefit that the previous 10 years of Democratic partisanship had when the house was under republican control; that is it provided needed debate even if that debate was, again in both cases, generally puerile. As Michael said it is better to have opposition voices even if the motives are less than pure.