Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 4, 2009

STIMULUS DEFENDERS WAKE UP.... After a propaganda bombardment that's been so intense that even those who would benefit from economic stimulus package are voicing their opposition to it, those congressional staffers and appropriations experts who crafted the bill in the first place "have become nearly apoplectic." It's about time.

The stimulus package, they say, is one of the most intricate pieces of legislation to come out of Congress in decades, one that achieves goals progressives have unsuccessfully sought for a quarter-century (yes, even through the Clinton administration).

In a series of interviews, these staffers, frustrated by the lack of effective push-back to the criticisms and restrained in their ability to mount an on-the-record defense, have resorted instead to an unexpected form of rebuttal -- so what?

As in: So what if the bill includes a litany of unrelated projects? The stimulus is supposed to work across many sectors, not one. Predictive models are historically unreliable when it comes to job creation; the bill funds projects far and wide, near-term and long for a reason. [...]

Why didn't a single House Republican vote for the recovery package? One high-ranking congressional aide opined to the Huffington Post, "It wasn't because of family planning funds or preserving the National Mall or whatever Rush Limbaugh and Drudge's talking points were. It's because this legislation is the clearest repudiation of Bush and Congressional Republican economic policies yet."

It is, in a way, a public relations coup that the stimulus has been boiled down to, as one Hill Democrat puts it, "funding for the arts, funding for the mall, and funding to fight AIDS." Those aspects of the legislation, as the White House points out, constitute a mere 7/100th of one percent of the entire package. Moreover, the size of the legislation is not even the most pertinent topic of debate. For many economists, the issue isn't whether the stimulus is too large, but whether it goes far enough in producing a new economic structure instead of patching up the old one.

The authors of the legislation emphasized a point we used to hear more from the White House: this spending package is intended to offer stimulative benefits and lay the groundwork for future gains.

So, for example, when the bill includes $6.7 billion for renovations and repairs to federal buildings, it creates jobs for those doing the work, and it saves the government in the future because current buildings haven't been weatherized. When the bill includes $2 billion in Head Start and Early Head Start funding, it creates educations jobs, and it pays dividends with long-term benefits to students. When the bill invests a $2.6 billion in advanced battery technology research and development, it creates engineering jobs, and it pays dividends in energy costs, U.S. manufacturing, and a competitive edge.

The other theme is that the Bush years have left the country's economy in such disrepair that legislators are required to think big. This is true on a broad level, where the middle class saw its purchasing power drastically diminished as their income remained stagnant. But is also true in a micro sense. Part of the reason the stimulus devotes so much to school renovation, an aide said, is because "there were pretty much no investments made in this area under the Bush administration... The only direct funding came in the form of emergency assistance in the gulf areas, after Katrina."

And so, Democrats who crafted the stimulus found themselves in a bind: forced to patch up the bruises of the Bush years with an eye towards creating a new economic system entirely. Whether they can thread that needle is a topic of serious debate. But it is one they take more seriously than the complaints being lobbed by Republican critics.

"We cannot move forward without understanding what created this crisis," said Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. "This recovery package is the beginning of a longer-term investment in America's middle class, our small businesses, health care, renewable energy technologies and a new infrastructure to reinvigorate our economy so that American workers and businesses can compete and win in the 21st Century."

Where have these arguments been the past few weeks? Might any of these authors be available to, you know, go on television or something?

Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The other theme is that the Bush years have left the country's economy in such disrepair that legislators are required to think big. >
As anyone who owns an old building knows, the phrase they should be using is "deferred maintenance". They aren't just planning for the future, they are repairing neglect.

Posted by: martin on February 4, 2009 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Can't go on TV if the dipshits who run the networks won't book you. Have you seen the media matters breakdowns of Rs versus Ds on the teevee since the election?

Posted by: fromer on February 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

"The stimulus is supposed to work across many sectors, not one."

Steve has given no evidence about what constraint is causing this recession. Was the housing bubble trying to solve an education constraint? Was the oil bubble trying to solve the construction constraint?

Tell me, Steve, what constraints are exactly the problem. If you are advocating a scatter approach, an experiment to find out what is wrong, then go with that, I can agree with that.

Otherwise tell me why Keynes says government needs to use underutilized resources but Obama funds education which has a 3.8% unemployment rate.

Posted by: MattYoung on February 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Thing is Steve these authors need to get over the wall that the corporate media has placed in front of any Dem plan. The media would much rather play to the Repubs since repub policy benifits those very well off media pundits sooooo much more than a middle class dem plan would. The state of modern journalism make me want to burn my journalism degree.

Posted by: redrover on February 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Might any of these authors be available to, you know, go on television or something?"

The Rachel Maddow Show is only an hour long!

Do you really believe that the corporate media wants to hear from any coherent persons in favor of a bill that the rethugs are opposed to?

Do you really believe that the bloviators talking non-stop against the minutia of this bill care about the minutia they carp about?

Point 1) The rethugs are against it & will remain against it because it is not a rethug president behind it.

Point 2) The rethugs will not vote in large numbers for it no matter what it is changed to; unless it is changed to all tax breaks for the wealthy & corporations.

Point 3) The rethugs will not vote in large numbers for it because they care about bringing down democratic presidents and do not give a damn about working people.

Point 4) The corporate media is owned by rethugs and will continue to serve as echo chambers and amplifiers for the messages of their rethugnican corporate owners.

Point 5) If Obama wanted prime time to address the nation about the stimulus bill and the economy of our country, I will bet that he would not get it.

All Pledge Allegiance to the United States of Corporate Amerika, one nation under corporations, for corporations, and by corporations!

Posted by: AngryOldVet on February 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

I was watching the movie Traffic the other night and it had a scene where Michael Douglas, as the new Drug Czar, hit the Washington cocktail circuit. There were a few cameos by real politicians, one of which was Orrin Hatch. His advice to Douglas? Use your bully pulpit while you have a chance. Talk while people will still listen; this is the most powerful tool in Washington.

I've been saying this all day - Obama has the bully pulpit... USE IT! I'm talking bring national security into the equation. Hold a prime time press conference, address the nation, and frame our recovery in terms of making our nation strong and SECURE, and Oh, take a little time to remind Americans which party's ideas led us into this mess in the first place...

Put it in terms even Joe the Plumber can understand!

How is middle America going to combat the imminent Islamic takeover of America by the terrorists hiding under our beds if they can't even afford to buy bullets for their guns?!?!


Posted by: citizen_pain on February 4, 2009 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

whining about the media doesn't matter. dems are hardly holding any press conferences to push the matter up on capitol hill; GOP is happily filling the vacuum; Obama seems to be wringing his hands because people who hate him won't join his plan. and you have stories in wapo saying dems can't pass the bill?? with a 17-vote advantage?!?

they have capitulated before the fight even started. we are governed by alan holmes.

Posted by: scarpy on February 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Asked recently about infrastructure spending, Tim Pawlenty pointed out that the Minneapolis bridge didn't fall because of poor maintainence. It fell because of poor design. Heckuvan excuse for doing nothing, isn't it?

Posted by: Danp on February 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

So what. That was exactly what I was thinking when I read about Susan Collins' opposition to the bill.

"there are some parts of a nearly $900 billion bill that could be trimmed, and Collins herself points to funds for cyber-security and to prepare for pandemic flu"

She's against money to prepare for a pandemic? For cyber security? Or is she willing to derail the entire stimulus because she thinks those items should be in a different piece of legislation.

Posted by: Jinchi on February 4, 2009 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

All this bluster is just that--bluster. You all watch, by the time Congress recesses there will be a stimulus bill on the President's desk.

Posted by: independent thinker on February 4, 2009 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

A RAY OF HOPE!

Posted by: AlphaLiberal on February 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

We can't listen to attacks on the stimulus bill that focus on miniscule portions of it, but defenses of the bill that focus on miniscule portions of it are OK.

The real problem with the bill is it doesn't make choices between trying to stimulate the economy through private and public spending on the one hand, and trying to build the foundation for a stronger economy in the future by funding longer-term projects. It allocates its money to constituencies, not to priorities -- because Democrats in Congress respond to constituencies and the administration hasn't decided what it wants its priorities to be.

The bill is also overloaded with tax cuts already. Since Republicans aren't supporting it anyway, what is the point of this? The issue isn't strength or weakness in the partisan back-and-forth in Washington; it's whether President Obama and his team can decide what they want. They seem to have decided they want a little bit of everything. This may give them a political victory and a bill passed, but it won't do what the economy needs.

Oh, and as for the media coverage...look the Republicans on the Hill know what they want to say and the Democrats don't. The Democrats are waiting for Obama's lead; they are also in the more difficult position of playing offense. It's always easier to play defense and just oppose bits and pieces of very large bills. When Obama tells Hill Democrats what he wants them to say, they'll get plenty of air time, but until then they will be reluctant to appear to preempt their man in the White House.

Posted by: Zathras on February 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

It's funny to read that line about cyber security and the pandemic flu. Those are two of the United States' greatest threats and the type of things that should be in the bill in order to defend it against lame brained Republican attacks. Two things the government should be spending billions on.

Posted by: grinning cat on February 4, 2009 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with independent thinker.

The left is in revolt because they think Obama is being too accommodating (even though this bill is in NO CONCEIVABLE WAY "CENTRIST" -- It's fucking $900 billion for christ's sake. There has been some regrettable "compromises", but this is only the first step in what will be a long fight.) The right is being obstructionist. And the center is being wishy-washy.

Still, the "Overton Window" is thrown around a lot and people here seem convinced that the deck is stacked against them in the media, etc. without even once realizing what's on the table here (most of which isn't being even discussed because the conversation has become "we need stimulus" and the bickering is over what constitutes that).

This is what is in the Senate bill, from The Nation (which calls it a very, very, good bill) via MoveOn:

**$142 billion for a middle-class tax cut
**$47 billion to extend unemployment benefits
**$16 billion to expand food stamps
**$17 billion in one-time payments to low-income Americans
**$26 billion to expand access to health care
**$87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid
**$24 billion to modernized health information technology
**$46 billion to fix bridges and roads
**$80 billion to improve public education
**$19 billion for school construction
**$14 billion to make college more affordable
**$32 billion for clean energy

And the GOP is dicking about the margins and whining about a few billion here and there.

The fact remains that this is still a good case to be made and overreacting to a few small roadblocks makes the GOP look more powerful than they are. The New Deal wasn't built in a day. This is a good first step. And something close to this will pass if Harry Reid gets his head out of his ass.

Posted by: Jay B. on February 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Obama is already going on the offensive, using his bully pulpit in the Williams interview and at the S-CHIP bill signing (just completed) to blast those who are obstructing the stimulus package. He's not going to roll over on this.

Was watching (not by choice) FAUX news on the tube while working out at the gym last night and the talking heads were going out of their way to mock certain provisions of the bill. Twisting them, misrepresenting them, what else is new? Why try to be constructive when it's easier to criticize, especially when your own party caused such incredible damage to the country and suffered a huge loss last November.

Posted by: Oregonian on February 4, 2009 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Like AngryOldVet more or less said the CORPORATE MEDIA IS A CRIMINAL OPERATION THAT IS AKIN TO THE MAFIA .. they , and they alone, will decide what to present to America. And what they present will only benefit the Corporations themselves. Let's all remember what Scott McClellan said about the Corporate Media: 'there were actively complicit in gettin' Bush's ( corporate ) done' ...

Posted by: stormskies on February 4, 2009 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK
The real problem with the bill is it doesn't make choices between trying to stimulate the economy through private and public spending on the one hand, and trying to build the foundation for a stronger economy in the future by funding longer-term projects.

Um, why is that a problem? Since both are necessary, why would the bill "make choices between" those two things as if they were opposed and incompatible?

It allocates its money to constituencies, not to priorities

What, in concrete terms, is this supposed to mean? Give specific examples.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 4, 2009 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Zathras wrote: The real problem with the bill is it doesn't make choices between trying to stimulate the economy through private and public spending on the one hand, and trying to build the foundation for a stronger economy in the future by funding longer-term projects.

No, that's a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: Gregory on February 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Where have these arguments been the past few weeks? Might any of these authors be available to, you know, go on television or something?"

Exactly. Republicans, it seems, leave the office and go on television. Democrats, it seems, leave the office and go home.

Posted by: CJ on February 4, 2009 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Government employees are the least skeptical of all. Just 26% of those on the public payroll say the legislation is likely to make things worse. However, a majority of entrepreneurs, private sector employees and retirees all think the legislation could end up doing more harm than good." (From the 2/4/09, "50% Say Stimulus Plan Likely to Make Things Worse" Rasmussen crosstabs)

No f'n way!!!

In other words people who built businesses in the face of risk and confiscatory taxes, people who actually work for a living, and people who actually worked for a living prior to retiring think this bill is delusional.

Posted by: tao9 on February 4, 2009 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

"...people who built businesses in the face of risk and confiscatory taxes, people who actually work for a living, and people who actually worked for a living prior to retiring think this bill is delusional."

If true, then people who built businesses in the face of risk and "confiscatory" taxes, people who actually work for a living, and people who actually worked for a living prior to retiring are misinformed.

Posted by: CJ on February 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

tao9: people who slant republican don't like the bill. I'm f'ing shocked.

Look, Republican policies and ideas got us into this mess. We're not going to get out of it by passing a bunch of republican policies. We're going to get out of it by repudiating them.

Posted by: Tyro on February 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Tyro: You're an assistant notary for Schenectady County, aren't you?

Posted by: tao9 on February 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

For many economists, the issue isn't whether the stimulus is too large, but whether it goes far enough in producing a new economic structure instead of patching up the old one.

And for "many" economists, it is a complete waste of borrowed money.

Posted by: marketeer on February 4, 2009 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK
And for "many" economists, it is a complete waste of borrowed money.

The scare quotes on "many" are quite appropriate, but there should be some on "economists" as well.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 4, 2009 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

You're an assistant notary for Schenectady County, aren't you?

ta09: you're a Republican House legislative aide, aren't you?

Or, perhaps, an intern at a wingnut welfare "think" tank?

Posted by: Stefan on February 4, 2009 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Tao,

You can throw as much money as you want in the form of tax breaks (Bush has been doing it for 8 years). Businesses won't lift a finger until people start coming through the door to buy their goods and services. Businesses don't take risks. They move when they see there is a buck to be made.

Who is going to provide that money to the average consumer: the tooth fairy? Stimulus only works by putting cash in the hands of people who need to spend it. Hopefully in the form of new jobs with a steady paycheck. Businesses won't start hiring until their bottom line looks better, so you have a major "cart before the horse" problem. Tax breaks don't mean shit if you're unemployed.

Oh, and I wouldn't rely on Rasmussen Polls as your personal Jesus.

Posted by: bdop4 on February 4, 2009 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

The scare quotes on "many" are quite appropriate, but there should be some on "economists" as well.

And bookend smiley faces.

Posted by: Econobuzz on February 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

The "so what" response is not appropriate. Dems should be stern and say this is not a progressive pinata of joy - these are absolutely necessary items.

Americans have a sense that the Bush Admin has neglected necessary care of our infrastructure, but they need a better visualization. The bridge in Minnesota helps, but that's not enough. How about providing a sum energy savings in the form of a consumer energy bill (like the type you get in the mail each month)?

Speaking in terms of mathematical percentages is too esoteric for most people that "look" at news (online or televised). Go out and find the local Carl the Weatherizer who is out-of-work. Find construction workers that only work 20 hours a week instead of fifty. This is turning into a bipartisan squabble instead of debate of impacting real communities and the people who live in them.

And what if this is a laundry list of progressive wishes? I'd recommend throwing it out and starting over. If Obama and the Dem party can pass legislation that restores America, then they can come back in four years with a true mandate for progressive wishes.

Posted by: Tuna on February 4, 2009 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

So tax cuts for everyone worked in 1982 and 2003 at a fraction of the cost of this spending bill (note with emphasis that Bush's 2003 cuts made the tax code more progressive, not less; proportionately he gave the poorest a negative tax cut and the middle incomes greater tax cut than he gave the rich ... definitely and the graphs show it). In fact Reagan's cuts lead to a 26 year boom that only ended because of a combination, emphasis, combination of failure to regulate lending practices (corrupted by Democratic borrowers overwhelmingly) and securitization (conducted by Republican financiers overwhelmingly) and by government intervention, i.e., corruptly created, via lobbyists, and economically malfeasant socialism. Otherwise the Reagan Revolution would be proceeding on pace. It has been the greatest job creation and upward mobility engine in world history.

And, please: wages have skyrocketed during the Reagan Revolution. Wage levels, merely steps people climb over their 20-30 year careers from McDonald's moppers to upper-middle income and higher workers, may have remained somewhat consistent ... so? It only makes there to be more jobs at all those levels, duh.

This $1T spending spree is absurd and either way the Democrats are going to pay in 2010. Krugman estimates best case this will cost long term $60,000/job. Campaign on that; again that is the best case scenario.

Democrats are greedy; they want to cause and take advantage of people's misery for their own wealth, power, and prestige.

I will be saying I told you so.

The Masked Defender

PS If you want to help the poor most, spend stimulus funds for border enforcement, law enforcement, small business tax credits, homeland security (oh, not unionized; what is their share going to be), the military, and charter schools.

If you want to help Democrat politicians', lobbyists', and union representatives' short term interests; the $1T bill is perfect.

Posted by: The Masked Defender on February 4, 2009 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Rethugs" for Republicans?

I'm an independent; but I've never seen legislatively encouraged thuggery like the, ha, Employee Free Choice Act, whereby the secret ballot is eliminated (though whatever contrived managment abuses could easily be legislated directly) and a worker must check their vote in front of union organizers.

Democrats don't understand that any worker prefering to rise in pay based on merit rather than seniority and wanting to keep their wages from unions and not interested in supporting the Democratic Party generally and not wanting to work in a dystopic workplace with as bunch of peer review job protected goof-offs would choose against unions. It's perfectly rational. I notice professors in universitie don't belong to unions and don't want to. Their tenure system is voluntary on the part of managment and abusive to entry level lecturers, but it produces excellence in academia, whatever bias, and so the never whisper a word about "professorial unions" and university adminitrators unions. It would destroy the US higher education system and you all know it.

The Masked Defender ... Word

Posted by: The Masked Defender on February 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Here's the problem. The government spent an incredible sum to shore up the investment and banking industry. The results so far are:
1. Vast bonius sums paid out to Wall Steet execs.
2. Arbitrary increases in many major credit card interest rates with new onerous terms.
3. A major contraction of the availability commercial, housing, and auto loans.
4. A historic collapse of stock market valuations.

Why does anyone think the consequences of the stimulus package will be any better?

Posted by: rfb99 on February 4, 2009 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, rfb99, I think the consequences of the stimulus package would be much different than the TARP plan that was implemented under Bush. Don't you?

Honestly, people don't seem to realize how dire the situation is right now. What do you propose, no stimulus?

Posted by: g. powell on February 4, 2009 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Krugman estimates best case this will cost long term $60,000/job. Campaign on that; again that is the best case scenario.

And how much did it cost for the jobs created from 3 trillion in tax cuts for rich people under Bush's and the GOP watch. Not to mention the trill wasted on an unnecessary war. Oh wait, what frieking jobs created? Campaign on that.

Posted by: Stuck on February 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

This is just beyond belief. I have watched ten presidents come into office since I was old enough to be aware of politics (11 if you count Eisenhower, whose second administration I was aware of), and never ever have I seen a victorious party lose control of the message for their signature issue in two freaking weeks!!!!!!

The only way this can happen is for one side to just stand there and be hit - which is what has happened.

Goddamnit, I am tired of 30 years of watching the idiots of the Democratic Party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: TCinLA on February 5, 2009 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

...It's because this legislation is the clearest repudiation of Bush and Congressional Republican economic policies yet."
Uh, Profligate deficit spending is profligate deficit spending whether it's for unnecessary wars or Pelosi pork.

Posted by: Luther on February 5, 2009 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Before George Bush's stupid war and tax cuts for rich people, and before he killed out economy, there was a surplus in the national kitty. Profligate that!

Posted by: Stuck on February 5, 2009 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

The scare quotes on "many" are quite appropriate, but there should be some on "economists" as well.

some of the many "economists" who oppose the stimulus, and some of the "many economists" who support the stimulus, have Nobel prizes.

Just because the stimulus is opposed by Republicans doesn't mean there is no good case against the stimulus. The enthusiasms for the stimulus rest primarily on narrations based on counterfactual assumptions, such as: If Hoover hadn't tried to balance the federal budget then the Great Depression would not have been as deep and as long; if the Federal Reserve had enlarged the money supply then the Great Depression would not have been as deep and as long; if FDR had borrowed and spent more then the Great Depression would not have been as deep and as long. And so forth, right down to: If the Republican administration had acted sooner to avert the banking crisis then the current depression would not have been as deep as it is or as long as Obama says it will be.

Posted by: marketeer on February 5, 2009 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a liberal who wants a stimulus bill, but don't blame a media conspiracy for the failure here. This is simply bad leadership, pure and simple.

The GOP is organized and selling a consistent, coherent message consistent with its principles of preventing the growth of government and cutting taxes.

The Democrats have peddled no coherent message and are not working together. Obama should have been all over the House and Senate from the start of his transition, working with Pelosi and Reid on a consistent narrative. Obama's original intentions were good: some limited proportion of the bill would consist of tax cuts for short-term benefit, but the meat of the bill would be in infrastructure investment in transportation, education, health care, and energy. To let the bill go sprawling beyond those limited aims would rob it of intellectual coherence.

Perhaps Reid and Pelosi refused to work with Obama on this. Or perhaps Obama never did the legwork that needed to be done. Either way, the Democrats made their own bed on this one and the Republicans have been driving the public discussion for close to a week--and on the merits, too. The moral: If Democrats don't work together and present a coherent, united front, this presidency--and this economy--are in for a gloomy four years.

Posted by: Josh on February 5, 2009 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

International Herald Tribune

Downturn ends boom in solar and wind power

NEW YORK: Wind and solar power grew at a blistering pace in recent years, and that growth seemed likely to accelerate, especially in the United States under the green-minded administration of the new president, Barack Obama.

But because of the credit crisis and the broader economic downturn, the opposite is happening: Except in isolated markets, like China, installation of wind and solar power is slowing, and in some cases plummeting.

Factories building parts for these industries in the United States have announced a wave of layoffs in recent weeks, and trade groups are projecting 30 percent to 50 percent declines this year in the installation of new equipment, a decrease that bars more help from the government.

What happened to the president's green industry stimulus?

Posted by: DevilDog on February 5, 2009 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

The hapless, ineffectual and incompetent Democrats make me apoplectic.

Posted by: Helena Montana on February 5, 2009 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK

Just because the stimulus is opposed by Republicans doesn't mean there is no good case against the stimulus.

Maybe not, but it's a pretty strong indicator.

Your faith-based free market religion has failed, "marketeer." Thanks to a mandate from the American people sick of the Republican policies of fail, we'll be doing it our way now, thanks.

Posted by: Gregory on February 5, 2009 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Watching the parade of Republicans on tv denouncing the stimulis,
it occurred to me that cable tv is playing a major part in the gridlock in Washington.
Of all the talking heads the only person I've seen call out one of the repubs on their BS was Katie Couric. She nailed John McCain for his opposition to the part of the bill that would help homeowners weatherproof their homes.

Posted by: Art P on February 5, 2009 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly