Ultimately, I don't doubt that the stimulus package will have a positive impact, but lawmakers were given a unique opportunity to reshape the economy, and spent a week figuring out how to do less instead of more.

With Obama's blessing.

It IS scary to watch our legislators in action. They don't have anything personal at stake, really, given that they're all employed and very comfortable. So you take out the effect of this crisis on their own families, which is negligible, and you're left with grandstanding, lack of vision, cowardice, and a detachment that is very disturbing to the rest of us. And that's just the Dems. (A little joke, but not that far off.)

I hope that Obama's leadership is more effective than it seems at present, and that the Dems learn to smack down the Republicans. Right now, you'd never know that we had a national election about these different perspectives, and that one side won resoundingly. One or two speeches by O isn't going to shift the spin war - the Dems have to be disciplined and relentless in their attacks. No more Kumbaya.

I really wonder now if we'll ever get meaningful health care reform. If Obama and a Democratic congress can't get that done, it will never happen.

The Republican party doesn't care if the country burns down. At least now we all know that.

Th only thing they got right was cutting $2 billion from the health IT boondoggle. Don't get me wrong - a national health IT plan is essential - but throwing huge sums of money at the problem before you have a proper plan is just a handout to the IT industry.

Dear Harry,

Force. The. Republicans. To. Filibuster.

This is bad legislation. There is no point in going all in when you know for a fact the results are going to suck. NO POINT!

Does anyone have a guess on how 70 Billion dollars "to protect" people from the AMT is stimulative?

Now Palin is pleading with Obama to build the pipeline in Alaska that she listed as her accomplishment during the campaign.

James Wimberley said:
Th only thing they got right was cutting $2 billion from the health IT boondoggle. Don't get me wrong - a national health IT plan is essential - but throwing huge sums of money at the problem before you have a proper plan is just a handout to the IT industry.

This is a good point. Until we completely revamp privacy laws, I don't trust anyone to put all my medical records online. I'd say more, but that would be 'way off topic.

Otherwise, the "compromises" in the bill are really frustrating. I'm seriously considering calling my senators and urging them to vote against the bill -- not that that they care what I think. We're never going to be able to undo the damage the Republicans have done (with the assistance of the Democratic "leadership") until Democrats are more afraid of their progressive base than they are of right-wing talking points.

The people of Maine had their chance to retire that fraud Collins in November and didn't.
Any bets that in the Senate bill, Maine and Nebraska are immune from the cuts in state aid.
The filibuster exists to give disproportionate power to egomaniacs. In a majority rules world, no one outside of Omaha would know Nelson's name.

The grand comedy in all of this is the collective ramble from my side of the issue; those voices who apparently have very short attention-spans, and once again forget in a heartbeat where this country would now be, had the outcome of the election been different.

Are you all friggin' deaf out there? Have you so quickly forgotten that "Candidate No" (McCain) could have been our president? What kind of a "stimulus" would you have gotten out of him? He and his kind still want to kill this bill---period. If some trade-off is prerequisite to get enough votes for "the magic 60", then so be it.

The programs that everyone's ballyhooing about were not eliminated; they were not reduced; only the additional funding through the stimulus was reduced. Head Start still gets its original appropriation, and still gets a big chunk of the additional funding through the stimulus bill---same thing with school measures and everything else.

If we start whining to the heavens that we've gotten nothing, simply because we didn't get everything, then what does that make us---other than a mirror image of the evil that is the GOP?

Think "Civil War" here---we're just coming off First Bull Run, and you goofs are already wanting to hand the GOP their ultimate defeat---their Appomattox? You're fighting a war here, people. Wars take time. They're expensive. They're very disheartening at first. They're fought one battle at a time, and the winner almost always loses the first few battles. If you lose the opening round, then you fall back, regroup, and attack them again....

if BOA is the "bank of satan"
i'd hafta say these folks are
"satan's centrists"

(and may the good maud strike them all as she sees fit)

Probably not worth passing at this point...

If I were Obama I would say either add back the spending or eliminate most of the tax cuts. Of course, in fact he should never have offered the tax cuts in the first place - he shouldn't have promised them in the first place during his campaign. Most Americans aren't like the greedy rich aristocratic a-holes that obsess over tax cuts; they are willing to invest in a better future.

So far I give Obama a 8 for vision and a 4 for leadership. I'm starting to get worried that if he doesn't learn how to be an executive soon it will be a long four years.

There is no doubt, that some, maybe a lot of the cuts will be restored in conference, whereupon the total amount of the bill will exceed the amount of the original House version. Not to mention, this was an emergency legislation action, and regular order appropriations bills will address the rest of the cuts. And finally, a huge Omnibus appropriation bill is coming down the pike soon, and will have additional progressive works, that if filibustered would shut down the Fed government. Do you think wingnuts would do that? A little patience, and don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Dear Harry,

Force. The. Republicans. To. Filibuster.

This is bad legislation. There is no point in going all in when you know for a fact the results are going to suck. NO POINT!

What you said. What this bill will accomplish is not much, now that almost half of it is tax cuts to placate the Republicans. I have no work at the moment and I'm not eligible for unemployment since I've been self-employed. Tax cuts are going to do exactly nothing to keep me from losing my house - I need work.

I think the lesson we've all learned from this is that it's time for us to start pressuring Dems in the Senate to dump Harry Reid. And to pressure Harry Reid to back off this ridiculous pledge to capitulate whenever the Republicans pitch one of their hissy fits (and they will, on every piece of legislation that matters) and force the morons to filibuster.

Steve W. has a good point, and I would have responded differently having not read it.

That being said, that these 'centrists' were able to remove additional funding for things like school construction, fed. building upgrades, and rural broadband really pisses me off.

But that's what Republicans love to do, isn't it? Piss off progressives. I'll withhold a verdict and let this play out for a while to see if things are really going to change for the people.

Are they sure they have this right:
"tax credits of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples would begin to phase out at lower income levels than first proposed, saving the government $2 billion." - that implies, the credits apply to everyone *lower* than a certain income level, hence "savings" for the G. if the ceiling is lowered. But I thought, Republicans hated giving tax cuts to "people who don't pay taxes" and so the ceiling would be the reverse: you don't get the credit if you income is below X. Hence in the latter case lowering the limit would mean more money paid out by the G. (or not having to be paid by the taxpayer) which would cost the government more. Any scoop?

The most amazing myth is that Bush is an economic conservative, and thus Obama is different than Bush. How can anyone ignore that Bush increased healthcare spending from $40-$100 billion a year (Prescription Drug Act)? How can anyone ignore that No Child Left Behind more than doubled the size of the Department of Education?

How is the greatest expansion of government spending since the Great Society economic conservatism? Bush was more liberal than Clinton was when it came to spending.

No, Obama's spending, stimulus, and borrowing is exactly like Bush's, only moreso, in the same way that F.D.R.'s spending was just like Hoover's, only moreso.

Why do people ignore this? Do they believe that Bush's liberal spending is somehow dramatically different from Obama's? Do they believe that Obama is such a talented administrator that, although philosophically he is identical to Bush on spending, he represents change? Or do they simply forget that Bush was the most economically liberal President since Lyndon Johnson?

I am genuinely interested in understanding the logic here. Not doing any "liberals are bad" bomb-throwing. Just want someone to explain to me how anyone can claim that Bush was a 100 proof conservative, and thus different from Obama.

In addition to the large cut in state aid, the Senate agreement would cut nearly $20 billion proposed for school construction

Remember all that Republican clap-trap about "the painted schools! We painted another school!" in Iraq? Nice to know that the GOP cares more about schools in Iraq than they care about schools in America.

America is facing its greatest threat since the Japanese bombed Pearl harbor while Hitler was conquering Europe. But as long as the Republicans have the ability to stop legislation through the Senate, the choices come down to no response or a shitty one.

Shitty is as good as it gets with Republicans involved. That has never changed.

Let's not forget that these current Republicans are the direct ideological descendants of the same Republicans who supported Hitler and traded with him (e.g. Prescott Bush) before WW II, and of the people who elected Herbert Hoover as President because his policy about the Depression was that there was nothing at all that the government could do about it. Bush 43 has, of course, copied Hoover as closely has he could.

History has not been kind to the American Nazi supporters or to Herbert Hoover and his people, and history will similarly not be kind to this current crop of idiots. But unfortunately, we don't live in history. We live now, and now they are blocking effective action just like their ideological ancestors.

"The adage comparing the process of making legislation and making sausage has never been more apt."

For this bill, I do NOT like this comparison. An more apt description of the output of this bill is 'crap'. At least sausage is edible.

I hold little hope that Nancy & Harry will restore the meaningful infrastructure spending that has been cut in this 'compromise'.

NEWS FLASH: The senate leadership offices continue to be declared a gonad-free zone.

Obama's spending, stimulus, and borrowing is exactly like Bush's, only moreso - larry

Are you the one with curly hair?

How is the greatest expansion of government spending since the Great Society economic conservatism? Bush was more liberal than Clinton was when it came to spending.

Simple: Conservatism doesn't believe in spending less - rather, conservatives believe in spending a lot, and in not paying for that spending but instead just borrowing the money. Sure, conservatives often say that they believe in less spending, but whenever they actually get into office they spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave. You have to start to watch what conservatives actually do, not what they claim they do.

The difference in the two parties is, conservatives believe in spending a lot on the rich and in screwing the poor, the working class and the middle class. Democrats, on the other hand, believe in spending to help the poor, working class and middle class, and actually try to balance the books when doing so by taxing the wealthy who can afford to give more.

As usual, you dumbocrats show your ignorance of our economy!

All good republicans understand that the only problem with our economy is that the rich do not have enough money.

Therefore, the solution to this economic crisis is to reduce spending, increase payroll taxes, decrease corporate taxes, and provide a major tax cut to those making over a million dollars a year.

All of you who decry that this has been tried & failed do not understand that we just did not cut corporate & top tax rates enough.

For a fuller explanation of how our economy works, google on 'economic analysis Steve Forbes' or 'economic analysis Phil Graham'.

it's gonna be a tough conference to reconcile these two bills. Progressives should probably take a little heart, though -- pelosi looks likely to drive a hard bargain, and these "centrists" know they can't get all they want out of the deal. i'm starting to understand why the house didn't put the alternative minimum tax "fix" in their bill, despite the fact that none of the dems oppose a one-year patch (and they have given up the fight to pay for it). Now it gives the House a big, fat $70 billion, non-stimulative bargaining chip to play with.

As much as I would like to blame the Republicans for watering down the bill, we must acknowledge that the 'gang of 20' was almost entirely composed of Democrats --- though the label DINO is starting to seem appropriate here.

Is this sort of legislation the reason why the netroots fought to put Sherrod Brown and Jim Webb in the Senate?

This is all very disappointing, but let's face it; there has never been any reason for Republican legislators to behave in a sane or responsible manner. But we should be able to expect better behavior from Democrats and today they let us down big time.

To larry on February 7, 2009 at 9:01 AM -

You are wierd - even for a rethugnican troll. I am missing the point in Steve's comment & the reader comments where there were discussions of Bush conservativism or Obama liberalism! Your comments are a nonsequitur to the discussions.

Attempting to equate Bush & Obama is totally wierd. Sort of like Obama (the constitutional lawyer) & Bush (the constitution destroyer) have views on the constitution, therefore they are alike.

larry said:
How can anyone ignore that Bush increased healthcare spending from $40-$100 billion a year (Prescription Drug Act)? How can anyone ignore that No Child Left Behind more than doubled the size of the Department of Education?

The prescription drug act is a program that uses taxpayer money to subsidize the profits of the health insurance and drug industries. Look at how it's structured -- any attempt to use volume purchasing to lower drug prices is prohibited.

No Child Left Behind is a travesty -- but completely in line with conservative thinking. It demands improvements in student performance without providing additional resources, and it punishes schools because their local school district don't provide enough funding (it punishes the poor for being poor). Everyone I know who works in public schools (which is quite a few people) thinks that NCLB has worsened education in this country because teachers are being forced to teach children to take tests instead of teaching them reading, math and science.

What SteveT said.

If 42% of $780 billion is tax cuts, then that means that $327 billion of the bill is WASTEFUL spending that won't be nearly as effective in creating jobs as spending on food stamps, school construction, broadband in rural areas, or public transit.

That's how Democrats need to frame the tax cuts-- as a waste of money.

I am so disappointed by this turn of events that I have seriously been thinking about asking my senators and representatives to vote against it. My last hope is that the House can restore some of the spending.

This is becoming more akin to the RepuGs cutting spending for "The Great Society" programs, then laughing about the failure of the TGS. They claimed it failed after the Democrats threw vast amounts of money towards the programs. RepuGs gutted OHSA, then blamed Democrats for an ineffective unneeded program.

My bad. Sherrod Brown isn't one of the 'gang of 20', but John Tester (another netroots favorite) is.

A full list is available here. Instead of laying this at the feet of the GOP (who have been behaving like 6-year-olds, no doubt), call up your Senator if s/he's on this list and explain to him/her what crap this is.

This is very depressing. Based on what I've read, probably at least $2 trillion is necessary to rescue the economy, so I don't know if a $780 billion package, that isn't even all spending, is worth supporting. It will do little to help the economy, it will increase the debt, and discredit the idea of a true stimulus bill.

In a sense, at this point, there is no wasteful govt spending. It's all good because it injects money into a dying system. Not enough are making this point, it's the spending that counts, not the projects.

So all those so-called dubious items should be included -- free contraception, film stock for Hollywood, IT for healthcare, -- all of it. Because we could see a total economic meltdown that will make last year's financial meltdown look like a tea party if we don't do something drastic .

If we start whining to the heavens that we've gotten nothing, simply because we didn't get everything, then what does that make us---other than a mirror image of the evil that is the GOP?

Look, as Obama always says, no one is whining that we've "gotten nothin" and no one expected to "get everything." Many folks are legitimately upset that Obama got rolled on this. Some, who understand the need for a stimulus, don't think the bill likely to emerge from conference should be passed and signed. Others feel that, given the urgency, we should hold our noses and accept the whatever emerges. These are legitimate differences of opinion.

But there is a troubling theme emerging in all of this that Obama had this all planned out. Even more troubling is a related theme that Congress fucked this up. I voted for Obama and feel that these themes are not only wrong but potentially harmful down the road.

Obama needs to learn from this debacle -- and so do we. This isn't about bipartisanship vs. partisanship; it's about how bipartisanship is pursued. Bipartisanship does not require negotiating with oneself up front, keeping the size of the stimulus down, including bad (tax cut) policies, failing to sell it to the American people, throwing leaders in Congress to the wolves, going silent for two weeks, and then settling for whatever Congress passes. That’s not bipartisanship, that’s a lack of leadership.

If that same approach is used on other legislative initiatives, none will succeed. This skirmish emboldened republicans. Contrary to what others have posted about this confrontation, I think this will make everything else HARDER, not easier -- starting with the bank bailout.

But unless a clear message is sent that the kind of bipartisanship practiced in the last few weeks is unproductive and ineffective, we're doomed. That doesn't mean we have to behave as "the mirror image of the evil that is the GOP" -- although they will surely charge that. It just means we have to take steps to not get rolled again. And I would suggest that everything Obama did in this go around in the name of bipartisanship should be abandoned in favor of an approach designed to yield better results.

I've been having a running argument with friends that the republicans really do want Obama to fail -- as Limbaugh proclaimed. Given the events this last week, I think that is now undeniable. I am sure Obama when he took office did not foresee that virtually all republicans would want to see him fail. He should now know that and adjust his tactics accordingly. Most important, Obama, Rahm, and supporters should not blame any of this on Congress. This is Obama's bad.

Larry - Google "No True Scotsman."

And read steveT's reply again.

All we have to do is take a page from the Republican playbook and get everything done right in the reconciliation negotiations (of course, "getting it right" was never what they did, but just take the part about "imposing the majority will") then bring it back for an up-or-down vote, for which there are the votes necessary to pass it.

This is not complicated. You'll never understand why, because you don't see it their way, and they don't see it yours. The difference with this situation is that it's not one that's easily comprehended by non-economists -- the best we can do is to rely on the analyses of economists to make any sort of sense of it. Furthermore, all the economists themselves pretty much say it's an unprecedented situation and therefore any remedies -- or appropriate remedy amounts -- have a significant guesswork component. And it's also impossible to evaluate, really, whether whatever passes "succeeded" or not. Krugman says the package is too small, but how do you really know he's right? I don't. I don't even think he can really know he's right. I don't know whether we need $400 or $800 billion or 2 trillion.

I'm hardly defending the Republicans; their "moar tax cuts" reductionist idiocy gets us nowhere. But that's what they think. They're stupid. But you can hardly be surprised that a few "centrists" want to remove some of the more "liberal" components from the bill. They're Republicans. That's their job. As long as they have a 41% majority, they can make their desires felt. Yes, I'm sorry to see the cut stuff go -- but I'm not surprised. I have to believe some of it was in there just so that it COULD be cut as part of compromising while still getting the core of what's needed. As for the total figure, do I think that $800 billion is going to be less effective than $900 billion? I really don't know. Not really. It seems to me that it's landed at about the figure Obama settled for.

Tl;dr: No one really knows what the right number is, and you want Republicans to accept Democratic programs and ideas when they can potentially block them. Not gonna happen.

IvanX - Except for the 41% majority (?), well put. I would add that the magic number Obama originally proposed was 775 Billion. If this bill goes through, it will reflect the concensus of Obama's detail-informed economic team.

IvanX - Let's say an effective stimulus should be $750B - $1250B. Agreed, we don't know for sure what the magic number is.

The whole point is, we are better off erring on the side of 'bigness'. Especially with so much business tax cuts in the bill.

From what I can gather, they wanted to cut some stuff just to say that they had cut some stuff."

Particularly when you look at some of the smaller line items like $30 million for school district salaries and $50 million for aquaculture you sense that some of these were just added to pad the list for the sole purpose of political theater.

So I expect that after the Centrists take their pound of flesh and demonstrate their awesome power that over the course of the next couple of months the really important spending will be added back in in the form of new legislation. Because clearly they are not making an economic argument, things like modernizing schools and retro-fitting housing and 'Greening' (which in practice means energy efficiency improvements) federal buildings are both labor intensive job creators and good public policy. We just seem to have to endure a couple more days of Kabuki theater here.

...Obama needs to learn from this debacle -- and so do we. ... Econobuzz at 9:46 AM

"...The bill is now worthless and Obama is to blame." Paul Madrigal @ 4:15 PM.
Worthless? No. Less effective? Certainly.
When it comes to apportioning the blame for bill's lesser effectiveness you might want to start with the 177 Republican Representatives who voted against it AFTER changes had been made simply to get their support, the 10 Democratic Representatives who also voted against it, the "centrist" (whatever the hell THAT means) Democratic Senators, and the vast majority of the Republican caucus in the Senate.
Then you can start blaming President Obama.
Maybe.