Right. Obama even said that he should have put no tax cuts in the bill to begin with, and then let the Republicans get credit for adding them.

I've seen others suggest that if the president had just started higher, the centrists wouldn't have come down so far. However, I suspect that if he had started higher, many of the blue dogs / fiscal conservatives would have jumped off the bus as it left the station, and possibly not gotten back on board.

But what if the president had started with a much more ambitious proposal...Obama, the argument goes, ended up with a smaller bill because he started with a smaller bill.

Obama's bill???

Near as I can tell, although Obama is selling the bill he subbed out writing it to Pelosi and gang. Why, I don't know. It should have been his.

OK, now you made me tear out half the hair on my head. Collins would have come down 100K from whatever the starting point was. Krugman would have gone to 1.5 times whatever that number was. The analysis doesn't seem to get much deeper than this, so if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see how I look in a comb-over.

But what if the president had started with a much more ambitious proposal, along the lines of Krugman's recommendation.

Maybe Obama did just that? He's not a neophyte, why do we assume that he failed to grasp the most basic principles of running a piece of legislation?

http://steampoweredopinions.blogspot.com/2009/02/negotiating-stimulus.html

The actual total dollar amount of the bill is right where Obama has always said he wanted to be.

Whenever you run a piece of legislation you always write in provisions that you're willing to negotiate away. You want the other side to feel like they are getting something, when in fact you're the one actually getting everything you want. I can't imagine Obama went into this process needing to hold on to every single provision in the original stimulus bill in order to pass the bill that he wanted. He's smarter than that, he knows how the U.S. Senate operates. he knew the strutting and crowing that would inevitably go on. Did Obama let the Ben Nelson's of the world strut and crow along the way while not actually giving away anything of real substance?

I think its a real possibility. Yes, they knocked off $100 billion from the total package but they did so in a haphazard manner, just as one would expect of a band of Senators acting on their own egos. And $800 billion ain't no pocket change. Like Herbert said, if you told Obama (or any Democrat) a month ago that Obama would get an $800 billion dollar stimulus deal done within 3 weeks of taking office I think he (and we) would take it.

john cole and rachel q are absoluely right: start at $1.2T, and this bill would still be floundering in the house.

Jingo: Near as I can tell, although Obama is selling the bill he subbed out writing it to Pelosi and gang. Why, I don't know. It should have been his.

For a guy who loves to admire his totally fabricated self-image as a tough-minded independent who doesn't fall for either party's bullshit, it's remarkable how your comments never fail to diverge from winger talking points.

Reading across the web there are a lot of people (Republicans mostly) who doubt the recession is really bad. They think that the Democrats are just trying to cement their "social programs" with the stimulus package.

Things probably haven't gotten bad enough for the Republican base to allow an adequate response. I am pretty sure the current stimulus bill will be followed with something additional.

Cole: [T]he point remains that a larger bill was not political feasible. At all. The current bill just barely is getting the support from the three Republicans it needs,

Bullshit. All that was required to pass a one trillion or even two trillion-dollar bill was for Harry Reid to stop masturbating over the criminal 60-for-a-majority rule.

Tell the fuckers to filibuster all they want, but 51 votes wins.

We could have had a REAL bill two weeks ago if Reid had a fucking ounce of integrity or balls bigger than quantum elements.

I don't understand why if there are some positive signs from the initial stimulus, but not enough of them, that the administration can't ante up another $400 billion. That's less than ideal (better to kick it all in now) but there will still be plenty of opportunity to spend on energy, schools, and state aid in 6 months. The Krugman criticism makes it sound like Obama has shot his wad but that's far from the case.

As long as Obama has 2 GOP Sens voting with him, he can add more stimulus down the road.

I agree with John Cole. Like it or not, but the numbers actually matter. If Obama had proposed anything over a trillion dollars it would never have happened. That number is too big for people to comprehend. I do actually think there's a huge difference between $1 trillion and $990 billion, as far as the human brain is concerned. The second one seems a lot lower, doesn't it? And let's not forget the $30 billion for SCHIP expansion in another bill, which ought to get more kids going to hospitals and help stimulate healthcare that way.

Krugman betrays his usual lack of understanding of politics. I know he should advocate for what he believes as an economist, but it seems like he doesn't understand anything at all about how these things work. For one thing, I'm guessing we'll be stimulating again before this is over. Of course Krugman's embarrassing performance during the '08 Dem primaries should convince anyone that, regardless of his considerable economic knowledge, when it comes to politics he knows less than your typical RedState blogger.

a bigger bill could have been gotten IF the Democrats in the Senate were willing to force the Republicans to the wall on the fillibuster issue. But Reid has let this go on for years now, and somehow it is now considered normal for everything to pass with 60 votes. Why Reid et al. are letting the other side continue with this nonsense is beyond me ... They're wussy wimps? Is it respect for Senate traditions? Preparing for the rainy day when the Dems are out of power again?

and one more observation: at some point bipartisanship becomes an empty show. If legislation is good, and it is needed, the reward will come when its effects become manifest: so why let the other side steal some of the glory? Why not keep it all for oneself?

winger talking points.
Posted by: shortstop

Indeed, it was Mr. Obey, the third-most-senior member of the House, who, in large measure, shaped the bill, in concert with other House Democratic leaders.

...Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California placed Mr. Obey in charge of producing the economic measure ...

...before Mr. Obama’s inauguration, he flippantly referred to the new president as “the crown prince.� The remark was evidence that Mr. Obey, like other veteran chairmen involved in writing the stimulus package, might not be entirely deferential to the new president until he proved he could exert his influence.

Churchill:"Americans always do the right thing, after having tried everything else first."

Look this economy is headed towards a decade long Great Depression in the very least.

There's no denying that now.

After 30 years of supply-side economics, and 8 years of 'supply-side' economics on steroids, there is simply too much money on the supply-side of the ledger (rich peoples pockets) and too little on the demand side of the ledger.

In short the 30 year long policy of "feed the rich, starve everyone and every thing else" has to be reversed.

We are settling into a new, prolonged dark age. One or two decades would be very short. For the last 60 years, the difference between Mexican Poverty and American Prosperity has been FDR.

Mexico's never found the political leverage to pull itself out of the hammerlock of top heavy resource allocation. There's no reason to think we will either, short of a revolution.

The great depression gave us Hitler, World War II and the Holocaust. Before the battle of Britain, Churchill gave his "Finest Hour" speech. He suggested that if Hitler wins the battle then a new Dark Age would fall over the western world, but if they won a new golden age would emerge. He was right of course. Britain won the battle, and eventually we had a new golden age, from 1945 to 1973 where global productivity doubled, and science, technology, and the arts all thrived. It was the golden-est of golden ages.

Krugman's watching us come up a day late and a dollar short. The most depressing time to be in a dark age is at its onset.

It will be a very long time, if ever, we'll see a new golden age. You simply can't have one, these days, where all the resources are concentrated at the very top. This is the price for trickle down, supply-side, anti-union economics. Enjoy.

Right. Obama even said that he should have put no tax cuts in the bill to begin with, and then let the Republicans get credit for adding them.

Am I missing something? Yes, I'd have liked a much bigger bill, myself. However, already Obama's administration is talking about a second, separate bill that is to fund the electric grid. Perhaps getting to 1.2 trillion or more is easier in smaller chunks designated for specific needs on top of the current stimulus bill. However it's done, the effect is there. Separate funding for the electric grid is still stimulus and is still improving infrastructure.

Steve B is on the money: If Obama got the bill he said he wanted from the very beginning, does that not prove his negotiating skills?Even the tax cuts (or so I have read) are the ones he promised while campagning.

Sounds to me like he whupped the sh*t out of them.

Posted by: Pallomine on February 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Geez, don't sugarcoat it for us. Excuse me while I go put my head in the oven.

Near as I can tell, although Obama is selling the bill he subbed out writing it to Pelosi and gang.

I see you have no use for Article I Section 7 of the Constitution.

Why, I don't know. It should have been his

Yes, I can imagine your joy if the bill were 90% jobs programs and social assistance and 10% tax cuts.

But I agree: Obama was a sucker to try and reach out to conservatives. He should have put principle before politics and shoved a bill down their throats that made the New Deal look like Reaganomics.

Who's afraid of the big bad filibuster? The Dems should have made the strongest possible case for the bill, laying out the economic realities the country is facing, and then dared the Repuglicans to get up there and read the phonebook for days on end, on CSPAN, filibustering against it. That would have denied them even a shred of cover in terms of actually caring about this country.

Instead, Obama started with an already-negotiated position, announced his need to get some Repuglicans on board, further weakening his hand, and then gave them a veneer of credibility and responsibility by caving in to their "centrist" demands.

Obama put his need to appear bipartisan ahead of all else, and it cost not only him and his party, but the country as well.

Who could have predicted that red state mike would miss another's point?

Your posts show that you're obsessed, old fellow, with trying to convince yourself that Obama = good and everyone else with a D after his or her name = bad. I suppose it's nice that you voted for Obama, but since you weren't able to connect that action with substantive and honest reflection on why you couldn't vote for McCain, we're all having to watch these after-the-fact mental contortions attempting to reconcile your presidential vote with all the crap you defended throughout your boy Bush's presidency and for which you still make excuses.

These comment threads have become your venue for publicly working out your vague feelings of shame and guilt as you try to find a place for yourself in the new political reality...without, of course, actually having to look your own political beliefs in the eye.

My mother is an evangelical PUMA who only voted for Obama (instead of sitting home) because Sarah Palin was such a slap in her face, but she'd want me to abandon her funeral to stick it to Republicans.

Tell the fuckers to filibuster all they want, but 51 votes wins.

NOT ON THIS BILL.

This bill needed 60. Expanding the debt by that much needs a 60% vote.

For people complaining that Obama is naive or foolish, you're not looking so informed yourself.

I see you have no use for Article I Section 7 of the Constitution.
Posted by: trex

Presidents present bills all the time. You know it.

But hey, good idea having a group with approval ratings in the teens write it, rather than someone with high 60's. That has made the process work so much smoother.

Those wondering just why this kind of thing takes 60 votes in the Senate are on to something. I challenge those who think this super-majority is always necessary to find the filibuster anywhere in the Constitution, which is only the basic housekeeping document for our government. The filibuster is an artifact of gentler times, when senators were "gentlemen." It needs to go. And the reason the Dems don't push it is that they want to be obstructionists, too, when the wheel next turns round. The president is supposed to be the watchdog, not some right-wing dipshit from Backwardsville, USA.

And WRT Obama, it's very clear that all of this nonpartisan horseshit stems from his needs, not the nation's. He did indeed put himself ahead of the nation, both in tapdancing with the Republicans as well as with the misguided Geithner choice. He needs to do a better job.

I'm inclined to generally agree with Steve Balboni.

If memory serves, didn't the Obama administration repeatedly increase the targeted scope/size of the stimulus bill since the campaign? Sure it got parred down, and may still be too small for optimal stimulus/inflation balance, but I'm fairly sure the current version is quite a bit larger than the original amount proposed.

Or maybe it's about the same size, but now with tax cuts! Either way, the criticism levied in the original post seems unfounded.

Maybe I'm just an extremist, and maybe this bill is too important to bother with brinksmanship, but I still think the Dems could have passed a much larger bill if they had:

1. Stood united in support of a larger bill.
2. Dared the Republicans to stand in the way of millions of new jobs.

I think if the Dems had followed Obama's lead, made every effort to publicly describe this crisis for what it is, and had unanimously put the GOP on the defensive with "if this bill fails then the Republicans who blocked it are responsible for the next Great Depression", enough pugs would have caved to get the thing passed.

Maybe I'm wrong. But it sure as hell would be nice to see the Dems make it a little uncomfortable for the pug obstructionists for once.

Not to be mean, but shouldn't Senator Kennedy step down if his health is preventing him from being able to vote on legislation this important?

Would Snowe, Collins, Nelson et al swallowed most of a $1.2 trillion bill, maybe bringing that one down $100B?

I don't know and you don't know. But, you know, it's just possible that the Obama folks and Reid actually *talked* to these folks in private to find out just how far they were willing to go before they ginned up this whole thing. I mean, it couldn't have been too hard to figure out that to get 60 votes, these guys were the ones you'd have to satisfy. So maybe the Democrats were doing what was feasible. Krugman may have a different view, but they may have different facts.

After all, isn't this what Obama hired people like Emmanuel and Rouse for?

But hey, good idea having a group with approval ratings in the teens write it, rather than someone with high 60's. That has made the process work so much smoother.

I see. If only the bill had Obama's name on it, then Repubs would have supported it.
It only makes you idiots look even more petty and superficial than you already are. No small achievement, so congrats.

I see. If only the bill had Obama's name on it, then Repubs would have supported it.
Posted by: Allen Snyder

No. Try again.

One of Obama's strengths is that he plans with an eye to the future.

The stimulus bill is the first foot in the door toward redirecting the priorities in the federal budget. You don't turn the battleship around in one bill, you change direction and then follow up with moevement in every subsequent bill. The stuff that was trimmed out will all come back in future bills or as stand alone items.

He gave us a tax cut as promised that was targeted to wage earners and not millionaires. He didn't have the option of ditching the tax cuts after promising them repeatedly on the campaign. That's what Bill Clinton did and it cost the Democrats control of Congress.

When Obama tried to reach across the aisle, and even trimmed part of the bill, the audience was not Congressional Republicans, it was the general public. Based on the polls I would have to say he handled this well.

Yep. Obama violated two of the only things I know about negotiating (which are actually the same thing):

1. Always ask for more than you want

2. Don’t pre-negotiate (that is, don’t give concessions until and unless the other side asks for them)

What Digby said: "I think the administration thought they could be mediators between the two parties rather than leaders of the Democratic party."

Note to Steve: Krugman never has cared much for Obama, was a Clinton supporter long before primaries, and will continue to write between the lines that Obama is a failure. Look for it.

Four months ago Krugman wanted 800 billion for the stimulus bill. Only when it became apparent that other people also wanted 800 billion did he began to call 800 inadequate. Asking for a bigger figure than everyone else is sensible, because then when the lower figure is voted in, Krugman can always say, when things go south, as they will undoubtedly continue to go, that it's not his fault.

When Obama tried to reach across the aisle, and even trimmed part of the bill, the audience was not Congressional Republicans, it was the general public.
Posted by: pfgr

Yep

What did any but 3 republicans compromise on. What did the republicans give up?
The democrats compromised on multiple issues but republicans refused to give an inch (except for 3).

That's why statements like this from above (lev) is absurd speculation..."...That number is too big for people to comprehend. I do actually think there's a huge difference between $1 trillion and $990 billion, as far as the human brain is concerned. .."

Republicans were determined to vote against it if the number had been $600 billion or $999 billion (except for 3) and those 3 could have bragged about removing $199 billion from the bill if only Obama would have started higher.

Krugman's opinion is not an attack...it is his position and it is accurate. Republicans showed no bipartisanship and even slapped Obama's hand away (real mature). But some above...especially Cole...act like Krugman is the enemy or something...like he had betrayed liberals. Cole so wants him to be wrong that he feels insulted at his suggestion I believe mainly because he can see that it could actually be accurate. But no matter...nothing Krugamn said deserves such an emotional response (I'll stop reading him or listening to him whaa whaa) WTF? John. Overreacting I guess. You don't think Obama is wondering the same thing Krugman is saying?

The power of asking for more than what you want in the hope of actually getting what you want is well-documented by social psychology Robert Cialdini in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

There would be two principles at work: the contrast principle and the reciprocity principle using the "rejection-then-retreat" technique. With the contrast principle, If the difference between the compared items is fairly great, we will tend to see a greater difference than actually exists. That is why a salesperson will show you an expensive item before showing you a less expensive one; the less expensive item will seem even cheaper than if presented alone. If President Obama had pushed for a $1.2 trillion stimulus package, one for $800 might have seemed downright frugal by comparison.

The principle of reciprocation is powerful, overcoming even feelings of suspicion or dislike. (The example from the late 1970s of the Hari Krishnas foisting a flower on passersby in airports in return for a donation is a well-known example.) In the "rejection-then-retreat" technique, presenting someone with an excessive request makes it much more likely that person will "concede" to a lesser request; the concession creates an obligation of reciprocity on the part of the person who rejected the first offer. Again, Obama could have presented a far larger stimulus package and then offered the "concession" of a package perhaps even greater than the one he got.

There is, of course, no guarantee that these techniques would have worked with the Republicans. The point is that they are well-grounded in the psychology of influence and persuasion and, as such, would have merited some consideration.

Oops, "social psychologist Robert Cialdini."

-- I find the current debate interesting but maddeningly non specific.

When Krugman says the stimulus isnt enough, what parts. Is he saying that there won't be ANY effect? That it won't be soon enough? That nothing in the economy will benefit?

Or is Krugman saying that its not enough to fix the whole problem -- like any one bill, no matter how big, could fix all that is broken in our system right now...

We have multisystem failure and the interventions are multiple, complex and may need to be applied incrementally to judge the effect and surface other needs.

Krugman could be right. We don't know and neither does he really. We will have to wait and see and learn as we go about what else may need to be done. Same thing with the bank bailout...complex, still much information needs to be surfaced, interventions will be multiple and applied across a range of effector sites in the system.

WAAAHHHHH -- but we want an easy, clean fix that will be finished by next week! Why don't these Obama people have all the answers like Nobel Krugman has! He would fix it all in just a snap...just like that! Because he is RIGHT and this is so SIMPLE and he knows ALL THE FACTS necessary to get it done. Ask him...

I challenge those who think this super-majority is always necessary to find the filibuster anywhere in the Constitution, which is only the basic housekeeping document for our government.

The Constitution gives each house of Congress the authority to write its own rules.

Like some others above, I think Krugman ought to write how big he thinks the stimulus ought to be, and what specific spending he thinks is best. Also, this is only the start. To get $800B in less than a month in office is a GOOD start. Plus, he has clearly identified the Republicans as the opposition, loyal or otherwise.

Paul Krugman did write how big he thinks the stimulus needs to be, back on February 8:

"I’ve gone through the CBO numbers a bit more carefully; they’re projecting a $2.9 trillion shortfall over the next three years. There’s just no way $780 billion, much of it used unproductively, will do the job."

Did he say $800 billion four months ago? Doesn't matter -- the appropriate figure is based on the best available figures, and those vary over time.