The stimulus plan passed the House of Representatives last night by a comfortable margin, 244-188. Eleven Democrats broke with their party to oppose the measure. No Republicans voted for it.
This calls for a metaphor.
One of my favorite casino games is craps; oh, it’s risky and you can get yourself into trouble it you stay at a cold table too long. But a hot table? That’s fun — because most people at the table are betting on the same thing at the same time.
In craps, the most popular bets are the “Pass” and “Come” bets, which essentially are bets that you’ll roll the same number twice before you crap out. Since most people are betting the same thing, everyone gathered around the table is cheering for the shooter to roll a six before she rolls a seven. And when she hits that six, there is much high-fiving and cheering.
But there’s always one guy in the corner of the table betting the “Don’t Pass” and “Don’t Come” line. Statistically, it’s the same bet, and pays the same. But still, nobody likes him. He’s betting that the point won’t come around again before the shooter craps out. He’s betting against everyone at the table. He’s hoping everyone else around the table fails, so that he can profit.
Last night, the Republican Party put all its chips on the “Don’t Pass” line. They’re hoping — indeed, gambling their futures — that the national economy is going to fail. They’re betting that the stimulus package will not help pull us out of the nosedive our economy is in. They win if the economy tanks, if everyone else around the table walks away poorer.
Mark Halperin aside, it’s pretty obvious to most people that the President worked hard to gain Republican support. He added a number of tax cuts to the bill, cut out reproductive health care and work on the National Mall when Republicans objected. He took a step their way, and reached out a hand, and they slapped it aside, because they don’t want to be in it together. They don’t want to be on the same side as everyone else at the table. Because if everyone prospers, the Republicans, relatively, don’t improve their positions.
And so the Republicans in the House have placed their bet: against Americans, for themselves. Like the guy betting “Don’t Pass,” they may win in the end. But if the table gets hot, the rest of us will win together — and the Republicans will find themselves out of money, out of hope, and out of power for a long, long time.
With all the belief in the power of positive thinking, I wonder if this will be an effective strategy even if their predictions are right. On the one hand, the Republicans would get to say “we told you so”, but on the other hand, the Democrats would get to say “while we were trying to save the economy, those guys over there were hoping we’d fail (maybe even sabotaging our efforts) just so they could say ‘we told you so'”. Will that really go over well with the American people?
Democrats would get to say “while we were trying to save the economy, those guys over there were hoping we’d fail (maybe even sabotaging our efforts) just so they could say ‘we told you so’”
I’m not certain this is fair to say. I certainly didn’t like Republicans’ claiming that while they were trying to fix the mess [they’d made] in Iraq, Democrats were hoping they’d fail and sabotaging their efforts so Dems could say “we told you so.” Surely there can be a sincere and patriotic minority opposition to the policies of the majority. Once we invaded Iraq, I devoutly hoped it would all go as Bush planned while feeling pretty certain that it wouldn’t.* Despite my opposition to putting more soldiers in Iraq, I’m glad that the surge and paying off our erstwhile enemy sheikhs seem to have decreased rather than increased violence in Iraq.
I would expect that Republicans, since they’re not ALL monsters (right? right?) would feel similarly about this stimulus bill as Democrats did about the surge. “I am opposed in principle to this solution, I am skeptical that it will work, I will oppose it, but if it passes, I sure hope-against-hope that it works.”
* Hoped in a short term sense. In a long term sense, I was glad that he was wrong, since if Rumsfeld had been able to vindicate his cockamamie theories about quick’n’easy regime change in the first country he’d tried, we’d be in World War III now due to U.S. military aggression across the globe.
The problem is that we’re not really seeing much of that line of argument PG.
If we did see members of the GOP standing up on CNN or even FOX and saying: “We don’t think this course of action will work. It goes against the principles that we, the GOP, stand for. And we’ve got our own offering on the table for what WE think WILL work, which we’ve asked the President and the Democratic majority to look at and consider, or at least take a few notes from. But regardless, since we ARE the minority and the bill we don’t like is likely to pass, we HOPE that we are wrong. We hope for America. We hope for the world. Thank you and God bless the President…” then even I’d be inclined to think that these guys REALLY do care about the American people and the U.S., just like me, and we’ve all just got a difference of opinion in what should actually be done.
Instead, we’re seeing the guy betting against the rest of the table (to stick with Jeff’s metaphor). We’re seeing a guy that’s offering no real productive conversation other than: “It won’t work and I’m going to laugh when it doesn’t.” We’re seeing this guy, when INVITED to contribute MEANINGFULLY to the conversation, make up some random statements about concessions he wants before he’ll support it… and then saying: “F**K YOU GUYS!! HA HA!! I’M STILL BETTING AGAINST THIS THING. YOU’RE ALL GOING TO BURN!!”
Honestly, if even a FEW Republicans had swung for it, it would look less like lockstep partisan political BS and more like an honest disagreement about the bill’s ability to fulfill its stated purpose.
I mean, if someone can point me to an honest attempt made by the GOP to offer an alternative and describe why theirs is “better” to the public rather than just urinating in the proverbial cheerios, I’ll be happy to admit my error.
MisterMephisto,
But aren’t you biasing the terms of the argument against conservatives by saying that to be considered to be making a productive contribution, they have to come up with a plan for federal government action? They don’t believe in federal government action on the economy in the first place.
To continue with my comparison, it would be like telling a Democrat that she’s not making a productive contribution to the discussion of what to do about Saddam Hussein unless it’s a plan for military action (as opposed to sanctions, diplomatic pressures, support for an internal coup, etc.). Republicans generally just don’t believe that peacetime government spending is any way to help the economy. They’re convinced that we’d still be in the Great Depression if it hadn’t been for WWII. To them (especially right now, as they backlash against Bush’s domestic expenditures, e.g. the Medicare prescription addition), the best government is as small as possible so long as it can still lead a drug war and have better weapons than everyone else.
If you want to talk compromise, Rush Limbaugh suggested a “compromise”: about half the money for domestic infrastructure, and the other half for tax cuts. Even Obama wouldn’t have gone for that. The Democrats have the majority and they can run with it. Republicans can be principled purists because it’s not their responsibility anymore.
Actually, the House Republicans did propose a stimulus plan that was 100% tax cuts, or so I’ve seen people claim.
And the Democratic proposal, in an attempt to get more Republican votes, consists about 33% of tax cuts — a much higher proportion than would be the case if they hadn’t be (futilely?) attempting to get Republican votes. So I’d argue that the Republicans did offer a plan (although one they knew could never pass), and then turned down a compromise plan.
The centerpiece tax cut calls for a $500 break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who don’t earn enough to owe federal income taxes.
That’s the problem: Republicans don’t consider it to be a “tax cut” if the person is actually getting back more from the federal government than she has paid in federal income taxes (as distinct from payroll taxes). Anytime a tax plan involves actually cutting a check for people, as opposed to telling them “Eh, don’t worry about filing this year,” Republicans are suspicious of whether it’s a tax cut or something more along the lines of the Earned Income Tax Credit. (The EITC, of course, having been an idea of Milton Friedman’s that was first enacted by Nixon.)
What PG said. I REALLY hate that “Well, you’re the villain because you’re happy that our plans have failed” shit, as if we didn’t have enough magical thinking in politics already.
Moreover, while I’m way impressed with Fecke’s analysis generally, I think Nat. Public Radio has a better take on this one:
– First, because the Democrats swept most of the closely-divided House races last election, the remaining House Republicans are overwhelmingly from solidly Republican districts; partisan battles actually strengthen their hold on their seats.
– Second, it’s hard to criticize a strategy that’s winning. House Republicans got Obama to water down his initial proposal without giving anything in return, and the proposal will likely get even further watered down in the Senate. (Of course, there’s also the threat that the proposal will get bloated up in the Senate. Senators, unlike House members, don’t come from safe gerrymandered districts, and therefore have broader constituencies to which to pander.)
– Third, Republican House members who are remotely concerned about being seen as opposing this stimulus package are gonna get another chance to vote on it. As noted above, the bill will likely be more watered down when it returns from the Senate. A House Republican can vote for it then, and proudly crow about how he initially “put his foot down and forced those out-of-control Democrats to back off some of their most egregious excesses,” blah blah.
So, it’s a no-lose proposition for the Repubs, right? Yes and no. Yes, opposing the bill may strengthen the positions of individual House Republicans in their safe Republican districts; thus we can expect more of this behavior in the future. But because Democrats are currently popular and people are currently hurting, it’ll undermine the ability of other Republicans (including Republican Senators, governors and presidential candidates) to appeal to moderates.
Ironically, Republican opposition to the stimulus bill may be the best thing that could happen to Democrats. SOME stimulus package will pass. And if the economy then recovers, the Democrats will reap the rewards (whether or not the stimulus package had anything to do with it) because the Democrats are the party in charge. But if the economy continues to sour over the next couple years, we get the opposite result, right? Well, consider three factors:
1. In a crisis, people derive comfort by rallying around their leaders. The more desperate people become, the LESS receptive they will be to attacks on their symbols of hope – especially if there’s no hopeful alternative offered. And because we we’re likely stuck with Obama until 2012, a call to scapegoat Obama in 2010 won’t seem very hopeful.
2. Regardless of the stimulus package’s details, Democrats will have the better message: We were willing to take the boldest steps to stimulate the economy – “steps that I’m absolutely confident would have worked if it weren’t for those darned Republicans.”
3. And, because they control the House, Senate and Executive Branch, Democrats also have the most prominent messengers.
Sure, Republicans will try to blame the economy on the Democrats, but it sure looks like an uphill fight.
At least Fecke and NPR agree on this much: heads, Democrats win; tails, Republicans lose.
From a strictly political standpoint, I understand what the GOP is doing; I really do. And frankly, while I’m a pragmatist, I’m not reflexively bipartisan; there’s no more reason that Republicans have to vote for the stimulus than Obama needs Republican votes to pass it. If the GOP was offering principled, straightforward, conservative opposition to the stimulus, I wouldn’t have written this post the way I did.
They aren’t. In the words of Sen. Jon Kyl:
That’s not principled opposition, because nobody thinks everything’s going to be hunky-dory in six months. What Kyl is describing is pure political calculus — “If we don’t support the stimulus, then in a few months, when things haven’t improved yet, we can make hay.”
Especially since Obama has, in fact, given Republicans input, even if he didn’t adopt their positions across the board. I would argue that Obama has already given Republicans more input — and more tangible benefits — into this bill than Democrats got into the entire Gulf War. And we held Congress for two years.
Kyl isn’t saying the stimulus will make things worse, or won’t work over the next couple years. He’s putting the date six months out, at a point when things will almost certainly be worse than now, stimulus or no.
That’s not governing, and it’s not principled opposition. It’s playing politics with a recession. It’s sitting by and hoping that things fall apart. It’s betting against the table.
Jeff Fecke:
Some of them are. Did you see Eric Cantor’s recent comments about the bill? They’ve said they have their own proposal that they would like to see get some attention. Also it’s entirely possible for the their opposition to be politically expedient and for them to oppose it on their own ideological grounds.
nobody.really
I agree with a lot of your other points in you comment. Ultimately, I think whether Republicans lose or not is all dependent upon the time period that we’re looking at. In the short run, I think it’s possible. Republicans already lost the past elections, they could easily lose the next few coming up. I think it’s not much of a possibility, for some of the reasons you listed in your earlier comment, but it could happen. Over the long term, I don’t think Republicans will lose. The U.S. seems to go through political cycles, and when one political party loses too much, they reform. Inevitably, Republicans will reform if they lose too much. If they lose out on this stimulus package, and it results in catastrophe for the party (which I think is unlikely, but it could happen), then Republicans will fall back to the core political ideology that governs all political parties – which is to get votes.
I will link the Colbert video, as no one has yet.
Oh, and did anyone see Countdown’s discussion of Republicans stonewalling on the stimulus bill? The caption:
“EVERLASTING GOP STOPPERS”
Is that genius or what?
nobody.really wrote:
This
Jeff Fecke wrote:
And this
Really I can’t blame the Republicans as well. They’re having their cake and eating it too because they can claim that they didn’t have a chance to provide input and also point to a lack of progress in 6 months as a sign that the ‘democrats plan’ failed. Unfortunately I completely disagree with Jeff that nobody thinks everything’s going to be hunky-dory in 6 months. Smart people know better, but the majority of the electorate isn’t smart and they won’t be patient when things get worse over the next months (and it will get worse…).
The beauty of our 1-party system is that it’s so easy for the congressional minority to overthrow the majority if it will create the magical “checks and balances” against the Executive branch. It ensures that not only does governement sit around for 6-9 months every 4 years during the Presidential election, but they will always have conflict so they can avoid accomplishing anything difficult and just trade their time in power back & forth while keeping any other parties & views from gaining power.