McConnell Moving Goalposts on Obama Stimulus Plan
As the Obama team prepares an economic recovery package geared to win as many as 80 votes in the Senate, it's worth looking at the Republicans' counter-strategy. Their conference has grown more conservative since Election Day, so winning 20+ members from Mitch McConnell's squad will inevitably require concessions to his logic.
And where does McConnell think the stimulus negotiations should start? He gave an interesting answer yesterday to Stephanopoulos ...
If we want to do a bill immediately, again, my recommendation is the omnibus appropriations bill. It's ready. These were nine bills that were not passed by October when they should have been passed. They're ready to go. They've already been vetted by both sides, would pass on an overwhelming, bipartisan basis, and much of that spending, George, would be on things similar to what the president may be asking for in that package.
This is a classic down-field shift of the goal posts. The remaining nine appropriations bills from last year only keep projects funded until this coming autumn, and they don't represent a substantially larger amount of spending than what was already in the continuing resolution. Also, where was McConnell in September when the Bush administration threatened to veto any appropriations bill that exceeded his preferred price tag?
As the Politico reported today, helping to finish last year's appropriations bills would be a gesture of good faith for Obama "outside the stimulus". But using undone spending bills as a benchmark for the economic recovery package is a canny play to slow things down.
i certainly hope that things change after president-elect obama takes the oath, because for some reason it seems that the republicans are setting the agenda for what the stimulus should look like. last time i checked, the democrats are the party in power THEY should be setting the agenda.
January 5, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would think, wouldn't you. But from what we saw from Congress they past two years, why would you expect things to be different now? Especially given Obama's seriously misguided bipartisanship fetish.
If the Dems fuck this up, not only will the voters punish them severely in 2 years but many progressives- myself included- will desert the party once and for all. Why support Democrats if Republicans will still be calling the shots even when they win? At that point it will be seriously time to start building a real third party.
I really, really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
January 5, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. Obama and Biden realize that McConnell isn't acting in good faith. They're not going to be punked by this, even if Harry Reid spends the next six weeks on his knees.
January 5, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I very much hope you're right. We'll see soon enough.
January 5, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Obama and Biden won't have any real power in the Senate. At this point, given recent history, I'm assuming that Reid will simply take dictation from McConnell when drafting the legislation.
You can expect a stimulus plan that's 90% capital gains tax cuts and 10% for the coal industry. Maybe a little something for foreign automakers as well.
January 5, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A third party is little more than a guarantee of future defeat. Elect more progressives and move the framework to the left.
January 5, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm getting tired of that argument, since the Demcrats winning ALSO seems to end up being a defeat. They now need to put up or shut up, and demonstrate that I'm wrong.
January 5, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could always vote for Ralph Nader. That worked out so well in 2000.
January 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How'd voting in a Democratic Congress work out in 2006? Can you list their accomplishments? was anything really different than if the Thugs had still controlled Congress?
January 5, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have some kind of alternate-universe knowledge that tells you what would have happened if the R's had been in control? While the D's were not as successful as we would like in rolling back Bush's policies, at least they stopped getting worse, which is what had been steadily happening the previous six years. The first (and hardest) step in reversing course is to stop the momentum in the wrong direction.
January 5, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We got a minimum wage increase. And, at least Bush had to veto stem cell research and SCHIP. Under the repugs these things never would have come up.
I'm not nearly as upset about the House as some here are. I think Pelosi did what she could with what she had. They didn't have the votes to cut off the war funding and a few other things we wanted.
The Senate had a one vote majority and with the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster, they were kind of screwed. But if Reid still behaves like a pussy with 59 senators and a Dem in the WH, I'll throw up my hands in disgust.
But no way am I voting 3rd party. No way. That's how we got Bush and the worst 8 years in American history. I'd rather have wimpy Dems than hand the joint over to repugs.
January 5, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
yeah, that's quite an assumption politicalnovice.
The problem is you didn't count on harry "the republican mole" reid, who does whatever his boss mitch mcconell tells him.
January 5, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if Obama realizes that he may not get the 80 Senator votes, he may just say "Fuck this shit" and ram it in any ways. As long as he gets 60 votes than he will be fine.
January 5, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is another problem- it SHOULD only take 51. Enough with the filibuster crap. The Democrats never use it effectively when they're out of power, so get rid of it once and for all.
This is not a game. If we slide into an even deeper recession, a lot of people are going to be hurt very, very badly.
January 5, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You keep saying Death to the Filibuster. Even assuming that that's wise (which I still disagree with), changes to the Senate rules would have to be made under the current rules. So where, exactly, do you think Reid could find 60 votes for a rule that would allow cloture on 51 (or a bare majority of a quorum or whatever it is you want) votes?
Or put another way, how is it you think he could get the minority to agree to emasculate itself, especially given that a goodly number of Democrats, mindful of how they themselves used the filibuster when they were in the minority, would be voting with them?
January 5, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, he won't do that. He is too smart. He wants republicans on board, so if it blows up dems and republicans share the blame. Otherwise, if he rams it through and its a disaster, he will be looking at a republican senate and house that he will have to deal with. He is not that short sighted.
Power is a funny thing. When republicans were in power and were threatening to get rid of the filibuster, the left was up in arms. Now the tables are reversed and everyone wants to get rid of the filibuster. Won't happen, because what happens when dems are in the minority again? Duh. Talk about short sighted.
January 5, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't up in arms. I've always felt that the filibuster was a stupid, undemocratic relic. And again, the Democrats didn't use it effectively anyway when they were out of power.
January 5, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah they did. Among many things, they blocked the king's right-wing hack appellate judges. They put the brakes on alot of things that just didn't get press in the right-wing media. Without the filibuster, the king would have been able to do more damage than he did.
January 5, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What he said.
Beyond that, the mere existance of the possibility of a filibuster exerts an inherent moderating influence in judicial selections before names are even informally floated in the press. When I look at who they did choose, I shudder to think about what kind of people Ronnie and Dubya would have put into black robes they'd known the Democratic minorities had no ability to stop them. The kind of rightwing nutjob activists who were deemed so extreme or stupid that the Dems invoked the filibuster under those two presidencies would have been the norm, they would have been confirmed and most of them would be legislating from the bench even today.
January 5, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all know WHY they are trying to slow it down right? It's called "sapping political capital" they want to sap as much of it from Obama as they can. They will soon come to realize Obama is playing chess while they are still playing hop scotch.
January 5, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that after Obama gets in office that McConnell is forced to either shut-up or be recognized as a complete roadblock to any progress. I can't figure out if trying to work with him is worthwhile. Secondly let's hope that nobody wastes one cent of the stimulus on rebate checks. People just use them to make a credit card payment and the banks get more money to horde. I can't see that rebates do anything positive. Put the money into sewers in the cities. If it lowers the borrowing needs of a city then the taxpayers have lower sewer rates and the economy benefited from the jobs and the city has the asset.
January 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lou Dobbs has to re-make that CNN ad where he asks "can't they get anything done in Washington?"
He has to point out how McConnell's Filibuster Tactics are what stops anything from getting done in DC.
Then again, Dobbs is a Republican, even though he says he is an Independent, and he wouldn't dare go against his own party.
January 5, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang, I wish we'd gotten Mitch McConnell in the election. That was the biggest disappointment of the night; the country would be so much better off if he'd lost.
January 5, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still confused. Why 80 votes? What does that gain the Obama administration to have 20 votes over the necessary number?
Or is the idea they want 60 votes and so are saying they want 80?
January 5, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think 80 is a somewhat arbitrary number. The only significance I can see is that it means at least a majority of Republicans are on board (assuming all the Democrats).
January 5, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political cover is what it gains. Both parties are on the hook then.
January 5, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's bullshit. If the Democrats still need to run for cover when they have the White House and big majorities in both houses of Congress, fuck them- they're good for nothing. Let them LEAD. That's what they were elected to do.
January 5, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then in 2010 if it blows up even worse then obama is staring at a republican controlled house and senate. Very short sighted.
January 5, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true regardless of whether there were 80 votes or 51. The Dems are in charge, they will get the blame. This is precisely why they need to do it right without worrying about what the Republicans think.
January 5, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's eighty votes because the R's always set the agenda. Because the D's let them. Is anyone sick of this shit yet? Who the F is this ugly Orville Redenbacher wannabe to set the agenda. He's in the MINORITY. Obama should say "it's fifty plus one votes, MotherF***er!"
January 5, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's eighty votes because the R's always set the agenda. Because the D's let them. Is anyone sick of this shit yet? Who the F is this ugly Orville Redenbacher wannabe to set the agenda. He's in the MINORITY. Obama should say "it's fifty plus one votes, MotherF***er!"
January 5, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a massive disappointment Obama has been!! I know...I know...give the guy a chance after all he he has yet to be sworn in!! My apologies, but I just can't do that. From his capitulation on FISA, immunity for the telecoms, support for the Bush/Paulson Banking Bailout...etc!! This guy is Republican through and through...right down to his so called stimulus packages AKA "trickle down Regeanomics!" Remember that? This guy is basically a lying, FRAUD whom I unfortunately supported wholeheartedly! Never again will I support this pathetic Democratic Party!! NEVER!
January 5, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that by insisting on so much Repub support, it guarantees that we'll end up with a watered-down, ineffective "stimulus" bill.
It also seems that, in light of most economists supporting a massive stimulus package, that it's worth the risk of passing it whether or not Repubs support it.
Can any Democrat anywhere please LEAD for once, and not worry about covering your political butt?
The only way I'm sure it won't work is if you let Republicans, who don't want Obama to succeed, to water down the bill.
January 5, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think everyone is underestimating Obama. It ought to be pretty obvious by now that he's nobody's fool. He's offering a carrot, but don't doubt that there's a stick waiting and all the R's know it. One of the benefits of running hard in solid red states is that it gets the Republicans in those states looking over their shoulders. Remember when Newt&Co. tried to shut down the government and Clinton made them look like chumps? Don't doubt that Obama will do the same. He would LIKE 80 votes, but what is left unsaid is that he doesn't NEED 80 votes. The last thing the R's need is to have the voters back home seeing them as obstructing something they want.
I'm sure there will be a number of R's that continue to play the old game. I'm equally sure that there will be plenty who don't, and once they start breaking ranks, McConnell will be powerless to stop it. At that point, there's no political advantage to trying - he'll just hop on the train and pretend to be the conductor.
January 5, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 5, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A handful of them are, but don't mistake McConnell's blustering for the views of all of them. This is just the opening round. He's talking tough to see how far he can push it. Obama has said he wants 80 votes, not 100. The unspoken invitation is that if McConnell wants to be in the 20 leftovers, he's welcome to do so. The train is leaving the station. The R's (not all but many, and perhaps most) cannot afford to let it leave without them.
January 5, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like death and taxes you can count on the republicans to put party and politics before country
January 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the GOP will really hurt their creditability if they try to stop the Obama stimulus plan over silly political reasons.
A great deal of individuals and companies like me and my company (http://www.bidmycleaning.com) are depending on the stimulus package to at least encourage people to have more optimism. Optimism leads to spending and spending leads to our economy getting better.
January 5, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What voters see is that the Democrats hold the WH and Congress. It's they who will be punished by the voters if they can't get an effective stimulus package passed. Which is why looking for bipartisan cover is stupid, stupid, stupid.
January 5, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your negativity is absurd. Obama's handling this perfectly. He is exceptionally smart when it comes to policy. He is in charge and he has overwhelming support. Better than Shrub had after 9/11. The people know what he has said he will do. And they know the Repubs have nothing to offer. There is no doubt what so ever that an effective stimulus package will pass.
(Sheesh, they are coming out from under the rocks already?)
January 5, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only stupid I see is not understanding the politics of governance and the history or rationale behind the architecture of our government, and then making comments about such things in a public forum on a political blog website.
January 5, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look in the mirror if you want to see stupid. How much intelligence does it take to understand that the majority party is the one held responsible for results. THAT is how they politics of governance work and always have.
January 5, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, duh!
Trying reading this from the AP today:
"Obama, whose inauguration is two weeks from Tuesday on Jan. 20, said he expected quick approval of rescue legislation by the new Congress.
"I expect to be able to sign a bill shortly after taking office," he said. Pressed on the timing, he said, "By the end of January or the first of February."
Obama's proposal to stimulate the economy includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion, including $500 tax cuts for most workers and $1,000 for couples,as well as more than $100 billion for businesses, an Obama transition official said. The total value of the tax cuts would be significantly higher than had been signaled earlier."
Stop the absurd concern trolling. It is way too Republican. You are basing your "analysis" on the status quo with respect to the presidency. That is not how it will be post 1.20.09.
January 5, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple minds always come to simple conclusions, and show unwavering commitment to their convictions even if the evidence to the contrairy is under their noses. Just ask Bush.
1. This is chess. Obama doesn't need the Republicans. He's setting them up for the next move.
2. The filibuster didn't become part of the rules by accident. It is an essential check against tyranny of the majority.
I won't burden you with further explanation.
January 5, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's not how government is supposed to work, and it's not how it's worked until relatively recently. The last time the R's tried to be this obstructionist was when they tried to stop FDR and the New Deal and it lead to an almost permanent Republican minority in Congress for the next 40 years.
Obama has said he wants Republican support and he's willing to make some concessions to get it. That's bipartisanship in the truest sense, and it's pretty clear that is part of the message that resonated with voters. What he hasn't said is that he's going to give away the store. He's nobody's fool, and I think people are, once again, underestimating him. He's shown himself to have pretty good political instincts.
McConnell and some of the hard-liners might feel it's their duty to be intransigent, but they can stamp their feet and hold their breath all they want. The best way to beat the wingnuts is not in an all-out fight, but by co-opting enough Republican support to make the wingnuts irrelevant.
January 5, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign, big time. Very clear, lucid and accurate. Thanks
January 5, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No problem McConnell.
We'll make sure Kentucky is left out of any stimulus plan.
January 5, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Josh Marshall is evidently smarter than some of our commenters:
Yup- exactly.
January 5, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. Let them have the Pawn. Obama takes Bishop.
Have a nap or something and check in on the game in 18 months.
January 5, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the economy is concerned that will be far too late. That urgency something Obama does seem to understand a lot better than some of our Congressional "leaders" do (I'm looking at you, Steny) and I do give him credit for that.
January 5, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. I'm not talking about 18 moths to do something about the economy. I don't waste my time with people who change the subject when cornered. "Speak to the hand."
January 5, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is such bullshit. Democrats were not elected because the country wanted "Republican input." Republican F'in input is what got us here in the first place. All this 80 votes crap gets them is a sure defeat. Even if they pass thier bill if they don't get near 80, Repubs will call it a failure. Dems don't seem to get the theater part of politics. They always seem to be the guys with the knife at the gun fight.
This time I really thought things were going to be different and that Obama was going to lead. I am very fast losing hope. Maybe Pastor Rick will cheer me up...
January 5, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and team need to publically crush Mitch. There is not a single redeemable quality about this weasel.
January 6, 2009 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never figured out what was supposed to be so magic about 60 anyway. Did anybody think the Blue Dogs would vote for cloture? When have the Democrats ever been able to hold the line? Even ignoring Pelosi and Reid pandering to Bush.
I say make them put up or shut up. I want to see McConnell up there reading the Detroit Yellow Pages at three in the morning.
January 6, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink