Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT editorial: Bipartisanship of the Wrong Kind

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 09:15 AM
Original message
NYT editorial: Bipartisanship of the Wrong Kind
Editorial

Bipartisanship of the Wrong Kind

<...>

The president has started appealing for public support for his jobs plan, and denouncing Republicans who are opposing it. John Boehner, the House speaker, gave a speech on Thursday in which he promised to consider the plan, and then all but rejected it by saying that regulation, taxes and federal spending caused the lack of jobs. In other words, government should do less, not more. He also said the deficit should be cut only by reducing spending, without any tax increases.

Republican opposition is bad enough, but The Times’s Jennifer Steinhauer reported that many Congressional Democrats are hanging back, saying they could support one or another of the components of the jobs plan, but not the whole package. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana wants to protect the oil companies to which she is beholden from losing outdated and overly generous tax breaks. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, seemed to be preparing to bury the jobs program in Senate rigmarole. Senator Bob Casey and others threatened to slice and dice the program to death.

<...>

Some Democrats oppose the jobs bill for its apparent connection to the stimulus law from 2009, which Republicans lambasted on their way to victories in the midterm elections in 2010. The problem with the stimulus bill is not that it did not work. The problem is that neither the administration nor Congressional Democrats ever persuasively used the evidence of its positive effect on jobs, as documented by the Congressional Budget Office and in private economic analyses.

The last thing Democrats should do now is repeat that mistake, cowing in the face of Republican tirades against government help. Economists have estimated that Mr. Obama’s plan, if fully adopted, could create 1.3 million to 1.9 million jobs next year. Despite poll after poll showing that Americans support tax increases on the wealthy, Democrats have failed to act. In 2010, with majorities in both houses of Congress, they did not even vote on letting President Bush’s high-end tax cuts expire.

more

Pass the damn bill!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is bull shit....These people don't care about anything but their own elections
I am sick to death of bought and paid for politicians....Landrieu is one of the worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's the same group
<...>

Before they passed the plan, Senators considered an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who spoke out against the bill for nine straight hours last week, that would have replaced the payroll tax credit with an extension of the Make Work Pay Credit, imposed an estate tax of 45 percent on estates worth more than $3.5 million and provided a cost-of-living-adjustment of $250 to seniors, veterans and the disabled dependent on government benefits. It failed 57 to 43.

<...>


Roll call, Democrats who voted against the amendment

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Casey (D-PA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Udall (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)

Baucus opposed the capital gains provision. They used the constant criticism of Obama as cover for their own failings. This is why Guantanamo still isn't closed.

There were also two other bills that failed:

<...>

The first proposal by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) would have extended the cuts only for individuals with incomes of up to $200,000 and families with incomes of up to $250,000. That failed by a vote of 53-36, with all GOP senators in opposition as well as Democrats Russ Feingold (Wis.), Joe Manchin (W.V.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jim Webb (Va.) and Independent Joe Lieberman (Conn.).

The second proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) would have extended the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanently for incomes of up to $1 million, among other provisions such as a one-year extension of unemployment benefits and cuts in capital gains, estate and dividend taxes. That failed, 53-37, with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) joining the ‘no’ votes.

<...>

Feingold opposed extending the middle-class tax cuts. The second failed due to opposition to the $1 million threshold.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Obama is on his own.
Democrats wildly cheered his speech and then returned to their offices and started their usually slicing and dicing. Harry Reid is the weakest senate majority leader in history. He should be fighting tooth and nail for this bill. It is all very discouraging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. Democrats are such chickenshits sometimes--why did they run away from
the successes of the stimulus, why didn't they argue that they saved America in its time of need? No, it wasn't perfect, and it didn't go far enough, but it certainly wasn't a mistake either. And now they're doing the same thing as the jobs bill--they want to reap the benefits of it in their own districts, while distancing themselves from it and denouncing it at the same time, just like Repubs did with the stimulus funds. Weak-assed quislings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not
every Democrat did.

Senator Franken: The importance of the Reocovery Act

Tuesday, Sep 28

M. President, I rise today to discuss something I regret. I regret that Democrats have allowed the word "stimulus" to become a dirty word, one we avoid using. The President spoke a few weeks ago about his new plan to invest $50 billion in new infrastructure-projects that will improve safety and transportation. But he never once mentioned the words "stimulus" or "recovery." And that was probably a smart move on his part. Because frankly, the stimulus has gotten a bad rap. But this is a reputation that it absolutely does not deserve.

There are members of this body who opposed the Recovery Act because they thought it wouldn't work. It didn't jibe with their theory of economics, or how the government should address recessions. And that's fine. They were entitled to vote the way they thought best. But now, a year and a half later, we've been able to see the economic effects of the Recovery Act. And to deny that it has been a success is simply ignoring the data.

A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that the stimulus bill either did nothing to help the economy, or made it even worse. The economic data, however, indicate otherwise. How do we explain this disparity between what people believe and what the data support?

Members of the American public don't form opinions out of thin air. They engage themselves-they watch the news, they listen to speeches by elected officials. And one would expect that watching the news and listening to your elected officials would be a decent way to form an opinion about something. But unfortunately, the talking heads on the news shows, along with many elected officials, having been feeding the American public half-truths about the Recovery Act. And that, frankly, is cheating the American people out of the facts.

Today I'd like to go through some of these claims made by the talking heads and elected officials, and then follow it up with some data. And that way the American people can use the facts to decide for themselves.

<...>

Another vital component of the Recovery Act that is often overlooked is its expanded funding for unemployment insurance that helped keep 3.3 million people, including 1 million children, out of poverty in 2009. Another overlooked but critical program in the Recovery Act is the funding for Head Start. The $2 billion allocation preserved Head Start and Early Head Start programming for 64,000 children across the country-over 900 in Minnesota alone. These programs are helping the most vulnerable kids in our communities.
It's simple-economic analysis suggests that the Recovery Act boosted demand, created millions of jobs, kept families in their homes, and helped the economy start growing again.

Let me tell you what I love about being a Senator. As opposed to being a candidate for Senate. I think most of my colleagues can relate to this. When you're a candidate, you're speaking mainly to your own party. When you're trying to get the nomination, when you're getting out the vote. But as a Senator, you talk to everyone. I travel all over the state of Minnesota and meet with mayors and city council members, and county commissioners, and small businesses.

And everywhere I go, they thank me for the Recovery Act. They thank me for the teachers and firefighters, for the Workforce Investment Act funds, which they used to train people for jobs. For the highway extension or the wastewater plant or the funds for rural broadband or for weatherization of public buildings.

In fact, Michael Gunwald, writing for Time Magazine, said this: "the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet."

A few weeks ago I heard a prominent conservative talking head on one of the Sunday news shows describe the Recovery Act this way. He said:

If I pay my neighbor $1,000 to dig a hole in my backyard and fill it up again and he pays me $1,000 to dig a hole in his backyard and fill it up again, according to the national income statistics, that's a $2,000 increment to GDP and two jobs have been created. The American people understand, however, there's no real wealth created in this kind of transfer payment.

How out of touch. How downright offensive. And yet this is why so many Americans believe that the Recovery Act hasn't created any jobs or just created jobs for bureaucrats.

You know, I worry that my speech today is too little, too late. I worry that many Americans have already formed their opinion about the Recovery Act-based on the inaccuracies they hear from beltway pundits or from their elected officials.

But, I challenge the talking heads and the elected officials to find the Spencers, Sheilas, Cecils, and Randys in their state-go out and watch them work. Or talk to a teacher in the classroom or a cop on the beat. They're not digging and filling holes in their neighbors' backyards. They're doing skilled, hard, necessary work-rebuilding our roads, teaching our kids-and getting paid for it. With their paychecks, they buy food for their families-which generates more demand. And that's an economic recovery in the making.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Good on Al Franken. Happy to read this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vicar In A Tutu Donating Member (298 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is why he's right to blame "congress"
Despite what certain politician neophytes squeal like piggies to the contrary.

This could be just what Obama needs - to rise above the fray of obstructionists and freaks from BOTH parties. A truly independent figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-11 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. I think Congressional Democrats secrely love to be losers, in every sense of the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC