Some Republican Senators Will Vote for Stimulus Bill
Two Republican Senators say they will support the economic stimulus plan as it currently is; Democratic leaders agreed to cut some planned spending. The bill went down from approximately $900 billion to $780-$820 billion. That is still an astonishing amount, but significantly lower than the original (which was passed earlier by the House).
Democrats needed the support of at least two Republicans; this would give the bill a filibuster proof majority and enable Democrats to claim that both parties supported the bill. In other words; if Americans disapprove of the bill, they will aim their wrath at both Republicans and Democrats alike.
Smart politics, then, from a Democratic perspective. From a Republican perspective, however, supporting the bill is ludicrous.
The two Republicans breaking ranks are Senator Arlen Specter (Penn.) and Susan Collins (Maine). They are ‘moderate Republicans’ who often prefer working on a bipartisan basis, seemingly even when bipartisanship hurts the country and the Republican Party.
Their support for this crappy bill is pretty much inexcusable. Republicans should have united on this one; it would’ve forced President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to throw the plan into the dust bin and invite Republicans to the table in order to negotiate a new, cheaper and more effective one.
The bill is useless, counterproductive even, overly expensive, and unpopular. Specter and Collins should be derided for their support. Their support for this bill is unwise and very bad indeed for the GOP.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I’ve been opposed to this bill due to the large amount of non-stimulus spending in it. Now that they’ve cut 100 billion, I’m hopeful, but it depends on exactly what was cut. On my blog, I cataloged 112 billion that I thought should have been cut at a minimum (http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/whats-wrong-with-the-recovery-and-reinvestment-act/), but I haven’t been able to find exactly what was cut in this latest version of the bill, so I now have a more open mind about this bill but will wait to see what exactly was cut. We should remember however, that the bill still has to be resolved with the more expensive House bill. Some of the cuts could end up being put back in. (Hmm… come to think of it, if it only takes 50% vote to pass the conference committee, there is a good chance the Republicans could be left behind and the Dems will do what they want in conference…)
I disagree that Democrats will be able to paint a failure as a bipartisan failure. 2 Republicans does not make the bill bipartisan. The two Republicans are taking a huge risk. Either they will be seen as the two traitors that allowed a bad bill to ruin our economy and bring us closer to socialism, or they will be viewed as the only two Republicans willing to stick their neck out and stand up for what is right, rather than party politics. We shall see.