CE Week #1: “House Passes Stimulus Plan Despite G.O.P. Opposition”
WASHINGTON — Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan as Congressional Democrats sought to temper their own differences over the enormous package of tax cuts and spending.
As a piece of legislation, the two-year package is among the biggest in history, reflecting a broad view in Congress that urgent fiscal help is needed for an economy in crisis, at a time when the Federal Reserve has already cut interest rates almost to zero.
But the size and substance of the stimulus package remain in dispute, as House Republicans argued that it tilted heavily toward new spending instead of tax cuts.
All but 11 Democrats voted for the plan, and 177 Republicans voted against it. The 244-to-188 vote came a day after Mr. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill to seek Republican backing, if not for the package then on other issues to come.
Mr. Obama, in a statement hailing the House passage of the plan, did not take note of the partisan divide but signaled that he expected changes to be made in the Senate that might attract support.
“I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk,” he said. “But what we can’t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do.”
Mr. Obama followed the House vote with a cocktail party at the White House for the Congressional leaders of both parties, from the House and the Senate. The House Republicans, including the minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, were fresh from their votes against the recovery package.
The failure to win Republican support in the House seemed to echo the early months of the last Democratic administration, when President Bill Clinton in 1993 had to rely solely on Democrats to win passage of a deficit-reduction bill that was a signature element of his presidency.
Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, had met Tuesday night at the White House with 11 moderate House Republicans, none of whom ended up supporting the bill. “The most important number here for this recovery plan is how many jobs it produces, not how many votes it gets,” Mr. Emanuel said.
As Senate Democrats prepare to bring their version of the package to the floor on Monday, House Democrats and the administration indicated they would ultimately accept a provision in the emerging Senate package that would adjust the alternative minimum tax to hold down many middle-class Americans’ income taxes for 2009. The provision was not in the House legislation.
Its cost would drive the overall package’s tally to nearly $900 billion. That would exceed the roughly $850 billion limit that Mr. Obama has set for Congress, House Democratic leadership aides said, and leave no room for other proposals that senators of both parties are poised to seek during Senate debate next week.
While the House and Senate measures are similar, they are most likely to differ in ways that could snarl negotiations between Democrats from the two chambers, and delay getting a measure to the president. In particular, House and Senate Democrats are split over how to divide $87 billion in relief to the states for Medicaid, with senators favoring a formula more beneficial to less-populous states.
Democrats’ own differences aside, they also are under pressure from the White House to be open to proposals from Senate Republicans who might support the final legislation if their interests are accommodated, and which might draw a few Republican supporters on a final vote next month in the House.
The provision on the alternative minimum tax, for example, was a priority for Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who added it Tuesday in the Finance Committee’s work on the legislation.
Democrats’ goal is to have the stimulus package, which is roughly two-thirds new spending and one-third tax cuts, to Mr. Obama’s desk for his signature by Feb. 13, before Congress breaks for Presidents’ Day.
“He said he wanted action, bold and swift, and that is exactly what we’re doing today,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said as debate began.
Democrats voluntarily dropped from the package several provisions that Republicans had singled out for derision in recent days, including money to restore the Jefferson Memorial and for family planning programs. But the day’s debate contrasted with the president’s conciliatory gestures.
Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, said that former President George Bush’s signature tax cuts in 2001 had created years of growth but that the nation’s problems started when Democrats regained majorities in Congress in the 2006 elections.
Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, said that “the economics that got us into this mess” were the Republicans’ policies for the six years that Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress, through 2006.
The House voted down several Republican proposals, including a substitute package made up entirely of tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Republicans did not say how much their package would cost, although Mr. Boehner said it would be far less than the Democratic plan. That tax-cut-only approach was defeated on a mostly party-line vote of 266 to 170; two Democrats joined all but nine moderate Republicans in voting for the Republican plan.
By another near-party-line vote, 270 to 159, the House rejected a Republican plan to delete a number of spending programs, including several representing top campaign promises of Mr. Obama, and to add instead $36 billion for highway construction, more than doubling the $30 billion in the bill, and $24 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects.
After the final vote, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican, called the Democratic package “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination.”
Some Democrats seemed surprised that no Republicans voted for the measure.
“Not one person felt his or her district needed to have any of this assistance?” Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, asked of the Republicans. “That can’t be.”
Brad Woodhouse, president of the union-supported, pro-Democratic group Americans United for Change, e-mailed a statement condemning the Republicans’ opposition under the subject line “Political Suicide.”
This article helps show how far President Obama has to go to achieve agreement in Congress. He even went over to Capitol Hill to try and persuade Republicans to back his proposals. He obviously has a long way to go. House Republicans did not like what they saw in the package so they voted against it. “Democrats’ goal is to have the stimulus package, which is roughly two-thirds new spending and one-third tax cuts, to Mr. Obama’s desk for his signature by Feb. 13.” This is a lofty goal considering how much debate could go on in the Senate. I also want to know what the two-thirds spending entails because with our economy like it is we can’t have any pointless spending.
I also think that it is interesting that the republicans plan was so quickly rejected. Apparently when it comes to fixing the economy of our nation Representatives still seem to have their own agendas. This makes little sense to me. Even if you want to help out your constituencies wouldn’t they want you to fix the economy? I guess I still have a lot to learn about politics if the reasons for this party line vote aren’t apparent to me.
Connection: Partisanship. The vote on the economic stimulus package was basically on party lines. There were no Republicans that voted for the bill and only 11 of the 255 democrats in the House voted against it. This is a very good example of partisanship.
This thing is not even a stimulus package. I don’t see how money to provide contraceptives, fund schools, and overall promote liberal values is a “stimulus” package. More like a liberal package. I know that the bill has some compromises, and the Democrats are getting rid of a little of what they originally wanted, but still. Come on Congress! No wonder your approval rating is so low. Don’t lie to the American people and say your new earmark package is going to stimulate the economy. Let’s have more sex with contraceptives, that’ll give the economy a little jolt! Wow. Anyway, its beyond me to even say where most of this money is going to go… probably just another big waste of nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer’s money. And what if it doesn’t work? Just keep driving our country farther and farther into debt, with no end in sight, just “stimulate” the economy with, I don’t know, more debt? That’ll solve things. Well, to be honest, I’m a little sick of the government. They never seem to do anything but take more taxes and spend more on pointless programs that will only make our nation plummet even further into debt and recession.
Connection: Pork-barrel politics. Congressmen and Congresswomen are trying to please their own constituents with programs to give them more of the wealthy person’s money, which will only destroy our country more. Unfortunately, there’s no way to stop this, as most Americans have no idea who they’re electing. Nowadays, if they sound good, they must be the best choice of a politician. Right?
First of all why is everyone so partisan? Can’t they put their differences aside and figure out what is best for the people? I think that if Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich can do it then the Congressional Democrats and Republicans should be able to. A compromise needs to be reached or else at the rate we are going things are either going to crash completely or get better very slowly to where most of us won’t see a change in our lifetime. So something needs to be done. The way I see this whole thing is that the only reason the Republicans are not voting for it is because the people that wrote up the bill have a “D” next to their name. If they looked at the past and looked at major cuts in programs it just seems to make things worse for everyone. I mean just because they keep a solid salary really regardless to the condition of the economy doesn’t mean they should make their constituents suffer. And if this stimulus package doesn’t end up working, in the midterm elections we elect a Republican Congress and history then repeats itself. And I don’t think most of America wants to see the government shut down again.
Connection: Partisanship. It is the cause of why almost nothing gets passed in the government and personally I think after a while partisanship will destroy the American style of government and create a permanent gridlock.
I think that it might be a good thing that this package didn’t necessarily go through the first time around because then they can really sort out certain part about the package and make it better. Although many Americans might be needing the stimulus package now, it would be better to take longer getting it passed and have it be perfect, then rushing into something that doesn’t work completely. However, I think that the democrats and republican need to ignore “party lines” or whatever, and do what is best for the American public. They shouldn’t be worried about stupid reelection when their constituents might no even make it to reelection time without the stimulus package. They need to realize that our country is in a deep hole and they need to work together to get out of it. Hopefully Obama is not discouraged because the bill didn’t pass the first time, but he should be able to work out all the little kinks to make a perfect stimulus package. It seems like the democrats and the republicans are continually shutting each other’s ideas down. This might be a good thing, so that they can really understand what they are getting into. But yet again, they need to at some point in time, come together and do what is best for everybody.
Connection:
This connects to what Bill Clinton faced during his first couple months in office. The Republicans continued to not agree with him and turn his ideas down. Maybe Obama will be able to continue doing what he thinks is right and be able to do what he has in mind.
Congress is not going to hand President Obama anything, at least it does not look like it thus far. This can be looked at in either of the two ways. First, the Democrats wont be able to get their way on everything and Obama will have to work with both parties to achieve legislation. Or the second way, the Democrats may feel like they are being cheated because the Republicans refuse to vote on anything that has an inkling of liberalism in it. Either way Obama has got a long, long road ahead of him. It is common sense that Conservatives and Liberals are going to vote differently on a subject dealing with more government control. Beside the point, we have bigger fish to fry. The two parties need to put down their walls for a minute and come to the realization that regardless of what party had the idea, if the economy suffers both sides are going to feel the pain. At this point we need to see what is better for the entire nation and not just for a certain individual of a specific party. Yes, Obama certainly has his work cut out for him, and I wish him the best of luck.
CONNECTION:
During the Republican revolution a related event happened. None of the Republicans wanted to sign the Democratic legislation and none of the Democrats wanted to sign Republican legislation when it came to the balanced budget. In the end both sides had to compromise to get anything done.
Samsung, Sony, Sanrio. What do all these have in common? They’re foreign; just like the products that were bought with the stimulus package. That means money is going to countries that aren’t America—all of this, and we’re in the middle of an economic crisis! People are nearly starving in the streets while the stimulus package (which should be helping the American economy, mind you) is putting money where it shouldn’t belong. Like into foreign pockets and useless expenditures by the American public which will do nothing to stimulate the economy.
Let’s liken this to an unpleasant scenario: Someone says “I will take you out to a fabulous dinner! A six course gourmet meal at the tippy toppiest restaurant in town! Wouldn’t you like that? Aren’t I generous and wealthy?” You are, indeed, taken to dinner. And yes, the meal is fabulous. But… a year and a half later you receive a bill in the mail for your magnanimous friend. Not so generous now, is he?
This is what the U.S. government did to YOU. The taxpayer and citizen. “here is a check in the mail!” said George Bush. “Spend it! Enjoy it! Splurge! Maybe, you can even pay your rent this month! Won’t it be nice to not have to sleep in the cold?”
But now we are reaping our stimulus package oats. And they taste… bad. This economic crisis is the price we have to pay for those checks, for those tax rebates, for those supposed money saving ventures at the hands of the Bush administration. Dang it.
Connection: Pork barrel spending has put an additional sour note in this symphony wrongdoings. As if the stimulus package- both ineffective AND a waste of money- wasn’t stupid enough, we have to deal with the added burden of porky tack-ons. Such as: Condoms? Stem cell research? Road improvements?
We’re supposed to be pulling America up by its monetary bootstraps, and we’re worrying about side issues that don’t even pertain to the America’s well being as a whole? What is this madness?
I find it funny that President Obama has advocated so adamantly that his administration be bipartisan and yet the first big economic plan he sets before Congress is extremely partisan. It calls for abortions for crying out loud and he thinks that Republicans are going to be jumping for joy to pass such an outlandishly anti-republican bill? I think not. It is one thing to create a stimulus bill and another thing entirely to add pork barrel, abortion, and other spending that should not be in this package. How does funding overseas abortion, money for condoms and std’s have anything to do with stimulating the economy? I am very glad those 11 moderate Republicans voted against the plan. Mark one for President Obama’s bipartisanship. I like how both sides are blaming each other for this downturn in our economy. “But Mommy, he started it!” really works well don’t you think? I don’t get why Democrats were surprised that no Republicans voted for the bill. There are so many items in the bill that go directly against the base of the Republican party. Because don’t we all know that opposite ideas attract votes! This bill is ridiculous and will do nothing for President Obama’s image now political goals if it passes.
Connection: The inability of politicians to follow through on their campaign promises and the mistrust this leads to from the American people of the government. It is no secret that I did not like President Obama before the elections and all the things he has done in office just reinforces that idea. This stimulus package is incredibly partisan and will not lead to “reaching across the aisle” in the present or future!!!!
Bruce, don’t think that no other President has ever invited people from the opposing party over for dinner and cocktails. Looking at the episodes from West Wing proves at least that much. I don’t think the debating in the Senate is what’s going to hold up this bill but the stupidity on the Democrats’ side to keep in wasteful and un-republican, immoral items in the bill. Of course representatives have their own agenda. I mean, even look at the Best Buy scholarship Mr. Kautzman sent out about “aiding the constituents’. In order to be reelected, representatives must be like by the constituents. Americans dream in green and presidents. Much of our society is dependent on money for their happiness, but they also want to know ‘what have you done for me?” If really can not see the line for the party voting just read what the stimulus plan really entails. There is wasteful spending, abortion aid, and other ridiculous items that should stop any Republican in their tracks. And really, if Democrats really examine this package, they too will see that many items have absolutely and utterly nothing to do with stimulating the economy. If our government really wants to stimulate the economy they should spend a little money to advertise for Americans to spend money and help reboot our economy. I also think that the fact that everyone is freaking out about this downturn it has in turn gotten worse and will continue to get even worse as Americans hoard their money and boo the government for wasting tax money “stimulating” the economy.
In response to Rachel:
I disagree with you that it is in fact very partisan. First off no matter which side wrote the legislation there is always going to be a slant on it to push the agenda of that party. Second of all, the bill is two thirds spending and one third tax cuts and Republicans are all about tax cuts. They only reason they are not voting for it is because there are not enough tax cuts. Tax cuts are making the bill more and more expensive. Where are we getting all this money from? How could we afford any of these plans? I mean $800 billion plus is quite the chunk of change. And for short term tax cuts are great but when we go to pay for it, the taxpayers are going to get screwed over and could possibly drag out this economic crisis more. I don’t know about you but I would like to see this whole thing over soon. I really think that the Republicans are not voting for it not so much because there is not enough tax cuts but because they are being stubborn and not willing to bend even the slightest bit due to the fact that they have next to no power so they are going to assert what little power they have by delaying it.
In response to Rachel:
I understand that you are frustrated that the economic package is loaded with pork barrel and the Democrats are capitalizing on a chance to earn funding for their constituents. You are directing your frustration at the wrong office however. Obama is not the one who loaded the package with pork barrel it was the house members. Yes the bill is being loaded up with billions of dollars of unimportant constituent spending, but Obama has already stated he vehemently opposes this. The fact of the matter is he has no control over what congress loads the bill up with. Believe me I am just as frustrated as you. Being a member of the United States congress, your loyalty should be to our country first and the members of your constituencies second. It seems that in these troubled times the last thing hey would be worried about is “condoms, and abortions” but this is just the way the game is played. Obama will pass the bill but solely because he feels he has to, dire times call for dire measures. Don’t be angry at Obama for something he has no control over, be angry with congress for acting in ways unbefitting to Americans.
Cole, I can appreciate your criticisms concerning the “liberal package,” now; I am going to challenge you to see your own side. Imagine the “conservative package.” Imagine a pure capitalistic system, social Darwinism at its finest, stripping inalienable rights of those who are economically ill-equipped. Imagine a government that didn’t require taxes, or anything, at all, in return—that government would not provide. Imagine a government that denied contraceptives for moral reasons—that nation presses specific religious convictions upon its people.
Now, look at a nation that has a 10 trillion dollar deficit, a new leader, two wars, and foundational ideals that continue to preserve truth, and evolve culture. YOU, along with most republicans continue to complain about bipartisanship, and how it isn’t relevant in Obama’s stimulus package, or his administration as a whole. However, there is way too much irony here—what YOU are suggesting is equally as one-sided, equally as partisan.
And I do agree, compromise would be cute, however, it doesn’t seem like we have time to compromise. Apparently, something needs to be done, and something needs to be done now. A bipartisan effort, in this situation, is an agreement to act. This stimulus package is what’s on the table. Do you have anything better? Any ideas?
By the way, sex actually has a pretty significant impact in the U.S. economy…it’s a pretty famous business.
In response to Rachel Damiano:
It is foolish to argue about birth control measures being in the stimulus plan. The truth is, we’re going to need them. That is because we cut education, both K-12 and higher, school construction, Title 1, school nutrition, and distance learning. Education will just continue to get worse, causing birth rates and teen pregnancies to skyrocket, as they always do when people don’t have sex education. It probably won’t make any difference though, because they also eliminated funding to the Department of Homeland Security. There won’t be any measures of protection for all of the kids who are out of school because education funds got cut. The kids will also be doing drugs, because they cut funding to agencies that try and educate kids about the horrors of drugs, and they stopped systems that go after drug trafficking. Of course, there won’t even be a war on drugs because they also cut a ton of environmental funding. The whole planet will be ocean because the polar ice caps will all melt. So people can whine about abortions and condoms being in this package, but it will pass regardless. There is too much at stake for it not to pass. I’m not going to whine about abortions and condoms. I’m going to whine about what was cut.
In response to Rachel Damiano and Cole Ziegler:
Well, it is easy to see that both of you are conservative Republicans, because you are crying foul at the same things the Republicans and “blue dogs” in the House and Senate are. And here is the interesting part: you are only complaining about two percent of the bill. Two percent. So stop acting like that is all the bill will do, and start looking at what it will actually do to help the economy. One third of the bill is tax cuts, and the majority of the rest is slanted towards job creating measures like rebuilding the infrastructure, investing in alternative energy, and modernizing schools. And Rachel, there are not as many things that go against the conservative ideology as you might think. Many of the strong opponents of the bill have advocated for more money on more wasteful things than they are arguing against in the bill. For example, Senator John Thain was expressing outrage at two billion dollars towards rebuilding roads in national parks, but in 2006 completely blew the fact off twelve billion dollars that just disappeared in Iraq. And a Republican senator for Iowa, whose name escapes me, brought in a ton of pork money for a rainforest in Iowa, was opposing weatherizing homes (which will benefit the construction industry because they will be doing it). And I am just appalled by the Republican tactics. They are completely ignoring President Obama’s efforts for more bipartisanship and his compromises (including some of tax cuts that most liberals don’t like), voting as a party against his bills, and then blaming Obama for “not including us”. Compromise is the lifeblood of this democracy. Perhaps the Republicans had better start understanding that.
In response to Hillary Susz:
I’m really interested as how providing contraceptives to the public is: 1. going to stimulate the economy; 2. the government’s job in the first place; 3. not pushing values in and of itself. You say not providing contraceptives is pushing religion onto the American people. So, that technically means that providing contraceptives to the American people is, in fact, also pushing moral standards onto Americans. Should a Christian (or any other religious, or like-minded, person for that matter) be forced to shell out more dollars to the government so that money can be used to fund condoms for a college party?
And no, I’m fine with the Democrats spending it on whatever they deem best for the public. The media elected them after all. But when they lie to the American people about a “stimulus” package (which didn’t include any tax cuts or anything like that until the revision, FYI) when in reality it’s just a bunch of porkbarrel spending? That’s ignorant and something America used to oppose before hippies took over.
America used to be a place of prosperity, hard work, and independency. Nowadays, it’s a place where the government is expected to do everything (even fund your own freakin’ condoms, for crying out loud) without anything put into the system by you.
I’m predicting a Roman-like collapse sometime in the next hundred years in America.
In response to Rachel D. comments, I would have to say that your comments are ridiculous. You criticize Obama’s stimulus package because it contains programs that will tackle STD’s, contraceptives, and abortions for the United States and other countries. You say that this pork barrel spending shouldn’t be in the bill because it isn’t needed, but if education and social programs are cut then these programs will be used. Education is a key element that the government needs to focus on, but if Republicans want to cut more and more money for education then our educational system will go down him quickly. Republicans want to cut out thousands of dollars for much needed programs and they want to do this because they bill is “too large and unnecessary”. How are any of these programs in the bill unnecessary? I find it a comfort that Obama wants to promote contraceptive and STD education. He is going to tackle the issues that Bush didn’t want to address.
Furthermore, if education is being cut in the government bailout bill, then we will defiantly see an increase in teen pregnancy and STD’s. If we don’t put the programs in place to help prevent this, then we will look down the road and question why nothing was done. I rather have money spent on these types of programs rather than cutting money everywhere. Republicans need to face that Obama isn’t like Bush, and sitting on their butts isn’t going to solve any of our problems. They need to face the reality of what is happening! Hiding our heads in the sand won’t make the economy any better!