80 Votes?
News reports over the weekend were talking about how Obama wants to see 80 votes in the Senate for his economic recovery package and I find that pretty puzzling. Obviously, any president is going to want as many votes as he or she can get. But by the same token, stating that in advance as an explicit goal means that any group of 21 Senators can band together and hold action hostage to any kind of crazy idea whatsoever. If, by contrast, you state in advance that you’re looking for one or two Republican votes to help pass something, then suddenly you’ve got six or seven Republicans who’d like to be the one or two who get bought off. And since you’ve then got a handful of bidders for the slots, you know you can probably get them at a low price. Asking for 80 totally reverses the bargaining dynamic and even starts encouraging random Democrats to start driving hard bargains.
In political terms, meanwhile, it’s meaningless. If efforts at creating a strong recovery fail, the opposition will inevitable blame the governing party for the failure irrespective of who voted for what, whereas if efforts at creating a strong recovery succeed nobody will care by what margin it passed. You often find among political operators a tendency to overstate the extent to which little details matter politically when in fact it all tends to get swamped by the big picture.
Meanwhile, the big picture is that while it’s fairly easy to hold a meeting and have some wise technocrats draw up a sound $700 billion stimulus package, it’s quite difficult for such a package to pass through congress in pristine form. Some level of mucking around, pork barreling, and special interest giveaways is all but inevitable. But if you want the program to work, you want to keep all of that to a minimum. That means not setting arbitrary political hurdles for yourself and focusing instead on the core task of getting an adequately sized, appropriately targeted package signed into law.
62 Responses to “80 Votes?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
This is what really puzzled me. They can even get a filibuster-proof majority by getting 60 senators, but Obama’s people specifically said “they don’t want just one or two Republican moderates.” In order to do this, they’re loading this thing up with pork and tax cuts (a larger tax cut package than Obama campaigned on or Bush ever passed in a single bill).
So essentially Obama’s game is he wants so much support and consensus he’s willing to pass a bad policy to do it whereas he could’ve gotten a good policy with less consensus?
His obsession with Everyone Must Support What I Do! is really starting to be maddening to me.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
First off, it sounds like 80 is more of a general goal rather than a hard-and-fast rule; if they can only get 78 or 79 votes, I’m sure they’ll take them.
Second, politically speaking, the best option is to have Democrats unified in support of the bill, and Republicans divided 50/50. That way, Dems get the credit if the bill succeeds, while Republicans won’t be able to mount a credible attack if the bill doesn’t do as well (”hey, half of your own party voted for it, too!”).
January 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I think its smart. I think MY is wrong wrt the political benefits:
If one or two senators come across it is a Democrat initiative. If more than half the Republicans do, it is truly bipartisan. It doesn’t matter what the opposition party claims. What matters is how the press picks up and amplifies the story — 20+ Republicans will change that dynamic.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
”
If one or two senators come across it is a Democrat initiative. If more than half the Republicans do, it is truly bipartisan.”
If “truly bipartisan” means filling it with awful tax cuts and pork, why exactly is it desirable? You do know that Democrats actually control Congress by a wide margin, and they were put there by the American voters, and there’s no reason for them to pursue bad policies just for the heck of making things look bipartisan?!
January 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
80 means he’s shooting for a majority of the Republicans. This seems to be a calculated effort to make sure that congressional Dems get no credit for the stimulus package. What the hell is this all about?
January 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
“fairly easy.. to have ..some wise technocrats draw up a sound $700 billion stimulus package”
Since economics is pretty much a solved problem, like Newtonian mechanics – which is why maybe a tenth of a percent of academic economists anticipated the fiscal crisis.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The 2010 and 2012 elections will basically be referenda on Obama’s effectiveness. Obama should be willing to be satisfied with 50 votes, plus Biden, for a budget reconciliation bill (or whatever the hell it is that can’t be filibustered) if that’s what it takes to get a strong stimulus bill through Congress.
Because what’s going to matter to people in two years is: did the damn thing work? Nobody’s going to give a flip whether it got 51 votes, or 80 votes, in the Senate.
If it works, then come election time, the more GOP crybabies and obstructionists who voted against it, the better. We’ll retire a few more of them, just like we did in 2006 and 2008. But if Obama waters it down to get lots of GOP votes, and it doesn’t work, then the fact that it got 80 votes in the Senate won’t save him, or us, or the Dems in marginal districts who voted for it.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I think Obama should demand we operate on an anarchist consensualist approach, in which no plan is approved until each and every Congress member and Senator can agree with the plan. It would take a while, perhaps a few centuries, but the appearance of unity would be enormous.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
If you try for 80, you learn a pretty good idea of the least offensive way to get 61.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
It’s a test. He wants to see if the Republicans rollover and give him what he wants the same way that the Democrats played lapdog for Bush.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
What would a politician have to accomplish in order to get the chattering classes to hesitate AT ALL in second-guessing everything he does? When it comes to political strategy, I’ll take the black guy with the Muslim-sounding name who got himself elected President over some doofus on the internets.
Mike
January 5th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
It’s all a matter of what additional votes cost, fiscally and politically, above the number that’s legislatively required. I would pay some nonzero amount, fiscally and/or politically, for every additional Senate vote (on any issue) between 60 and 100, but it would be a hell of a lot less than I would pay from 0 to 60. The discussion is kind of meaningless without getting down to brass tacks. Or, given the subject, maybe a brass tax that would balance the budget on the backs of our billionaire brass magnates.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
i think it’s a media play. If the media can swallow the meme of “obama continaully reaches out hand to have it bitten by Republicans who insist US economy must go down in flames,” that’s good.
Can that happen with our media? I doubt it. But Obama seems pretty good at seeing those angles that others don’t, so it may all be part of the long term plan of showing true bipartisan spirit by continually signaling you’d like to be bipartisan, if if the other side doesn’t.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
You see, Obama doesn’t care about the policy merits of any given stimulus package nearly as much as he cares about creating “consensus.” That’s why I’m pessimistic that his administration will be successful in implementing many progressive policy changes.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
It’s an economic stimulus bill.
It’s the very definition of Pork.
The only comprable bills in recent memory are the Farm Bill and the Highway Bill.
These kinds of bills are pure pork.
Besides, Obama controls the message now. If the Republicans slow down the Bill, they are obstructionists. Obama put together a Bill that was supposed to be palatable to at least 20 Republicans. So, if they don’t play ball, then they’re just obstructing for the sake of obstructing AND risking our economy in the process.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Looks like a pretty devious ploy to me. A primary reason the post-war liberal consensus (which, of course, was proven to be wrong) was as strong as it was is that the Republicans essentially rolled over and went aboard the consensus anytime there was anything “moderate” to be had. There wasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, a fierce Republican opposition in Congress.
Obama is trying to play the same game; get the Republicans on board (half or majority of them), divide the party in the process, and consolidate a liberal consensus. I say the GOP ought not play ball.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
The only serious opposition I can remember the GOP doing was the Taft-Hartley of 1947, and that wasn’t a face of conservative unity.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Looks like a pretty devious ploy to me. A primary reason the post-war liberal consensus (which, of course, was proven to be wrong) was as strong as it was is that the Republicans essentially rolled over and went aboard the consensus anytime there was anything “moderate” to be had. There wasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, a fierce Republican opposition in Congress.
Obama is in his honeymoon period. My hope is that any Republican or Democrat that is a dick about the stimulus package (as many a Republican and some liberal Democrats were about the Bank bailout) will be shut out and harrassed for 4 (hopefully 8!) years. That would be funny. Then Obama would be post-partisan with those who came along and negotiated in good faith on the first vote. Chicago rules baby!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I don’t know what his angle is, but there has to be one. Between wanting 80 votes and offering massive tax cuts, Obama is offering the GOP way more than they’re due at this point, especially after the previous election that hanging to relevance by the skin of their teeth. I’m sure alot of us would like to see a bit more hardball, but let’s see how the thing plays out.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
15 Nordy nailed it.
Obama is just another DLC dem.
Change requires thinking outside of existing paradigms. Obama & the DLC can not do that. Therefore, just like in the Clinton years, they only cause the US to decline at a slower rate than the repubs. But it is still a decline.
No “single payer” as one of the solutions to Detroit automakers problems. No requirement for deleveraging of the financials. No undoing of unitary executive. No upgraded electrical grid as part of “infrastructure” spending.
No “restore the state tax”. no support for decentralized solar/wind (both homes & businesses). No electric postal vehicles (with spare batteries at the depot) as part of Auto bailout. No stopping the war on drugs. no fixing our electoral system.
Just more republican-lite.
Surprise !
January 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I’m surprised at how literal-minded and short-sighted the left is being about this.
We’re not going to get 80 votes, no.
But the point of saying you *want* 80 votes is the same as the point of leading with the tax cuts. The point is that you get several days of *headlines* talking about how you’re bending over backward to be bipartisan.
It’s not about strategy for this bill. The stimulus bill will pass; that’s not a nailbiter. The large point is about controlling first impressions, setting a narrative, and occupying the high ground of quote-unquote-bipartisanship. Meanwhile, we’re not really making any tremendous policy sacrifices to do it.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“What would a politician have to accomplish in order to get the chattering classes to hesitate AT ALL in second-guessing everything he does? When it comes to political strategy, I’ll take the black guy with the Muslim-sounding name who got himself elected President over some doofus on the internets.”
Is the idea that we shouldn’t disagree with Obama nor hold him accountable or make him better?
January 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
“But the point of saying you *want* 80 votes is the same as the point of leading with the tax cuts. The point is that you get several days of *headlines* talking about how you’re bending over backward to be bipartisan.
It’s not about strategy for this bill. The stimulus bill will pass; that’s not a nailbiter. The large point is about controlling first impressions, setting a narrative, and occupying the high ground of quote-unquote-bipartisanship. Meanwhile, we’re not really making any tremendous policy sacrifices to do it.”
About the lack of tremendous policy sacrifices to do it…what about a huge package of “stimulus” tax cuts that completely failed when Bush tried the same thing? The Wall Street journal notes that they are being added so “business interests” will lobby for the package. Isn’t that a tad bit disturbing?
January 5th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Just to clarify what I mean by “setting a narrative”: First impressions persist a long time. The fuss about Hillary’s role, and gays in the military, created an initial impression that Clinton’s presidency was going to be about left culture-war triumphalism. It wasn’t. At all. But that initial impression created all kinds of problems for us down the road.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
In response to Zaid re: the policy sacrifice of business tax cuts: I’ve heard that argument, but it doesn’t deeply trouble me. We need lots of different kinds of stimulus right now. The business tax cuts may not be the *best* kind, but I don’t see them as a “huge policy sacrifice,” to quote myself. They’re temporary, in any event.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
We don’t need business tax cuts. We need business tax increases and the elimination of loopholes.
If businesses need more money, they should take a look at their outlays in executive compensation.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
”
In response to Zaid re: the policy sacrifice of business tax cuts: I’ve heard that argument, but it doesn’t deeply trouble me. We need lots of different kinds of stimulus right now. The business tax cuts may not be the *best* kind, but I don’t see them as a “huge policy sacrifice,” to quote myself. They’re temporary, in any event.”
I would urge you to read this over at Sirota at OurFuture.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I am surprised that so many people here and elsewhere just take these things at their face value. Hillary Clinton and John McCain learned that Obama is ready for them and has plans up his sleeve for every eventuality. Republicans in Congress have yet to learn this.
He’ll certainly take a win; a win is a win. But this kind of political posturing is not one from weakness; he’s saying “get on the train or get run over.” And he’s not saying that because it is what he means but because it’s what he wants people to hear. Republicans think they can play the same old games. He’s telling them that the game is different, and they don’t even know it yet.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I read the Sirota piece, and I certainly agree with much of what he has to say. Business tax cuts aren’t the best kind of stimulus. So yes, this is a political move.
But I think Sirota is off-base when he complains that this will endorse the Republicans’ “frame” that “taxes are bad.” Instead, he thinks, we should boldly controvert that premise.
I don’t buy the notion that “disliking taxes” is just a Republican frame. People are never going to be wild about taxes, because — well — people like money. They’re not going to start liking taxes because we just won an election, or because we tell them to.
But if we convince people that we’re responsible stewards of their money, we have better odds of getting them to see the big picture — which includes the proposition that taxes may sometimes need to be raised.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Forget the political benefits. This is smart w.r.t. increasing the efficacy of the stimulus package. If there’s significant GOP noise about how it’s not going to work, that damages the stimulus – because a huge part of the stimulus is changing people’s perceptions of how the recession will play out. You want people to be hopeful and actually expect that in x months things really will be better. That alone will drive a good deal of recovery. And broad bipartisan support, on this specific issue, is a powerful and useful signal.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Daddy Love,
Is Obama saying “get on the train or get run over” or is he saying “get on the train, or I’ll make even more concessions (and a worse bill) to get to a meaningless number of votes?
I just don’t see how any Republican “gets run over” for not supporting.
January 5th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
A question: do you really think that if we get a good, effective bill with 61 votes instead of an awful bill with 80, that the average American will be cursing himself, “Gosh, I really would be happy right now about having a job, but the bill ONLY PASSED WITH 61 VOTES. I”M SO LET DOWN!”
January 5th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
In reply to Zaid: nope, I don’t think that.
I don’t think anyone thinks that.
I don’t think anyone is really hung up on the number 80.
Saying “I want 80 votes” is a political way of saying “this is a proposal that *ought* to be supported by everyone.”
I don’t know why Matt decided to take it so literally.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Re: No “single payer” as one of the solutions to Detroit automakers problems.
Hardly a comprehensive solution for Detroit’s woes. and any healthcare overhaul that requires community rating (no cherry picking) will be helpful to businesses that insure their workforce. (And single payor has never, ever been on the table anyway.)
Re: No requirement for deleveraging of the financials.
Read the news. This is already in progress.
Re: No undoing of unitary executive.
This is a wait-and-see matter.
Re: No upgraded electrical grid as part of “infrastructure” spending.
Again, this is a wait-and-see; there’s no reason I can see that it would not be part of a stimulus package.
Re: No “restore the state tax”.
Huh? Do you mean “estate tax”? That’s going to restored automatically unless Congress and Obama act to extend its one-year cancellation.
Re: no support for decentralized solar/wind
Again, wait and see.
Re: No electric postal vehicles
OK, now we’re talking some small bore stuff.
Re: No stopping the war on drugs.
I guess I despair of that ever happening.
Re: no fixing our electoral system.
A fair amount of fixing has already happened. Note the relatively clean and trouble-free election we have just had.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
“(And single payor has never, ever been on the table anyway.”
Read: The insurance industry owns the fucking table.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
“By the way, Obama did campaign on providing lower-to-middle class tax cuts. Therefore, I’m not entirely sure why people are assuming tax cuts as part of his stimulus plan represent concessions.”
Because the tax cut package being offered here is not the one he talked about in any way shape or form while campaigning
January 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“Some level of mucking around, pork barreling, and special interest giveaways is all but inevitable. But if you want the program to work, you want to keep all of that to a minimum.”
Of course, if you want to give out a whole bunch of money and don’t know exactly how to do it, why not let the individual congress critters’ greed do the work for you?
January 5th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I’ll just note that if Obama can convince everyone his domestic agenda has New Deal levels of support–and if the public and the media buy it, it becomes a reality
Precisely. Obama is trying to give self the veneer of overwhelming support so as to pre-empt any possible Republican roadblocks down the road, when he starts to enact serious left-wing radicalism.
I say any Republican strategist who doesn’t see the sinister and devious ploy ought be out of a job. This is a pretty big danger actually; after Obama accomplishes the impression of consensus support, he can run roughshod over conservatives. I am not looking forward to the next few years.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Part of the reason New Deal became as entrenched as it did was because the Republicans in Congress were essentially hapless. They didn’t get the Dixiecrats to realise Roosevelt’s creeping collectivism until it is much too late.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I’ll just note that if Obama can convince everyone his domestic agenda has New Deal levels of support–and if the public and the media buy it, it becomes a reality
It’s not clear to me how saying you want to get 80 votes, and then only getting 60 or whatever, accomplishes that.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
”
Why are you assuming Obama won’t get reasonably near 80 votes?”
He only will with a terrible bill packed full of unnecessary and dangerous tax cuts and pork, and that’s not leadership, that’s whoring your bill out.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:19 am
I haven’t finished Obama’s book, Audacity of Hope, as I just got a little bored of the easy stretching of the truth about the Reagan era that Obama barely lived thru…as a child. He saw the Reagan legacy in a much more benign light than those of us who tried to make a living back then. And Obama bought the idea that Veterans of IndoChinese wars were ’spit-on’ and that we can just get along….ala Bill Clinton’s “girlfriends”.
Admittedly, McCain’s policies were so much worse I had to vote for Obama, But I always thought he was Bill Clinton all over again. And the Republicans know how to deal with “that one”. They’ll show no respect if he’s not willing to fight back. Clinton didn’t and that’s why they nailed him.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:30 am
”
As yet the descriptions of the proposed package I have seen don’t match your prediction. But we shall see”
Hopefully we won’t, it’s bad provisions will not make it through.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:53 am
“the Reagan era that Obama barely lived thru…as a child.”
Gee, if he was a child in the eighties, he probably isn’t old enough to legally be president! Alert Michelle Malkin!
January 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
If 21 Senators do this, then the bill will pass with 79 votes, and 21 Senators will look like complete jackasses.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Myles is right through being wrong. Blocking a stimulus would require filibusters with Voinovich, Collins, and Snowe, all of whom would lose reelection because of it. So, Obama’s driving a wedge through the GOP: the partisan obstructionists vs the moderates.
This is a win-win, just like Bush’s post-9/11 situation. Either moderate Republicans vote with Obama, thereby moderating the GOP, or they lose filibuster power in 2010.
Marginalizing the right wing of the GOP vaut bien some extra tax cuts.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:30 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:26 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra