Matthew Yglesias » A Flawed Stimulus is Better than No Stimulus

Feb 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

A Flawed Stimulus is Better than No Stimulus

Claire McCaskill seems to be softening her line on the Senate stimulus deal. She Tweets “Just saw Krugman’s comments on reduction in recov act. Question for him. Would no stimulus act be better than one thats 800 B instead of 900.” And follows up “Compromise had to happen or we would NOT have 60 votes. Period.” This may well all be true. But it’s quite a bit different from what she was saying yesterday when she was taking pride in having trimmed the package.

But bottom line, the Senate version of the bill is better than nothing. Brad DeLong says: “relative to the alternative of no bill we do boost employment in America a year from now by on the order of 3 million.”

The Senate bill is a lot better than doing nothing. But the House bill is a lot better than the Senate bill. Democratic Senators who understand that will be trying to use the conference committee process to produce something more like the House bill than the Senate bill. Or, even better, something better than the House bill. And they’ll be working to get Senate Republicans to vote for the conference report.

Meanwhile, I’ll say for the thousandth time that there’s a very strong case for eliminating the filibuster. The authors of the constitution never intended for their to be a supermajority requirement for legislation to pass the Senate, and until extremely recently there was no such requirement. The filibuster was a tolerable feature of the U.S. legislative process because it was rarely used. But over the past fifteen years—and especially over the past two years—it’s become routine and needs to be done away with.

Comments
85

Filed under: Congress, Stimulus,

85 Responses to “A Flawed Stimulus is Better than No Stimulus”

Alan Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Apparently, the filibuster isn’t to blame for this bill needing 60 votes to pass. The stimulus bill needs 60 votes because it violates the Budget Act(s), which restrict Congress’s ability to spend more than the treasury will receive in Tax revenue. Those restrictions can be waived, but only by a 3/5’s vote of the Senate.

It’s explained in more detail here.

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275/436/583
fostert Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Before we get too upset about the Senate version, we should remember that it now must go through the House-Senate conference. Anything can happen there. What comes out of that conference will be a lot different. It could be worse, of course. But I’m guessing some of that state funding will find its way back in. Gov Ahnold certainly needs it, and he probably has a Republican ally in the conference. The sausage isn’t finished yet, so maybe we shouldn’t worry about what’s in it for now.
Point Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I’m going to take this opportunity to defend the fillibuster, and in a larger sense, the US Senate. I know you’ve also often critiqued the US Senate as an institution, for being undemocratic, since small states are so over-represented. (Sorry about the length.)

1. It is better that congress should have a greatly deliberative body as one of its parts than for it to be completely representative.

For me, prior to democracy as a good, there is the respect of others as human beings like yourself. That is to say that it is only because I understand my fellow man as an end in himself, not as a means, that I can even consider letting those who disagree with me, even if he is part of a majority, from governing me.

From this, we can say that there are other values that can potentially override democracy in creating institutions for a just government — one of which, I would argue, is the value of discussion, whereby no policy is made without all interested parties saying their peace, and where those that govern are forced to make at least some justification to their detractors. Which is to say that before a just society is democratic, it is open and deliberative.

And I, for one, am proud* to live in a country that boasts the world’s most deliberative body.

Yes, this loquacious body has been an obstruction to routine legislation and progressive change alike; the flip side of institutionalized consultation is that
transformation, whether it is for good or ill, must be done either by degree or with the wide consent of the nation.^

* on the whole

^ I should also note brief that this post is not a blanket defense of Senate procedure, and certainly not of every instance of its power of restraint.

2. The Senate cannot become representative in any meaningful way without damaging its deliberative capacity.

There are a number of aspects of the upper body that lend it to its style (such as longer, disjointed terms), but the Senate rules certainly top the list; and one thing that makes those rules even feasible is the Senate’s relatively small size (less than a quarter the size of the House).

If every state is represented in the Senate, that leaves 50 votes to distribute according to population — when California is 69 times the size of Wyoming!

Thus, in practice, representation of all 50 states by population is incompatible with its deliberative nature.

3. The Filibuster, intended by the founders or not, is an integral part of this deliberative process. (Self explanatory)

That is my defense. What do you think?
br Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
mmm. yglesias math. comparing the crap reasoning in this post to the crap reasoning in the michael steele post makes the head spin.
ferd Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Economics is NOT a fake discipline. Note that large business enterprises all hire financial experts who studied economics in college. Those companies don’t do that because they like to throw money away.
Joel Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
My big concern is the tax cuts. They are a trap for the Democrats, which is why Republicans are so adamantly for them. Stimulus spending, by definition, is ephemeral. But in the propaganda of the Republican wind machine, temporary tax cuts become “tax increases” when they end.

Republicans are going to stuff this bill with as many tax cuts as possible. Then, whether or not they end up voting for it (most still won’t), they will have their little political time bomb. They will campaign to make each and every tax cut in this bill permenant, on the argument that to do otherwise is a “tax increase.”
Zach Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The idea that the stimulus needs 60 votes is a total farce. If the GOP successfully filibustered the bill, the markets would immediately plummet (one of the few times a “markets reacted to X” story would be true) and the filibustering Senators would, after getting thousands of angry calls from powerful people, demand some meaningless changes to the bill that they can point to as fruits of their labor but really don’t change anything before ending the filibuster (but not necessarily voting for the bill).

The symbolic opposition to the bill in the House was one thing, but American business knows what’s at stake and wants real stimulus ASAP. Note that this is exactly what happened in the House last fall with TARP. Bold opposition looked stupid in retrospect. Senate Republicans know they can peel off a few to give 60 votes to break filibuster, and then all vote against a bill that passes anyway and that’ll give them carte blanche to blame the Dems when it doesn’t work without pissing off their supporters.

Moderate Dems like McCaskill who decided to engage in this compromise really should’ve just used the threat to get what they wanted in the bill for their states and called the GOP’s bluff. Very long odds that a filibuster succeeds and if it does there’d be a quickly negotiated compromise within a day or two. Why compromise ahead of time?
rapier Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The filibuster is never used. It is the threat of filibuster that is used. Let them filibuster. A week. A month. Whatever. The 64 civil rights act it went on for 52 days. While the blovate for days on end and no other business is done the Democrats should just say “up or down vote”.

Now it’s just Kubiki theater. The leadership calls for cloture, he doesn’t get it, because there is no penalty for the opponents, and so he tables the bill and the Senate moves on.

I actually think filibuster should be killed and thought so when it almost was. Still the fact is that it is never really used. Just the threat.
Chet Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Those companies don’t do that because they like to throw money away.

Well, they do hire CEO’s…

It is better that congress should have a greatly deliberative body as one of its parts than for it to be completely representative.

Is it “deliberation” when Republicans are reading TV Guide on the Senate floor? If the filibuster actually represented an open-ended discussion of the topic at hand, I think your position would be defensible. If there should be a 60-vote requirement to pass legislation in the Senate (even when there’s only 99 senators) a Congressional amendment to that effect should be passed.
Adam Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“3. The Filibuster, intended by the founders or not, is an integral part of this deliberative process. (Self explanatory)”

In theory, yes. If the Republicans had 52 seats it would be a disaster to have no filibuster, because they’d ram through horrible bills on straight party-line votes. As currently exists, they’re a minority who votes almost unanimously against everything Democrats want simply because they run as the anti-Democrat party. So nothing gets passed unless it’s sufficiently watered down to attract some combination of Snowe, Specter and Collins, as we see quite clearly with the stimulus. Basically it just boils down to the fact that having an unhinged extremist party that attracts a substantial percentage of votes/seats makes governing hard.

But the line is arbitrary. If the Democrats win 62 seats in 2010 (which is certainly possible), the filibuster wouldn’t serve as any kind of mandate for deliberation, because it wouldn’t be relevant. It just turns the 51% requirement for a majority in every other country into a 60% requirement. The expectation everywhere else is that whoever has that 51% gets to pass whatever they want, and get judged on it in the next election. I see no reason why our system is actually better, given the relative results.
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Matt (and Zack),

The filibuster is irrelevant here. Due to the Budget Act of 1974, the bill needs 60 votes to pass. Also, if you think the bill’s failure would not be a major defeat for Obama and only empower the Collins/Nelson/Landrieu axis, you’re kidding yourself.

Anyway, the “nuclear option” is just not a solution here, so you shouldn’t be giving your readers the erroneous impression that it is. This is not a cloture issue. The bill needs 3/5ths support to become a law… period.
Will Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
@rapier I agree. If Senators were actually made to filibuster it would be less of an issue. Imagine Senate Republicans actively filibustering the stimulus package while more job losses rolled in. It would be a short-lived disaster.
Adam Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“The filibuster is never used. It is the threat of filibuster that is used. Let them filibuster. A week. A month. Whatever. The 64 civil rights act it went on for 52 days. While the blovate for days on end and no other business is done the Democrats should just say “up or down vote”.”

I actually think this is possible with big stuff like universal health care or EFCA. The main reason the threat of filibuster is enough is because given the procedural rules, it takes a full week to overcome Coburn on just one bill (two days for cloture to ripen, then 30 hours after the vote, times two since the first is the motion to proceed). Given how many recesses they have, a full week for a minor bill is really untenable because it would clog the pipes so much, so Coburn gets to hold 50 things until they get passed all at once (which they did in the lands bill at the beginning of January).

Also, if it really came down to a filibuster, Republicans can end the session at any time if there’s not a quorum present. That’s what the ever-present quorum call is technically for. So really they just have to have a few people alternating talking while 50+ Democrats sit there listening to him to avoid a failed quorum call. Which is really annoying. So it’s only for really important stuff that that would ever be considered. It should be considered more though.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
As has been said elsewhere, no-one elected Snowe, Collins and Specter to be the veto powers on legislation.
Kolohe Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
(reposting w/o links to avoid moderation purgatory)

Re: “we do boost employment in America a year from now by on the order of 3 million”, I left the same comment on Delong’s site.

The CBO blog put the estimate for HR 1 at 0.8 to 2.1 million more job by the end of this year; for the Senate (prior to the most recent actions) 0.9 to 2.5 million. By the end of *next* year the high end estimates range from 3.6 to 3.9 million, but the middle of the band is closer to two and a half million.

So 3 million is a bit of a highball estimate for “a year from now.”

One additional thing:

Putting this ballpark estimate in a graph is even worse, because *this is not data*. This is the second most awful graph you’ve ever done. (the first most awful being “The Bush Record” post.)
Ted Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@ferd: go read liar’s poker if you want to know why companies hire econ majors
Zach Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Joel – my impression is that most of the money allocated to tax cuts (but a smaller fraction in the Senate bill than the House) is Obama’s Make Work Pay credit and other changes he campaigned on making law in 2009. The controversial additions in the Senate are the AMT patch (which I believe was part of Obama’s tax plan in the campaign), and credits for buying houses and cars. These add up to $100 billion. A big fraction of the stimulus, but as with the House bill a majority of the tax fraction of the stimulus is the Making Work Pay credit.

The one thing I really don’t get is why Obama didn’t put all of his tax cuts in this bill and just get it over with. Since his tax increases are actually already in law he doesn’t need to save his proposed credits to bargain and it’d make this bill have even more tax cuts. As long as he’s going to cut taxes this year anyway, all of the cuts should’ve been thrown in this bill to make the GOP look even more uncompromising.
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Zack, I’m also not sure what you think constitutes “doesn’t work.” If you mean, “doesn’t immediately revive the economy in the short term,” then it doesn’t matter if we pass a 800 billion dollar stimulus or a 2 trillion dollar stimulus. That’s just not how these things work. If you think the sky is going to fall if Obama doesn’t turn the ship around by 2010, then the sky is going to fall regardless of the size of the package.

Of course, as Matt indicates in this post, jobs will be created, and Democrats can point to those created specifically from the so-called “pork barrel spending” and say, “We can do more of this.” Meanwhile, what will the Republican argument be?

“We voted against the only jobs created over the last two years!”

Yeah, that’s a doozy of a campaign slogan…
Courtney H Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Did you support killing the filibuster when Republicans had control of the Senate? Probably not. You only want things like this when it is your team on the winning side. When the opposite is true, there is no way that you would support it. That is why the system has a protection of minority rights, enshrined in institutions like the two Senator rule in the upper house of Congress.
fostert Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
So I have an idea. It starts with making the minority have to actually filibuster. Let’s bring back the 24 hour readings of the DC phonebook. But let’s put a huge video screen behind the speaker and let the majority control the content of that screen. As McConnell is blathering on, let’s keep a running count of jobs lost during the speech and broadcast it on the screen behind him. And let’s make sure the networks can only film the speaker from an angle that shows the screen. Shame is a powerful tool, let’s use it.
Point Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Chet:

First off, I’m pretty sure a supermajority only needs 59 votes if only 99 senators are present (if I’m not mistaken, Matt did a post on this some time ago).

Second, as to what Senators read on the floor — use of non-relevant materials are actually rare (though the few examples are infamous), because actual filibusters are rare. As noted, the threat of the filibuster is what really forces the issue.

That brings me to Adam’s point:

Yes, the line is arbitrary. Even further, it’s changed — originally, the super-majority needed 67 votes for cloture. But it is, for one, more stable than 51% (which can change with just 2% of the population). Also, when a simple majority is needed, party discipline is harnessed, stifling debate (this is what happens in the house). When you need 60 votes, you (a) as a rule need your program to be palpable to at least someone on the other side (weakening caucuses and expanding debate), and (b) even when one party has over 60 votes (as the dems may) you need to work to keep the coalition together, expanding debate still. (McCaskill is proving this now, and, though it’s a morally troubling example, the civil rights opponents proved it as well).

(to be continued)
Zach Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@Stroszek – Didn’t know that; thanks. I think the results the same though if you fail because someone raises a point of order or you fail because you don’t get cloture. If a filibuster succeeds I don’t think the person who actually undertakes it will be particularly vulnerable. The affect on the 40 (or 39? I can’t keep track anymore) folks not voting to proceed would be the same. I wasn’t advocating for the nuclear option here; just actually forcing a vote (ideally with some warning so that people would know what was on the line).

You’re right that it’s risky, but I think it’s way more empowering for the moderate coalition to let them dictate what is and is not stimulus regardless of how the vote would turn out.

It’ll be interesting to see if the compromisers get screwed in conference. It’d be difficult to explain voting for the bill and then voting for filibuster when it comes back — the actual argument would be logical but it’d be too nuanced to get much traction. It’s tough to throw off the flip-flopper label.
Zach Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
@Stroszek – Regarding “doesn’t work,” you’ve basically got it — if the sky’s falling and Obama’s unable to spin the recovery as making progress. The GOP can say, “Tax cuts would’ve made more jobs! No one listened to us! You’d have $XYZ in your pocket with our plan but instead it went to welfare and food stamps and corrupt state and city governments and illegal aliens were doing all the work and taking your jobs.” It’s not right, but that doesn’t matter.

If unemployment’s peaking at 10% or whatever come Fall 2010 it won’t matter politically that millions more would be out of work sans stimulus.
Point Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
(continued from last post)

“The expectation everywhere else is that whoever has that 51% gets to pass whatever they want, and get judged on it in the next election. I see no reason why our system is actually better, given the relative results.”

I know there’s going to be disagreement about what “the relative results” show. We have a troubled health care system, but an exemplary immigration policy (overall). We have some really financial policies (and corresponding corrupt corporate culture) and arguably the most free speech in the world.

I am of the opinion that our deliberative process has served us well. I believe it is better. As I argued in post 3, there are things more basic than democracy, which I believe we have cultivated as a nation.
br Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@ Kolohe

You wrote exactly what I was going to type up in my comment but lost the will.

This post combined with the asinine comparison with rounding in the Steele post point to the fact that Yglesias is just as prone to fuzzy math as the Republicans. He is just arguing for a bigger stimulus based on gut feelings and party line arguments. This kind of nonsense is no better than this mouth-breathing Republican mantra of tax cuts. Shape up, Matt.
JMitzman Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I’m against the need to have a supermajority to pass any legislation, but what is the alternative? Allowing anyone to just cut off discussion at any time of a vital issue where many in the senate feel their voice has not yet been heard? Requiring 50% + 1 votes for cloture?

In principle, I believe that if a large group of people meet to discuss the future of the country and it’s laws, and on a particular issue some people feel more discussion is warranted, then discussion should continue. On the other hand, this leaves the door open for people to prevent legislation from passing by endlessly continuing discussion when they realize full well everything that needs to be said has been. The current compromise, allowing anyone to just say that they are preventing legislation from being voted on by “filibustering” it and then requiring a 3/5 vote to to force a regular vote on the legislation also seems wrong.

Maybe the best way of handling this is to, on any vote for a bill, allow congressmen to vote 4 ways: abstain, for the legislation, against the legislation, and need more discussion on the legislation. If need more discussion gets 50% of the votes then more discussion occurs until another vote is called for.

That still seems like a kludge which could cause problems though. Ultimately the issue is that all the folks in congress are acting in bad faith. The filibuster is not being used as a tool to continue legitimate discussion on a topic, but simply to prevent legislation from beign passed that otherwise would be. Maybe there should be a system where the people can recall senators/congressmen if they feel they have acted in bad faith?
Roddy McCorley Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
It’d be nice if Sen. McCaskill realized there’s an alternative to compromise. That is, while she’s on the Sunday talk shows, stop pretending that the Republicans are a serious political party anymore. Stop treating the GOP as anything other than a conspiracy of vandals. Start telling the American people that they’ve spend 30 years engineering an economic disaster primarily so they could get rid of Social Security and Medicare.
Point Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
JMitzman

You (and to be fair, Chet before you) raise some good points about bad faith.

But for better or worse, we have but one system of “recalling” Senators — elections. And given the Senate’s nature, this is a very imperfect measure.
Rich in PA Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
McCaskill’s just being snarky with Krugman: you know, the idea that he’s just a political naif and she’s a grown-up. What she said initially is the real McCaskill, and this stuff about how she compromised grudgingly is just a lie. If there had been no Nelson and Collins, she would have been Nelson and Collins. She wasn’t a facilitator, she was an enabler, in the worst sense of making someone’s bad actions possible.
anonymoose Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I think a new congressional rule needs to be passed.

If a sponsor of an amendment does not vote for the final bill. That amendment is automatically taken out of the bill in conference.
kafka Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“If unemployment’s peaking at 10% or whatever come Fall 2010 it won’t matter politically that millions more would be out of work sans stimulus.”

Correct. The GOPers have nothing to gain by helping pass the stimulus. If it works, the Dems will get the credit irrespective of some pathetic GOPer line like “vote for us, we helped pass the stimulus”.

But if it fails…..

The GOPers are pursuing the only road that leads to any potential political gain. And their bet is probably a good one. Sometimes mendacity pays off.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
He is just arguing for a bigger stimulus based on gut feelings and party line arguments.

Or, y’know, things like Krugman’s mathematical sketch of how spending or tax cuts translates to higher GDP translates to lower unemployment..
pseudonymous in nc Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
The GOPers have nothing to gain by helping pass the stimulus.

And they’ve already dumped turds in the punchbowl, which they then invite the Dems to drink from. Anonymoose is right about the need to deal with poison-pill amendments: if you don’t vote for the final bill, your amendment should be stripped from it.
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
The GOP can say, “Tax cuts would’ve made more jobs! No one listened to us! You’d have $XYZ in your pocket with our plan but instead it went to welfare and food stamps and corrupt state and city governments and illegal aliens were doing all the work and taking your jobs.” It’s not right, but that doesn’t matter.

So their plan will be to make flaccid appeals to the same shrinking coalition that failed them for the last two election cycles? Republicans need hispanics for any kind of recovery, so the xenophobia won’t fly. And given how many people will be benefiting from the food stamps and social services, that’s not going to have much traction either. Not much of a recipe for success, if you ask me, so I wholly endorse the GOP taking up these talking points.

Also, weren’t the food stamps already stripped out of the package for tax cuts?

If unemployment’s peaking at 10% or whatever come Fall 2010 it won’t matter politically that millions more would be out of work sans stimulus.

Sure it will, because there will be clear evidence of jobs created in connection with spending plans. This will, as it did in 1934, create more demand for government intervention to put more people to work.

On top of that, you seem to underestimate how badly the Republican brand has been damaged. People aren’t going to forget how this mess started by 2010, no matter how much political alarmists need that assumption to be taken seriously.
JT Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Hmmmmm… shouldn’t that be 3 million jobs SAVED or created?
Of course we’ve no metrics for the saved bit now do we?
Rather sleazy that bit but proof positive that economics is a theological pursuit.

But better… 800 billion (and we all know that is not the true cost of the bill) makes for a quarter million plus change per job.
And only funds those jobs for one year.
Can’t we just give the “saved” workers $100,000 and pocket the rest?

Oh right, the rest goes for things that can’t make it through the normal appropriations process.
Ahhh, porkressive politics at work!
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The GOPers are pursuing the only road that leads to any potential political gain. And their bet is probably a good one. Sometimes mendacity pays off.

The GOP tried this “brilliant” strategy in the 30’s and it proved disastrous for them. Betting on the notion that further economic decline will reduce demand for government intervention is like betting that a dog won’t like bacon.

The best shot the GOP has is a demonstration that they can participate in a functioning government. They need to rebuild trust before they can recover, and their current tactics aren’t doing much to help them.
Don Williams Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
1) I think all this whining about the Senate rules is misplaced. The REAL problem is that Obama has been too timid in putting the Republicans at RISK.

2) I would just as soon see the stimulus package fail and the economy collapse. Because at some point, the people would finally wake up and start killing Republican politicans and Republican propagandists. The police wouldn’t interfere because there wouldn’t be enough money to pay the police and the police would be trying to save themselves — look at New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

3) The Democrats are acting like an abused wife — feeling that they are on the hook to remedy the problems caused by their Drunk Republican husband. Feeling that they can’t complain because “it would make him angry and uncooperative.”
Crying as the Republicans beat up on the innocent — the common citizens — but too cowardly to do anything to stop it.

Fuck the Republicans. Let them know they can get on board or it’s going to be civil war. George Bush and Dick Cheney may have Secret Service protection — Mitch McConnell doesn’t.
kafka Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“The GOP tried this “brilliant” strategy in the 30’s and it proved disastrous for them…”

The GOPers pissed all over Carter when he inherited the stagflation economy in 1976, and pissed all over Clinton when he inherited the Bush 1 recession. Worked well for them. 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Don Williams Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Sometimes it’s best not to make a plea bargain with a serial killer/rapist. Sometimes it best to just release him on his own recogniscence and send him out to that angry mob outside.

Those who have deep contempt for government of the people are not entitled to government’s protection.
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The GOPers pissed all over Carter when he inherited the stagflation economy in 1976, and pissed all over Clinton when he inherited the Bush 1 recession. Worked well for them. 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

Except those recessions had nowhere near the reach as this one.

Anyway, putting your GOP cheerleading aside:

Since, by the logic of the kvetching I’m seeing in these comments, Obama is screwed no matter what he does. Every course of action implies a doomsday scenario, because, after all, those Republicans are just so goddamn brilliant. So why do you even give a shit?
Don Williams Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
The other big problem is that the stimulus bill is being depicted in the same terms as the Tarp Bill — a huge expensive, OPAQUE expenditure of great vagueness and dubious utility.

Obama should point out the SPECIFIC measures in the stimulus, show how those measures will help the people and ask why the Republicans are opposing them.
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I would just as soon see the stimulus package fail and the economy collapse. Because at some point, the people would finally wake up and start killing Republican politicans and Republican propagandists.

Yes, rampant suffering on an unimaginable scale is a fine price for possibly proving a political point.
kafka Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“Anyway, putting your GOP cheerleading aside:”

Anyone remotely familiar with my posts knows that I don’t give a rat’s ass who’s in charge in D.C. The “2 party” system is a joke, just 2 sides to the same shitty coin.
Don Williams Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Plus if you can’t — in a $800 BILLION bill — find some way of buying off two or three Republican Senators, you aren’t trying.
How many Democratic Senators did George Bush get to pass his 2001 tax cut?
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
As for Carter, unlike with the Hoover-led GOP and the Great Depression, the Ford-led GOP didn’t own the 1980 recession which helped sink Carter’s reelection bid. So that really isn’t a relevant case either.

Exactly. In 1978 and 1994, the Republicans still polled as a viable alternative. Their brand was far from being completely tarnished in the way it is now. On top of that, they still retained demographic advantages that lent some long-dead viability to the aforementioned “blame the Mexicans” strategy. That is no longer the case.
Stroszek Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
just 2 sides to the same shitty coin.

Edgy!
Stuck Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
No Matt. You are right that the founders didn’t call for a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate. What they did was explicitly grant the Senate the power to make their own rules, and by extension one could argue make those rules a constitutional tool. And it is just idiotic to argue that the Senate was created for anything other than to grant the minority a say in running the country, and to prevent a tyranny of the majority from occurring.
Steve LaBonne Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
If unemployment’s peaking at 10% or whatever come Fall 2010 it won’t matter politically that millions more would be out of work sans stimulus.

Some people need to have this sentence engraved on their foreheads, or whatever it takes for them to grasp its import.
roger Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I’m pretty sure the stimulus is a palliative, not a solution. Our last recession saw a similar use of tax cuts and deficit spending – although when Bush did it, University of Chicago profs were strangely quiet about the Ricardian equivalence effects, I guess they were too busy do science in their laboratories to notice. But even at the time, the press and punditry were conscious that the real policy was blowing another bubble – the housing bubble. The pretence, now, that this was the devil’s doing is bad history. The alternative, of course, was to pursue a much more interesting mix of stimulus and long term public investment, but Busharia was not going to even touch that.

This time, there is no accommpanying bubble. And, alas, the Obama administration is doing a logical split, with, on one side, a stimulus package that logically presupposes a long recession, and on the other side, a bank bailout that presupposes a short and happy one, after which the banks joyfully bounce back, buy back their bad assets and pay back the happy taxpayer.

The contradiction between the two wings of the policy is poison. It is Larry Summers xxx brand poison.

Sans bubble, the recession is not going to end until people – like the median household – has more money in its pocket. Preventing them from having radically less money is good, but the idea that the private sphere is just going to magically adjust is braindead, a lesson not learned from the housing bubble. Of course, instead of pouring money endlessly into failing banks to help the wealthiest .01 percent, we could do that radical, common sense thing, cut bait, put that money into a financial facility that would loan to commercial enterprises (of the kind we have long had for housing and college education and small businesses) with the investors power to effect certain changes in those enterprises. Until the economy that makes goods and services picks up, and until a major push is made to realize the value of the research that still pours out of American universities in terms of creating goods the world will want – for instance, cheap green automobiles – we will simply be engaged in this battle for years.

That the private sphere is going to bounce back, that conservative fairy tale, needs to be hit on the head hard. Break the taboo – at the moment, the private sphere sucks, they have allocated capital for the past eight years with massive inefficiency, and the government could do and will do a much better job of it.
Steve LaBonne Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
What Roger said. There is no going back to an economy in which the rich live by robbing the rest of us (AKA fancy financial manipulations that create no real wealth) while the middle class spends borrowed money on SUVs and big-screen TVs like there’s no tomorrow. Tomorrow has arrived, with a vengeance. There will be no return to a bubble economy inflated by consumers spending borrowed Chinese money on Chinese trinkets. And it will take a long time before the real, productive economy recovers from decades of starvation. The only way to return to a reasonable level of employment is the replacement, on a really massive scale, of private consumer demand by public demand. Fortunately the ends toward which this public demand can and should be directed- reversing decades of neglect of physical infrastructure, public health, education and research- are the very same things ALSO needed to restore the real economy to health.

Which is why trying to reinflate the financial bubble (with the Summers / Geithner bailout) and the housing bubble (with that goddamned idiotic home-buyer tax credit) is a suicidal course of action. Obama needs to remove his head from his anus, double-quick, it he wants to have a prayer of being a two-term President. If people see continued bailouts of Wall Street fatcats while they’re losing their own jobs and houses, there will be a massive wave of anti-Obama populist rebellion that the far right will easily turn to its own purposes. Nobody can truthfully say at this point that the danger isn’t clear.

“Moderates” compromised us right into this disaster. They now need to STFU.
fostert Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“the Ford-led GOP didn’t own the 1980 recession which helped sink Carter’s reelection bid.”

Nobody really owned that one. We were going through a transition between a manufacturing based economy to a finance based economy. Carter and Ford had nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, a finance based economy cannot survive. Anyone can move money, it takes very little skill to do it. Ultimately, finance based economies collapse because someone else will always be willing to move money for less money. Labor costs are a much higher percentage of operating costs in the the finance industry than they are in other industries. The Chinese can certainly perform all of our finance tasks much more cheaply than we can. The only way we can compete is with technology, not finance.
Glaivester Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
But the House bill is a lot better than the Senate bill.

In particular, the House bill has an E-Verify provision, requiring those who get stimulus money to use the E-Verify system to ensure that any new workers are authorized to work in the U.S.
Rich in PA Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
“If unemployment’s peaking at 10% or whatever come Fall 2010 it won’t matter politically that millions more would be out of work sans stimulus.”

I don’t understand the basis for this claim.
jeff Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
To consider McCaskill to be a good faith commenter in this whole stimulus compromise is absurd. Before her latest twitter offering, she had repeatedly disparged the parts of the stimulus package she purged as junk – on camera and in the press.

She was, and is, looking to score short term political points to boost her standing with her constituents rather than crafting policy that benefits them in the long term.
Steve LaBonne Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I don’t understand the basis for this claim.

You don’t? Seriously? You really don’t understand why large numbers of voters will blame the party that holds the White House and both houses of Congress (and with large majorities at that) if we’re still heading downhill in two years? (Especially when that party has visibly devoted more attention to bailing out Wall Street robber barons than helping regular people?) I mean, you’re really serious? You actually can’t understand how that works?

Wow.
John Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Filibusters aren’t “used”; they are threatened, but the majority party doesn’t make the minority party actually stay up all night reading from the phone book. My guess is that they would be threatened a lot less if they were called on it and actually made to do that.
witless chum Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“Did you support killing the filibuster when Republicans had control of the Senate? Probably not.”

Actually, when the Senate Republican leadership was talking about the “Nuclear Option” against Dem filibusters of judicial nominees, Yglesias and some other liberal bloggers pointed out that Harry Reid should have said “Make my day.”

I agreed, as a few wingnut appeals court judges would have been a fair trade for being able to pass, say, universal health care when the Dems eventually controlled congress and the white house.

Naturally, Harry Reid didn’t agree and the “Gang of 14″ ruined everything.
Zach Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@Stroszek
So their plan will be to make flaccid appeals to the same shrinking coalition that failed them for the last two election cycles?
Pretty much and I’m in your boat, too. Long-term this is going to kill the GOP — Steele was on TV this morning doing the blame-blacks-and-mexicans-for-the-recession routine and praising the free market’s God-given ability to engender the fastest and best recovery. I don’t think this works come 2012, but if the rate of job loss isn’t decelerating in 2010 being able to say your alternative was ignored will work, and I’m afraid anti-immigrant/anti-poor tactics will work in many areas. Thankfully, McCain’s failure to gain much traction with this (via a couple ads and a week of surrogates saying Obama’s tax plans was welfare) shows that its power is waning nationally.

I’m glad to let the GOP shrink into their corner, too, but I’m not so sure about the short-term prospects of their rhetoric.

Also, weren’t the food stamps already stripped out of the package for tax cuts?

The bill updated w/ the compromise spending still has $16.5 billion for SNAP food assistance. Don’t know what the original number was. Other targets for demagoguery on that front include tax credits to people who don’t owe income tax, $1.5B for homelessness, $2.1B for section 8, and $5B for public housing. “Dems give handouts to people who don’t pay taxes” could be effective. I haven’t seen anyone get any traction explaining to the public how this helps everyone, and now would be the time to do that.
Zach Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Hey the anti-poor crusade already started: http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/02/07/hello-gops-your-favorite-wedge-issue-is-coming-back.aspx

Nothing wrong with helping states avoid anti-stimulating cuts in a recession. Nothing wrong with targeting money to the poorest, who are most likely to spend it quickly. But why use the aid specifically to encourage expansion of welfare? This isn’t “welfare” as only conservative Republicans would define it–i.e. any means-tested assistance. This is welfare as everyone would define it–cash assistance to able-bodied single mothers…
Stuck Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Actually, the nuke option would only gave applied to Executive Session apt.s. Though the camels nose would have been in the tent.

Without the fili we’d have certain drilling in ANWAR. and even more bad legislation that dems blocked the past 6 or so years dems were a minority in the senate. Virtually all taxes would have been reduced to fund social programs among other progressive causes. And if either party used the nuke option for legislation, they may get some bills passed in the short term. but the minority party would rebel and use other Senate Rules to bring the Senate to a standstill. The majority would have to nuke all those rules too, and the Senate would become the HOuse 2.0.

And making an actual talkathon type fili occur would soon trigger the minority to do the above and stop the senate from doing about any kind of work. That’s why the cloture rules were instituted in the first place.
JonF Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Re: The GOPers are pursuing the only road that leads to any potential political gain.

It’s hard to see any political gain for them. This mess remains the George W Bush economy and will forever, just as Herbert Hoover got the blame for the 30s and Jimmy Carter for the late 70s. It might be different if the GOP had some truly fresh new ideas and could claim to have learned their lessons from Bush’s fiascos. But there’s no trace of any new thinking of any kind there. Frankly I think my cats are more likely to propose a plausible plan to end to the crisis than the GOP. What’s really going on here is that the GOP is desperately trying to salavge their political viability as a minority party and they can only do that now by appealing to their base. Hence no deviation from the party line allowed. That the was the story of the McCain campaign last fall, and it’s still the story now. They are fighting to salvage their 35% share, without which they will cease to be anything more than a regional party.

rE: You really don’t understand why large numbers of voters will blame the party that holds the White House and both houses of Congress (and with large majorities at that) if we’re still heading downhill in two years?

First off, we won’t still be heading down hill in two years. This is going to bottom out over the next several months. There’s a limit to how much consummer spending can be cut and how many people can be laid off. The big danger is that we will bottom out and then flat-line, like Japan in the 90s.
Daniel Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Where is this graph from? What is the information based on? I’m not disagreeing with it, just wondering.
M Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Big fat tummy.
onceler Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
false choice and total bullshit from McCaskill. sad. nobody is saying “don’t have any stimulus bill”. that is an insult to the intelligence of everyone paying attention to this issue. I know they won’t do this, but they could – the Dems should scrap this massive throwaway of $$ into useless tax cuts, and make a REAL stimulus bill, and simply dare the Republicans to filibuster – and break them if and when they do.

McCaskill is so full of it. She’d be one of the first to claim that Dems should never filibuster against Bush. But she’s among the first to give in when the Repugs even threaten. Grow a damn spine, Claire.
witless chum Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Without the fili we’d have certain drilling in ANWAR. and even more bad legislation that dems blocked the past 6 or so years dems were a minority in the senate. Virtually all taxes would have been reduced to fund social programs among other progressive causes.

Maybe drilling, but remember, they saved social security the old fashioned way.

The majority would have to nuke all those rules too, and the Senate would become the HOuse 2.0.

Good. The senate is because of how it’s constituted enough of a procedural brake on the majority.
Luke Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 7:54 am
This strikes me as too similar to what Japan did in the early 90s.

We’re still going to be in a recession in 2 years. What are we going to say to the GOP when they call the stimulus a failed giveaway to the rich?

Is a minor recovery with a return to GOP rule worth it?
bob h Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 8:06 am
I pray that the magical three are not so rigid on this that they will not accept a reconciled bill that splits the differences and moderates some of these cuts.
Mary Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Wow. Inconsistencies abound.

If your beginning premise is that tax cuts don’t work, then Obama’s tax cuts should also be removed from his stimulus bill, including the refundable tax cuts to the middle class.

The only additional tax cuts added are the ones for car or home purchases, which may help those industries.

Bashing Claire McCaskill for wanting to trim the giveaways is a little misleading. Diane Feinstein, Jim Webb, and 11 Democrats in the House agreed with her.

Tax cuts are “old , worn out strategies? Then why did Obama insist he would give 95% of Americans tax cuts?

At least be intellectually consistent in your criticisms, folks.

Can’t have it both ways.
Zach Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 10:06 am
@Mary – because Obama’s planned cuts are actually rejiggering the tax code and not lowering overall revenue once the Bush cuts expire (although this calculation is probably off during a recession as investment income is displaced by losses for a few years).

Obama’s cuts were going to be passed this year no matter what. It’s best to include them in *this* bill so that Democrats can run in 2010 saying that the GOP voted against the biggest tax relief for the middle class in history (probably true depending on how you define it).

I generally agree with you that the non-MakeWorkPay/EITC cuts in the bill aren’t much to complain about. Very small potatoes and possibly stimulative. The bigger problem I have with the compromise is bouncing perfectly legitimate spending that is quite stimulative in favor of stuff like the car credit that’s a blatant play to special interests. If the car thing’s a good idea, add it on, but don’t pretend that it’s obscene to have science funding and education funding in a stimulus bill.
bruce Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Hell Bound Train Feb 9, 2009

What is the term used to describe a government whose purpose is to control and OWN private industry/business?
Webster (not Bruce): (1) “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”(2) “A system of society or group living in a way in which there is no private property.”
To what degree is this new president and his chosen moving QUICKLY in this direction with unredeemable debt?
Why not look at the goals for this debt? Is it jobs? what kind of jobs? fixing roads, bridges? taking control of banks, energy supplies/suppliers, auto industry, redirecting the military to something other than protecting our sovereignty? ….ignoring the sovereignty of our nation by an anything goes boarder philosophy….anyone can vote, citizen or not…how ever many times…whatever name, non name or identity.
Washington folks have long been big players in all of this demise with a store bought ideology. Senators have but clamps and restrictions on things they know nothing about such as the auto, banking and environmental issues. The labor unions need to share blame in this mix too…for too many years…and FINALLY…(believe it or not!!) we have almost reached this (OUR) UTOPIA!!
I look at two sides of this: there are those (with the power now) that can slam BIGGER (COLOSSAL ALREADY) GOVERNMENT down our throats and render our Constitution optional….and there are those like me and my kind who see that the only option out of this mess is to let America and Americans define our future (Americans meaning those who create, produce, invest in, PAY TAXES (in disproportional rates)
I personally was a ‘deadbeat’ on my fed taxes last year….even though IRS owed me $… even though I had been honest, prompt and responsive. I had to get a tax advocate to talk with them because I had no real access to my transactions with this agency. They also had lost some of my papers which were filed with that return. How is it that Legislators and Agency Directors can not only get away with no fines, not paying and be rewarded with positions of status (and responsibility) by our new Utopian leader?
The (former?) U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) was our prime enemy of freedom. Their ideology continues on….RIGHT HERE! I would classify this whole mess we find ourselves in is the mess many have feared for years….labels have meanings….is the Utopia that Socialists dream actually ‘Communism’….is that the ultimate?
In these terms, evidently Russia did not reach its ultimate with the title of U.S.S.(SOVIET)R. (a republic is supposed to be governed by law…in the U.S.S.R. whose law would that be? How about now and future America? Do we choose to line our precious flags on a podium behind a socialist/communist leader and his goon squad?
My ideology comes from life, LIFE EXPERIENCE (the real world), not a library, professor or the media propaganda mill. I know that I can’t change anything but at least, I can know what is going on and going down.

** I finally received my over confiscated money back from IRS after all the threatening letters and my numerous LETTERS, phone CALLS and EXPENSES with MY tax agents.

Bruce
Dirck Noorman Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Challenge: find someone who works in the private sector and who made it past high school-level math* who does not think the Dem “stimulus” bill is completely idiotic.

*This excludes almost all JDs, MBAs and people with degrees in bogus social “sciences” like economics.
Eric Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Eliminating the filibuster is simply a bad idea. Let’s not get so caught up in partisan politics that we forget that when we’re in the minority, the filibuster is an effective way of preventing the majority from dominating every legislative decision.
Wonks Anonymous Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Here is a strong vote from the state of California for the elimination of any super majority requirement.

The government of this state has been blocked for almost a year by our state Republicans who have barely one third of the legislature. Public services fall apart and that is just what they want to see:

http://wonksanonymous.com/2008/12/14/the-shape-of-things-to-come.aspx

If the filibuster is such a good thing then why is John Roberts chief justice?
inquiring minds Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
but what if they filibuster the law to do away with the filibuster?
pluege Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
no need to do away with the filibuster – just make them actually filibuster. What they need to do away with is the niceties that lets the filibusterees just lay down a marker putting the onus on the filibuster-busters to override the filibuster. Make the filibusterees do their time. Then the filibuster will be self-policing. In fact with the lazy do-nothing Congresses we’ve had of late, it will probably be as good as extinct.
Nathanael Says:
February 10th, 2009 at 12:17 am
“That is my defense. What do you think?”

(2) is wrong.

The Senate could be small and deliberative, and also representative. But not by representing states.

It could, for instance, be elected entirely by proportional representation on a purely national basis (Single Transferrable Vote or Party List with no ‘quota’).

This would be a vast improvement. It would also be doable by Constitutional amendment (each state would still have “equal” representation in the Senate — zero representatives, to be precise, so it wouldn’t hit that obnoxious clause).
Nathanael Says:
February 10th, 2009 at 12:24 am
‘Challenge: find someone who works in the private sector and who made it past high school-level math* who does not think the Dem “stimulus” bill is completely idiotic.

*This excludes almost all JDs, MBAs and people with degrees in bogus social “sciences” like economics.’

Challenge met. That would be me, with a BA in mathematics. The Republican tax-cuts-for-the-rich non-stimulus bill is completely idiotic, of course. The House Democratic stimulus bill is sound economics.

‘If your beginning premise is that tax cuts don’t work, then Obama’s tax cuts should also be removed from his stimulus bill, including the refundable tax cuts to the middle class.’
Tax cuts *for the rich* don’t work. Tax cuts for the *poor* who are living paycheck-to-paycheck do work — that usually means social security and Medicare payroll taxes, and sales taxes, and in rural areas property taxes, because those are the only taxes paid by poor people.

Yes, Obama’s tax cuts are mostly junk. The “refundable” tax cuts work only because of the people who get them “refunded”, the ones who don’t owe income taxes. In other words, they only work because for some of the people they’re not really tax cuts, they’re government spending. Them’s the facts, and they’re intellectually consistent.
Bob Eisenberg Says:
February 10th, 2009 at 2:56 am
The fundamental problem is the apportionment of seats in the Senate. California (say 35 million people) has the same representation as Wyoming (say 0.5 million). This ratio is very much larger than the corresponding ratio in 1789 and gives tiny fractions of the population ridiculous power.

When combined with a 60 vote rule, we have …..
zyban Says:
March 12th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
viagra Says:
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
khausbrsf Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am
YJTeaf vwtqteapelse, [url=http://vqumesmxexch.com/]vqumesmxexch[/url], [link=http://bdtktywuiexs.com/]bdtktywuiexs[/link], http://kqdpvttpsynx.com/

Matt Yglesias

A Flawed Stimulus is Better than No Stimulus

85 Responses to “A Flawed Stimulus is Better than No Stimulus”

Blogroll