Nelson: Hair-Splitting in Defense of Bad Policy is No Vice
On MSNBC earlier this morning, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) was asked to explain his perverse decision to cut state aid money from the stimulus package and explained, “they’re not cuts. These are adjustments downward.”
But whatever you call them, the point remains that Nelson and Susan Collins (R-Maine) took a look at a huge bill, and zeroed-in with laser-like efficiency on one of its least-controversial and most highly-stimulative provisions, deciding that that was a good place for “adjustments downward.” And while doing this, Nelson and Collins left in place the least-stimulative elements of the House package and added new non-stimulative stuff like an AMT patch extension and a tax break for people who buy homes. Consequently, as CAP’s Will Straw explains, the Senate “centrists” managed to come up with a bill that creates fewer jobs while increasing the deficit by a greater amount:
The Senate compromise recovery and reinvestment legislation provides for 12 to 15 percent fewer jobs created or saved than the House-passed Recovery and Reinvestment Act despite costing slightly more. The House-passed legislation creates or saves between 430,000 and 538,000 more jobs than the Senate compromise.
The Senate bill would be a good deal better than no bill, but a good deal worse than the House bill. The conference committee definitely needs to undo some of the damage.
37 Responses to “Nelson: Hair-Splitting in Defense of Bad Policy is No Vice”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 9th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I know this isn’t a request thread, but perhaps you (or any other commenter) could indulge a request for a civics lesson. My question is this: how much freedom will there be in the conference committee to undo some of this damage? Specifically, does a bill that comes out of the conference committee necessarily come up for an up-or-down vote, or can it be filibustered if the minority doesn’t like it? In other words, will the conference committee still have to worry about putting forward something that will keep the centrists on board and Senate support at 60 votes or more, or can they make the Senate bill more like this House bill without having to worry about losing the centrists on final passage?
February 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am
What you dont realise is that Nelson et al are deliberately setting this up for a Second Stimulus bill in the 2nd quarter, this time including the so-obvious state aid. It’s all a cunning plan.
And if you buy that, I’ve got some shares in Brooklyn Bridge you might want to take off my hands :/
February 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am
“better than no bill”
I suppose aspirin for cancer is better than nothing, but when a course of radiation therapy is called for, it’s really, really stupid.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am
I will grant you this Matt:
Listening to Collins and Nelson and clairemc and the ahole stupidities which they attempt to pass off as honest debate or honorable opposition makes me a tad concerned about my own opposition to the stimulus bill.
If I were in Congress I would vote against my better judgment simply to avoid being seen as offering the shit-for-brains contingent even a scintilla of encouragement.
Once again ObaMessiah is lucky in his enemies.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am
It’s obvious–they took out the stuff that had the least support among their fellow Senators. Pure sausage-making.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I’m wondering if any word is coming down on who will be the three senators and three representatives on the conference committee. I’m hoping that we’ll be looking at a 2-1 Dem advantage from both chambers and not a whiff of Nelson anywhere close to the conference.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I also happen to think that the homebuyer and car buying tax credit provisions in the Senate bill aren’t too great either. If someone is on the financial edge and a tax credit will push them over into buying a house or car, then they probably shouldn’t be buying it in the first place.
On the other hand, if the billions going to those tax credit provisions instead went to good stimulating projects, or made up for the axing of state and local support, they’d be helping people keep their jobs and/or making new ones, a situation in which they would be better positioned to buy a house/car.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Once again Obama is lucky in his enemies.
You’re going to find yourself using that again and again to console yourself as Obama goes from one legislative victory to the next. Come on, did you really think that Republicans had a chance in hell of derailing the stimulus package and replacing it with a new tax-scam?
February 9th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Morons. Morons morons morons. Ben Nelson better hope I never see him in person, unless he likes being spit upon.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
It’s even worse than that: why won’t a bunch of people go buy a house, get their tax credit, then sell the house for what they paid for it? Wash, rinse, repeat.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Tyro Says:
“Once again Obama is lucky in his enemies.”
You’re going to find yourself using that again and again to console yourself as Obama goes from one legislative victory to the next. Come on, did you really think that Republicans had a chance in hell of derailing the stimulus package and replacing it with a new tax-scam?
You presume too much.
Opposition to the stimulus bill does not imply opposition to every piece of legislation which Obama might/will put forward.
To the contrary.
The whole “financial rescue” schtick is in fact going to make impossible a host of “progressive” programs while in all likelihood not creating 3 million jobs and doing almost nothing to create real systemic change.
My god even the sainted CBO says that over 10 years the stimulus plan does more harm than good.
As to your second question you again miss the point.
Of course the answer is no.
And the answer is no because Obama IS lucky in his opponents.
Could a more honest and honorable Republican and/or Democratic opposition (I know you think THAT an impossibility) have contributed to a better bill? Of course and I think that no one can truly doubt that.
Instead we get the Ahole Brigade trotting out all the usual lies and stupidities.
To suggest, as your comment seems to, that ALL opposition to the stimulus bill must be based upon Republican cupidity is simply silly but typical of the hysteria being used to sell this ill considered and destructive indulgence.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I’m not going to defend the stupid house-flipping credit, but there are some provisions in there about actually living in the house, etc. In any case, I suspect that this won’t do anything for the value of homes due to the enormous glut of unsold homes, high unemployment (somebody without a job won’t be buying a home), and difficulty obtaining a mortgage these days. Besides, at some point home values will have to resume the downward slope toward where they should be historically. Similarly, I doubt many people are going to rush out to buy a GM or Chrysler car in order to get one before the companies go bankrupt.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Democratic primary challenge against Ben Nelson, anyone?
February 9th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Having one more liberal Democratic Senator available would lead to one less “centrist” Senator we’d need to package this bill, along with their dimwitted cuts.
Anybody want to warrant a guess just what price the nation is paying for the doddering Minnesota Supreme Court’s lethargic actions to resolve the Minnesota Senate race? Are they aware that maybe there are some major national issues it would be nice to have their Senator voting on? Or are there some state zoning regulation issues that are pounding the table for resolution?
February 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
For #2 above. My understanding is that the final vote for a bill coming out of conference in a simple majority…51 votes in the Senate.
But because this bill is defecit spending, there is some kind of Senate rule that says you need 60 votes in that case.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
That first paragraph should read “is a simple majority.”
February 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
DTM, let’s go one step further: what the CBO says is that if nothing else is ever done, then the risk of increased debt would be a slightly lesser gdp in 10 years than we now have.
but only republicans don’t do anything about the risk of increased debt: going back to lyndon frickin’ johnson, dems have been willing to address the risk of excessive deficit spending. it’s the republican party that believes that deficits (in pursuit of wars, defense spending in general, or tax cuts for the wealthy) don’t matter (until, of course, there’s the possibility of doing something that isn’t a war, defense spending, or cutting taxes on high income households, at which point suddenly and shockingly it matters!).
February 9th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Nelson is the f–king traitor who opposed the E-Verify amendment. I hope the SOB gets thrown out of office.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
jonp72 Says:
February 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Democratic primary challenge against Ben Nelson, anyone?
Umm…no.
He’s a Democrat from NEBRASKA. Do you know how many Democrats there are in Nebraska? There’s Bob Kerrey (who now lives in NYC). And there’s Ben Nelson. And that’s IT.
He votes with us 70% of the time. A Nebraska Republican (except Chuck Hagel, who wandered off the reservation) would vote with us 10% of the time. That’s good enough for me.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Apparently, enough that their votes can send Ben Nelson to the senate. But I guess not a single one of them would be a better senator, huh?
February 21st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Great post! I’d like to keep up with your latest posts but I can
March 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
cialis
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:41 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:21 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:04 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra