Support BMG PAC!
About BMG PAC
Make a secure credit card contribution using Google Checkout:
$
Or send a check to BMG PAC, PO Box 877, Medford, MA 02155.
View BMG PAC's latest disclosure report


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



FREE COPY OF BOB'S BOOK Barack Obama for Beginners to every 50th Facebook Friend!
BMG on Facebook

About
About us
Rules of the road - please read!
Formatting and multimedia tips
Email us
RSS feed

BMG TRAFFIC REPORT
Blue Mass. Swag
Creative Commons License

Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Active Users
Currently 26 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Massachusetts Left
.08 Acres
Below Boston
Berkshires Blog
Blue News Tribune
Chimes at Midnight
Eisenthal Report
Granby 01033
Health Care for All
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Marry in Mass.
Mass Engagement
Massachusetts Liberal
Michael Forbes-Wilcox
My Dedham
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Ryan's Take
Someday I Will
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
The Fray
Universal hub

Differently-Winged
John Daley
Mass. Pro-Life
No Looking Backwards
Peter Porcupine
Pundit Review
Red Mass Group
Scaling the Hill 2010

Mass. Media
David S. Bernstein
Cambridge politics
CommonWealth Unbound
Globe bloggers
Herald bloggers
Hub Blog
Jon Keller
MassBeacon
Media Nation (Dan Kennedy)
Open Media Boston
Adam Reilly
Toll Talk (Mary Connaughton)
Weekly Dig Blog

Legal
ACS Blog
Balkinization
Election law
How Appealing
SCOTUSblog
Volokh Conspiracy

General
Accountable Strategies
Billionaires for Bush
Blue Works Better
Crooks and Liars
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton (Atrios)
Glenn Greenwald
Grist (environment blog)
Hullabaloo (Digby)
LiberalOasis
MyDD
Oliver Willis
Pandagon
Political Animal
Political Critic
Political Wire
Poor Man
Progressive Blog Digest
Real Climate
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Tapped
Talking Points Memo
Think Progress
Truth and Progress
Turn Maine Blue
Wonkette

www.BlueMassGroup.com

Senator Collins seeks to push US into depression?

by: Bob Neer

Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 11:59:22 AM EST


This from the NYT today really is insane:

Anxious over the ballooning size of the proposed economic stimulus package, now at more than $900 billion, lawmakers in both parties are working on a last-minute plan to strip $200 billion from the bill.

The effort is being led by two centrist senators - Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.

The problem with the stimulus bill is not that it is too big, but that it is, if anything, too small. History shows very convincingly that one big stimulus program -- to spur growth and change popular expectations -- is the best way to break out of a recession. A series of moderate or small packages just moderate a slump: things keep getting worse. Want an example of what can happen? Just look at Japan, whose equity markets dropped about 75% from their peaks (which of course is a rough proxy for other bad economic results like unemployment and declining incomes). Want a stock market down another 50% from where it is, and more unemployment, falling house prices, and declining opportunity? Keep it up Senator Collins.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that stimulus money be spent on different things than budgeted at present -- indeed, the Republicans' botched execution of the first half of the TARP bailout is an example that money alone is insufficient -- but to suggest that less money is needed is to court disaster.

Bob Neer :: Senator Collins seeks to push US into depression?
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
To be fair to Collins, (0.00 / 0)
this might have something to do with it.

With Wednesday's additions, the cost of the Senate package has climbed well above $900 billion - the limit that Mr. Obama has set for the final legislation.


I think $1 trillion would be better (5.50 / 2)
It will have a bigger psychological impact on people, which in my opinion is a huge part of the importance of the stimulus package. After all, the economy had shed something like $2.5 trillion in activity. The stimulus program won't make up for that on its own. We need to encourage the private sector.

But the fundamental point is that if Collins wants to help, she should make an argument for whatever she considers to be more effective spending, not less spending.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.


[ Parent ]
Stimulus plan is unpopular (0.00 / 0)
It's not being sold well... (6.00 / 1)
the media (purposefully?) is confusing the odious TARP bailout with this stimulus bill (or "economic bailout bill," in their words).

The structural financial problems/housing bubble burst and collapse in demand are two different problems that require different responses.

I don't really know what the P is doing with his communication strategy - My guess is that he is being too risk-averse and doesn't want to "own" a plan that fails politically or functionally.  


[ Parent ]
Washington Post Piece (0.00 / 0)
The Washington Post came out today with this opinion piece, written by the President, urging the public to support the stimulus plan.

It's about time, too, seeing as the last Gallup poll I saw put public support of the plan at only 38%.


[ Parent ]
President Obama's first bad op-ed. (0.00 / 0)
Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient....

Now is the time to give our children every advantage they need to compete by upgrading 10,000 schools with state-of-the-art classrooms.....

And now is the time to create the jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads

What is missing here is any proof that we are in a recession right now because of energy dependence, poor schooling or bad roads, or not enough health insurance.

This is basic laundry-list progressive stuff, it's stuff I hope everybody gets, but the absence of these things is not the reason we are in a recession. Really Obama is just using fear to try to push through liberal programs.  


[ Parent ]
I think this is just right (0.00 / 0)
I also think it is the reason for the skepticism of the entire bill.

Republicans push tax cuts for everything, and Democrats have their own wishlists.  Each will have some trickle down effect, I suppose.


[ Parent ]
Fading Hope. (0.00 / 0)
I know it's only a couple weeks, but my hope for change is fading with the new administration.  Does our new President have the same puppeteer as the last one?  We're again told that bailout is good but we the people don't believe it and history shows it doesn't work.  Except for the privileged few, of course.  

Then there is the continuance of the rendition to torture of men, women and children that is being carried over from the last administration.  Then there is the petty tax evader that becomes the boss of the IRS...  I wonder how many politicians and high government officials don't pay all their taxes?  "Laws are made for other people and the pie is for us" seems to be the message of both parties.  


[ Parent ]
The USA is not liberal (4.00 / 2)
It's not being sold because the economics are incoherent.

These stimulus bills haven't worked, tax cuts vs spending is a phony debate, and making bigger bills isn't going to help where little bills disappeared without measurable effect.

Maybe Obama, like Clinton in 92, believes he got elected because the country is more liberal now. The truth is he got elected on the margin of anti-Iraq War Independents and Republicans. That's limited government talking. The sooner he learns the country is not liberal the better.  


[ Parent ]
Haha... (0.00 / 0)
It is, if you poll on the issues. No one ever bothers to mention that on the Right, however, I note...

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

[ Parent ]
"These stimulus bills haven't worked"? (0.00 / 0)
As I recall President Clinton pushed through a stimulus in 1993.  The GOP all voted no that time too and reaped political benefits, but ultimately it ushered in the longest economic expansion in history.

[ Parent ]
Some history (6.00 / 1)
From Ezra:
Joe Klein:
In 1993, I did a pretty shabby job of covering Bill Clinton's economic plan. It was, in sum, a very good plan--it worked wonders for the economy--but I focused on the mishaps. (Clinton, for example, pulled the rug out from under House Democrats by offering a carbon tax, which they voted for...and then the President removed it from the bill.) Clinton couldn't get any Republican votes for the package. A disaster! He had trouble getting Democratic votes for it; he had to beg Bob Kerrey for his vote to get it through the Senate. His presidency was in ruins! He had lost all credibility! (Actually, those of us who had focused on some big ugly trees rather than the blooming forest were the ones who had lost credibility.)
... The thing the press knows how to do with the legislative process -- figure out where money is being spent in an apparently embarrassing way -- describes half the provisions and discredits few of them. This bill needs to do what government is usually derided for doing: Spend money for the sake of spending money.


"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

[ Parent ]
The Clinton Myth (4.00 / 1)
This is a widespread myth. Growth was weak for years after Clinton's 1993 plan. Growth picked up massively in 1997 when Clinton cut capital gains taxes.

Obama is destroying the economy by his plan to raise capital gains taxes again.  


[ Parent ]
And to follow that (0.00 / 0)
that growth came crashing to oblivion with the 2000 Tech Bubble bursting.  Not exactly sure of pointing to the 90's dot com bubble as an example of sustainable growth.

Sure the stock market tanking this time around is horrible, but you have to remember that many folks saw 80-90% losses if they were NASDAQ mavens at the time.


[ Parent ]
dot com bubble (0.00 / 0)
I really don't understand this. Would you rather nobody ever took two steps forward if they take a step back now and then?

There are a variety of reasons why we have these recessions. I get the feeling from this site however that people would rather have no growth at all, or only growth in liberal-preferred businesses like wind power.

The money for all the things people on BMG want, like health care, environment, light rail etc, only comes from business growth. As I read on this site every day, social services were much better funded during the Bush years than they will be during the Obama years.


[ Parent ]
Slow and steady wins the race. (0.00 / 0)
Clinton was already able to campaign for re-election in 1996 on an expanding economy.  GOP said it grew faster under Reagan, but then came 1987.

[ Parent ]
Getting nervous (0.00 / 0)
The longer the debate goes on in the Senate the more concerned I get. We are already getting more unemployment, 625,000 new claims last week, home prices keep falling, 401K is now a 101K. Stock market continues to swoon. Kraft foods reports profit down, thought sales of mac and cheese would go up in this economy.

Even Obama seems to be getting cold feet on this one. Call for a vote and get on with it. If the president is wrong we will all pay the price, but is doing nothing an answer?

You can't run a Cadillac on a Chevrolet budget, and GM can't either!


Poking holes until the balloon pops (0.00 / 0)
Suggested cuts like this create the impression that less stimulus is better. It doesn't make the package better and it puts the whole package at risk by providing more cover for a GOP filibuster.

If the the 900 billion dollar stimulus package is supposed to save 5 million jobs, then Collins and Nelson should step up and say they've found a way to eliminate 1.1 million jobs.


NICE! (0.00 / 0)
THAT my friend is some clever wording.

I think you should work for Obama's PR team!

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)


[ Parent ]
That's $180K per job (0.00 / 0)
If the the 900 billion dollar stimulus package is supposed to save 5 million jobs, ...

Who's taking resumes?


[ Parent ]
$180k per job, (0.00 / 0)
not per 1 year of a job. If those jobs are sustained through the next few decades, it more than makes up for the cost.

[ Parent ]
My bad (0.00 / 0)
I assumed that since the left presumed Bush's tax cuts would produce temporary jobs, for example here and here so too the presumption would be that this Stimulus package would produce temporary jobs.

Bias noted; carry on.


[ Parent ]
Temporary jobs (0.00 / 0)
If any jobs were created by the Bush tax cuts, I think the results are in: They were temporary jobs.


[ Parent ]
Well, um (0.00 / 0)
No.  Honestly, it was the tax hikes under President Bush-- the ones that caused the insurrection against him in the 92 primaries-- that made a bigger difference by by reducing the deficit, which had a salutary impact on private investment and available interest rates.  

Clinton benefitted from good timing.


[ Parent ]
Deficit reduction policies.... (0.00 / 0)
... of president Clinton had nothing to do with it.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

[ Parent ]
Regardless (0.00 / 0)
Regardless who caused what, it's remarkable (or not) that  the Bush stimulus (allegedly) caused temporary jobs, but the upcoming tax cuts will create permanent ones.

Moral: History's a bitch; hope springs eternal.


[ Parent ]
Total Myth (0.00 / 0)
it was the tax hikes under President Bush-- the ones that caused the insurrection against him in the 92 primaries-- that made a bigger difference by by reducing the deficit

stop saying this, it's just complete junk. There is no evidence for it and all sorts of evidence against it. Stop believing this, it's warping your brain. Bush lost because he raised taxes and hurt the economy. Democrats were destroyed in 1994 because they promised tax cuts and instead raised taxes and hurt the economy.

Democrats will be wiped out in 2010 if they keep trying to raise taxes. There could easily be a 100 seat swing back to the Republicans.
 


[ Parent ]
people don't mind paying taxes (0.00 / 0)
so long as they're getting something from it. They're even willing to pay more if it means some positive, tangible results.

Bush lost because of many reasons, but I would surmise largely because of Ross Perot. The Democrats lost in 1994 because of the noise machine and great messaging, with a resurgent conservative movement that was coming into its own.

Democrats will not be "wiped out" in 2010 whether we raise taxes or not. I do not care to predict if we'll increase our majority in the House, but we almost certainly will in the Senate, given the makeup of what seats are up for grabs.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.


[ Parent ]
Bush's loss (0.00 / 0)
Bush lost because he faced an insurrection in his own party in the primaries.  In an effort to reunite his own party, he had to lurch awkwardly to the right at his own convention, giving big speeches to Pat Buchanan and devoting time to the culture war.

This kind of thing turned off moderates who were therefore drawn to Perot.  If Bush wasn't already weak, Perot would have been a non-issue.


[ Parent ]
over several YEARS (0.00 / 0)
people forget to mention that.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.


[ Parent ]
2 words (0.00 / 0)
go nuclear.

People in this community will be screaming for it 2 years from now. Please, let's save ourselves all the grief of this odious requirement that the founders never intended to exist and one that didn't until well into the 19th century.

I'm tired of Democrats bringing knives to gunfights. If the Dems had an ounce of the stubbornness of the Republicans (and didn't give into every freaking thing they ask, be they the majority or minuscule minority), they would have gone nuclear years ago. They only didn't because we agreed to, ah, well, do exactly what they say every single time.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.


Please clarify (0.00 / 0)
What is the "odious requirement that the founders never intended to exist and one that didn't until well into the 19th century" to which you refer?

[ Parent ]
the filibuster (0.00 / 0)
I figured "go nuclear" would make what I was talking about clear. Sorry for those who didn't. But I am specifically referring to getting rid of the filibuster, which the Republicans called the "nuclear option" when the Democrats were actually, for once, threatening to filibuster some very bad SCOTUS seats. There was later a 'deal' to avoid that filibuster, which basically was enough democrats capitulating so there could be no filibuster - and, if there were, the Republicans reserved the right to 'go nuclear' again.

FYI: a simple rules change, which cannot be filibustered, can get rid of the filibuster itself.

And, yes, the filibuster is a 19th century convention. Didn't exist when the founding fathers founded America and the founding fathers didn't use it. I'd bet, in fact, that they would be abhored at its antidemocratic results - given the fact that two houses, a presidential veto and the courts, as well as committee votes and biyearly elections all are numerous and powerful "checks" on the legislature.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.


[ Parent ]
Jeez Ryan (0.00 / 0)
but where would that have left poor Jefferson Smith?

[ Parent ]
Not sure I agree (0.00 / 0)
"The filibuster is a 217-year-old Senate tradition. The filibuster, one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Senate, is the right to engage in extended debate. In order to end debate on a piece of legislation or a nominee in the Senate, at least 60 Senators need to agree to move forward to a vote. Without 60 votes to end debate, the legislation or nominee is "filibustered." When our founding fathers carefully crafted our nation's government over 200 years ago, they designed the Senate as a deliberative body to check the impulses of the House and the actions of the President. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the Senate was intended to be "a saucer into which the nation's passions may be poured to cool." To help achieve this goal, Jefferson and his colleagues created the Senate with longer terms and rules of unlimited debate."

Remember they had a great fear of the tyranny of the majority.


[ Parent ]
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (0.00 / 0)
Unlimited debate is manageable. It would make it obvious who's holding up the nation's most pressing business. It'd shine a light on their specious arguments. The current form of filibuster just doesn't work.

[ Parent ]
just in case the tyranny of the majority (6.00 / 1)
manages to bypass the bicameral houses, constitution, presidential veto, dozens of committees and conference committees and judicial oversight, not to mention interpretation by the bureaucracy. Right. I'm really shivering in me timbers without that 60% filibuster to protect me. Yar.

The filibuster is why we don't have things like universal health care and why this country passes bills pushed by 7 or 14 person gangs rather than majorities. What will pass out of the senate for this nation's very recovery won't be the will of the majority, nor even the will of the next immediate minority. It will be the will of Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins and the DINO/hack Ben Nelson, because they know that 3 or 4 people can hold back the will of a 53-57% majority. It's asinine. It's so fantastic that no other democratic system in the world that I know of has such onerous rules, almost all of the systems opting for a parliamentary system. I like a little check and balance and thus agree with our founders in the idea of a bicameral system, but needing a 60% majority in one of those houses is not only not what they intended, but stifles the will of the people as well as the best policy.

BTW - the person who created the term "tyranny of the majority" didn't actual suspect it would become a huge problem. I wish people would actually read Democracy in America before throwing around the term.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.


[ Parent ]
Ok Ryan (0.00 / 0)
I'll read Democracy in America if you read Atlas Shrugged.
Deal?

[ Parent ]
i'd sooner jump off a bridge (0.00 / 0)
than read the insanity that is Ayn Rand. Moreover, I won't be using Rand's terminology and thus don't need to read the text to have a better understanding of what it all means. I only suggested you read Alexis de Toqueville because the way you were throwing around his terminology made you sound like a hack - though, when it comes to Randists, that's generally not all that uncommon.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.


[ Parent ]
Bring on the filibuster (0.00 / 0)
If Obama and the Democrats had spines, or even one spine between them, they'd let the Republicans filibuster while the C-SPAN crawled some text underneath like a count of the jobs lost per day.

Does anyone remember when the Republicans completely shut down government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

The Republican party is about to become the party of Alaska, and we're slashing school budgets in order to appease them.


[ Parent ]
Not so (0.00 / 0)
"a simple rules change, which cannot be filibustered, can get rid of the filibuster itself."

That's not what the CRS guide to cloture says. "Invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate's standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting." (page 2)

Or, to go to the source, an excerpt from Senate Rule 22:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.



--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat.Harry Truman


[ Parent ]
Bring back real filibusters (0.00 / 0)
I don't think we have to "go nuclear". We don't have to go that far. Just make the Republicans actually filibuster - that is, they have to talk the entire time.

But Ryan, according to Wikipedia, "In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote." This to me sounds exactly like our current cloture vote. Am I wrong?

(Later, in 1806, they removed the "move the previous question" rule, which gave rise to endless speeches - real filibusters. Cloture emerged in 1917 as a way of ending these endless speeches, and later (can't find out when exactly - 1975?) the speechifying was made optional.)

--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat.Harry Truman


[ Parent ]
Your regularly scheduled GOP... (0.00 / 0)
... soul-searching has been preempted to bring you this hissyfity brought to you by Grover Norquist.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)




I support WWF


Political insider ad network Law blog ad network
Advertise Liberally









Powered by: SoapBlox