Thoughts on the Stimulus Deal

Jay Newton-Small:
.
So...this is good or bad for your country?

Regardless of promises made, is it even possible to negotiate a bill transparently? Do we really want a webcam in the sausage factory?

WHAT?!?!? Obama's been President for 45 minutes, and HE STILL HASN'T PERFECTED THE WORLD?!?!?
I want my money back!

I know this one! It was a little bull**** served up to get elected which, Thank God, he did. Next.

Meh.
.
You can't make generalized policy objectives fit every governmental activity. If the administration had taken time to make the stimulus bill sufficiently "transparent" to satisfy everyone, including the knee-jerk anti's, the economy already would have tanked. We'd all revel in "transparency" while we sell apples on the street corner and watch the brave men as they dive from the fourteenth floor.
.
As for bipartisanship, the prez set up a win-win – he was going to come out of the process either with praise for his consensus-building or a broader recognition that it takes two to tango. The Publicans opted to give him the latter, to their own detriment.
.
My guess is that the nits picked by Newton-Small, Stevenson and Dickerson will look pretty feeble in comparison to the success in achieving unprecedented action. It's true that "pointing out this contradiction is not going to undo the bill." It's also true that those who focus on such a contradiction in the face of a major accomplishment have missed the call.
.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
– Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

JNS
.
The premise of those articles is so stupid its hard for me to stop laughing long enough to type about it. But lets start from the bottom and go up. First of all to reform Congress the President has to have Congress's help in introducing legislation. He never said he would put a stimulus bill on the back burner while they worked on a bill to put cameras in every negotiation. So how in the hell does that factor AT ALL into whether he got everything he wanted?
.
Second President Obama puts all bills on the whitehousedotgov website for five days of public comments so if anybody wants to look through the legislation they will be more than welcome to do so AND weigh in on their dissappointment or their support. Thats pretty damn transparent if you ask me.
.
Third just as a very simple matter a Congressional conference to reconcile a bill is NOT a part of any White House negotiations. I realize that Rahm Emmanuel sat in on the meetings but, contrary to popular belief, the Congress and the White House are not the same entity even when one party head up both parts of government.
.
So let me get this straight to recap. President Obama got
.
1. A bill that is only slightly bigger than what he asked for to begin with.
.
2. A bill that included the middle class tax cuts he campaigned on.
.
3. A bill that included all of the major elements he asked for including putting the school funding back in.
4. A bill that will be on his desk before the Congress recesses as he requested.
.
Oh and just to be clear, President Obama didn't come out and predict he would get X number of Republicans to vote for the bill. That was some "leaked" bullsh*t from unnamed sources. Do you think he gives a damn how many Republicans sign on to the bill when he got everything he asked for in it? If you do you haven't been paying much attention.

"Stuart Zechman,
Isn't it our country? And do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you of what's happening and let you draw your own conclusions?
JNS"

snap!

JNS: Many more Republicans will likely vote for the final product but in reaching across the aisle, Obama has grabbed a lot of air thus far -- a calculated bet by the GOP that, while embarrassing Obama now, could backfire in 2010 if the economy turns around.
.
I think the frame of this is absolutely wrong. The correct frame is that the stimulative effectiveness of the bill was reduced to appeal to to republican ideology in the hopes of bringing them on board, and they still wouldn't support it. The correct frame is that, in order to get even three republican votes in the Senate, they needed to cut 500,000 jobs out of the stimulus package and force states to fire police, firemen and teachers. The correct frame is that "the Republicans liked the legislation but voted against it because their feelings were hurt."

The deal also shows the limits to Obama's seemly limitless power.
.
It's like you went to a journalism school for special needs children.
.
I know you forgot about the whole "seperation of powers" thing while Bush was in office, but the Office of the President isn't actually a dictatorship.
.
And also, everything, every single thing, that John dickerson writes is a waste of ink, paper, and time.

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Thank you so much for your rapid response; your engagement with the Commentariat is helpful and appreciated.
.
Isn't it our country?
.
Yes, it certainly is. It is both yours and ours. I used the second person possessive as a small rhetorical device with which to remind you that the story you're covering has more importance to our nation than simply tactical considerations ("...limits to Obama's seemly limitless power...").
.
I am actually very, very much grateful for this piece, Jay Newton-Small, especially so because of your focus on the practical applications of "transparency" ("The time for transparency is when a decision is being made, not after it has been issued. Once a piece of legislation has been agreed to, or a project has been put in motion, pointing to a Web site doesn't create much moral pressure to undo the deed.").
.
As far as an opinion relating to the welfare of our country being necessary to complete your piece, I regret that I did not make myself clear. I meant that the context of your piece should probably be grounded in the good of our nation, as opposed to what Obama does or doesn't want or get. The emphasis on the tactical or conflict-oriented as the framework for the reporting ("Obama got what he wanted when he wanted...he didn't get it in the way he wanted...courtship and attention...") tends to lend to a lack of focus with respect to conclusions about...the welfare of our country.
.
I made a little comment, and I regret that comment, however.
.
I apologize, this was largely a good piece of work, and my criticism was probably unnecessary, Jay Newton-Small.
.
Thanks again for this piece.

wvng: Or how about: The GOP, in a calculated bet to embarrass the president, is willing to sacrifice middle class jobs.
-
I wrote to my House rep (R) and pointed out that as a former sheriff, he really shouldn't buy the line that government jobs aren't "real jobs." But he'll vote against it anyway, I predict.
-

In case demowoman is about, see Paul Krugman Talk like a pirate

This is not news, to anyone that's followed this pandering MOOP's alleged career.

"For all his courtship and attention, he only got three Republicans on board..."

RINOs are not Republicans.

Never have been.

Never will be.

A-pep, more from the shrill one:
.
The return of shrill
.
Via Angry Bear, Will Marshall says I deserve a “Pulitzer Prize in hyperbole” for saying that "the dastardly centrists would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut vital health care and food programs, while offering a fat tax break to affluent homeowners"
.
whereas the truth is that … the centrists would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut vital health care and food programs, while offering a fat tax break to affluent homeowners. But shhh! You're not supposed to say that!

Dickerson: the stimulus deal was so opaque even the people negotiating it weren't in on what was in it
-
Maybe I'm thick, but I didn't get that from the original NYT piece. The compromise bill was negotiated in committee. The House side of the committee was late to the meeting because they were wrangling over their own position before they showed up to wrangle with the Senate side. That's not the same as the people negotiating not knowing what's in the bill.
-
Anyway, with the GOP refusing to play ball on a crisis of this magnitude, now is not a propitious time for Obama to "work to reform Congressional rules," as much I agree with the sentiment.

Obama promised his administration would be so transparent that its deliberations would be shown on C-SPAN. . .. Isn't it our country? And do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you of what's happening and let you draw your own conclusions? It would have been helpful if the media had covered the debate in a serious way - had actually informed us what was happening - which would have added greatly to the ability to have a transparent process. But instead the media covered it as a competition, where the winner is in the "center." And the actual things that mattered about the process - how to make the bill most effective - were only rarely discussed:
.
EXPERTISE.... When a war dominates the news, those with military expertise tend to appear on television news quite a bit. When a hurricane is the big story, meteorologists get a lot of airtime. If a medical issue is the focus of attention, medical professionals keep busy on TV. So, in light of the economy and the stimulus bill, economists have been all over the cable networks? . . .

The whole point of negotiations is to create some space in which to move around. I'll say it: they SHOULDN'T be completely transparent. Unless my issues get screwed, then they should.

Unfortunately, you will see no economic recovery, even if President Obama injects $10 trillion in 'stimulus'.
Transparency there is a comedy:)..but whitewash rules.
You do not have a stimulus 'plan', all you have is a stimulus ''attempt''. The global market gave you a good indicator of what the world markets think of the 'plan' - For others, it has to take time to tell a tale, but it has no fairytale finish under the status quo.

If everyone in government cannot ascertain that 'unemployment is the actual 'root cause', how do you expect a 'solution'??

http://sites.google.com/site/newenergyworldfirst/

So let me get this straight: With our economy in dire straights,
Obama reached out to the Republicans in an attempt to be "bipartisan" in doing a stimulus bill . Except for 3 "moderate" Senators, the Republicans completely refuse his overtures. End result - A bill will pass, giving Obama most of what he wanted.

JNS(aka villager conventional wisdom): Republicans get a political win by embarrassing Obama?

Apparently 'transparent' means something different to different people. I just want to know what it is about Obama that inspires so much Villager whining. It isn't pretty.

Lets put this in perspective. The press corps just spent 8 years covering an administration SO secretive that they've actually managed to blackmail the NEW administration to continue to hide their crimes. And you want to suddently talk about transparency. gimme an effing break!

Hmmmm. Matt Yglesias tells me that: The White House is already touting some positive impact of the stimulus legislation as Caterpillar says they'll re-hire laid-off workers, telecom companies get ready for a surge of broadband work, and even contractors in Michigan are feeling optimistic.
.
Imagine that.

"Isn't it our country? And do I have to have an opinion or can I simply inform you of what's happening and let you draw your own conclusions?"
.
If that was what you were doing, then yes, I would agree. It's the little added comments regarding "grabbing air" that show you are NOT "simply informing us".