Yesterday, the Democrats stripped provisions of the stimulus package that would have provided family planning funding for Medicaid and money to refurbish the National Mall’s lawn. These were not necessary concessions, but acts of good will intended to make it easier for a few Republicans to cross the aisle and lend an air of bipartisanship to the national economic recovery effort.
The Democrats will have no difficulty passing the stimulus bill. On a preliminary, procedural vote yesterday, the House approved the measure by a 224-199 margin. And, in the Senate, Sen. Inouye’s (D-HI) Appropriations Committee approved the bill in a 21-9 vote that saw four Republican members cross the aisle. Provided that the Senate Democrats remain united, they need only one Republican vote to invoke cloture and pass the bill. That four Republicans on the Appropriations Committee alone signed off on the bill tells us all we need to know. The stimulus package has enough support to pass right now without making any more concessions.
This harkens back to what I wrote on Monday, where I noted that the Senate Republicans cannot oppose the Democratic agenda because they can’t control their caucus. I don’t know which four Republicans supported the measure in committee, but we can be sure they supported it in exchange for having some say-so in the contents of the bill. If they were to extract goodies from Chairman Inouye and then turn around and vote against the bill anyway, then Inouye would never do them a favor again. Republican senators have the option of opposing everything the Democrats do or getting something done for the people they represent. As I predicted, members of (in this case) the Appropriations Committee opted for the latter.
But if the bill is already as good as passed, then why are Democrats stripping elements of the bill out? The short answer is that it is politics. The Obama administration would like to get a big vote in favor of the stimulus for three reasons. They want to demonstrate the efficacy of their post-partisan rhetoric, they want to get some cover for the Democrats in case the stimulus doesn’t work, and they want to splinter the GOP caucus on the first big vote of their administration. For all these reasons (tone, politics, demonstration of power), they are willing to make some generous and unnecessary concessions.
We may not like or agree with these concessions, but we should try to understand the game that is being played.
Yup, I picked up on that late yesterday and posted accordingly.
I still don’t like it: using low-income families as political pawns to achieve a goal sickens and angers me, but if my hunch and yours are correct, i understand why he’s doing it. I certainly hope to restore the funding elsewhere.
That said, I am not taking down any posts attacking obama and the democrats for this. Just because I understand the endgame does not mean I’m going to be silent about something I believe is wrong.
I definitely hope that they can kill the waiver requirement in some other bill. It was a good move to make that a high priority. It’s good policy.
I am of the opinion that we should be willing to compromise on things that are not stimulus that are in the bill and then pass them on their own merits later. They are good policy, good politics, and we can pass these things so we should do it and do it in a way that shows that we are not afraid.
Thanks for the post Boo. I don’t know if its because I’m getting older or I’m just happy that Obama has taken office, but I’m willing to let these games be played to a certain extent. Maybe because if you look at this strategically, it’s actually rather shrewd what the president and Dems are trying to do.
I also assuaged my anger at stripping the birth control out of the bill by just telling myself that in order to get this bill passed, they needed to do it. That will be another fight in the future, and one I feel we can win on. Patience is the buzzword…
Actually, they didn’t need to strip anything out of the bill, which is why it is annoying that they did choose to jettison family planning money.
All I am trying to explain is why they would do something they did not need to do. They have other goals.
I guess I thought that the family planning money was always a head-fake. If it is really needed they can bring it up again in another bill. If, on the other hand, funds can be diverted administratively without Congressional authorization, they get it done that way. My guess is that there are a number of ways to skin that cat, and that we will see other ‘red meat’ throwaways in other Obama bills, to give the thugs cover with their base to vote the main thing. Just guessing.
Booman,
I hear ya, and agree. But it’s worth reminding ourselves that playing nice and bending over backwards to be inclusive of Republicans usually doesn’t pay off in the end. Those bastards cannot be trusted to return the favor.
there are pros and cons to everything.
Watch this:
[h/t to A. Gilroy]
Note in particular:
true, but I think Obama is doing something else.
he’s giving the appearance of “playing nice and bending over backwards to be inclusive of Republicans”. It’s not the same thing. I believe Mr. Obama has figured out the GOP response will always be either a hissy-fit or moving the goalposts. They are a two-trick pony and I think he has their number.
It will be relatively easy to neutralize this tactic now that it has been isolated and identified. If he wished, Obama could even channel Reagan when the GOP tries either response: “There you go again…”
I could be wrong… but I don’t think I am.
NB: I still do not approve of removing family planning and larding the stimulus with ill-devised tax cuts.
both this response and the previous are for eagleeye.
“Those bastards cannot be trusted to return the favor. “
yes: that is exactly what I believe Obama is counting on. if you think about it, both the hissy-fit and the goalpost are two versions of the same tactic: “Those bastards cannot be trusted to return the favor.”
and because obama knows they will not return the favor he makes a big show of trying to meet them on their ground, and then pulls the rug out when they do their trick. It makes him look good for wanting to work together and makes them look bad because well, there they go again…
We have a winner! I think Obama has always been playing the game at a different level than most of his opponents.
We’ll have to see how this plays out, but I remember a fw instances throughout his campaign where the blogosphere went crazy over some “mistake” he had made…well, he won the election, didn’t he?
Exactly, CabinGirl!
I love it. “Controlled anger” – may we all follow his lead on that instead of losing control at the slightest little thing.
Cool – it’s the new ‘hot’
I love it. “Controlled anger” – may we all follow his lead on that instead of losing control at the slightest little thing.
Cool – it’s the new ‘hot’
I get that part. But I still worry. People need work.
There’s some talk of a bill that would represent a move to reduce abortions, by providing a lot of education, pre- and post-natal care, plus other things. Perhaps the family clinic provisions can go into that bill.
The items that are being cut here aren’t being abandoned. Obama will not win many Republican votes here, but he can stifle Boehner’s talking points again and again.
Absolutely right, Booman, as I see it. An astute analysis. And I don’t mind the concessions so far since I’m certain what you describe really is the goal.
And they want to control as much as possible the media discussion after the bill is passed – to keep their own favorables high and push down any favorables for the opposition.
Stripping out the family planning portion meant they didn’t have a “high profile” item that the opposition could talk about. They took it away from them.
This time.
If Obama’s setting this vote up to break the GOP’s back, then that’s great. I love it. More please.
If Obama’s setting this vote up to get rolled by a united GOP however, there’s a problem.
We’ll see what happens in the Senate.