All House Republicans vote no on Obama stimulus package
As expected, all 177 House Republicans voted no on the economic stimulus package that is being rushed through Congress at the behest of President Obama. In my article from yesterday, I wondered if it would gain a single Republican vote and it turns out that I was right. Not only that, but 11 conservative Democrats also deserted their party ranks and voted no. The focus now moves to the Senate, where a slightly different and more bipartisan version of the bill is being crafted.
In a strange turn of events, it appears Rush Limbaugh is getting a lot of credit for “bullying” the House Republicans into voting no on the legislation. I know he has really been ranting against the legislation and I happen to agree that the package isn’t what our country needs. However, I would hope our Republican leadership has better ways of making a decision than listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I had the chance to listen to him yesterday because I was off work and I lasted about ten minutes before turning him off. But, I digress.
The going opinion about the House vote seems to be that the Republicans slapped at the hand of bipartisanship being offered them by President Obama. I mean after all, he had the Democrats remove certain parts of the legislation, namely the family planning funding, to appease the Republicans. There are also some who think the family planning was inserted into the package, just to give President Obama something to negotiate with. While that may be the case, I am glad they voted no.
This package can really be called the non-stimulating stimulus package. The Congressional Budget Office even agrees that the implementation of the massive spending will be too slow to effect the economy in a positive way. Unless someone can show me something different, it still appears to me that this package has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with increasing the size of our government. How much bigger does it have to get and how much more money do we have to spend before we realize this isn’t working.
We are facing an uphill battle to get this kind of spending reduced, especially considering the House Republicans could have stopped it last year, when President Bush and Henry Paulson were declaring they needed $700 billion to bail out Wall Street and the banks. That was money down the drain that hasn’t slowed our economic slide, not even a little. We have seen this kind of thing does not work and even though the Democrats are saying they will do better than President Bush did, I find that hard to believe.
The truth is the the Republicans should have stopped the original bailout plan and they didn’t. Now the Democrats want to spend even more money that we do not have. Whoever we are borrowing all of this money from has to be rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the day when they will be able to call in this debt. It certainly doesn’t bode well for future generations of Americans.
I find it hard to argue the merits of allocating stimulus dollars or which dollars are most effective but I tend to agree that the current package will be little different from the last with equally dismal results. I hate seeing programs that reek of pork finding their way into this plan or others that purport to save jobs at the state level without requisite state obligations. I read that Mitch McConnell has proposed that aid to states be crafted as a long term loan instead of just handing over the money. That makes complete sense and forces the states to use the money effectively while giving them some responsibility for helping reduce the federal debt and deficit down the road. Even as an interest-free loan it’s more sensible than what’s proposed and properly distances the federal government from involving itself in programs properly managed and funded at the state and local level.
The final bill, following House/Senate reconciliation sounds like it will be quite a bit larger as Republicans are likely to get their demand for adjusting the alternative minimum tax to avoid pulling in growing numbers from the middle class. In no way is this an economic stimulus but it will stop things from getting worse in the same way providing state aid for education programs isn’t a stimulus but will keep many teachers from being fired. Is that all money well spent? Hard to say but I’m inclined to say yes. But the package gets bigger and the “stimulus” is mighty questionable.
The future financing of the ever growing deficit is an enormous problem and while we may need this stimulus now (“may” need) the idea of worrying about inflation and debt-financing later is truly scary. What we really need is some proposal that can help pay for all of this — can you say “gas tax”?
This type of stimulus has been tried before and failed miserably. What makes people think it will work this time around? We need less government, not more. In case people haven’t learned by now, just take a look at programs our government has been involved with, and it’s plain to see how there is a greater possibility of failure than otherwise.
Ron’s last blog post..God Blesses Even in the Tough Times
Ron:
What “type” of stimulus are you talking about that has been tried and failed? There is much more to the stimulus bill than the value-slim tax cuts/rebates or however it’s sold. I have no idea whether the other provisions (infrastructure, school constructions, health care etc) will provide millions of long term jobs as billed, but doesn’t it stand to reason that, as projects get moving, the economy will be jumpstarted?
I have been watching certain financial networks all day today and writing pieces on my website about the stimulus. One thing that comes to mind is that Washington is constantly talking about how things need to change. Education needs to change, tax law needs to change, lobbyists need to change. If we’re all about change, why is Washington still running the same way. Partisan this and that. Kids do what their parents do and not what they say. If Washington wants change, then Washington needs to do it first. How about coming together on something and not voting down party lines on everything.
Mike,
You would bring the gas tax back up, now wouldn’t you?
Seriously, I wouldn’t have a problem with the government spending money on actual infrastructure programs, roads, bridges, etc, but this package seems to contain more social program funding than anything else. I honestly believe the Democrats see their chance to get their social programs funded for a long time, under the guise of “have to do this quickly”.
Laurie,
I am not sure, but I believe Ron may be talking about the original bailout of Wall Street, even though that wasn’t an actual stimulus package. He can correct me if I am wrong. One thing for sure, that package didn’t do a thing for our economy, it never even slowed the downward slide. I do agree that the economy should start moving again, if the projects get to moving along, but from what the Congressional Budget Office has said, I am not sure that is going to happen.