I guess I'm curious about what aspects of the bill make it a "big whiff." That it doesn't have more tax cuts? That seems to be the Republicans' big concern. But there's no indication that tax cuts would actually be spent -- they might be hoarded, just as the banks are hoarding their bailout money. Is it the programs themselves that were to be funded? The contraception program is the only one I've heard of that raised objections, and that was cut. Is it that the money wouldn't be spent right away? Well, that's a Catch-22, because if it's spent right away, it's more apt to be wasted. It's rhetorically satisfying for Noonan to call it "pork" and "big, messy, largely off-point." But her column is pretty light on examples. I'd like to hear more about specifically what's wrong with the bill.

Matt,

The substantive problem with the so-called stimulus package is that it has so little to do with stimulus. The House could have passed a more modest measured that was tailored to produce relatively quick results, and Republicans would have been on board. Such a bill would have been better for the economy and it would have set the tone of change for the Obama Administration.

As it ended up, Nancy Pelosi decided to revel in her new found power: "We won the election. We wrote the bill." Obama whiffed because he went along with that divisive strategy. Many people, including me, voted for Obama in hopes that he would at least try to end this sort of inane governance, and as far as I can tell, he didn't even try.

Alright, alright, but help me out here. I'm still unclear about what the Republicans actually wanted to do differently. Are there any examples? Any programs they wouldn't have included? Any taxes they would have lowered even more? I'd love to hear specifics.

Are you saying the problem is the time horizon on the proposed spending? It takes too long to spend the money? The only thing that will get $$$ back into the economy immediately is giving the money to people, either by paying them to do something or cutting taxes. If you pay them to do something without much planning, the waste factor goes up. If you cut taxes, then people might just save that money. If it's not spent, it doesn't stimulate.

It seems to be there are two choices here: (1) borrow and spend, and pay the piper later (when the economy has recovered, hopefully) or (2) take the hit now and don't do much at all. The question for the option #2 folks is: how high are you willing to see unemployment go? I watched Ron Paul the other night, and he was very rhetorically effective until someone asked him about how he would feel about skyrocketing unemployment. He hemmed and hawed and said the mortgage bubble folks would be the folks responsible for the unemployment. I'm sympathetic to option #2 because I've always been a bit of a deficit hawk, and I hate to see us borrow even more money. But I'd also hate to see 15% unemployment.

Admittedly this is not a political theory blog, but why is it that Democrats are bound to compromise with Republicans if they have the votes to pass a bill? If the Speaker and the Democratic leadership think that their bill is right, well they were elected because American, with some degree of approximation for the flaws in our system of government, trusted their judgment, at least over that of Republicans.
Obviously Republicans in the House and Noonan would want compromise because that is the only way they can get their agenda enacted. But another way to enact their agenda would have been convincing the voters that they were better suited to run the country a couple of months ago.
Undoubtedly the Republicans will attempt to make this stimulus an issue in 2010 and at that time the voters can decide whether they like the bill or whether it was too partisan.

Matt,

Neither the post nor the underlying article was designed to say, "Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong!" The point is that Obama had an opportunity to seek common ground in pursuit of economic recovery, but he rejected that strategy, electing instead to follow Pelosi's lead down the partisan path.

As for analysis of the options, you say that the federal government has two options: (1) borrow and spend, or (2) do nothing. This is misleading because -- even if we agree to reject option 2, and we do agree on that -- the spending path has two sub-options: (a) spend now on things that are designed to bring the economy out of recession, or (b) spend later on programs that we like but have nothing to do with economic stimulus. Congress (mostly) chose option (b). Thus, in the Washington tradition, the "stimulus" bill has very little to do with stimulating the economy.

Democratic leaders in Congress are using the honeymoon period of Obama's Administration to pursue their social agenda, and I think that is a missed opportunity. It certainly doesn't represent the sort of change Obama endorsed on the campaign trail.

Ben,

I think my comment to Matt was responsive to your comment. My point is simply that Obama missed an opportunity here. If the Democrats had stuck to stimulus measures, they would have gotten some Republican support, and my view is that this would have set a nice tone for the Obama Administration. Most of the stuff in the bill could have waited for another time, rather than larding a "stimulus" package.

Gordon,

I share your disappointment with Obama's (lack of) handling of the economic stimulus legislation. But should it really come as any surprise? Obama sprung into the political limelight barely four years ago, and obviously wrote a lot of IOUs to the Democratic Party power structure in order to attain the White House. Human nature and political debts being what they are, it would be positively amazing were Obama to put the brakes on Democratic legislative agendas of that have been on hold for at least eight years.

To put the most optimistic spin on the matter than I can muster, perhaps Obama will let the kids have their fun in the sandbox for a few more weeks, then choose to exhibit leadership and stop Congress from throwing cake and parades at the electorate.

The President has this duty under our Constitution. Let us see whether Obama rises to the challenge.

"I'd like to hear more about specifically what's wrong with the bill."

Matt,

It's pretty clear by your comment that you, like Obama, haven't done the legwork of actually, you know, reading the bill.

There are plenty of examples of how the "stimulus" bill is really just your standard Democrat pork barrel spending bill. To name just a few ... the bill:

* funds no-smoking programs

* $650 million in coupons for television upgrades

* $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

* $25 million on trails for ATVs

* $100 million for bee insurance.

Yes, bee insurance. You know ... if your beehive is blown down in a storm, the government will replace it for you. That insurance program is in the stimulus bill about to be debated in the Senate.

Now, I realize these are just the tip of the iceberg of the stupid, non-stimulative items that are in the bill. I could go on, and on, and on for another 846 pages, but I suspect that for you, the question isn't about what's in the bill.

If you cared about what was in the bill, you'd read it yourself. No, for you, it's all about criticism of The One.

Democrats are not acting like there is an economic emergency in this country. The stimulus bill, for example, does not alter a single mortgage.

It does not help a single mother struggling to keep her home.

It does not give haircuts to the bankers. It does not require Countrywide to stop giving Chris Dodd and Conrad Burns sweetheart mortgages. It allows millions of taxpayer dollars to be given to millionaires.

No, the stimulus bill is Rahm Emanual's "emergency" he spoke about when he pointed out that what happens when there is an emergency is that you use that emergency to do things that you wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

He said that. And the stimulus bill proves he was right.

Go read the bill.

I dare you.

Fedgovernor: Since it was Gordon that was criticizing the bill, surely it's not unreasonable of Matt to ask Gordon what he thought was specifically wrong with it. It's not incumbent on Matt to go through the bill and imagine what Gordon *might* have thought was wrong with it.

Your list of examples of "pork" is a good example of why it's necessary to talk specifics instead of in generalities. The point of a stimulus bill is to stimulate spending and create jobs. Tax cuts that end up getting saved or used to pay down debt, as well as (I will assume for the sake of argument) bee insurance don't do that, and so can reasonably be criticized as inappropriate. But creating trails for ATVs (for example) sounds like a garden-variety construction project, like a highway or a bridge, and nobody criticizes the latter type of project as inappropriate. Similarly, funding for the NEA goes pretty quickly into creating jobs and getting money into the economy. You may personally feel that artists are less worthy than construction workers, but there is no objective economic criterion that tells us that.

Some of the items in this bill are genuinely non-stimulative. But you seem to be using the term just as a synonym for "things I don't like". This is why generalizations aren't helpful.

"Similarly, funding for the NEA goes pretty quickly into creating jobs and getting money into the economy."

See, Responder, you've fallen for the Washington trick. NEA funding doesn't "get money into the economy."

The money was already in the economy. It was in my paycheck, ready for me to spend, before Obama took it and gave it to Robert Maplethorp to make Christpiss.

Taking taxes from working Americans, and giving it to the All Terrain Vehicle lobbyists to pollute the planet and destroy the Earth with their trails doesn't create jobs.

It just takes money from some Americans to give to other Americans.

My point, to Matt and everyone else, is that this bill is nothing more than standard Democrat pork-barrel spending. It does nothing but reward their donors with tax dollars taken from working Americans ... the very working Americans Democrats used to get themselves elected.

The irony of that is just delicious ... don't you think?