Stimulus Package Passes House Without 1 Republican Vote

by Todd Beeton, Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:53:14 PM EST

See, Mr. President, we told you you don't need Republicans.

In a swift victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House approved a historically huge $819 billion stimulus bill Wednesday night with spending increases and tax cuts at the heart of the young administration's plan to revive a badly ailing economy.
The vote was 244-188, with Republicans unanimous in opposition despite Obama's pleas for bipartisan support.
"We don't have a moment to spare," Obama declared at the White House as congressional allies hastened to do his bidding in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

To Obama's credit, notice The AP's frame here: it's a "swift victory" for Obama who has been making "pleas for bipartisan support." Obama is winning this debate even though the Republicans think they can make him out to be the bad guy who is going back on his promises. Well played, Mr. President, so far. Unfortunately, presumably the Senate version IS going to need at least one Republican vote although I suspect that won't be as difficult for Obama to secure as it was in the House. Debate in the Senate could begin as early as Monday.

Update [2009-1-28 19:3:56 by Todd Beeton]:Note to self: make a list of all the Republicans who voted to bail out the banks but not to invest in the infrastructure and job creation of...ya know...America and stuff.

Update [2009-1-28 19:37:2 by Todd Beeton]:Roll call is HERE. Note that 11 Democrats voted against the bill, 10 of whom are the usual suspects and Rep. Kanjorski.

As for what the Republicans could possibly be thinking, Elana Schor at TPMDC has this thought:

But maybe this was the Republicans' plan all along. Now Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his troops can start the next act in the show and ask for just a few more concessions in order to give the stimulus its bipartisan stripes.
Either way, with GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) signaling her support, its passage in the Senate by next week is looking assured.

Update [2009-1-28 19:54:34 by Todd Beeton]:Oh. My. God. Via dday, check out how Rep. Hoekstra (R-MI) is framing the vote on his Twitter feed:

Interesting! The bi partisan vote on stimulus was no. It wasn't the winning vote but the only vote that received both R and D votes.

Talk about Orwellian. You see, Republicans voted unanimously NO and THEY'RE the bipartisan ones! Nice. You see, this is what you get when you fetichize bipartisanship. Can we just agree that it's overrated and that we'd be a lot better off if Democrats just passed everything on a party line vote and move on?

Tags: stimulus package (all tags)

Comments

40 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House

Better yet, make a list of all the Republicans who voted to spend billions and billions to build infrastructure in Iraq.... after they spent billions and billions to knock it down in the first place.

by Steve M 2009-01-28 02:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House

That's completely different. We were spreading democracy around the world...and those Halliburton contracts were great for Cheney's retirement fund!

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-28 02:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes

I hope this keeps up in the press.

But, one thing is clear- it's still not a good idea what he did. Did he agree to more concessions than necessary to pass it? We will never know. On that level, the concessions- how does the bill work out?

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes

But, one thing is clear- it's still not a good idea what he did.

Who says? Why is that suddenly so clear?

They voted in a lot of good stuff today.

The Repubs voted 100% against it, so basically in the propaganda war, they look like the party of

"Go screw yourself, we can't help you.."

It's at least debatable how Obama handled it, not completely clear, as you said...

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-28 02:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes

You answer your own question, but you don't like what it's telling you. It's pretty clear from the results that his effort to seem bipartisan failed. Now, you can say that we may be able to spin that with the public. This I already said if it holds that's a good thing. But , regarding the substance, you can not argue based on teh fact anymore that how Obama started in terms of the negotiations yielded a better result than if he had assumed the obstruction would occur in the first place. This is just a matter of the Republican vote speaking for itself in that regard. So , when you say it's not clear, but then say "the gop did not vote for the bill by 100 percent." There is not uncertainty left regarding the substance of the bill. It's just a factual assertion at this point.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes

Yes, but you are thinking in ONE dimension.

This is chess, not checkers.

My take is, Obama and Rahm knew the Repubs were NOT going to compromise, so they weren't going to get anything anyway?

What IS critical is, long term tone setting.

Round one results are:

Obama is keeping his pledge to work for the PEOPLE, not just democrats, not just blue staters.

Republicans are now the party of

"Screw you, we are going only get what we want, we will not meet anybody half way, and if it was up to us, we would do nothing for the American People. We vote as a block, we follow and are a mindless mass just trying to win poltical points. Obama is for the country, we are for ourselves..."

The Democrats in congress threw plenty of elbows, they stuffed in some late minute additions, and the Republicans could say SQUAT about it, cause they had already layed down their marker.

And, that is EXACTLY how Rahm and Obama wanted it played.

I have said it earlier today, it's been TOOO long since we had a Democrat this good, THIS is how Reagan dragged the country so far to the right so fast.

He made himself ABOVE the fray...

Again, LOOK at what Obama has done in his first week.

He is talking like a centrist.

He is moving the country to the left progressive side.

Politics is an art of performance, and he is damn good at it, better then those loser Repubs.

And, this is not a sprint, it is a marathon.

He didn't HAVE to cash in any of that capital, he got almost 100% what he wanted.

And he looked Presidential doing it.

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-28 02:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes

I am thinking in the only dimension that matters with regard to the question of whehter we obtained the maximum we would have obtained but-for our attempts to include the GOP in a negotiated compromise?

Everything else is a separate question. On that question, and that question alone, the answer is not we did not obtain what we could have obtained.

The rest is speculation.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Fights are not typically won in round one.....

As a matter of fact, most smart fighters DON'T blow it all out in the first round and you are just feeling them out.

It's too risky, you take your opponents best shot.

Obama won Round one. Yes, it wasn't a knockout, but the fight is not over yet....

I will also remind you what Obama told his backers when Senator Clinton was kicking his ass in the early debates.

He said, I close better, I get better in the later rounds.

This is just round one...

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-28 03:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Fights are not typically won in round one.....

That's b.s.

There are multiple styles of negotiation depending on parties involved in the negotiation. I have written about this before. The problem here is that the negotiating parties are path faith on the other side. Thus any such analysis that does no include their bad faith is b.s.

This has nothing with much of the non-sequiturs you bring up as supporting your position. It's simply a matter , again, of looking at stated reasons and outcomes,including I might add many of Obama's online more ardent supporters. Many of you keep changing your analysis week to week depending on what happens.

Most of which is very circular along the lines of this was good becaus Obama did it. Why is that good? Because Obama only does good. This is not a discussion. This is faith.

I am trying to see whethen you can peg what he did against any rational thought process of negotiation. How did the concessions yield a better result in the form of a stimulus package? You can not say that it did, and thus, you are left argue around that discussion.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 03:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Fights are not typically won in round one.....

"path" is error. That should read "bad faith "

The point being you do not in that style of negotiation start with concessions.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 03:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Fights are not typically won in round one.....

You are making WAY too many assumptions.

You are assuming the target of negotiations was the Repubs.

You are assuming that the parts of the bill that were dropped were not INCLUDED as bait to make a point on dealing with the Repubs.

You are assuming that the intent was to pass the bill all Dems wanted this one time.

You are assuming that there is not going to be the need for MORE stiff arming in the future and that this may only be the begining.

You are assuming that the American people would agree with you that passing a bigger/better bill that they couldn't get comfortable with would all work itself out in the end.

In the end, I guess I would say that maybe you would not make a good negotiator in D.C.?

by Hammer1001 2009-01-28 05:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Agreed about the frame

It could easily have been:

"In a stunning rebuke to President Barack Obama..."

Media bias doesn't just happen. You have to work for it ^_^.

Oh, and the House Republicans are idiots. They could have sacrificed 10 or 20 votes to look like they were reaching out in return. This vote just looks petulant.

by Neef 2009-01-28 02:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Agreed about the frame

Or, it could just as easily turn into DC is partisan depending on what sells copy more or the commercials between the infotainment.

The problem with make calculations regarding substance based on that is that its guess work about what sells copy on the part of the politician.

What is certain is we got less substance that we could have gotten.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

What's also certain

is that we got plenty of substance. I think there's a post up about new mass transit being added?

Nor am I sure of the rewards for what we "lost". Obama plays the long game, the benefits of the traded concessions might manifest down the road. Might not.

In any case, with 9/10 of a glass of water, I'm fairly unconcerned about the remaining tenth. Perfect being the enemy of good and all that.

by Neef 2009-01-28 02:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

That's a good question

I hear Chris Matthews is in the background talking about how "there are questions about the plan". But Chris is a moron, so we'll have to see.

What we don't want, I agree, is for the GOP to have the MSM amplify their obstructionism.

by Neef 2009-01-28 02:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: That's a good question

You think of Matthews as a moron, but most of the public does not see it that way. This is the problem with thinking we can control the press. Even if they are morons, they will tend to do what's best for them rather than worry about accuracy and context, etc.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

My wife

loves Chris Matthews. So while I might type "he's a moron", I won't say it =).

He is certainly popular.

by Neef 2009-01-28 03:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I speak from my own experience

I agree. This is why we should not proceed along the lines of any strategy that requires us to depend on their good graces.

The strategy should be pretty simple- take short term heat for putting forth the best bill possible, and have that bill suceed. Right now, we are out on a limb without having gotten the best bill possible in terms of economic outcomes.

I keep asking people to provide some logical explaination that does not involve "trust Obama"

I am left now with hope that the money that is being put into this will be enough. I don't think the second time we go for money will be as easy as this time.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 03:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's also certain

Except that's not the question. I told you this before. One reasons I don't like arguing about this with you (if I am getting th eright person) is that from week to week the debate and questions change to suit the following: Obama was right. Rather than setting up an objective standard by which we can test that assertion, you keep changing the assertion.

You also engage in hyperbole with the 9/10's full. Not according to most economists it's not. This plan almost certainly will require another plan, and at a later stage where we may not have the political capital, but will need it.

Thus, the question remains- if we had not approached it from Obama's erroneous approach of trying to compromise before rather than after engaging the GOP- did we harm our ability to maiximize the plan?

The answer to that is yes since the stated goal was to obtain GOP support , and the plan that passed is a reflection of that stated goal rather than the goal of maximizing the plan itself.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Maximizing the plan

squeezing every drop of blood from this stone, is a fools errand, bruh. This is not the only piece of legislation we have to pass.

Don't tell me what the question is. While you sit here fretting over percentages lost out of a point-eight trillion dollar plan, I am more concerned about our agenda over 4, 8 and hopefully 16 years.

We are the party in power. We own the presidency, the House and the Senate. The only danger to us is us, the classic overreach of a party in power. Fighting over the last tenth, or hundredth of a pie is bad for us - in my opinion. You may differ, but I have very good reasons for my concern.

And if you have issues debating with me, then don't do it. I'll survive.

by Neef 2009-01-28 03:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Maximizing the plan

Just because you say that does not make it true.

You also do not understand again the basic negotiation strategy, which is to shape the eventual outcome rather than be fixed on the first move as the last.

Your mindset is that of someone who thinks of that first move as you last one.

If I start with 10 in a negotation where the other person wants 0, that does not mean either of us will end where we started. But if I start with 5, that does mean I will end up with less than 5.

Your argment depends on pretending that 5 was the only option because there was no way we were going to get 10.

No one requires that we get 10. What I am saying is that if we start lower, we end up with lower. We don't dictate or frame the negotation in our favor. We frame it in theirs. It's really that simple.

If this fails, you won't have to worry about 4 years or any other distance out.

The key to achieving your goal of long term sustaintability is ironically my advice for what they should have done rather than yours. Namely, the closest plan to what economists told them could work as possible, and negotiating fromthat point rather than negotiating from the point of "we have to compromse with the GOP." The GOP is and always has been a bad faith operator. So are the conservative Dems. That's why you do not negotiate as if you are dealing with anything but that.

Now you have to hope- which was my fear- that the press goes along with you, or else the bill gets worse.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 04:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Maximizing the plan

I agree with your negotiation strategy to a point. The problem is, you are starting at step #2. Step #1, the first thing you do, is establish their BATNA. That's "Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement". You can read up on it here.

See, the first decision of the other side isn't how much they want to pay, it's if they need what you have. You can price a buggy whip however you like, I'm not buying it. On the other hand, if I'm drowning, that life preserver you have is nearly priceless - my alternative is to drown. The parameters of the negotiation are established by both parties BATNA. The price is actually a secondary consideration.

In this case, the GOP's alternative to negotiation is clear - they can make a stand, a draw a line in the stand. This is actually a fairly attractive option for them, given that the remnants of their party seem to be driving even farther toward idealogical Right, and that resistance to Obama will score them points. So they don't need to negotiate, therefore price is irrelevant. They would vote agaisnt the bill at 500 billion or 2 trillion (especially post-TARP). The only way to bring them to the table would be to offer 75% tax cuts, and even that is shaky.

So what's our BATNA? I repeat, we are the party in power. We are expected to exercise the restraint, and display the magnanimity. We have to negotiate, or else it looks like "the libs are having a party!". Again, overreach is what dooms the majority, not underreach.

We have to negotiate. They don't. They actually have more leeway than we do. So we need to undermine their BATNA, make the strategy of not-negotiating more costly. We do this with a public show of bipartisanship. Our audience is not the GOP, it is the not-as-liberal-as-you'd-like-to-think country.

We're in a 5000-meter race, and your complaint is that we could have done the first 100 meters faster. This is the most liberal bill passed (assuming Senate conf) in the last decade AND we did it with some show of sober governance. We proved to the country that were were adults, not greedy children. Mostly. There's still a bit of pork in there. The way the MSM falls is critical. But we reached out to the other side.

For some reason, you seem to think passing everything NOW is critical, as if we will never have the opportunity again. You are being overly tactical, and insufficiently strategic. I respect your dedication, but I oppose that sort of impulse-oriented, instant-gratification thinking in our Party.

by Neef 2009-01-28 08:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Here's a more important question

There is certainly this possibility. The press wants to sell papers and comercials. Good political outcomes is terriary. The second goal being the ego of the press corps.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House

A fair question is whether this gives us license to put some things back in the bill that were removed to appease the Republicans. Assuming the votes are there in the Senate, and I'm pretty sure they are, is there a downside?

by Steve M 2009-01-28 02:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House

Now, that's a very good question and observation.

by bruh3 2009-01-28 02:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House

that is the issue steve m. can we get more good in the bill.

by art3 2009-01-28 02:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

A good idea

It's very punitive-y. I do agree that our carrots need some sticks.

by Neef 2009-01-28 03:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

President Obama's Statement

"..There are many numbers in this plan. It will double our capacity to generate renewable energy. It will lower the cost of health care by billions and improve its quality. It will modernize thousands of classrooms and send more kids to college. And it will put billions of dollars in immediate tax relief into the pockets of working families.." The whole thing, in case it violates some posting rule or other. http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=166

by sandy 2009-01-28 02:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House

I'm stunned by Republicans' intransigence. By contrast, back in 1993, Bill Clinton's $16.3 billion stimulus package got the votes of three Republican House members, though in the Senate all 43 Republicans (joined by then-Democrat Richard Shelby) killed it with a filibuster. Even then, the package got at least token GOP support in the House.

If Republicans follow the same vote-as-a-bloc mentality in the Senate, they'll be able to filibuster the bill. Would the media frame that as a sign of Obama being incompetent, or (correctly) as an admission of failure on the part of Republicans, both in elections and in rounding up congressional votes, such that they had to shut down the democratic process in order to win? Back in '93, the media chose the first option (substituting Clinton for Obama, of course); this set the tone for coverage of the first two years of Clinton's presidency and enabled the Republicans' 1994 takeover. If they do the same again, Republicans will be emboldened to filibuster everything in sight, and Obama will need to do what Clinton didn't do back then -- wage a massive campaign against using the filibuster, and if that doesn't sway some Republican senators, use the nuclear option and do away with the supermajority cloture requirement altogether.

by Comic Book Guy 2009-01-28 02:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

The Senate Republicans are too wiley to do that...

The house Repubs are a bunch of Idealogue Chowderheads, all safe in their little red districts.

Does anyone think Eric Cantor and John Bohner outmanuevred Barack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel?

What the house Repubs looked like today was a return to the Tom Delay era, they lockstepped themselves into a corner, and Obama led them into it.

This bill swamped them, the democrats got 90% of what they wanted, but RePubs were gushing all over Obama, and now they sound like whiners.

They got beat, and they know it. And, they look liked jerks doing it.

Not noble guys fighting for thier cause, but angry babies, wno didn't get their way.

Tough.

What will everyone remember?

The house republicans were petulant children...

And President Obama got his stimulus bill passed on this second week.

(Fingers crossed the Senate will do what I expect on this....)

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-28 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House

I think the House Rs are looking whistfully to 1993 and believe they can repeat it. There are a few differences. Clinton only won 43% of the vote, the Rs gained about 10 House seats in 1992 and Clinton had a rocky transition. Remember the Gays in the Military and the multiple AG controversies.

Obama won the biggest electoral victory in 20 yrs, swept in Dems with him and had a close to flawless transition. He has sky high popularity numbers. They are nuts if they think they can pull off 1993 again. Obama is far more disciplined and makes many fewer mistakes than Clinton.

I believe most of Obama's maneuvering had little to do with the House Rs. He went up there yesterday and played nice for the press but it is all about getting at least one R in the Senate. I find it hard to believe that Obama will not be able to pick off at least one of the following Senators - Snowe, Collins, Spector, Lugar or Voinovich. He has popular opinion on his side and he knows them all personally having served with them.

by jmnyc 2009-01-28 03:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: that last update

That's some crazy in a box right there.

Orwellian, indeed.

by Neef 2009-01-28 02:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus

Dozens of Leaders from both Parties are having cocktails at the White House even as we type.

KEWL

by QTG 2009-01-28 03:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

If I'm GOP

I'm waiting for Obama to sip first.

^_^

by Neef 2009-01-28 03:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If I'm ....

Such a huge opportunity for Schadenfreude looms before us, yet many among us seem bound and determined to miss out. Obama's playing world class chess, (and winning, folks!), yet any pawn which falls is given a Funeral High Mass complete with wailing mourners, sack cloth, and widespread gnashing of teeth.

I am.... I am .... having a cocktail, actually.

Well played, Mr. President. Keep it up.

by QTG 2009-01-28 03:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well said....

We can piss and moan even when we win.

Why didn't Obama wave a magic wand and undo everything since Reagan?

He's had, what almost two weeks now?

Democrats. What you gonna do?

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-28 03:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well said....

Wednesday to Wednesday...8 real days. Not too shabby for a "fat" week.

I wait for the stimulus to pass, and the money to start going out. I work with entities like Head Start. I am really looking forward to seeing what they do with that money RIGHT AWAY.

Wait till people see all those new infrastructure projects start up, I bet people may not even look at road construction quite the same now. If this goes through the way it looks, I just don't see how it fails us.

Or to put it in a better light, with this we can really piss off the Repubs by living well with responsable leadership and a good stimulus, not tax breaks and "trickle-on" economics.

by Hammer1001 2009-01-28 05:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

The brown acid is in the Republican drinks....

Obama will have em tripping soon enough...

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-28 03:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stimulus Package Passes House Without 1 Republ

Bwahaha. Bwahahahaha!!!

by lojasmo 2009-01-28 03:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Pork Package

Please Mr Obama pass this Pork laden spending bill without a single Republican vote!! That way when it doesn't create jobs, because that isn't the purpose of the bill and inflation is 20% you get all the "CREDIT"!

I have read this entire bill and only 30% of it will do anything to help the economy the rest is just pork barrel spending!! It OK though we can just print the money right? You guys would understand the differance if you could read.

by fortsumter 2009-01-29 07:41AM | 0 recs