Stimulus Getting Smaller

by Todd Beeton, Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 08:50:29 AM EST

After the Senate passed their version of the stimulus package yesterday, the conference committee wasted no time negotiating a compromise bill with the White House. The problem is, it's getting even smaller.

Negotiators for Congress and the White House have tentatively settled on a $790 billion price tag on President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill and are working to narrow differences on individual elements of the bill.

After unofficial talks stretching into the late evening on Tuesday, officials announced a formal meeting of negotiators for mid-afternoon in the Capitol as they try to get a bill to Obama's desk for signing by week's end.

The smaller cost of the bill seems to be the price for some concessions to the President, namely the restoration of at least some of the funding to states:

Democratic aides said that Obama's negotiating team had prevailed in restoring some lost funding for school construction projects during talks Tuesday, and had also increased aid to state governments above the $39 billion approved in a compromise with a handful of Senate GOP moderates.

In addition, it looks like some tax breaks for people who, let's face it, will have minimal stimulative impact, have been pared down a bit.

Baucus had said earlier that $35.5 billion to provide a $15,000 homebuyer tax credit, approved in the Senate last week, would be cut back. There was also pressure to reduce a Senate-passed tax break for new car buyers, according to Democratic officials.

At least there seems to be some good faith bargaining here -- no one is stomping their foot and refusing to play nice. But, really, the pared down size of the new package will make it far more difficult for the bill to have the impact it needs to have and virtually guarantees that Obama is going to have to come back for more, which sort of makes you wonder if that's the whole point.

dday:

The Axis of Centrism sees reducing the effectiveness of the bill as an end in itself. They've already reduced it to a half-measure, and they're coming back for more. Did Obama's early emphasis on post-partisanship rather than browbeating Republicans into acceptance change this reality? I'm not really sure. The moderates seem to be goring this bill and liking it, and no matter Obama's pose he would still be constrained by the essential nature of getting something passed.

It's Susan Collins and Ben Nelson's world, we're just living in it.

Tags: Barack Obama, stimulus package (all tags)

  • 53 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

53 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

It's easy to be "good faith" when you hve already won, and the GOP won this battle before the conference.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 08:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
starting the bidding at $800 billion

was a crucial mistake. Maybe Obama meant that number to be the floor, but predictably, it has become the ceiling.

Obama's starting offer also contained too many tax cuts that would do little to stimulate the economy.

by desmoinesdem 2009-02-11 09:32AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
So why do you people always have your hearts set on the perfect?
by spirowasright 2009-02-11 10:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

That's a bullshit statement in context and an inexcusable abdication of accountability.  The context is that Obama defined the parameters by his choice of actions. Everything that followed was a byproduct of that first choice. The statement "perfect as the enemy of the good" is concerned with those actions done in context of a compromise made with others- not with oneself.  As a  practical example , if Obama has begun with 1.3 tril, and this were the result, I would not be arguing with the outcome. The fact he started with 750 bil and ends with that number prevents your argument from being testable.  It simply means as I said early on- the first bid defines the bidding process.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 10:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

Basic negotiations.  Read a few books they all say the same.  Start at the high end of reasonable and be slow in concessions.  If the other party is completely unreasonable from the start, you will tend to get either a very bad deal or no deal at all.

DesmoinesDem is living in the real world.  That is how you get the best deal.

by David Kowalski 2009-02-11 11:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

I don't think many of the people defending this come from a business environment or work in any capacity that requires them to negotiate.  

by bruh3 2009-02-11 11:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

But you are assuming Obama wanted more than 800 billion. Why? Maybe you and Paul Krugman wanted a larger bill but I don't think Obama did. Also we end up with only 35% tax cuts in the final version which is what Obama had to begin with. Looks to me like Obama got almost everything he wanted.

by Lolis 2009-02-11 12:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

Obama stated through his surrogates that the reason he choose the number he did was his concern with the psychology of saying a higher number. His first number choice according to himself was not about the economics. It was about the impact of the 1 tril barrier as he saw it. That's not an argument against the economics or what the economists were saying.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 12:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

All the surrogates I saw like Axelrod said 800 million but I did not hear anyone say they wanted this thing to go over 1 trillion. Obama and his surrogates have been clear that they still want to pass energy and health care bills. I think he and his team are thinking of what is possible, yes, and they want to accomplish all those things. Obama has said repeatedly this week that the stimulus is just one leg in the stool. There is obviously more to come. I would rather have another 100 billion spent six months or a year from now on a good green infrastructure bill or health care.

People, including progressives, were even complaining that some of the spending on infrastructure wouldn't be spent on the best projects, simply on the shovel-ready ones. Progressives opposed the DeMint amendment to spend 50 billion more on new roads because it would add to rural and urban sprawl.

I wish the family planning, health, and arts stuff would not have been cut, but Obama has already said he will put that into his next bill. This is not the only bill we get to pass. So, yes, overall I am very pleased with this bill. I have no evidence that is significantly smaller than what Obama and his closest surrogates has said he wanted.

by Lolis 2009-02-11 02:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

it was said right before he announced the stitmulus to congress. one of the stated reasons politically for the number was that it was not crossing  a psychological threshold. the other being that he thought he had 80 votes with his version in the Senate.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 03:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

in other words- he didn't get what he wanted. he got what he thought he could get because he did what democrats do- they proceed based on fear of what could happen rather than as the republicans do- fight off of what they want. Bush when he announced tarp, as I mentioned started higher because , as he said, he wanted a high psychological number.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 12:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

That's about right. He did not take into account the pscyhological impact of his number other than his stated fear that 1 tril was a pscyhological threshold he did not want to cross. So, he came up with this number hoping that the Congress would lead for him.

I think he made a plenty of mistakes here. But, honestly, I think he can recover. What concerns me is the number of people willing to get on posting patently absurd things and jingoism without much thought beyond circling the wagon. That concerns me because I don't see any accountability from the grassroots forthcoming.

I think that accountability- the ability to objectively look at Obama- is a year or two out from now. The problem with that is that it will be a year or two past the point where we could have pushed for better policies. So, we will continue to get milktoast responses. Afterall- where will we get stronger response or pushes from? Not his advisors- they are a moderate conservatives. Not congress- they are too chicken shit. Not his more ardent supporters- they are too busy giving him a pass.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 10:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

Psychologically it would have been better to start above one trillion. Then the negotiators could have said,"Whew, we managed to get it under a trillion", for $993 billion bill.

by antiHyde 2009-02-11 11:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: starting the bidding at $800 billion

That's the point. People have a short memory. The reason bush's people quoted TARP so high as they did is because as they put it- they wanted to go with a number with pscyhological impact. They knew that anything after that would seem lesser in comparison. I link to this discussion by  BTD about the centrist, and how this exact sort of process worked:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/2/11/ 13334/6721

It's confirmed also if you listen to interviews with the centrist. They will say "well we kept it to the number tha tObama said he wanted." Not that "we wanted" but Obama's number.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 12:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

It's Susan Collins and Ben Nelson's world, we're just living in it.

Was that in the small print in all those E-mails Obama sent me for fund raising?

When does the next off-world transport leave?

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-11 08:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
So why do yuo have your heart set on the perfect?
by spirowasright 2009-02-11 10:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

again you don't understand the argument you are making. perfect is against some plan not based on one's own creation. if Obama had not started the process and thus defining what numbers we are seeing- that argument might may sense. But in context, it's just jingoism.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 10:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Democratic aides said that Obama's negotiating team had prevailed in restoring some lost funding for school construction projects during talks Tuesday, and had also increased aid to state governments above the $39 billion approved in a compromise with a handful of Senate GOP moderates.

Cutting the school construction funding absolutely made me livid. All part of the hatred for the Public School system from the Republicans.

I was happy when Obama mentioned that in the speech the other day.

Good it's back in.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-11 09:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

A smaller bill with better spending is better than a larger bill with more tax cuts (even for the poor).

You know Obama will get a lot of stuff that was cut passed later on in his budget bill, which cannot be filibustered. Collins and Nelson not withstanding, this bill is a huge success. I am very happy with it.

by Lolis 2009-02-11 09:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Reports say that tax cuts have been significantly pared down and we are close to the house's ratio at 65% - 35%.  They cut out most of the republican ammendments from republicans who didn't (and won't) vote for the bill.

by LordMike 2009-02-11 10:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

good, very good. Now imagined if Obama had started the bidding higher.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 10:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

That might have helped.  But that's not actually the only way to effectively negotiate.  Making a reasonable first offer, that you can live with, and then stiffening the spine often works better in my relatively extensive experience with negotiations.  Especially where there is a third party mediating.  

To be clear, I'm not saying you are wrong.  But I think that the evidence is less clear than you assert that Obama screwed up here.  

by HSTruman 2009-02-11 10:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

It's not that there aren't other styles. it's that there is not reaon to pressume what you are pressuming especially given the players. Making a reasonable first offer pressumes a lot of things that could not be pressumed here. a) again reasonable pressumes good faith actors b) it pressumes that there is not some number that is understood to address the problem outside of just any number etc.

I think the evidence is that Obama didn't try. That's why he screwed up. If he had tried to obtain,a nd failed to obama a larger number then this number would have been a reasonable compromise number. but he has no basis, and none of you (which is what should concern you) for saying 750 was the magic number that the public would have allowed him to go to. We know congress went for that number because Obama wanted it because of reading between the lines of Sen and House members talking about it. They say as much. We choose this number because that's what obama started swith. that's not a position of "we must go with this number."

by bruh3 2009-02-11 10:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

I have no idea what the "right" number is.  I know Paul Krugman, who is much smarter than I am, thinks the current bill is way too small.  I've read that other economists think this is about right.  Me?  I have no idea, but I am smart enough to know that it is ALL guess work because where we find ourselves is uncharted waters.  

As to negotiations, again -- you may be correct.  But I'm not convinced that is necessarily true.  Moreover, I would submit that you are ignoring some positives developments regarding the approach Obama DID take.  For example, polling shows that the public overwhelmingly approves of the way Obama, and even congressional democrats, have approached this issue.  Rs numbers are terrible and have only fallen further since Obama started a sustained PR push for the bill.  That matters, both for this fight and down the road.  

In sum, I'm not crazy about this bill and I would have preferred that it contained more spending than it does.  But I don't think it's a terrible bill either.    

by HSTruman 2009-02-11 10:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

a) My thesis is that we will never know because Obama choose an approach that denied us even the chance at a better bill. So when you say you are unconvinced- I have no idea what you are unconvinced of since you offer nothing to counter my discussions regarding negotiation other than you are unconvinced.

b) Poll? Cite polls saying what you re saying. I have not seen any polls worded the way you describe. I have seen polls about generally liking Obama and wanting a stimulus, but not about the process as a key concern of voters. So cite them.

b) How exactly are you defining terrible bill? Your comment seems confused- first you tell me what economists say that we need. You add that they say that this bill is not enough for that need. but then you end with, 'I don't think its a bad bill." based on what economic indicators are you making  your judgment?

by bruh3 2009-02-11 11:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Gallup, it was all over news yesterday. 67% approve of way Pres obama has handled the stimulus so far while 25% disapprove. the number for repugs is horrendous, 31% approve while 58%(!!!!) disaprove.

there was a CBS poll last week as well that showed 81% (!!) of public though obama was trying to reach out while obly 41% though rethugs were reaching out to Pres.

His approach with public is resoundingly good, rethugs are seen as party of NO now more than ever. now Obama thinks this will wok and if it does even marginally it will seal the deal for the dems.

by Bury 2009-02-11 11:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

that poll would be of more value if they asked people do they prefer the post partisan approach that would yield the plan we have, or do they prefer a plan that would bring more help to the state governments that would have been less post partisan? As it is- its one of those questions that's really a questiona bout "who do you like?" They like Obama.  I expect them to say they approve of him. That's not the queswtion I am asking. I am asking do they really care how he make saussage so long as they end up with more?

by bruh3 2009-02-11 12:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Although it's always a good thing to have public support, it's not a good thing to drive policies based upon public opinion, especially in these times.  I hope this administration doesn't become poll crazy in its focus.

by orestes 2009-02-11 03:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

First of all, I don't think there's any need to be quite as argumentative as you're being in this thread.  I'm trying to have a civil conversation, not win an argument.  

To clarify my last comment, what I'm not convinced of is your foundational premise that the only way to get a good bill was to adopt the negotiation strategy you advance.  Contrary to what you asserted up thread, my job actually entails quite a bit of negotiating.  In my experience, the proper strategy can change dependant upon the facts of a specific dispute.  You seem to reject that view out of hand.  I don't really know why.  In my last comment, I noted advantages to the strategy Obama adopted.  You didn't address those either.  

polling -- As another person noted, the recent Gallop poll addressed precisely what I said it did.  

Finally, I referenced what different economists say to illustrate that the "right" approach is very much in doubt because of the historic nature of the current crisis.  On balance, I agree with you that bigger would have been better.  Unlike you, I'm not convinced that it was politically possible to get a significantly bigger bill passed at this point.  

by HSTruman 2009-02-11 11:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

a) Gallup is measuring a new president. It's not asking do people believe in post partisanship. I asked whether the poll was testing whether people cared about strategy.

b) I don't understand how you draw the conclusions you do from what I write. In fact, your post leads me to conclude that you aren't reading them.

Circumstances do matter. I don't reject that out of hand. It's crucial to my argument. In fact, I say that Obama's "unity at all cost" approach is problematic precisely because he does not consider whether the GOP is a good or bad faith actor.

That alone is a consideration of circumstance. There are other ways in which I do it. So, once again, I question if you are reading my posts.

c) I still have no idea what your comments about the economics of the bill means. Your explanation does not help because it does not seem meant to address whether the bill will address the economic issue so much as excuse the bill for not doing that. The bulk of economists are not in doubt. So, I also find your comment on that level confusing.

d) What sort of negotiating have you done? I am not discussing day to day negotiation. Ia m discussing a situation in which one party is acting as a bad faith negotator or adverse party. In these situations, the goal of finding the best price goes a little bit differently than of if is addressing someone who is a good faith actor- even if the relationship is expected to continue.

Finally, le tme link to something that BTD also mentions as someone who has (as I remember experience with business):

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/2/11/ 13334/6721

by bruh3 2009-02-11 12:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

I read your comments.  I disagree with some of your points.  That's not a failure of reading comprehension -- that's a substantive opinion.  

1.  Polling -- I think the phrasing of the question is pretty fair, actually, and quite on point.  Your proposal, in contrast, puts the rabbit in the hat.  

2.  Economists -- you overstate the consensus on what the right number is.  There IS consensus that we need to do something, but not regarding what that something ought to be.  

3.  Negotiating -- I'm an attorney, so settlement negotiations are a big part of what I do.  Moreover, I served as a law clerk for 12 months, during which time I observed settlement conferences on a weekly basis.  Some of which involved parties that weren't negotiating in good faith.  So to the extent we disagree, it's not because I'm ignorant on the topic.  It is because reasonable people can and do in fact disagree.  

by HSTruman 2009-02-11 12:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

a) how can you disagree and then totally misconscrue what I actually wrote? Saying you disagree requires understanding, but when someone tells me I said one thing, and it's the oppose of what they are claiming- I question whether they understand what I said.

b) What you think of the polling is irrelevant. The issue is whether the polling allows anyone to come to the conclusions you have. The answer is no. I stated the reasons why. because the polling is not testing strategies. it's testing personality.

c) I do not overstate the economists position of how much it should be. You have provided no evidence other than again your own view. provide some links and I will see what I think.

d) If you are used to dealing with people not negotiating in good faith- then i w ould love to know how what Obama is doing relates to that behaivor. To the extent we disagree is that you aren't explaining how you arrive at your position at all. You simply say its your position. reasonable people can disagree with them provide reasoning.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 03:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Have you considered the possibility that perhaps people misconstrue what you've written because you didn't write clearly enough?  

The polling question doesn't test personalities, that's just silly.  If you want to argue that there is consensus that we need a bigger bill, feel free to send me some links.  

Otherwise, lets drop this.  You often post some interesting things, but I also think you can be very difficult to have a conversation with.  Which is a shame.  

by HSTruman 2009-02-12 03:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

I also see that you ignored the link about the specifics about the negotation.

Anyway, I am getting tired of arguing with people over this. There is clear there's nothin behind what you are saying other than you believe. So I am going to leave it at that. I got real stuff I need to be doing here on out, and got to leave politics alone for a while.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 03:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Leave politics alone for a while?

It's too good to be true.

by DTOzone 2009-02-11 05:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Leave politics alone for a while?

No- leave arguing with folks just like yourself. Time will prove me right. Having been around politics that's the unfortunate reality. That what I am seeing is not new. It's just a new flavor of the same thing I saw with Clinton.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 06:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
There's that know it all attitude we've

all come to love.

by DTOzone 2009-02-13 03:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Please, don't apply logic and reason. Some people here can't seem to handle it. They want outrage because they know Obama really wanted 1 trillion even though he has never said that. But these people know it, so they also know Obama failed.

Seriously, I enjoyed reading your comments.

by Lolis 2009-02-11 12:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

the point of the link is to discuss the realities of the  negotiations. That much of it was about pscyhology of the placers. That if you understand the goal of centrism is to appear 'centrist" then if Obama had started at a higher number or lower- they would have cut and moved around based on that lower or higher number. The decision about what that higher or lower number was- seems to have been a decision obama could have made listening, again to the players.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 12:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Incidentally if I sensed at any moment he was willing to expend political capital, I would be willing to give hm a lot more slack. But I have mostly been hearing about political cover and the associated  excuses since that point have beena bout the same thing.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 10:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Expending political capital

Obama has been reluctant to do this.  Jim Martin would have voted for the stimulus; Saxby Chambliss votes for nothing worthwhile.  Al Franken won the election and here we are inmid-February without him.  

I can't help wondering if a little more connection and campaigning for Democrats down the stretch might have picked up some seats (IL-10, where Obama got 61% and Republican Mark Kirk was re-elected just screams out as do some of the California districts carried by Obama).  How bout Obama-Esch voters in Omaha rather than the Obama Terry advertised by the GOP.

Ask Marty Meehan.  Unused political capital is not worth much.  

by David Kowalski 2009-02-11 11:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Expending political capital

In fairness, I don't expect Obama to have done more than he did during the GE. That was a time period where he was also running for  ofifice. So he put out as much effort as he could. That's a lo tmor esubject. What's not subjective is that he should have waited until this week to go on the road for his plan, he did not show a willingess to use his base to push for it, etc. Totally absent was the public in this until late in the process. This is what I mean by political capital.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 12:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Expending political capital

They all do more if they are clearly winning.  Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, LBJ.  The last two weeks should have been reallocated to gain another Senate seat or two and some House seats.  We need those votes.  A few trips to Georgia and one to Minnesota would have done a world of good.  

And yes, he had the money to do a sudden spurt of advertising, field work, etc.

Hind sight is 20/20 but "normal practice" would have helped.

by David Kowalski 2009-02-11 03:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Expending political capital

my only point is that obama's a politician. thus, i see him accordingly. That's why I keep saying to people who say the stimulus is based on what we could get collectively versus what Obama was willing to get as a politician don't get it. It's based on the fact that Obama's first goal is protecting Obama. That's why he's not willing to expend capital. I mean- why should he? We require nothing of him. You can see that in quite a few posters here. If we require nothing of him. He's not going to give it. I saw this as I said above once before with Clinton. Pretty much triangulation by another name. We got a bunch of people who think this is just the begining. But I expect this to just be the norm.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 06:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Expending political capital

i am writing critically sorry- the point is we should not expect obama to do more than triangulate here on out because that's all we say we collectively want from him. there will be a plenty of people who will say I am wrong. but I am going to just trust my instincts and move on.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 06:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Expending political capital

jesus- critically- should read cryptically.

by bruh3 2009-02-11 06:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

I imagine the final number would have been somewhat different.

I can also imagine that it would have been filibustered, and failed.

Imagine how that would have been.  

by lojasmo 2009-02-11 10:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
It was filibustered and failed

that whole amendment process was really a filibuster...gave enough time for the media to go on it's "pro-GOP talking points" marathon.

by DTOzone 2009-02-11 05:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

They cut out most of the republican ammendments from republicans who didn't (and won't) vote for the bill.

Karma is a, well, you know what...

Bravo!

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-11 10:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

Anyone know if Feinstein's anti Net Neutrality agenda made it into the final bill?   God, I really hate that woman at times.

by yitbos96bb 2009-02-11 11:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

She's 75.  Age imposes some limits on her Senate future.  Four democrats are over 80: Byrd (91), Lautenberg (85), Akaka (84) and Inouye (84).

It's a safe seat from a liberal state.  The push to the center is internal, not political.  I don't see why she's popular except she's been around forever.

by David Kowalski 2009-02-11 11:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

I'm trying to think of the times I like her..

She was a total enabler of Bush and Cheney's taxi to the dark side, and she is an obstructionist to finding out where the bodies are buried, who did what and when...

I hope she doesn't run again. Good riddance.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-11 11:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Stimulus Getting Smaller

If a lot of the spending was put back in, and the big cut is homebuyer tax break, then I don't have many gripes.  I think this is about what they wanted.  I suspect Obama's team told him they needed $800 billon, so they asked for $900 billion and ended up about on target.

by Dan Kervick 2009-02-11 11:35AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------