Broder's latest

Sounds like a serious charge. What exactly were these oh-so-productive and highly useful "compromises" that the Republicans were generously and patriotically offering to "improve" the economic recovery bill? Broder doesn't say. This is a rather crucial point if Broder is to make the case that compromise is necessary. How can citizens decide whether compromise is needed if we have no idea what one of the sides is offering?

As it turns out, what was being offered was essentially tax cuts. On MSNBC Live, CNBC host Erin Burnett stated that conservative icon Rush Limbaugh offered "serious ideas" on the issue and proceeded to name " 'cutting the corporate tax' and 'slashing capital gains [taxes]' ", after which Media Matters quotes economists examining such ideas and awarding them a failing grade. Very usefully, the piece shows a chart giving us the relative efficacy of various proposals. Giving the proposal "Cut in corporate tax rate" a "score" of 1:0.30 means that if the US cuts the corporate tax rate, it will sacrifice one dollar that would otherwise go to the Treasury in return for 30 cents worth of economic stimulus. A "score" of 1:1.59 for "Increased infrastructure spending" means that for a dollar spent on that item, the US gets $1.59 worth of economic stimulus back.

A member of the American Enterprise Institute think tank made precisely the same point in a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer ("Obama must grab the U.S. mood" Feb 1), namely that Democrats should make unspecified compromises in order to get Republican support for the economic recovery bill. Nothing wrong with a columnist using Republican talking points without bothering to even talk to the majority party that dominates both chambers and runs the White House, but it's a rather obvious giveaway when blatantly partisan talking points are so seamlessly lifted from one source to another.

Broder also makes a very interesting statement later on in his piece when he talks about:

Okay, so there's a real rush here and the rush is not entirely due to Democrats using their "control of legislative procedures" to hurry the other side along. Again, this gives the impression that this article is a hurried cut-and-paste job, copied almost verbatim from Republican talking points.

This certainly sounds to me like President Obama intended to try and "break the partisan gridlock," but he doesn't "promise" to do any such thing. He very definitely expresses it as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself.

What I really remember was Obama promising to do specific things that George W. Bush and John McCain were strongly opposed to, such as to get American troops out of Iraq, to fix America's then-looming economic crisis and to restore America's moral place in the world by stopping torture and closing Guantanamo. One of the more effective lines in the campaign was that McCain was seeking to do "Bush's third term." Obviously, this line was effective precisely because Americans were not looking for Democrats and Republicans to be nice to each other and agree with each other about everything. Sure, it'd be nice to get the other side of the aisle to vote for an effective economic recovery, but I think most Americans would rather see a good bill with no Republican votes than a bad bill with Republican votes. Broder then states that

The first way leads to long-term success; the second foretells the early loss of control.

Erm, Clinton "lost control" because Republicans under Newt Gingrich took an extraordinarily partisan approach to governing, spending enormous amounts of time investigating non-stories such as Whitewater and later demonstrating screeching hysteria over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, an extremely trivial, low-grade scandal that would not have warranted even being publicly mentioned a few short decades ago. Sorry, but the lessons history teaches often can't fit neatly onto a bumper sticker the way Broder clearly wants this example to.

sounds to me like these House Republican are guilty of the charge "Dereliction of Duty." If they voted against an urgently needed bill because they wanted to quibble over a few details or because their tender sensibilities were bruised, they need to simply quit their jobs and hand them over to people who are capable of doing them. To play such juvenile games with an economic crisis is...wow!

David Broder is obviously just cutting-and-pasting without any real thought or concern for what he's writing. Can he please retire now? There's a rocking chair on a porch with his name on it.

Comments

Pagkage

Submitted by jon peppers (not verified) on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 12:35pm

I've been watching the news on CNN and Fox this morning and both have stated there are questionable "earmarks" and frivolous spending attached such as $50 million for the "Arts", $240 Million for new Furniture for Homeland Security etc. I believe any elected official, Republican or Democrat should REALLY look at this as not another pork project and I believe that's what they are doing today.

jon pisano

The WPA Arts Project

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 2:14pm

A buddy of mine responded to a piece in the Inky today with:

"Apparently, Lott has no memory of the flowering of arts which occurred with the WPA Arts Project, and the payoff which resulted in marketable product for the next forty years."

Major problem with the debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is that Republicans and their enablers in the traditional media have absolutely no interest in clarifying for the American public just what constitutes a stimulus. The result is that we have people getting up and saying "This isn't stimulus, it's pork!" In quite a few cases, we're talking about money that could have a very positive effect on the economy.

$5.2 Billion For ACORN is national suicide

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 4:26pm

Hwo did we get here?

Because the "community activists" in ACORN went to the homes of bank Presidents with school buses full of angry, threatening people who called them racsists and demanded "social responsibility" which in fact led to loans that should not have been made to people who were not in a position to borrow.

So in the name of "social justice" we ALL got screwed.

Our capitalist system may not be perfect, but it has resulted in the the greater good for the most people ever.

Now we have have the promise, hope and change to a program of Trickle Down Poverty.

Life isn't fair, life is tough and it's tougher when you do not understand how the world works.

Calling Opponent a "Nazi" Means YOU LOSE

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 4:34pm

That's basic internet etiquette. First one to spaz out and call the other side a Nazi because they can't conduct a reasoned respectful debate automatically loses.

In fact, I believe it's a "law" that people often cite.

PS: Lewinsky was not about a BJ. It was about BJC lying to the court while under oath in order to deny jusutice to a woman (Jones) who wanted her day in court in front of a jury to decide to decide whether BJC sexually harassed her.

That is her Constitutional right and by lying, BJC denied her her rights.

BJC lied to fix a court case. Isn't denying you your Constitutional rights the definition of a police state?

BJC?

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 6:48pm

Oh.
Ha.
Ha.
Ha.
Bill Jefferson Clinton.
How clever.
Kinda like calling someone "Tommy Reginald Kingsworth."
Dude, he's either William Jefferson Clinton or he's Bill Clinton.

From a letter in today's Inky

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 6:16pm

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090206_Letters__One_Reader_s_View.html

"...there is no specific money for ACORN in the stimulus package.

"There is $4.2 billion for buying, rehabbing and selling abandoned and foreclosed houses. ...

"ACORN is not mentioned anywhere"

If you have no argument

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 9:22am

If you can't refute facts make some stupid statement about the persons name and how it is either this, or that.

Not much of an argument there

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 10:13am

The "clever" twisting of a former president's name is about the most substantive point in the post. I just found it pathetically obvious that the commenter was trying to work the two letters "B" and "J" into Clinton's name.
I'll be happy to respond to a serious argument in a serious manner.

Yeah fact is BJC lied to fix a court case....

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 9:51pm

And the letter about ACORN is a riot.

The fact is that the provisions of the program fit only one organization, ACORN.

ACORN got about $750 million a year back in 2000, the last year I checked. Which was typical "progressive" hypocrisy because ACORN has a street theater group "Billionaires For Bush and Gore" going around during that election.

ACORN are thugs who will go to people's homes with a mob. Hell one protest they even used school buses from either Chicago or Detroit to travel to DC. So the little bastards stole from children, school children.

ACORN

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 12:04am

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901270010?f=h_latest

"A San Francisco Chronicle article reported the false claim that $4.19 billion of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan "would go to the liberal housing activist group ACORN." In fact, the bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding."
-------
"The provision requires that money will be distributed through competitive processes. It states that, "not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition" to "States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities." It also provides that "up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance."

"The $4.19 billion will be distributed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Neighborhood Stabilization Program. "

As to Billionaires For Bush being associated with ACORN, the http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/ reports that a fellow named Andrew Boyd works for both groups. That appears to be the extent of the association. Not really sure why opposing a politician who hates you (Constituents of ACORN typically makes less than $250,000 a year, meaning they're not within Bush's definition of worthy human beings*) demonstrates hypocrisy.

*"Jim, I don't understand poor people. I've never lived with poor people or been around poor people much. I don't understand what they think and feel about a lot of things."
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/64535/bush_to_america%27s_poor:_i%27m_just_not_that_into_you/

BTW

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 3:53pm

I checked with the website for the Employment Policies Institute, a hard-line pro-business and very anti-ACORN site. It's funny, but their publication "Rotten Acorn" doesn't mention anything about "thuggery," "mobs" or anything of that nature. Y'all have any sources on that or are you just repeating talk radio propaganda?

Remember All Your BusHitler BS???

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 9:53pm

"If you can't refute facts make some stupid statement about the persons name and how it is either this, or that."

You clowns don't take your own advice, why should ANYONE else?

Gardner Lies

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 12:08am

I didn't say "Billionaires For Bush". I said "Billionaires For Bush and Gore".

And that was around the Bush/Gore election timeframe.

ACORN consists of numerous groups and when you add up the federal funding it is billions. Multiple billions over just a few years.

So to mock your political opponents as "Billionaires" is The Big Lie and the height of hypocrisy.

To mock Republicans

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 10:45am

by tarring them all with the brush of "Billionaires" is called "hyperbole" and to get all stressed out about that is to be excessively sensitive. To describe the use of such hyperbole as "Big Lie" is to be running down the middle of the street, naked, waving your arms and screaming, absolutely hysterical.
The essential fact of the matter is that Republicans favor the rich and have done so for a very long time.

ACORN CHEATS ITS' WORKERS

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 12:14am

ACORNS's big claim to fame is that they work for increases to the Federal minimum wage, lacking that, having state and local government implement their own minimum wage requirement which is higher than the Federal minimum wage.

Whe your employer doesn't, you go to the National Labor Relation Board's Wage and Hour folks and file a complaint.

Guess who was brought up before NRLB Wage & Hour and fined because they failed to pay the Federal Minimum Wage...ACORN!

And ACORN let people work under unsafe conditions.

A look at ACORN's home page

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 11:14am

http://www.acorn.org/

shows no mention of the Federal Minimum Wage. They have indeed called for a "living wage," but that's a local issue that may, in turn, effect Federal law. As a group of "community organizers," Federal law is obviously not their focus.

http://www.rocklandbusiness.org/newsletter/2006newsletters/newsletter_livingWage080305.htm

includes a sidebar where many accusations against ACORN are reviewed. My evaluation is that all of the accusations are accurate, but that all of them should be explored further before being accepted as the complete and current truth.

Mock This Gardner, You're a Liar

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 12:01am

I saw the ACORN version myself and that was reported on at the time by the media.

Here's something to mock you as an uninformed Kool Aid Freebaser, not a drinker, a guy who mainlines it undisolved in a vein.

Go to the big money contributors, the 527s. You can tell by the organization what side they fall on. Let's see who the top 10 527s in terms of $$$ are and what political side they support.

Let's see who the biggest 527 contributors are and what organizations they contribute to.

It will be overwhelmingly liberal. So your claim the rich supports Republicans, it's just so much bull Gardner.

OpensSecrets is a good place to obtain the money going to 527s and who gave it.

You're the one who everyone will know is telling the Big Lie as soon as they work the numbers.

You don't even have a clue how much the two candidates spent in the last election. Research that and get back to us on what side spent who.

Are you trying to suggest

Submitted by Rich Gardner on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 12:17am

that 527s are the ONLY means by which wealthy contributors can influence politics? Seems to me that Verizon gave lots nd lots of money to the Democratic convention last year and hey wow! Surprise! Surprise! Democrats soft-pedaled the idea of punishing telephone companies for warrantless wiretapping! Amazing how that happens!
Obama's campaign depended much less on wealthy contributors than McCain's campaign did, but yeah, about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of his campaign cash came from people making contributions of $250 or more.
I'm aware that the combined campaigns of both sides got up to around a billion dollars this last year. If you think that Democrats are the only ones benefiting from rich peoples' contributions, you're living in a fantasyland.

Recent Posts by Rich Gardner

Recent Similar Articles