About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Party Over Country, Economy, You

by: Dean Barker

Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 18:52:39 PM EST


Maybe now we can stop taking things out of bills they had no intention of voting for in the first place?

Not even in more moderate Republican New England could they get a single GOP vote for the stimulus.

Oh, wait. I forgot.  There are no New England House Republicans anymore. And with actions like this, is there any wonder, really?

At least we know now that it's the official Republican party position to do nothing in the face of the worst economy since the Great Depression.  That will make the voting easier in 2010 and 2012.

Update: Scratch that - House Republicans aren't completely a do-nothing outfit.  They did spend yesterday taking photos with the President while he wasted his valuable time trying to reason with them.

Dean Barker :: Party Over Country, Economy, You
Of course both of our Reps voted for the Recovery bill.  Here's Paul Hodes' statement:
Congressman Hodes Supports Economic Recovery Package

Washington, DC--- Congressman Paul Hodes today voted for the economic recovery package that will help create over 22,000 new jobs for New Hampshire, bring millions of dollars for infrastructure and road improvements, and provide tax cuts for small businesses and middle class families. The measure passed by a vote of 244-188.

Congressman Hodes released the following statement after the vote.

"We face the toughest economic challenge of our generation and hard working middle class families need help. This legislation creates millions of jobs.  It will give Main Street the jump start it needs by investing in building infrastructure like roads, bridges and schools; providing tax cuts to small businesses so they can hire more employees, and putting a down payment on our future by investing in education.  It will also help state and local governments invest in projects around New Hampshire that will help create jobs forGranite Staters.

While I am disappointed that my amendment to give cold weather states like New Hampshire additional time for road construction was not considered, I will continue to work to have the provision included.

This legislation is the right first step toward rebuilding our economy and helping middle class families across this country to recover from the economic disaster we face. Most importantly, it will create millions of jobs that Americans need and deserve."

And here's Carol Shea-Porter:

Shea-Porter Hails Final Passage of Economic Recovery Package

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter voted for final passage of the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.  This recovery package, which is expected to be signed into law by President Obama, will help jumpstart our economy, create millions of new jobs, and provide broad tax cuts for working Americans.

"This recovery package will create and protect New Hampshire jobs, build and repair local infrastructure and provide help for New Hampshire families and communities," said Congresswoman Shea-Porter. "I urge my colleagues in the Senate to swiftly pass this important piece of legislation."    

The American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will:

·       create and save 3 to 4 million jobs;

·       give 95% of working Americans an immediate tax cut;

·       invest quickly into the economy to get it moving again-75% of the package will be paid out in the first 18 months;

·       double our nation's renewable energy production;

·       help rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, and bring high speed Internet to every community;

·       invest in research and development to secure America's role as a world leader in a competitive global economy;

·       protect vital services like law enforcement, education, health care, and nutrition assistance for families who now find they are struggling to make ends meet, and

·       help those who have been hurt the most by the economic crisis by extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamp benefits, and making it easier for those who lose their jobs to keep their health insurance.

The American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will benefit New Hampshire in the following ways:

·       Highways and Bridges: $137 million

·       Clean Water SRF: $58 million

·       Head Start: $1.3 million

·       Employment and Training: $4.1 million

·       Energy Assistance: $7.7 million

·       Elderly Nutrition Services: $1 million

This plan provides strong oversight, an historic degree of public transparency, and includes no earmarks. It will also save or create an estimated 22,000 jobs in New Hampshire by the end of 2010.  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If tax cuts (4.00 / 1)
and supply side economic policy works the way the GOP says it works, than why are we in this mess?  

Susan! (4.00 / 1)
You are expecting logic from House Republicans???  Are you feeling okay?  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

[ Parent ]
heavens no, Kathy! (4.00 / 1)
I just keep hoping one of 'em will actually try to explain it.  

[ Parent ]
Why do we have (0.00 / 0)
more dumb tax cuts in a bill without GOP support? To me, that's the more worrisome question.

[ Parent ]
Not nearly enough on infrastructure, too much wasteful tax hole-digging, but we need something. (4.00 / 1)
I'm frustrated, though, that compromises were made with Republicans about reasonable things that they turned into talking points, and then unanimously voted against the thing in the end anyway.

Here's one: revitalizing the National Mall--which, in case they hadn't noticed, is a two mile-long national park, not a shopping center.  And it could use the revitalizing, but that's not the point.  Just because it's near the Capitol doesn't mean it's throwing away money.  People in the District of Columbia need jobs too.

The President has a Brutus problem on this bill; he operates very maturely and is willing to reach across party lines and make difficult compromises, but the other side is just playing games and taking advantage of his good will.  They watered down the bill, making it a worse proposal than it was, and though he didn't have to, he let them, as a show of good will.  And they voted against anyway.

The President gains good will with the public, and maybe with Senate Republicans.  If it fails, he gets to say it's because he made compromises with the other side and their ideas were bad.  But the fact remains that there's less money for things that make sense and a lot more money for things that don't, and it we could have gotten there with a much better bill and not a vote less.

I think there's value to what President Obama is doing, and I'm not against the thing as a whole, but I wish he hadn't allowed so much damage to be done to the bill.


Maybe some of the Republican tax cuts will disappear in the final version of the bill (4.00 / 1)
The bill goes to the Senate, where we will see what kind of support it gets from the GOP. If it gets little , and more importantly if the support it does get is not dependent on the tax cuts, they will disappear in the conference committee to iron out the inevitable differences in the versions of the bill.


[ Parent ]
I hope you're right. (0.00 / 0)
But I'm inclined to think Senate Republicans--who are much, much more powerful than House Republicans, and frankly, McConnell is being more reasonable than Boehner and Cantor as of late--will be ready to deal, and a significant number of them will vote for the bill, maybe even watering it down further to do so.  And whether or not that happens, I'm concerned it won't be fixed in conference.

Tax cuts and stimulus checks don't stimulate the economy.  They have no multiplier effect, because they only come once, and people put them toward their credit card debt.  Republicans can scream fiscal responsibility all they want (despite 28 years of turning the world's greatest creditor nation into the world's greatest debtor with a federal government debt 1/5 of all the money in the world), but the fact remains that they whine about budget deficits from Democratic spending proposals and their remedy to those deficits is to make them bigger by cutting taxes.  That is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  On top of all that, because of selfish, short-sighted, and intellectually dishonest politicking on their part, we can never raise taxes in this country, because there's no political will, it's too dangerous.  Well sometimes taxes need to go up to pay for things.  And some of those things are things Republicans wanted.  Like unnecessary wars.

I'm all for negotiating for bipartisan support.  But don't give away the store when you don't have to.  And if you're not going to get a single Republican vote anyway, pass a bill without their bad ideas.

[/rant]


[ Parent ]
Flashback (4.00 / 1)
West Wing flashback.

When President Bartlett goes to Congress to talk about the budget, all the cameras followed him while the Republicans dragged their feet, and looked liked idiots.


Party over Party (4.00 / 1)
Their strategy is self-defeating.

What a Bunch of Bartleby (4.00 / 1)
Republicans were the party of "no" during the No Administration.  Why would we expect them to change for the Yes Administration?  Like Bartleby the Scrivener, they "prefer" not to.

Perhaps we can save time with "What a Bunch of Bartlebys!"


Conference Committee (0.00 / 0)
Not sure how possible this is, but can we screw them back in conference committee? Rip out their idiotic provisions and add a couple of our own?





I've been wondering - (0.00 / 0)
Is there a rule or tradition that you must have supported a bill, to be named to the conference committee? That would seem reasonable - why entrust an opponent to refine it? If so we'll have an all-Blue House conference committee...

[ Parent ]
Conference committees, at (0.00 / 0)
least at the state level (may be different in DC), are where the disagreeing chambers come to negotiate. The negotiators are supposed to represent their respective bodies. For example, if the House voted for a bill, you wouldn't put someone on the committee who voted against it because it wouldn't be the House's position (and vice-versa). If both chambers voted for a bill, but different versions, the respective committee members would be arguing for the version coming out of their chamber.

 


[ Parent ]
That's what they do, all right - (0.00 / 0)
at the federal level too. But whether there is ever an opponent of the bill on the conference committee is less clear. Over on dKos, KagroX says he will try to track that down.

The committee member is not necessarily "arguing for the version" from his/her chamber. In some cases the House will have rushed the bill to the Senate in hopes of seeing some improvements. In most cases both chambers will expect some tradeoffs - they may not want the Strongest Advocate for their language, but rather the shrewdest negotiator.

I can even imagine cases where it might make sense to invite someone who opposed the original bill. Example: "I wish I could support this omnibus transportation bill, but I can't without inter-city rail changes." The Senate adds one flavor of inner-city rail and includes some other provisions that will cost House votes - our reluctant No vote may be just what we need.

There must be some standard practice for selecting members...


[ Parent ]
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox