Not a single Republican vote on the House giant hog package. Democrats are disappointed, but all things considered, more slop for them. Politically though, they are on their own. The usual term for blowing it big time in Washington is called "overreach". Out here in America, we just call it greed. A stimulus package without economically stimulating elements is doomed to failure and there is one thing no amount of media cheerleading can ever overcome--millions of empty American wallets.
I was actually surprised by the Republican solidarity, particularly in light of the view that while they have official leadership, they don't have a charismatic leader to rally them to a particular vision. It surprised the Democrats as well.
Some Democrats seemed surprised that no Republicans voted for the measure.“Not one person felt his or her district needed to have any of this assistance?†Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, asked of the Republicans. “That can’t be.â€
I found that statement very interesting. DeLauro--thinking like a typical Democrat pol, thought that the prospect of goodies for the constituents would tip Republicans over to their side, apparently forgetting that this was specifically what led to the Republican defeat in 2006. I suspect under different circumstances, some may have been tempted, but what the monolithic 'no' vote was really a wager of the program's failure and the prospect of perhaps returning to power in the next 2-4 years.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Republican congressman--breadcrumbs for the table for the rest of your political career, or a good chance at regaining the drivers seat with far fewer senior Republicans in line ahead of you?
At the end of the day, its a very convincing sign that the pig won't fly.
Here's why the Democrats should worry.
The failure to win Republican support in the House seemed to echo the early months of the last Democratic administration, when President Bill Clinton in 1993 had to rely solely on Democrats to win passage of a deficit-reduction bill that was a signature element of his presidency.
Let we forget, the next year Congress changed hands. Its not a commentary on the deficit-reduction bill, but rather on the political winds that create such polarized voting patterns. It alarming for Democrats, and some are doing their best to whistle past the graveyard.
I don’t think the analogy holds up.1. The Obama stimulus package is popular. A May 25, 1993 Gallup poll pegged support for Clinton’s plan at 44 percent, and opposition at 45 percent. The Democratic House narrowly supported the plan two days later. But the final Gallup poll before yesterday’s House vote put support for President Obama’s plan at 52 percent, with opposition at only 37 percent. Even a flawed Republican poll on the stimulus (which suggests that tax cuts are more popular than spending, ignoring the fact that the stimulus includes both) revealed that most voters, panicking about the economy, support the stimulus package.
Yes, a "stimulus" package is popular, but we don't have a stimulus package, we have a pork barbecue festival. Its not even arguable--look at the bill the House passed. Can I remind you that the Democrats did far more electoral damage with far less in 2006? This isn't some minor bill passed in the dead of night--its the Messiah's attempt at raising the Lazarus economy, and if Lazarus don't walk, the Crats will be outlined in chalk.
2. Clinton wasn’t popular; Obama is. As Michael Crowley points out, Clinton was already reeling from scandals and missteps by May 1993, when the budget vote was held. His popularity had dipped below 50 percent, and in some polls his net approval rating had inched into negative territory. Clinton’s Democrats were less popular than Obama’s Democrats—while Clinton was beating President George H.W. Bush, the party was losing seats in the House Banking Scandal backlash. Obama is cresting in the mid-60s or low-70s, depending on the poll, the Democrats have gained ground in two consecutive elections, and voter identification with the Democrats is soaring.
Ask not if a President is popular or unpopular, ask why. Obama is popular because of the expectations he's created. Every president whose had an 80% approval rating, eventually finds himself in the low thirties. I'll remind everyone that George W. Bush was at one point--more popular than Barack Obama. After 9/11, expectations climbed and he went from the mid-fifties to the high eighties. Absent WMDs were a hit, so was Katrina. When Presidents don't perform, or aren't perceived to be performing, the take a public opinion hit. The 335 million for birth control was a colossal mistake, and tainted the entire bill. There is no media cover either. The fact that all the Republicans voted against it fairly mandates that the media ask the uncomfortable question of why that was so, giving them a podium to make the case that this is planetoid-sized earmark.
3. The Clinton budget raised taxes; the Obama stimulus doesn’t. I think this is the most important distinction. The Clinton budget reconciliation increased income taxes, raised the corporate tax rate to 35 percent, and raised the gas tax by 4.3 cents per gallon. Basically, every American paid more taxes after the budget was passed. The Obama stimulus package doesn’t raise anyone’s taxes. It includes $275 billion of tax cuts. Are they poorly designed? Arguably. But they’re tax cuts! I literally cannot remember a time when the entire Republican conference in either house voted against tax cuts. In that Republican poll mentioned above, upwards of 60 percent of voters want tax cuts right now.
You've no doubt heard the expression, "distinction without a difference". This is a case where the distinctions don't make a difference. If the last four elections proved anything, its that politics is about "big facts". Republicans killed in 2002 because terrorism was the "big fact". Democrats won in 2006 because Iraq, Katrina and the "culture of corruption" were the big facts. There where hundreds of arguments--good ones too, that mitigated these facts, but it didn't matter.
Tax cuts were a big fact in the 90s--they are not now. The big fact is as the Clintonistas used the say, "the economy stupid!" We know how to stimulate the economy--Bush did it twice successfully. This isn't stimulus--its economic Katrina.
Never in my life have I ever witnessed an administration commit suicide in the first month in office.
