How is the party with the clear advantage put on the defensive? Probably because President Obama was insistent upon “reaching across the aisle” – which while honorable – opened the Democrats up to political attack. It would seem to me that the skeleton crew of Republicans remaining after the massive Democratic victory in November, are those who are the most ideologically opposed to any Democratic initiative. After all, Republicans in conservative strongholds were unlikely to lose their seats, meaning that most of the casualties were the more moderate in the party.
Therefore, President Obama would be more reaching across a chasm than an aisle. And really, bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake is absurd. The Democrats won handily, which signaled an ideological shift amongst the electorate, and left no real need for bipartisanship. The voters elected to place the future – at least temporarily – in the hands of the Democrats, in the hope that they would at least do things differently than the previous administration. It’s my opinion anyway, that partisanship is an unavoidable consequence of having parties at all, and I’d just as soon seem them dissolved.
Bipartisanship, in any case, would require a “reaching” from both sides, and in spite of President Obama’s efforts, it is pretty clear that most sitting Republicans had no real intention of doing so. They are probably still in the process of licking their wounds and attempting to repair their damaged pride – and be damned if they were going to concede any further victory to Democrats in the way of compromise. That much is obvious in how they used minor flaws in the House bill to criticize the overall initiative. Furthermore, there is the irony of criticizing spending while advocating for sweeping tax cuts, both of which amount to the same thing – a massive and sustained national debt. Both spending and reducing taxes bring about similar, if not the same results – and the Republicans’ proposed tax cuts would near triple the Democrats’ projected spending in a few years.
Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are two separate bills – the House version and the Senate version – which while they overlap considerably, will require some serious reconciliation before a final version can reach the President’s desk. The Senate version, which initially raised the overall tab to more than $900 billion, has since been trimmed down in another attempt at compromise between Democrats and the few remaining moderates amongst the Republicans. While some of those cuts came from the more extraneous provisions of the bill, a sizeable portion came from the bedrock of the Democratic agenda – most lamentably, funding for education.
So as I said in the beginning, the only thing that’s clear about the stimulus is that nothing is clear. Hardly anyone can agree – with differences appearing between economists, along party lines, within parties along ideological lines (liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative) and even between the two houses of Congress. Personal interests taint if not fully steer any motivations for supporting or opposing the legislation – Democrats stuffing it with agenda items, Republicans fighting it to make a political point, and individuals within each party arguing to ensure their own priorities are adequately represented in the final version. All of this superseding the purpose of the bill – to stimulate the economy.
With all of this bickering and maneuvering and chaos, how is anyone – most of all the average citizen – to make any sense of this debacle? Because hardly anyone can agree, and because even economists – the presumed experts on the subject – can only speculate on the outcomes of any stimulus bill, we can only follow in the politicians’ footsteps, and evaluate the merits of the bill through the lens of those issues that are most important. For those few of us who support ideology before candidates, and try to remove ourselves from partisan bickering, it would seem to be the only option.
«
