US Congress Passes Stimulus Bill on Party-Line Votes

The US Congress on Friday passed a $787 billion stimulus package. Not a single Republican voted for it in the House and only three in the Senate. The Obama administration's attempt at bipartisanship, while noble in intent, failed to recognize one simple fact; the GOP has no political interest in cooperating. If the economy improves before the 2010 elections, the Democrats will get the credit because they have the White House. If not, the Democrats will get the blame. Under these circumstances, a “no” vote is the only sensible thing for a Republican to do.

A significant factor in all of this is the decimation of the Republican Party's moderate wing. Actually, decimation is too gentle a word. The point is that there are few GOP moderates left in Congress who would have an interest in working with the administration. The Democrats were far too successful in picking them off in 2006 and 2008. Former Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island is a fine example of this. He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, likes environmental regulations and the estate tax. He voted against the war in Iraq-Nam while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voted for it. He is also in favor of the Patriot Act, free trade in general and supports partial privatization of Social Security. In short, he was liberal in places and conservative in others. He lost his re-election bid 53% to 47%.

At the same time, the argument about bipartisanship over-shadowed what the Congress has sent to the president for his signature. A $787 billion spending and investment bill in less than a month is an astonishing achievement. It is also a sign that a great many in Washington are terrified of further economic hardship. Many complained (mostly Republicans) that they had no time to read the final bill. This is somewhat disingenuous because the main points of the bill were settled two weeks prior to the final vote. Very little had changed in the conference committee.

The bill breaks down about 64% spending and 36% tax cuts. Naturally, the Republicans would have preferred the reverse, but who won the November elections? The spending portion is largely aid to state and local governments with a sizable minority being direct federal spending. For economists, the bill could have offered a real-life experiment in the benefits of spending versus lower taxes. As it is, the mixture is too even to really truly test hypotheses.

The bill, unfortunately, isn't big enough to fix things on its own. The banking system remains a mess. Moreover, economists estimate that anywhere from $1-2 trillion of consumer demand will vanish during 2009-2010. The government may well have to consider a supplementary spending package. One wonders whether the Republicans will have a reason to back such.

© Copyright 2009 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home