Why are the republicans against the stimulus?
February 16, 2009 10:28 AM Subscribe
Why did the majority of Republicans vote against the stimulus package?
Seems like such a simple question, but not an easy one to find an answer. Especially a non-biased answer.
Seems like such a simple question, but not an easy one to find an answer. Especially a non-biased answer.
Well, the reasoning for any given Republican may be different. But one popular theory runs like this:
If it works, Obama and the Democrats are in power, so they take credit for it anyway, so there's no real advantage to having supported it too.
If it fails, they get to be the one who Told You So, and tried to stop it.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:31 AM on February 16, 2009
If it works, Obama and the Democrats are in power, so they take credit for it anyway, so there's no real advantage to having supported it too.
If it fails, they get to be the one who Told You So, and tried to stop it.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:31 AM on February 16, 2009
So when the economy is still struggling two years from now (as it may well be), they can can point and say "look! the democratic economic plan didn't work! Vote us back into power if you really want to fix this mess!"
posted by chrisamiller at 10:31 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by chrisamiller at 10:31 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Isn't it possible they each had different reasons for doing so? It's impossible to know what the "true" reason for a bunch of people doing something, especially if most of them are not even being honest about their own motivations.
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Clarification of above: I'm going entirely from a cynical/political perspective, ignoring ideology. Certainly some number, perhaps many and at least in theory all, really do object to it on principled grounds. Note they're not voting against the idea of a stimulus, just this specific one.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:32 AM on February 16, 2009
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:32 AM on February 16, 2009
I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that the Republicans didn't vote in total and complete lockstep because of dozens of different opinions on the matter.
posted by Aquaman at 10:39 AM on February 16, 2009
posted by Aquaman at 10:39 AM on February 16, 2009
I assume it is because it gives them leverage in other deals. They don't want to give their votes away so the default position of the opposing party should always be, "No, but if you give me..." I don't know why the Democrats don't get this.
posted by 517 at 10:42 AM on February 16, 2009
posted by 517 at 10:42 AM on February 16, 2009
I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that the Republicans didn't vote in total and complete lockstep because of dozens of different opinions on the matter.
Except that your premise is faulty: The Republicans in the House did vote in total and complete lockstep. Not a single one voted for the bill.
The answer is exactly what others have said: If the stimulus works it will help Obama and the Democrats regardless of how many Republicans supported it. But this way if it doesn't work (and it may very well fail for all sorts of reasons) the Republicans can nail it to the Democrats like Martin Luther at the Cathedral door.
posted by Justinian at 10:43 AM on February 16, 2009
Except that your premise is faulty: The Republicans in the House did vote in total and complete lockstep. Not a single one voted for the bill.
The answer is exactly what others have said: If the stimulus works it will help Obama and the Democrats regardless of how many Republicans supported it. But this way if it doesn't work (and it may very well fail for all sorts of reasons) the Republicans can nail it to the Democrats like Martin Luther at the Cathedral door.
posted by Justinian at 10:43 AM on February 16, 2009
Isn't it possible they each had different reasons for doing so?
Theoretically, this is possible. However, there is a member of the House (for both parties) whose express job is to make sure that congressmen vote party line, and as it is clear that several Republican members of the House and Senate indicated that they were inclined to vote for the package but eventually voted against it. To deny the effect of party politics on the individual votes of our Congressman on any bill is naive.
posted by muddgirl at 10:44 AM on February 16, 2009
Theoretically, this is possible. However, there is a member of the House (for both parties) whose express job is to make sure that congressmen vote party line, and as it is clear that several Republican members of the House and Senate indicated that they were inclined to vote for the package but eventually voted against it. To deny the effect of party politics on the individual votes of our Congressman on any bill is naive.
posted by muddgirl at 10:44 AM on February 16, 2009
Listen to Rush or Sean Hannity for a day and you'll get an explanation. If you give any credence to the concept of ideology, Republicans fundamentally reject the idea of government intervention.
Many conservative Republican ideologues argue that Herbert Hoover's Rugged Individualism was truer to American heritage and would have pulled us from the depression faster. World War II, not the New Deal, provided the stimulus to save us from the Depression.
The effects of this particular stimulus package will lead some academics to reevaluate such claims about the Depression.
posted by jefficator at 10:45 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Many conservative Republican ideologues argue that Herbert Hoover's Rugged Individualism was truer to American heritage and would have pulled us from the depression faster. World War II, not the New Deal, provided the stimulus to save us from the Depression.
The effects of this particular stimulus package will lead some academics to reevaluate such claims about the Depression.
posted by jefficator at 10:45 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
After having been beaten thoroughly, most of them represent the most conservative districts. They were probably hearing from their constituents (they loudest of who take their marching order from Limbaugh et al) to vote against it.
posted by goethean at 10:47 AM on February 16, 2009
posted by goethean at 10:47 AM on February 16, 2009
Best answer: According to Arlen Specter, "there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation." A "sizable number," he says, privately favored the stimulus, but refused to publicly support the bill.
posted by Knappster at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Knappster at 10:51 AM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
If there were really a great diversity of opinion among Republicans, then more than 3 of them would have voted for it.
As others have said, the GOP has little to gain if the stimulus works, and much to lose if it doesn't.
The other aspect, as an economist on NPR just this morning said, is that tax cuts have become a "secular religion" for the GOP. If it ain't all tax cuts, they don't like it, regardless of the likely outcome.
posted by adamrice at 10:53 AM on February 16, 2009
As others have said, the GOP has little to gain if the stimulus works, and much to lose if it doesn't.
The other aspect, as an economist on NPR just this morning said, is that tax cuts have become a "secular religion" for the GOP. If it ain't all tax cuts, they don't like it, regardless of the likely outcome.
posted by adamrice at 10:53 AM on February 16, 2009
justinian, I think you misunderstood my statement. I know they voted in total lockstep, I'm just highly skeptical of delmoi's conjecture that they may have had differing reasons for doing so.
posted by Aquaman at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2009
posted by Aquaman at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2009
Best answer: If you want the actual speeches made about the bill, rather than just idle speculation, you can review the Congressional Record to see the speeches made on the floor of the House and the Senate regarding the bill. [Warning: obnoxious each-page-as-an-individual-PDF format.]
To see what dates (and what times on those days) to look at, you can examine the legislative history for H.R. 1 at Thomas [direct, permanent link doesn't seem to be available. Type "H.R. 1" in the seach box, click the "Bill Number" button, then "Search," then click the "All Congressional Actions" link.]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:38 AM on February 16, 2009
To see what dates (and what times on those days) to look at, you can examine the legislative history for H.R. 1 at Thomas [direct, permanent link doesn't seem to be available. Type "H.R. 1" in the seach box, click the "Bill Number" button, then "Search," then click the "All Congressional Actions" link.]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:38 AM on February 16, 2009
Best answer: A: They feel that ALL of the money is needed for short term job creation stimulus.
B: They feel the best way to do that is with tax cuts, and they feel there aren't enough.
C: They feel there was too much pork in the bill. (e.g. money for sex ed, digital t.v.s, etc.)
D: The best chance, seriously, they have for any power is to vote as a block.
E: They must re-establish themselves as the "No Spending" party or risk having no brand.
F: Many simply do not believe that spending ameliorates a recession.
G: The economy will be bad for a long time. Now they can blame Democrats.
I actually think they believe they are fighting for their lives culturally and politically...
posted by xammerboy at 11:51 AM on February 16, 2009
B: They feel the best way to do that is with tax cuts, and they feel there aren't enough.
C: They feel there was too much pork in the bill. (e.g. money for sex ed, digital t.v.s, etc.)
D: The best chance, seriously, they have for any power is to vote as a block.
E: They must re-establish themselves as the "No Spending" party or risk having no brand.
F: Many simply do not believe that spending ameliorates a recession.
G: The economy will be bad for a long time. Now they can blame Democrats.
I actually think they believe they are fighting for their lives culturally and politically...
posted by xammerboy at 11:51 AM on February 16, 2009
I also read somewhere that they have to worry about MORE conservative/insane primary challengers.
The central dictum in Washington is never make a vote you have to explain to your constituency.
posted by troy at 12:45 PM on February 16, 2009
The central dictum in Washington is never make a vote you have to explain to your constituency.
posted by troy at 12:45 PM on February 16, 2009
Mod note: comment removed - DO NOT use this as an opportunity to complain about your favorite republicans - that's totally out of bounds.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:57 PM on February 16, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:57 PM on February 16, 2009
Because they didnt have time to even read the thing? Because nobody had time to read the thing? After finding this out I dont know how anyone could have voted for it.
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 1:54 PM on February 16, 2009
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 1:54 PM on February 16, 2009
After having been beaten thoroughly, most of them represent the most conservative districts. They were probably hearing from their constituents (they loudest of who take their marching order from Limbaugh et al) to vote against it.
That only works for the House. In the Senate they represent the entire state, and several represent states that went for Obama.
Delmoi is right in the sense that certainly some Republicans like Ron Paul and Tom "Dr No" Coburn were simply against it in principle. Certainly some voted against it because they opposed it, either in that form or because of components of it or because they're philosophically of the Austrian school.
A perfect party-line divide like the House, however, is unquestionably a political position-driven thing. There's just too many people in both parties that fall in places on the line that don't work perfectly as a party divider. Both sides have taken a position with this bill in order to curry political cred.
posted by phearlez at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
That only works for the House. In the Senate they represent the entire state, and several represent states that went for Obama.
Delmoi is right in the sense that certainly some Republicans like Ron Paul and Tom "Dr No" Coburn were simply against it in principle. Certainly some voted against it because they opposed it, either in that form or because of components of it or because they're philosophically of the Austrian school.
A perfect party-line divide like the House, however, is unquestionably a political position-driven thing. There's just too many people in both parties that fall in places on the line that don't work perfectly as a party divider. Both sides have taken a position with this bill in order to curry political cred.
posted by phearlez at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
While it may not be the case for all the representatives, actual republicans against the bill generally think that it is not the government's job to "fix" the economy. The right wing approach to economics is that the market sorts things out, and they think the dems are fear-mongering to say things are necessarily gonna get so terrible and we absolutely need to Do Something Now. They think it'll be a bit of a recession but not everything is in the toilet and it'll get better - we could do some tax cuts or something, but generally, leave it alone and let the companies that can't make it, die off.
Basically, they think dems are using this as an excuse to pass a giant spending bill that would normally not go through.
posted by mdn at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Basically, they think dems are using this as an excuse to pass a giant spending bill that would normally not go through.
posted by mdn at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
The GOP feels that many of the provisions found in the package have little to do with securing jobs, creating jobs, or shoring up the economy. They feel that this extra spending should be vetted and appropriated through the normal budget process.
Also, the GOP was locked out of crafting the language. To be fair, most member of the Democratic Caucus had little, if any, input either. The package was essentially crafted by Pelosi/Reid/WH. Most GOP offices had less than 18 hours to review the bill before floor debate began. (side note: Politico reported that lobbyists received the Conferenced bill before Members. I'm too lazy to find the article now, but it was posted late last week.)
While it's true that the GOP is conscious of the fact that they must work together to be any sort of force, their opposition wasn't strictly political in nature. Everyone will be pointing fingers if this doesn't work, but the GOP didn't vote against JUST so they can point fingers later, they voted against it because they were locked out of negotiations and they feel that a lot of the spending isn't "stimulative" in nature.
Every Member of Congress has scores of Stimulus press releases - it may be worth your while to browse some of their websites.
posted by ASM at 3:19 PM on February 16, 2009
Also, the GOP was locked out of crafting the language. To be fair, most member of the Democratic Caucus had little, if any, input either. The package was essentially crafted by Pelosi/Reid/WH. Most GOP offices had less than 18 hours to review the bill before floor debate began. (side note: Politico reported that lobbyists received the Conferenced bill before Members. I'm too lazy to find the article now, but it was posted late last week.)
While it's true that the GOP is conscious of the fact that they must work together to be any sort of force, their opposition wasn't strictly political in nature. Everyone will be pointing fingers if this doesn't work, but the GOP didn't vote against JUST so they can point fingers later, they voted against it because they were locked out of negotiations and they feel that a lot of the spending isn't "stimulative" in nature.
Every Member of Congress has scores of Stimulus press releases - it may be worth your while to browse some of their websites.
posted by ASM at 3:19 PM on February 16, 2009
The "no time to read it" argument is a red herring and holds little water for me. These things aren't written in closed sessions in back rooms, and congresspersons hire aides to track and summarize legislation for them. The contents of the bill were broadly outlined on January 15th, and has trended towards Republican planks since then.
When pundits say that congressmembers had little time to review the bill, they are talking strictly about the joint measure that was crafted by the House-Senate Conference committee. By that point, the Republicans had already soundly rejected both the House version of the bill and the Senate version (save for three moderate Republicans).
posted by muddgirl at 8:44 AM on February 17, 2009
When pundits say that congressmembers had little time to review the bill, they are talking strictly about the joint measure that was crafted by the House-Senate Conference committee. By that point, the Republicans had already soundly rejected both the House version of the bill and the Senate version (save for three moderate Republicans).
posted by muddgirl at 8:44 AM on February 17, 2009
The "no time to read it" argument is a red herring and holds little water for me. These things aren't written in closed sessions in back rooms, and congresspersons hire aides to track and summarize legislation for them. The contents of the bill were broadly outlined on January 15th, and has trended towards Republican planks since then.
Yes, Members do have aides which summarize and analyze bills, but the amount of time given to read and analyze the legislation was limited. As I previously mentioned, much less than a day.
This does not change the fact that Members of both Caucuses were locked out of negotiations with the White House. The package was generally outlined prior to release of the legislation, but a few pages of bullets pales in comparison to a 1,000+ page bill. The House, Senate, and final Conferenced packages were only made available to Members shortly before floor debate began.
As the saying goes, the Devil is in the details.
posted by ASM at 11:31 AM on February 17, 2009
Yes, Members do have aides which summarize and analyze bills, but the amount of time given to read and analyze the legislation was limited. As I previously mentioned, much less than a day.
This does not change the fact that Members of both Caucuses were locked out of negotiations with the White House. The package was generally outlined prior to release of the legislation, but a few pages of bullets pales in comparison to a 1,000+ page bill. The House, Senate, and final Conferenced packages were only made available to Members shortly before floor debate began.
As the saying goes, the Devil is in the details.
posted by ASM at 11:31 AM on February 17, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:30 AM on February 16, 2009