Meet Obama's Loyal Opposition
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL for the Wall Street Journal
"I do not work for Barack Obama." Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader? No. Ben Bernanke, Fed chief? No, again.
Try Harry Reid, huffing at the idea anyone calls the shots on Capitol Hill other than him. What was that about "change"?
The president-elect used that word on the campaign trail in the context of bipartisanship. To that extent, he's doing a fabulous job. Some of the gushiest quotes about him are emanating from Republicans, giddy at his outreach.
But the "change" Mr. Obama really needs is to avoid the fate of the last two Democratic presidents, both sabotaged by their own majorities. So far, not good. Mr. Obama has yet to assume office, and already his own party is beating his priorities like a conga drum.
When the incoming Democratic president asked the outgoing GOP president to request the second $350 billion in rescue money, Mr. Bush graciously complied. At which point the Democratic majority informed the Democratic president that he'd see not a dime until they decided how to spend it. After all, giving Mr. Obama control over his own Treasury funds would rob them of a pot that they could earmark for Detroit, or bankruptcy judges, or local institutions.
When incoming Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag proved reluctant to commit Mr. Obama to specific uses of the money, Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson accused him of spouting "mumbo jumbo." North Dakota's Sen. Kent Conrad, fresh off dictating the shape of Mr. Obama's stimulus tax cuts, had to intervene. In a last-ditch effort to rally Democratic support, Mr. Obama was forced to agree in writing to commit up to $100 billion to homeowners. Even so, nine of his own senators yesterday voted to deny him the funds.
Speaking of the stimulus, the Obama team, trying to shelter the party from accusations of profligate spending, initially capped the package at (a whopping) $775 billion. At which point Mr. Reid explained, publicly, that at least 20 of Mr. Obama's own economists felt it should in fact be at least, $800 billion -- maybe even $1.3 trillion! Five impoverished Democratic governors chimed in that anything less than $1 trillion really wasn't worth it. At last count, Mr. Obama had been talked up to $825 billion (and rising).
As to the makeup of the stimulus bill, Mr. Obama directed at least $300 billion go to tax cuts. This was partly to fulfill a campaign pledge, partly to sweeten the deal for Republicans, partly because his economic team might actually believe it a good idea -- especially business provisions.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein pronounced herself "concerned" (uh-oh) that so much might go to Americans, over appropriators. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi informed the incoming president that, duh, he should be raising taxes. Rep. Charlie Rangel, who heads Ways and Means, and knows it, decreed $300 billion a maximum, not a minimum. At last count, that number was $275 billion (and falling).
"I love earmarks," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, as he griped that the president-elect had banned them in the stimulus. Mr. Obama wants no whiff of pork that might further sour a wary public. Mr. Clyburn is nonetheless leading a House rebellion against the edict. After all, it's only fair Democrats get to buy votes with stimulus dollars.
"There will be no earmarks in the stimulus. Nada. Zero. Zilch," said a Reid spokesman. The majority leader might have made the comment himself, had he not been busy reassuring Nevadans that he'd just go around the ban by leaning on Obama agencies to deliver dollars to his state's projects. Meanwhile, Mr. Reid is making as his first present to the president a pork-riddled public-lands bill that includes $3.5 million for a city's birthday party, $5 million for botanical gardens, and $3 million for a "road to nowhere" in (where else?) Alaska.
(more...)
*wretched hive of scum and villainy
------
Good luck with this rabble 44, you're going to need it.
No comments:
Post a Comment