Thursday, January 29, 2009

to filibuster . . .

. . .or not to filibuster.

Now that the House GOP has done all that they could do to stop the "crap sandwich" masquerading as a stimulus bill--which, unfortunately, is not that much--the next stop is the Senate.

Wherein there is a good chance that the Dems don't have 60 votes to beat a filibuster. Or at least that's the case with the bill in its current form.

So I ask you: should the Senate GOP filibuster the bill?

I am torn on this one. Part of me says "hey, the nation voted for this debacle, they deserve what they get"--in other words, no filibuster.

But here's the problem with that, and it's twofold: a) the nation--or at least the middle of the nation--won't realize until they feel pain that they've been duped by the Dems and their allegiances to special interests, and there won't be "more" pain directly due to this bill until Obama is forced to raise taxes, which probably won't be until after the 2010 mid-terms; and b) by the time that pain is felt, the damage is already done. Dem special interests will have already fleeced the taxpayer's pockets, at the expense of our next 10 budgets, and their voice will have government funding to remain powerful regardless of the status of the economy at the time.

So it would definitely be in the best interests of small-government types for this bill to be stopped.

But would it be in the best interests of the nation?

And that's no idle question. The reflexive conservative in me says "heck yes!".

But let us not forget: this IS Obama's remedy. And the nation voted for Obama's remedies. If the Senate GOP keeps Obama's remedy from hitting the streets, there may be electoral hell to pay. As in "a generation in the wilderness" hell to pay.

And keep this in mind: this stimulus is pure politics for the next 100 days or so. Wall Street stands alone as the sector in the economy that will be able to absorb the meager monies scheduled to be injected by this bill and turn it into short-term gains (consumer confidence and all that); EVERY OTHER SECTOR is just acting out a script that is already written.

So as more job losses hit the wires. . .as more states encounter financial crunches. . .and yes, as more banks look for more money. . .keep in mind that the country is going to be wondering "why?"--DESPITE THE FACT that such losses are inevitable AS WE SPEAK today! And they can either look at Obama, and have him explain why his $825B stimulus hasn't done anything yet (I'd love to have him look at the gaggle of reporters and say "you know, most of the money isn't even spent yet". . .and some enterprising young reporter asks "then why did you ask for it? Are you expecting us still to be in a recession in 2012?" I think that would be fun!) OR they can nod while Obama says "those darn Republicans, they just kept me from solving all your problems"--which puts the onus for explanation on US, and that's just not an onus that we normally live up to. (The relentless bashing by the media doesn't help--but hey, that's the field we play in, we have to adjust)

So here's what I hope: a) no filibuster; b) The whole GOP votes against the bill--which will probably still pass, but at least it is entirely the Dems' bill.

And at some point in time, whether it is due to an economic recovery (hopefully!) OR due to an increased pit of economic gloom (worst-case scenario), I hope that someone moves to review the monies guaranteed in this bill before they all get spent.

You know, in 2013.

Because the vast majority of this bill isn't about stimulus to the economy, or "job growth", or any other noble principle. It's about special interests, and paying the piper his due.

And the Dems want to pay that piper with your dime.

You know. . .in 2013.


Blogger Michael said...

I agree. A 58-41 vote for this monstrosity (which the Senate is gonna lard up even more) would send a pretty strong, one-sided message. The damage would be nearly irreversible, though. Maybe World War II could break out again to bail us out . . .

2:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home