How can I care, when I don't understand?

Via Ambinder, McClatchy has an interesting article about the success (or lack thereof) of Obama's grassroots campaign in support of his economic stimulus package. Suffice it to say that the interest in organizing in support of a nearly trillion-dollar economics bill is not quite the same as that generated by electing Obama in the first place.

Few supporters are answering President Barack Obama's call for nationwide house-party gatherings this weekend to build grass-roots support for his economic stimulus plan.

A McClatchy survey of sign-up rosters for a score of cities across the country revealed only 34 committed attendees in Tacoma, Wash., as of midafternoon Friday; in Fort Worth, Texas, only 54, and in Sacramento, Calif., just 78.

Ambinder thinks that the article is understating the amount of interest generated, but I'm not so sure. I think it's entirely plausible that the response to the call for house parties is underwhelming, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, the election of a president is a big, exciting and motivating experience. Add in the historic nature of the recent election, and the stakes involved for the country had McCain/Palin been elected, and there was bound to be an unprecedented level of interest and participation. To be fair, I don't think the DNC is using the run-up to the election as a metric, though some of the people in the article seem to be. But there was bound to be a profound drop-off in enthusiasm.

Also, the economy is a confusing mess. I spend way too much time online reading various different perspectives on the stimulus package from a number of sources, and I have no clear idea what I think about most of it. It's baffling and, frankly, intimidating. I can hardly blame the majority of Obama's supporters for feeling put off by the issue, and unmotivated to sign up for action.

Finally, there's a big difference between talking to your friends and neighbors about why you support your candidate, and making what feels like a pointless call to your Senator. (Considering the vote on the asinine DeMint amendment, trying to convince the recalcitrant GOP to support the stimulus package is a bit like spitting into the wind.) I must guiltily admit that, as a Mainer, there's probably more of an argument for me to be involved that most, and I've been serially deleting the various e-mails that crop up in my inbox.

Should more people be involved? Probably, I suppose. (Tune in later, when I tepidly support flossing.) But the size and subject of the bill in question are terribly daunting, and (elitism alert) I would just as soon people not hold forth on a subject they don't understand than flood their Senators' offices with calls because of how high a trillion dollar bills will stack.

Admittedly, he is pretty cute

I've been flailing around this afternoon, trying to think of something else to write about. I've done said all I can about the stimulus package, and there hasn't been much to choose from.

So, in the spirit of Friday afternoon, I present to you the winner of Huffington Post's "hottest freshman of the 111th Congress," one Aaron Schock, Republican of Illinois. He took the occasion of his win to promote a piece of legislation he's introduced.

... I recently introduced H.R. 899, the Ethical and Legal Elections for Congressional Transitions (ELECT) Act. The ELECT Act requires that within 90 days of a vacancy in the United States Senate, a special election occurs.

In this year alone, we've seen five Senate vacancies appointed by Governors, including the debacle in Illinois. This has highlighted the need to ensure that the American people have a say in determining who represents them in the United States Senate.

[snip]

While some may question the constitutionality of the ELECT Act, I believe this bill satisfies the 17th Amendment by allowing the Governor or State Legislature to fill a vacancy with an appointment for the period before the special election. However, this person must run in the special election to maintain control of the seat.

Frankly, I think it's a great idea. The happy few of you that have been reading for a while (bless you) have already seen what I have had to say about the various embarrassments arising from the Senate appointments in Illinois and New York. I wasn't too thrilled about the place-holder they appointed in Delaware to keep the seat warm for Biden's son, either. The whole appointment process is rankly undemocratic, and a hold-over from the days when the Senate was a bulwark against the whim of the masses, and its members were chosen by the political elite.

I don't have an answer for whether the bill violates the Constitution. (Any legal scholars out there, feel free to weigh in.) It appears that Russ Feingold has introduced a similar bill in the Senate, but his would amend the Constitution, which is a spicier meatball. One way or another, I will hail the day when every member of Congress is there because the people elected him or her. Even if some of the winners have turned out to be turkeys.

"Not if you called it stenchblossom"

I have strong opinions about names. Because (as unlikely as it may be) there is the chance that an errant comment made in a quasi-public space such as this might work its way to an easily-offended audience, I will refrain from sharing them at length. But the following (via HuffPo) has to be shared:

In an interview with Esquire (quotes from which caused a minor media scuffle in January), Sarah Palin reveals the source of her daughter Bristol's name:

Two meanings in Bristol's name: I worked at the Bristol Inn, and Todd grew up in Bristol Bay. But also, Bristol, Connecticut, is the home of ESPN. And when I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster. ESPN was just kicking off, just getting off the ground, and I thought that's what I was going to do in life, is be one of the first woman sportscasters. Until I learned that you'd have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.

Now, while I don't love the name Bristol, I think it's a perfectly reasonable one. (This is particularly true when you consider some of the other choices Gov. Palin went with for her remaining progeny.) People name their kids all kinds of funky things, for all kinds of funky reasons. (You will have to take my word for it, as I would prefer not to violate HIPAA.)

However, there's a lovely little gem further on in the article.

ESPN Vice President Mike Soltys suggests it could be worse: there are a number of children named ESPN.

I will refrain from comment per se. However, I am in a position to confirm that yes, in fact, there are a number of children named ESPN (or close variations on same). Make of that what you will.

Beginning to believe it

Frequent commenter John (and thank God I have at least a couple of frequent commenters... it makes me feel slightly less ridiculous for having a blog in the first place) has, in one comment thread or another, posed a question about GOP opposition to the stimulus package. If they genuinely disagree with the stimulus, and the spending therein in particular, don't they have an obligation to vote against it? To which I reply, yes and no.

I can understand that Republicans have a suspicion of government spending, and favor tax cuts. I understand that they may be wary of massive spending, and cast a gimlet eye on funding for things that don't seem like "stimulus" per se, such as education or health care. While I disagree with this philosophy, I can understand it.

However, there is standing on principle, and there is rank obstructionism. It strains credulity to believe that zero House Republicans voted for the stimulus due to substantive concerns. It is ridiculous beyond measure to see the recent Senate vote for the DeMint amendment, which was favored by 36 of the 41 GOP Senators, and believe it was anything other than pure, unadulterated partisan hackery. Via Obsidian Wings:

The DeMint proposed amendment – which got 36 Republican votes (90% of caucus) – is a perfect illustration. (See also Brian Beutler – his regular site is here and should be on your readers and reading lists).

You might think the DeMint bill is a parody at first – the proposal of someone consciously trying to get chased out of office (think The Producers applied to politics). Indeed, in a more rational world, the DeMint proposal would be the story of the day – and an object of national ridicule.

Here are a few highlights of the very serious Jim DeMint’s proposal (borrowed from Heritage), which consists of zero spending and 100% tax cuts: (1) lower everyone’s marginal rates by 10 points; (2) lower the corporate tax rate; (3) eliminate most of the estate tax and slash the remnants; (4) make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

In other words, the vast majority of the Republican Senators voted for a measure that is composed exclusively of tax cuts. No spending at all. No money for cash-strapped states. None for infrastructure spending. Nada.

In a situation like this, there is a need to compromise, and to recognize that your party lost. It is lamentable that the GOP would put its support behind a measure that furthers only their goals, and would be so flagrant about it. I agree with Megan that they really aren't interested in compromise, and their goals are purely political.

On that note (and to explain the title of this post), I would like to give credit, once again, where it is due. I have, in the past, questioned the willingness of Senators Snowe and Collins to put partisan considerations aside when the chips were down, and to live up to their reputations as moderates. They were two of the mere four (four!) "no" votes on the DeMint amendment, and theirs were votes for sanity. While I'm not 100% delighted by the cuts being made to the stimulus package by Collins and friends right now, I am willing to believe that they are in the interest of getting the thing passed. I applaud both of them, and am genuinely pleased to revise my opinions of them.

Popular, take 2

I am seriously just about to completely lose my marbles. (I have another phrase in mind, but I don't want to get a Stern Warning from the Better Half.)

John Judis at The New Republic saw fit to grace us with this (charmingly titled "The Emerging Republican Majority"):

... what could happen in the Obama administration isn’t successful--whether out of Republican perfidy or administration timidity--at arresting this downturn. Obama and the Democrats could get tossed out of office in 2012. They could even see setbacks in 2010 in spite of mix of seats that are up for re-election. My precedent, as I mentioned at the end of my essay on Keynes, is the British Labour Party. It took office in 1929 after a decade of high unemployment with the depression about to set. Paralyzed and confused, they did nothing; the party split and was routed in 1931. It didn’t return to power until 1945 even though the administrations that succeeded it were not able to do much about the depression either.

Can I make something plain? Obama has been in office for slightly more than two weeks. I may not know much about economics, but considering the relative rarity of gigantic worldwide economic collapse, I'm not 100% convinced that anyone can speak with a great deal of authority right now. But I do know that a fortnight is maybe a wee bit short to give an administration to totally fix everything.

Further, can we pause, and take a breath, and admit the possibility that mmmmmmmmmmmmaybe, juuuuuuuuuust maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe the stimulus will work? Can we take a look at the very, very recent past and remember that we just got through the longest [insert horribly foul swear words here] presidential campaign ever? Can we give things a bit of time before we start predicting doom and handicapping the 2010 midterm races? Please? Pretty please?

I know that the right wing is salivating about the possibility of failure, which I consider monstrous, as a failure on Obama's part means a failure of our economy. But let's not wring our hands unless it actually happens!

I can't TAKE it anymore

Seriously. I'm with Andrew on this one.

One reason I find this debate hard to enter decisively is because I don't know what the solution is. I do not have the expertise to figure out what mix of spending and tax-cutting is the best tailored to this particular down-turn, how much stimulus is required, how much would be too much, how much too little. Usually, in policy debates, I try to ask myself what my ideal might be and then figure out why that can't work, and come to some kind of conclusion. But on this, I don't know where to start.

I really, really don't know what will work best. I would like to see a large portion of the spending go to the states, which I have already said. But I don't know what the best solution is, and so it's hard to comment.

On that note, I am going to comment on something I consider to be picayune and inane in the extreme. I refer, of course, to the brouhaha surrounding Michael Phelps and the bong. I feel 100% comfortable sharing my opinions about this issue, and it's a nice break from furrowing my brow every time Megan McArdle posts something new.

Here's the deal. Do I think it makes any sense for a person to earn $100 million for being able to swim really fast? No. Frankly, I don't think it makes sense for anyone to make $100 million doing anything. But it's a free country, and that's what companies are apparently willing to cumulatively pay him to say nice things about their products. On that note, is it monumentally stupid for him to smoke weed, knowing that his real cachet at this point is his reputation, rather than his swimming talent? Sure.

But can we all please remind ourselves that the man is 23 years old, and probably spent most of his adolescence subsuming his baser drives in his pursuit of athletic excellence? He broke a law that, frankly, I think is kind of prudish. (Yes, that means I support legalizing marijuana.) He did it at a venue when he did not expect attention. I've never understood why we look to athletes to be role models, and honor them as heroes in a way we don't with any other members of the entertainment industry. (People who do not consider athletes to be part of the entertainment industry are free to convince me.) That Phelps is flawed, and made a bad decision, really doesn't matter to me, and I wonder why people got so very bent out of shape about it.

It reminds me of Charles Barkley, and his "I Am Not a Role Model" shtick. What's more, I think it was really nice of him to go to such lengths to personally prove it.

Update: Boy, that was one expensive smoke-up for Michael.

Tepid support

So, apparently Susan Collins and Ben Nelson have been working together to trim the stimulus package. Via TPM:

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have come up with a list of about $100 billion* in programs they want slashed from the stimulus package, according to a working draft of a staff paper outlining the cuts. The linked document includes a list of $77.9B. But an aide to Sen. Nelson tells TPMDC that the latest negotiations come closer to the $100B mark.

I am of two minds about this. I am most certainly not an economist, and I really don't have a dog in the "tax cuts vs. increased spending" hunt. Frankly, they both make sense to me, depending on your perspective, and I can see the argument for both. I wish the GOP would vote for more spending rather than demand that their viewpoint win, but I at least understand their argument. If the cuts make a stimulus package more likely to pass, then I suppose I should see the forest for the trees.

When I first saw that "state stabilization money" had gotten cut, I was worried, since I really think a large sum should go to the states, which are facing their own budget crises and don't have the option of deficit spending. However, it appears that this is an educational item. While I support education funding on its merits, I can understand that it doesn't necessarily fit tidily under the heading of "stimulus."

In general, I support most of the programs that are facing cuts. But my major hope is for passage of the package as a whole, so I will put aside my misgivings and hope that this flies.

Update: For those of you that think the GOP is just doing its noble, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" duty, I share the following link with you. (Via Washington Monthly.)