DeFazio: Open Letter on the Economic Stimulus Package

[stevedeshazer]

(note: I've seen Rep. Peter DeFazio criticized here for voting against the stimulus package. Here's why.)

http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/02/defazio-open-letter-on-the-economic-stimulus-package.html

By Congressman Peter DeFazio.

When the House passed the stimulus package two weeks ago, I cast a reluctant yes but only after an amendment to add $3 billion for transit was accepted. That was progress. But I said at the time the bill needed changes in the Senate and conference committee before I would support final passage.

I particularly opposed the $300 billion in tax cuts added at the outset to capture Republican support and votes that didn’t materialize. Last year, we did $160 billion in tax cuts for the Bush “recovery plan”. We received a quarter of one percent boost in the economy for one quarter. Now we, our kids and grandkids, will pay that money back with interest to China over the next 30 years. I did not want to repeat that mistake with even bigger tax cuts paid for with borrowed money in a “Democratic Economic Recovery Plan”.

The “compromise” voted on yesterday was rewritten substantially to reflect the priorities of three Republican Senators, including $70 billion for one year of Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. We do need to reform the AMT so it doesn’t hit the middle class but we should pay for it and other needs by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations. We also need to retarget the AMT on those it was originally intended to capture - rich people who avoid taxes.

One of the first things eliminated by the Republican troika was the $3 billion for transit - but that was just for starters. More than $100 billion in other infrastructure investment, school modernization, and aid to education at all levels had to be cut to make room for their tax cuts. Oregon alone lost $457 million in education funds from the House version. Job estimates on legislation like this must be taken with a grain of salt. But using the original Administration multiplier, the final version of the bill cut job creation by between 400,000 and 700,000.

Some say this compromise is the best we could do because of the need for three Republican votes; that’s simply not true. If three Republicans get to rewrite every major initiative on the calendar - universal health care, a 21st century energy policy that addresses global warming, tax reform and more - we are in big trouble and won’t get the change we need.

The Democratic led Senate had three choices. They could have forced a real filibuster. Imagine what the Johnny One Note Republicans’ level of support would have been after endless blather about tax cuts - “It’s yer’ money” - compared to a Democratic plan to invest, rebuild and educate. If the Democratic leadership was in such a hurry to get out of D.C. they couldn’t make time for a filibuster, they could have changed the rules and required a simple majority vote. The Republicans set the precedent for this with their “nuclear option” when they controlled the Senate. But no, they followed the non-binding rules of the world’s most exclusive club and we get half a loaf.

We could have spent that borrowed $325 billion for tax cuts much more wisely to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, a major initiative for renewable energy, educating the next generation of workers and leaders and maybe even a big down payment on universal health care.

There are many good things in this bill but there could have been much, much more!

Sincerely,

Peter A. DeFazio

[bluestateguy]

1. He can say whatever he wants

In the end his vote is no different than John Boehner's or Mitch McConnell's.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

10. Wrong.

He's one of our best in the House. Don't disrespect him for fulfilling an important role in the debate on this legislation. And his vote in what was essentially an already-decided contest was a worthwhile sacrifice to him to make sure that soapbox time was given to the humiliating ass-kissing the Dems are for some reason still subjecting themselves to.

Check deFazio's record before you dis him, pal. The people who really hate this guy are over on Freeperville.

[madfloridian]

15. Anyone who does not toe the line now is disrespected here at DU.

We must go along and fall in line.

[stevedeshazer]

17. He says THIS

"Some say this compromise is the best we could do because of the need for three Republican votes; that’s simply not true. If three Republicans get to rewrite every major initiative on the calendar - universal health care, a 21st century energy policy that addresses global warming, tax reform and more - we are in big trouble and won’t get the change we need."

And I agree with him.

[Hannah Bell]

38. bullshit. i wish everyone had voted this way, for the reasons he did.

maybe then the top 5% would have got a tax INCREASE, instead of another fucking tax CUT.

[sandnsea]

2. Change the rules?

What?

Whatever. I'm done with DeFazio. What a fool. This is the biggest package liberals have gotten in my lifetime. He's gotten my last vote. Not that it will ever make a difference.

[stevedeshazer]

3. Who's gonna represent your district?

:)

[sandnsea]

4. My vote won't make a difference

He's got this seat as long as he wants it. I am just disgusted with him.

Unless he's going to run on this no vote to appeal to the loggers in case the stimulus doesn't work.

[stevedeshazer]

7. Congressman envy abounds when it comes to DeFazio

Is your beef entirely about logging?

[sandnsea]

20. Logging?

I don't know where you got that.

My beef is with anybody who stands on the outside and continuously throws rocks because they don't have what it takes to lead on anything themselves. Kind of like Dennis Kucinich. If he's a true leader, he needs to get out there and convince people he's right. He can't. Maybe they all need to get into a room with Obama and figure out why nobody will listen to them. Until then, don't get in the way of the country moving forward. This bill is going to help enormously. If I hear of him boasting about this bill one time, I will be there to remidn him he voted against it.

[Hannah Bell]

39. Maybe they can't get Crown, Pritzker, Gates & Buffett to sign on to let them "lead".

Cause they don't want to do it in the prescribed fashion.

[MrSlayer]

5. DeFazio is dead right.

If the Repukes do not want to play along and want to water down anything we put up for the good of the country we should just roll right over them. There really was no reason to appease those scumbags at the expense of the people.

[madfloridian]

6. Can the 60 vote rule be changed? If so, why don't we? We won, you know.

I never have understood why we had that rule.

You would think the Republicans won or something. Glad he is speaking out. Yes, those Republicans will control the agenda and we will let them..

[stevedeshazer]

8. We won.

But that's separate from the filibuster rule in the Senate. DeFazio is in the House.

:)

[madfloridian]

11. I was referring to this statement:

"The Democratic led Senate had three choices. They could have forced a real filibuster. Imagine what the Johnny One Note Republicans’ level of support would have been after endless blather about tax cuts - “It’s yer’ money” - compared to a Democratic plan to invest, rebuild and educate. If the Democratic leadership was in such a hurry to get out of D.C. they couldn’t make time for a filibuster, they could have changed the rules and required a simple majority vote. The Republicans set the precedent for this with their “nuclear option” when they controlled the Senate. But no, they followed the non-binding rules of the world’s most exclusive club and we get half a loaf."

[stevedeshazer]

14. Okay, now I get it. n/t

[sandnsea]

18. Because we aren't a majority rule country

We are a representative republic. The Senate is the only check we have on a runaway Presidency, which is why it was Democrats' responsibility to filibuster which they were cowered away from.

We can't keep changing the rules when we have the majority and then call them traitors if they dare to change a rule when they have the majority.

[madfloridian]

21. Who made the 60 vote rule and when?

And who can change it and under what circumstances?

[sandnsea]

22. Democrats, in 1917

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

And have repeatedly changed it when confronted with difficulties from Republicans.

In reverse, do you seriously want Republicans to have a simple 51 majority?

[madfloridian]

24. Why can't the number be set higher than 51 and less than 60?

I keep hearing how bad things are in our country, almost as bad as 1929....so why not change it?

The 60 doesn't matter anyway when one caucus controls the vote. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

26. If it's not good when they have it

then it's not good when we have it.

It's hypocritical.

If they want to change it, go back to one person filibustering so they can't hide behind these procedural rules at all.

[madfloridian]

30. 60 is not reasonable in the Senate.

It's too high a number.

[sandnsea]

33. I like super majority laws

Do a better job of explaining your position. That's all there is to it. Hopefully Obama will go into some more of these red districts and start talking directly to the people. The change is not going to come by changing rules and bulldozing people. That's how the Republicans lost their credibility. Why would anybody want Democrats to repeat their arrogant mistakes.

[DFLforever]

9. DeFazio seems full of himself

I think he's a jerk.

[stevedeshazer]

12. So are you.

[madfloridian]

13. I find him to be an honest man who thinks his duty is to speak out.

We don't see much of that anymore with all the fall in line and shut up stuff going on.

[sandnsea]

19. He's not a jerk

He just fights the status quo when sometimes it isn't necessary to do so.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I think it was necessary in this case

All excuses for caving in to the Republicanites are gone, and the Dems are still caving and going all wishy washy and bipartisanship.

What the HELL is Obama doing appointing Republicans to the Cabinet and not a single progressive yet?

[sandnsea]

29. This bill was 95% Democratic

What is it about WINNING that "Progressives" just cannot fucking understand.

WE WON with this bill. This is an amazing bill. He just fulfilled at least 50% of his campaign promises. In the first month.

I don't care if he puts the Bush cabinet back in place if we keep getting legislation like this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. There was no need to put ANY tax cuts for the wealthy in there

Those tax cuts will do nothing to stimulate the econony and will worsen the deficit.

[sandnsea]

34. Which would those be?

List them.

[eridani]

37. What is is about changing the direction of the public conversation wussy triangulators--

--don't understand? Repukes keep attacking Social Security, despite the widespread unpopularity of that stance. But they have accomplished a great deal by doing that--they've made it seem to be a possibly reasonable issue that is on the table.

Why in fucking HELL don't Dems to the same thing with policies that are actually popular? Ths stimulus bill is useful in many respects, but DeFazio is right--it could have been much, much more. Not 100% of what he would have wanted, but more than we actually got.

Jeebus. Remind me never to have you write my ad for selling a used car. Most people, if their minimum acceptable offer was $3000, would ask for at least $5000. You'd probably write the ad for $3000, leading with the weakest compromise.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. WHAAT? This DeFazio fan will not let you get by with saying that

DeFazio is one of the best in Congress. Just because he disagrees with Obama doesn't make him a jerk.

I'm speaking as someone who attended fundraisers for DeFazio even though I lived outside his district. He was one of the Bush administration's strongest opponents, and he's definitely NOT full of himself. He's down to earth and approachable. He throws $30 fundraisers, unlike some Dems I could mention, who won't let you talk to them unless you contribute four figures.

Did you even get what he was saying? He was urging the Dems to show more spine, something that they need to do and have not been doing enough of.

Or were you just all, "Oh my God, he's going against Obama! Burn him!"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Bravo for DeFazio. K&R

[Kurovski]

23. K&R. (nt)

[scarletwoman]

25. I appreciate and respect his point of view completely. I'm glad he spoke out this way.

And I appreciate you posting this.

He did no harm by voting no, and at the same time he made use of his no vote to make some salient points.

Looks all good to me. If Dems can't handle honest and principled dissent, fuck 'em.

sw

[paulk]

32. he could have made the same statement and voted "yes"

You don't oppose the Republican agenda by voting with them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Ya know, you're making the opposite of the argument that DLCers used to make

to justify their people voting with the Republicanites. The DLCers always said, "It doesn't matter if Our Guy voted with the Republicanites. The bill was going to pass anyway, and we have a big tent, so it's OK if so-called Dems vote with the Republicans 80% of the time, as long as they have a D after their name."

So you're going after one of the most progressive populists in the country because he actually made a stand. If the entire Democratic party were made of DeFazios, Kucinichs, Kapturs, Sanders, Ellisons, and other spineful, populist Dems who relate well to their working class constituents, Bush wouldn't have done half of what he did.

I care about principles, not party loyalty or loyalty to the president.

[sandnsea]

36. No, it's the reason we never had solid opposition

If one group of Dems can't count on another group of Dems for votes, then pretty soon none of them have a reason to support party unity. Then they scatter and can't stop anything the Republicans are doing, not to mention not having a comprehensible message. That's what happened. There isn't any reason for a Blue Dog to consider voting with a Progressive if the Progressive pisses at the Blue Dog the first chance he gets, and in this instance, they both pissed against the vast majority of Dems and US population - so how smart was that again?

If the country wanted to follow DeFazio, Kucinich, et al - the country would. And let's remember, DeFazio will vote with the right at the drop of a hat if it pertains to the nutballs in this district, like he did with Healthy Forests.

[paulk]

40. I think your reasoning is suspect

I don't know what the DLC has to do with this, and I don't recognize the argument you've made as anything other than as a perception that exists in your head.

I'm not going after anybody - I actually agree with what he says - I just think DeFazio could have made the same point without voting against the bill - I don't see what he gained with his "principle", either for himself or for the party he is a member of.