Print
E-mail
Stimulus: Republicans Look To Capitalize On Democrats' Mistakes
'A Bad Beginning'
By Joe Murray, The Bulletin
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rushed to begin her European vacation and Barack Obama prepared to wine and dine the first lady in Chicago this Valentine’s weekend, Congress — over Republican objections — was told it had to vote on a stimulus its members had not had time to read.
The economic was crisis was so severe, the argument went, any time wasted could make recovery that more difficult. But as soon as the massive $787-billion bill passed the House Friday, the urgency that marked the stimulus debate went on vacation along with Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi.
Rather than sign the bill immediately, Mr. Obama returned home to Chicago where he and Mrs. Obama dined Saturday at the posh Table Fifty-Two restaurant. The signing of the once urgent bill was to be put off until tomorrow when Mr. Obama, refreshed from his three-day weekend, would travel to Denver to sign the bill.
Democrats declared victory, and commentators declared the passage of the stimulus marked the most successful First 100 days in history. But the reality of the fact the stimulus repealed the 1996 welfare reforms, expanded government control of health care and discriminated against students of faith on campus is setting in. Now Republicans are hoping that voters, who witnessed Mr. Obama’s failure to be bipartisan as he had promised, will soon experience buyers’ remorse.
“Democrats have been in charge of Washington for just a few weeks, but their record so far is disappointing to voters who hoped for change,” said RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
“It’s disappointing that President Obama allowed a 1,000-plus page bill to be written in secret and voted on hours later before members of Congress — let alone the American people — had time to review it. This is not the transparency President Obama promised when he said bills would be posted online for five days.”
Republicans shocked Democrats when GOP lawmakers in the House united to oppose the bill and Senate Republicans, minus three left-leaning defectors, sought to stop the bill cold in its tracks. The Republican campaign to shine the light on the stimulus caused the public to question its wisdom. It also brought into the public eye a number of controversial measures Democrats had sneaked into legislation ostensibly intended to stimulate the ailing economy.
Rejecting the bipartisan welfare reform enacted into law by former President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans, the stimulus now rewards states with bonuses when they increase their welfare rolls.
In terms of health care, the stimulus provides $1.1 billion to fund “Comparative Effectiveness Research.” In nations with universal health care, such research attempts to create the best means of rationing health care, especially among the elderly.
Republicans have been witnessing an early return to relevancy due to how the Democrats have structured the legislation, which had initially been intended to revamp the nation’s ailing infrastructure.
Instead, it morphed into a massive spending bill that earmarks millions of dollars for projects such as a high-speed train connecting Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Las Vegas with Los Angeles, and it only allocates 3 percent of the $787 billion stimulus for highway construction — or $27.5 billion.
“The silver lining in this whole debate is that Americans are now finding out what the true stakes are in Washington: it’s a battle between government control over our lives or the freedom that made America great,” said U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. “Freedom isn’t an ideology — it works. Freedom is the only thing that has ever worked and I will continue fighting for it.”
The Democratic partisanship involved with the passage of the stimulus has left Mr. Obama vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and inexperience.
“It was a bad beginning,” U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Mr. Obama’s former rival, told CNN Sunday when asked about the stimulus bill. “It was a bad beginning because it wasn’t what we promised the American people, what President Obama promised the American people — that we would sit down together.”
It was the promise of change, specifically bi-partisanship that caused a number of voters to flock to the hopeful message of the young president. But no sooner did Mr. Obama take the oath of office, he handed the stimulus debate over to Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and did little, if nothing, to circumvent the partisan nature of the debate.
“If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country’s screwed,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told ABC’s “This Week.” “I know bipartisanship when I see it.
“This is not ‘Change We Can Believe In.’”
And while Republicans contend Mr. Obama’s first major attempt at bipartisanship was a failure, the president’s inability to control the liberal wing of his party created an opening for Republican policies to regain legitimacy in popular consciousness.
“If government spending created jobs and prosperity, we’d have the best economy in our history right now. But government-controlled economies have never worked and never will, as we learned painfully in the Great Depression and Japan proved in their ‘Lost Decade,’” Mr. DeMint said.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
The economic was crisis was so severe, the argument went, any time wasted could make recovery that more difficult. But as soon as the massive $787-billion bill passed the House Friday, the urgency that marked the stimulus debate went on vacation along with Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi.
Rather than sign the bill immediately, Mr. Obama returned home to Chicago where he and Mrs. Obama dined Saturday at the posh Table Fifty-Two restaurant. The signing of the once urgent bill was to be put off until tomorrow when Mr. Obama, refreshed from his three-day weekend, would travel to Denver to sign the bill.
Democrats declared victory, and commentators declared the passage of the stimulus marked the most successful First 100 days in history. But the reality of the fact the stimulus repealed the 1996 welfare reforms, expanded government control of health care and discriminated against students of faith on campus is setting in. Now Republicans are hoping that voters, who witnessed Mr. Obama’s failure to be bipartisan as he had promised, will soon experience buyers’ remorse.
“Democrats have been in charge of Washington for just a few weeks, but their record so far is disappointing to voters who hoped for change,” said RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
“It’s disappointing that President Obama allowed a 1,000-plus page bill to be written in secret and voted on hours later before members of Congress — let alone the American people — had time to review it. This is not the transparency President Obama promised when he said bills would be posted online for five days.”
Republicans shocked Democrats when GOP lawmakers in the House united to oppose the bill and Senate Republicans, minus three left-leaning defectors, sought to stop the bill cold in its tracks. The Republican campaign to shine the light on the stimulus caused the public to question its wisdom. It also brought into the public eye a number of controversial measures Democrats had sneaked into legislation ostensibly intended to stimulate the ailing economy.
Rejecting the bipartisan welfare reform enacted into law by former President Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans, the stimulus now rewards states with bonuses when they increase their welfare rolls.
In terms of health care, the stimulus provides $1.1 billion to fund “Comparative Effectiveness Research.” In nations with universal health care, such research attempts to create the best means of rationing health care, especially among the elderly.
Republicans have been witnessing an early return to relevancy due to how the Democrats have structured the legislation, which had initially been intended to revamp the nation’s ailing infrastructure.
Instead, it morphed into a massive spending bill that earmarks millions of dollars for projects such as a high-speed train connecting Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Las Vegas with Los Angeles, and it only allocates 3 percent of the $787 billion stimulus for highway construction — or $27.5 billion.
“The silver lining in this whole debate is that Americans are now finding out what the true stakes are in Washington: it’s a battle between government control over our lives or the freedom that made America great,” said U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. “Freedom isn’t an ideology — it works. Freedom is the only thing that has ever worked and I will continue fighting for it.”
The Democratic partisanship involved with the passage of the stimulus has left Mr. Obama vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and inexperience.
“It was a bad beginning,” U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Mr. Obama’s former rival, told CNN Sunday when asked about the stimulus bill. “It was a bad beginning because it wasn’t what we promised the American people, what President Obama promised the American people — that we would sit down together.”
It was the promise of change, specifically bi-partisanship that caused a number of voters to flock to the hopeful message of the young president. But no sooner did Mr. Obama take the oath of office, he handed the stimulus debate over to Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and did little, if nothing, to circumvent the partisan nature of the debate.
“If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country’s screwed,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told ABC’s “This Week.” “I know bipartisanship when I see it.
“This is not ‘Change We Can Believe In.’”
And while Republicans contend Mr. Obama’s first major attempt at bipartisanship was a failure, the president’s inability to control the liberal wing of his party created an opening for Republican policies to regain legitimacy in popular consciousness.
“If government spending created jobs and prosperity, we’d have the best economy in our history right now. But government-controlled economies have never worked and never will, as we learned painfully in the Great Depression and Japan proved in their ‘Lost Decade,’” Mr. DeMint said.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
 |
 |
|
| Support Dips For Rendell And Specter | Township Supervisors Cool To Consolidation |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
hsr0601 wrote on Feb 16, 2009 5:55 AM:
" President Barack Obama recently asked Congress "to act without delay" to pass legislation to double alternative energy production in the next three years and build a new electricity "smart grid." This smart grid would be an updated digital version of the electric wires strung across our country in the past century. What makes it "smart" is that the lines would be buried and more efficient and would give homeowners feedback on how efficiently they were using the power inside their homes.
This new smart grid would cost about $400 billion over 10 years but would save between $46 billion and $117 billion over the next 20 years by reducing inefficiencies and power failures, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. It also would help to make us less dependent on imported energy and to reduce climate change. For example, if the smart grid were even 5 percent more efficient, it would keep as many carbon emissions from the atmosphere as eliminating 53 million cars.
A smart grid allows power from residential solar panels, small wind turbines, and plug-in electric vehicles to be fed into the grid. This would encourage the green energy industry by allowing small players, such as individual homes and small businesses, to sell power to their neighbors or back to the grid. It would provide another source of income for larger commercial businesses that have renewable or backup power systems that can provide clean energy for a price during peak demand, such as midday in July when the air conditioning is cranked.
Another brilliant feature of the proposed grid is the potential to use cars to store electricity and then feed it back into the grid during times of peak demand. "Vehicle to grid," or V2G, technology helps balance energy loads by "valley filling" (charging at night, when demand is low) and "peak shaving" (sending power back to the grid when demand is high). This would help utility companies keep voltage and regulation stabler. It would be especially useful when more of our power came from intermittent power sources, such as solar panels, which only produce power during the day.
Power outages are less problematic for a smart grid because it quickly can isolate the problemand create energy pathways around it. This makes a smart grid "self-healing" by reducing power outages and saving money. Buried power lines also would reduce outages caused by harsh winter storms, when tree branches are likely to down power lines. In my community, residents are concerned about proposed power lines that would stretch through the centers of many small downtowns and across lovely vistas. If these same lines were buried, there would be fewer objections from the community.
The smart grid could help consumers use that energy more wisely and save money, as well. A sensor in your home can tell you the price of electricity when the demand is highest. This allows you to set priorities so that you use more energy when the price is lower and less during peak demand. You also can find out which appliances are energy hogs and identify energy vampires that you may not have known about.
Austin, Texas, has been working on a smart grid since 2003, when its utility company first replaced a third of its manual meters with wireless smart meters. Austin currently manages 200,000 smart meters, smart thermostats and sensors across its service area and expects to be supporting 500,000 devices this year. Boulder, Colo., started a smart grid project in August 2008. The smart grid extends into homes through home automation network devices. These devices automatically set thermostats, reduce energy loads during peak times, and shut off lights in rooms when no one is in them.
By investing in our infrastructure, we also would stimulate economic growth and increase green jobs. Thousands of peoplewould be put to work across the country designing, building and installing smart grid technology. Having the grid in place wouldmake electric carsmore feasible and affordable. Renewable energy would become more viable, and demand would increase as more electric carswere added to the grid. It also would bring the price of homeand business-scaled renewable power systems down because the payback periods would decrease. Businesses may make tidy profits by selling excess power back to the grid.
Want to learn more about the smart grid? The U.S. Department of Energy has an easy-tounderstand publication you can download online called "The Smart Grid: An Introduction." The DOE is conducting a series of smart grid e-forums to discuss issues surrounding the smart grid, including costs, benefits, implementation and deployment. Thank you ! "
This new smart grid would cost about $400 billion over 10 years but would save between $46 billion and $117 billion over the next 20 years by reducing inefficiencies and power failures, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. It also would help to make us less dependent on imported energy and to reduce climate change. For example, if the smart grid were even 5 percent more efficient, it would keep as many carbon emissions from the atmosphere as eliminating 53 million cars.
A smart grid allows power from residential solar panels, small wind turbines, and plug-in electric vehicles to be fed into the grid. This would encourage the green energy industry by allowing small players, such as individual homes and small businesses, to sell power to their neighbors or back to the grid. It would provide another source of income for larger commercial businesses that have renewable or backup power systems that can provide clean energy for a price during peak demand, such as midday in July when the air conditioning is cranked.
Another brilliant feature of the proposed grid is the potential to use cars to store electricity and then feed it back into the grid during times of peak demand. "Vehicle to grid," or V2G, technology helps balance energy loads by "valley filling" (charging at night, when demand is low) and "peak shaving" (sending power back to the grid when demand is high). This would help utility companies keep voltage and regulation stabler. It would be especially useful when more of our power came from intermittent power sources, such as solar panels, which only produce power during the day.
Power outages are less problematic for a smart grid because it quickly can isolate the problemand create energy pathways around it. This makes a smart grid "self-healing" by reducing power outages and saving money. Buried power lines also would reduce outages caused by harsh winter storms, when tree branches are likely to down power lines. In my community, residents are concerned about proposed power lines that would stretch through the centers of many small downtowns and across lovely vistas. If these same lines were buried, there would be fewer objections from the community.
The smart grid could help consumers use that energy more wisely and save money, as well. A sensor in your home can tell you the price of electricity when the demand is highest. This allows you to set priorities so that you use more energy when the price is lower and less during peak demand. You also can find out which appliances are energy hogs and identify energy vampires that you may not have known about.
Austin, Texas, has been working on a smart grid since 2003, when its utility company first replaced a third of its manual meters with wireless smart meters. Austin currently manages 200,000 smart meters, smart thermostats and sensors across its service area and expects to be supporting 500,000 devices this year. Boulder, Colo., started a smart grid project in August 2008. The smart grid extends into homes through home automation network devices. These devices automatically set thermostats, reduce energy loads during peak times, and shut off lights in rooms when no one is in them.
By investing in our infrastructure, we also would stimulate economic growth and increase green jobs. Thousands of peoplewould be put to work across the country designing, building and installing smart grid technology. Having the grid in place wouldmake electric carsmore feasible and affordable. Renewable energy would become more viable, and demand would increase as more electric carswere added to the grid. It also would bring the price of homeand business-scaled renewable power systems down because the payback periods would decrease. Businesses may make tidy profits by selling excess power back to the grid.
Want to learn more about the smart grid? The U.S. Department of Energy has an easy-tounderstand publication you can download online called "The Smart Grid: An Introduction." The DOE is conducting a series of smart grid e-forums to discuss issues surrounding the smart grid, including costs, benefits, implementation and deployment. Thank you ! "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
hsr0601 wrote on Feb 16, 2009 5:53 AM: