Fighting for recovery

We're coming close to a vote on the economic recovery plan. Obama has met with Republican leaders, who are calling for more tax cuts and less spending on infrastructure, despite agreement by economists across the political spectrum that infrastructure investment will be more effective than tax cuts. Even the public strongly supports that strategy.

And the Democrats have the votes to pass the bill they want, without help from Republicans. So why is Obama bending over backward to get Republican support? It's not only his campaign promise and the very high value he places on bipartisanship. He wants the Republicans to share ownership of the plan -- not just in the later blame game but in a committment to trying to make it work. In a larger way, he really wants to move beyond the petty partisan squabbling. And there is no better place to begin than on something that is urgent and necessary.

That's fine, and I hope it works. The worry is that Republicans are playing their old game. It's not just that Obama may give in too much. It's that he might compromise to get their vote, and then they'll doublecross him and vote against it anyway.

Here's Josh Marshall's thought on it:

I hear a lot of talk about whether Obama's governing approach can be 'bipartisan' if a good number of Republicans don't vote for his Stimulus Bill. But that dubious point seems to be obscuring a more obvious and telling reality: the Republican leadership in both houses has decided that it's in their political interest to oppose the Stimulus Bill no matter what.

In the most cynical of evaluations, it's not clear to me that they're incorrect. If the stimulus is judged a success, their political gain from adding more votes to what will be seen as Obama's bill will not be that great. So they're figuring that only failure will work for them politically; and they judge that they want Obama to own it entirely.

One can pick apart the political ethics of their stand, but the reality of it is clear. They want to criticize as many provisions of the bill as possible, push for as many non-stimulus inducing tax cuts as possible at the expense of spending on infrastructure, and then vote against the final bill en masse. I think it's possible Obama will get a smattering of moderate Republicans in the senate. But that is the Boehner/McConnell approach -- and the one few if any reporters seem to have the wherewithal to say out loud.

This is the worry: that Obama is earnestly working for a bipartisan bill, while the Republicans are playing politics -- and that he might wind up with a badly compromised bill that will not be nearly as effective, and then still not get Republican support. It's a variation on the old bait and switch trick. 'Just change it enough that we can support it; oops, sorry you didn't change it enough. We vote no.'

This huge economic stimulus/recovery bill is too important to give in on. He has already compromised more than I would like, and I don't trust John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. I'd rather the Democrats go all out for the best possible bill for maximum economic effectiveness, and forget trying to make it bipartisan -- certainly if they're not going to vote for it anyway.

Still . . . Obama knows hardball politics, Chicago style -- and certainly Rahm Emmanuel does. He's not likely to get fooled by these clowns. And Obama is far smarter than I am. But I worry. We've already had one $700 billion fiasco. This one has to work.

Ralph