House Passes Stimulus Bill, No Republicans Voted for It, and Why That's No Surprise

by Deb Cupples |  Yesterday, the U.S. House passed an economic stimulus bill designated HR 1.  The bill passed 244 to 188: only 11 Democrats voted against it, and no Republicans voted for it. (See roll call vote) 

That's no surprise. Most House Republicans have spent years demonstrating desires to help only the wealthiest individuals and biggest businesses -- even if the wealthy individuals running the big businesses had looted companies and recklessly driven them into a ditch.

The Washington Post reports on the bill's broad strokes:

"The two-year economic package includes $275 billion in tax cuts and more than $550 billion in domestic spending on roads and bridges, alternative-energy development, health-care technology, unemployment assistance, and aid to states and local governments. It would also provide up to $500 per year in tax relief for most workers and more than $300 billion in aid to states for funding to help rebuild schools, provide health-care to the poor and reconstruct highways and bridges....

"After Democrats initially estimated the plan would cost $825 billion, the Congressional Budget Office announced this week its total cost would come to $816 billion, with about 65 percent of those funds spent by September 2010. During today's debate, lawmakers added $3 billion for transit funding." (WaPo)

I'd like to know how much money is in the form of corporate tax cuts and what (if any) strings are attached. I don't have time to read the entire bill, but you can read it here.

I have nothing against tax cuts for small businesses -- or even for large businesses, as long as the cuts accomplish something that truly and significantly benefits our nation as a whole.

Tax cuts can free up extra money that companies could use to create jobs, but if the tax-cut legislation doesn't require job creation, then companies are free to take the tax cuts yet not create jobs.

Because tax cuts increase a company's bottom line, corporate Boards often (at executives' urging) end up funneling masses of tax-cut savings into a relative-few execs' and managers' pockets.

Despite ex-President Bush's corporate tax cuts, many U.S. companies paid their execs' better and shipped jobs overseas.

Thus, a whole lot of Americans ended up unemployed while a relative few execs and managers ended up fabulously rich (courtesy of company shareholders and the federal government).

When George Bush took the White House, our national debt was about $5.7 trillion.  In February 2008 (even before the corporate bailouts that started in March), our national debt was about $9.3 billion. 

Our national debt is even higher now, partly because of the $350-$700 billion bailouts under TARP, which President Bush helped sell to Congress and to us taxpayers in October.

House Republicans were not screaming about deficit spending during the Bush years.  When Republicans controlled Congress from 2001-2006, in fact, they repeatedly endorsed the borrow-and-spend policies that have contributed so heavily to our current, massive national debt.

Given how Bush's corporate tax cuts played out, it's astounding that some Republican politicians are still chanting worn-out lines about cutting corporate taxes -- and doing it with a straight face.  The Agonist puts it this way:

"Clearly the memo that 'supply side economics' and Bushisms are dead hasn't reached the House yet."

Yesterday, House Republicans might simply have been posturing when voting en masse against the economic stimulus bill -- the same way so many of them postured when they voted against the first corporate Bailout Bill. (Many House Republicans turned around and voted for the second bailout bill.)

Republicans knew that the House would pass the economic stimulus bill yesterday, because Democrats had a solid-enough majority to pass it without Republican support.  If the bill ultimately becomes law and if it fails to significantly improve our economy, then all those House Republicans can point fingers at the Dems. 

If the bill becomes law and succeeds, Republican politicians can remain silent -- and most  ordinary folks would be happy enough with the plan's success that they'd likely refrain from repeatedly shouting "I told you so" and from focusing on the Republicans' early obstructionism.

In short, it seems that House Republicans have little to lose politically by opposing the Democrats' efforts to do something to fix our economy.

Then again, the White House has a top-notch media-relations machine: House Republicans may end up with a mammoth spotlight glaring down on their long-standing disdain for us ordinary folks.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other buck Naked Politics Posts:

* Krugman Refutes Republican Arguments for Bush-Style Corporate Tax Cuts

* Cleaning up Political & Corporate Culture Could Help Economy

* Luxury Jet is Nothing: Citigroup should Cut Executive Pay and Save Jobs

* Bank of America CEO Suprised by Merrill's Losses?

* Wealth Redistribution: Merrill CEO Spent Millions of Shareholder Dollars 

* Real Bonuses Based on Fake Profits

* Execs Made Millions While Driving Companies into Ditch

* Save Jobs by Cutting Executive Pay

.

Comments

[HasItBeen4YearsYet?]

"Most House Republicans have spent years demonstrating desires to help only the wealthiest individuals and biggest businesses"

Oh, please. They voted against it because socialism DOESN'T WORK!
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/obamas-trojan-horse-stimulus-package-explained/
It never has.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Besides, who do you think that trillion dollars is going to? I'll tell, you. Some of the richest people and biggest businesses in the country, that's who, and probably a lot of crooks, as well.

Furthermore, how is a trillion dollars of pork going to help if NOT A SINGLE JOB will be created?
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/how-many-jobs-will-trillion-dollar-stimulus-create-video/

Oh, yeah, and if you're going to accuse Republicans of being bigger crooks than Dems,...
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2005/04/whos_paid_their.html
...or more incompetent,
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/jamie-gorelick-mistress-of-disaster.html
...or more treasonous,
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/dem-shocker-speaker-pelosi-was-sending.html
make sure they really are worse than the damned Democrats. And don't forget to give references to prove you know what you are talking about, or at least that you have material to back up your accusations (with facts, not innuendo).

[Deb]

Hi Has it been,

I'm not sure how you're defining "socialism."

Still, I think your blanket statement has been proven wrong in the sense that a BLEND of socialistic and capitalistic elements have worked over the last few decades in countries like England, Sweden, Spain, Finland, France...

It doesn't have to be all one way or the other, you know.

Also, I disagree that House Republicans didn't vote for the HR 1 simply because they don't think "socialism" works.

First, some of the more prominent Republicans (e.g., Boehner) publicly stated that they didn't like HR1 because there weren't enough corporate tax cuts. In the Senate, John McCain said that, as well.

Second, most House Republicans DID vote for the bailout bill in October -- which was PURE socialism aimed at the richest (and most reckless) people running some of the biggest companies.

Even worse, the bailout funds came with no legal spending requirements so as to unfreeze the credit market, which was the main point of the bailout bill.

House Republicans (and a bunch of Dems, too -- with whom I'm not happy) KNEW based on how the legislation was drafted that there would be little or no responsibility/accountability re: the bailout bill.

Given that many Republican politicians have repeatedly trumpeted to the media about "personal responsibility," it's intensely ironic that so many Rs voted for the anti-accountability bailout bill.

[adagioforstrings]

"Given that many Republican politicians have repeatedly trumpeted to the media about "personal responsibility," it's intensely ironic that so many Rs voted for the anti-accountability bailout bill."

Quite a few Republicans would agree with this statement, but might change the word "ironic" to something more colorful, perhaps something Sgt Snorkel might interject: !?!@*!!!

[Deb]

Adagio,

Yes, many ordinary Republicans and ordinary Democrats agree that something is wrong.

Unfortunately, many Republican politicians (and some Dem politicians) don't see what we ordinary folks see.

[radii shoes]

thanks for your article,like your blog very much,well done

[moncler jackets]

I'm interested in such offer,The sound quality in these podcasts is really poor. I feel bad about complaining about something that is free, but I think it is important.