In a follow-up from the update in yesterday’s post, it turns out the Ben Nelson gang wants to cut state aid after all, only it’s to the tune of $40 billion, not $25 billion. How direct aid to states with budget problems doesn’t qualify as stimulus to these people is beyond me. Out of one corner of their mouths, they say everything in the bill has to create jobs, yet then they turn around and support the home buying amendment, dishonestly billed at $19 billion when its actual price will be $75 billion to $375 billion.
The mock outrage exhibited by Republicans is pathetic, and good for Boxer for calling them out.
Moments later, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, interrupted Mr. Graham saying she wanted to ask a question, but in fact she wanted to chastise him for waving around a copy of the bill. “Theatrical,” she exclaimed. “Did you do that when George Bush was president and he sent down a bill twice as big as that? Did you ever do that? You can do that. That’s theatrics. You can do that.”
The answer, of course, is no. Deficit spending and rapidly expanding debt is apparently totally fine for Republicans and Ben Nelsons as long as there’s no reason for it.
There’s a growing momentum against the stimulus among conservative pundits who argue that there’s no evidence the stimulus will work. This, of course, ignores the evidence (Republicans were all about touting the CBO report when it wasn’t real, but now that it is real, it suddenly doesn’t exist to them). I have no problem with someone saying the evidence doesn’t convince them that spending will work. That leads to discussion and so on. What does make me question their motivations and their openness to being convinced, is when they turn around and say we need to eliminate spending and alternatively implement hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich. Evidence of success is apparently not required for that tactic.