Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

2009 Supplemental Bribery: Part 2

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 14:00
in

The legislative bribery happening over the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill (mentioned a few days ago) is ramping up. Democrats are pairing politically unpopular items together with the more essential items and outright earmark bribery in order to get the whole thing passed.  And now, the White House is "turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. And Eric Cantor's office is really pissed."

Sources tell me Republicans will make this vote a campaign issue for Democrats in 2010 (details below).

This puts some of the Democrats in a very difficult position (See Red State for more on that), and some of them are gradually deciding to vote no on the legislation. There is bipartisan resistance to this bill, and Jane Hamsher is doing a good job whipping the vote over at Firedoglake.  She has the current whip summary here. 

Most importantly, Hamsher notes that "Blue Dogs are scared about what might happen in conservative districts if they cast that vote for a $100 billion European bank bailout."

I can confirm that.  Earlier today, I asked a senior Republican campaign operative in Washington, DC about this bill,  I was told that, yes, "Republicans will be watching how these Members vote on the War Supplemental", and it "will be a campaign issue" for many Democrats. 

I was given a list of names they're watching closely, as well.  Suffice it to say that Congressional Democrats are going to have to sever the elements of this supplemental and vote on them individually, or else they will be handing their opponents some very potent ammunition for 2010.

A vote is not far off.   Phone calls help.  Red State has a list of legislators you can call.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Re: 2009 Supplemental Bribery: Part 2

Submitted by Quintin on Mon, 07/06/2009 - 04:49.

There's no doubt that Gov. Palin and her family have been through a very difficult year, and I sympathize with a desire to get out of the public spotlight. I hope that is what's happening here, because it's just not plausible that quitting the only significant political accomplishment on her resume would help Sarah Palin in a Presidential run. I wrote that a $5 billion appropriation to the IMF in the war supplemental was likely to have a much lower budgetary cost, because what we’re talking about here is loanable funds. That was a mistake, we’re actually talking about $100 billion in loanable funds that the CBO has scored with a budgetary cost of $5 billion. It’s not totally clear to me how the CBO reached the conclusion “that the present-value risk-adjusted cost of the proposed increase in U.S. participation in the IMF is $5 billion” given that, as the CBO concedes, no countries has ever defaulted on an IMF instant cash loans. But either way, the point is that the value created for the world far exceeds the budgetary cost.