Home › Blogs › Rob Bluey's blog ›

Democrats Abandon Transparency for Stimulus Vote

Submitted by Rob Bluey on Thu, 02/12/2009 - 18:20
in

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) confirmed this afternoon that Democrats will break their transparency pledge by bringing the stimulus bill to a vote tomorrow morning, giving lawmakers and the public significantly less time than the 48 hours promised.

The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon.

Hoyer's statement is disappointing if not surprising. For a party that made open government a rallying cry in 2006 and again in 2008, Democrats have effectively abandoned transparency for political expediency -- and resorted to cajoling K Street lobbyists.

Even supposed transparency advocate Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said today: "Don't know when we're going to vote. Will the no votes delay vote just because they can? Speed is important. They know that."

Assuming Hoyer's plan is carried out, he would give House members about 13 hours to read the 780-page bill. A congressional staffer did the math. That means lawmakers would be required to read one page per minute without sleeping or taking bathroom breaks.

Why the rush? Democrats know the longer the economic stimulus bill lingers, the more likely the public is to turn against it. Within the past week, Americans for Prosperity has seen a significant spike in people signing its anti-stimulus petition; the number stands at 435,000.

Equally disappointing, there's no indication that President Barack Obama will fulfill his promise for a five-day waiting period. Despite pressure from groups like the Sunlight Foundation, the White House could violate Obama's campaign pledge for the third time in less than a month.

Obama promised to "end the practice of writing legislation behind closed doors" in hopes of restoring trust in government. Despite overwhelming public approval and significant political capital, the president has made clear he's not yet ready to change the ways of Washington. This creates a tremendous opportunity for the minority.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

McCaskill Doesn't Read Bills

Submitted by 24thstate on Thu, 02/12/2009 - 19:47.

I read her tweet, and I also called her office last week. Her DC Office laughed when I asked her if she or any of the staff had actually read the bill.

"It's 600 pages!" he exclaimed.  That afternoon, she was out stumping for it.  Now the bill is 780 pages - and if they wouldn't read it when they had time, why would they bother now? 

For McCaskill, this is about supporting Obama.  She could care less what the bill actually says.

you could say that about repiblicans as well

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 09:18.

their goal is to vote against it, united, not matter what. I actually read an interesting (sad?) article that explained how the house and senate are resenting Obama's effort to increase bipartisanship because now they all have been forced to read the bills and discuss them with each other. the horror.

the way things work...

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 10:06.

they SHOULD have everyone on capital hill read ... say, 20 pages of the document. That's what, thirty or forty staffers? Then give a summary. What's been done is that the summary has already been provided -- and senators have read THAT.

I've read the parts on healthcare -- it's not too hard to summarize.

It would be nice...

Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 00:51.

...to see a five day waiting period and full disclosure on all but emergency defense bills.  This applies to bills promoted by both parties.

Sunlight kills a host of nasty organisms.

Except that...

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 10:24.

Except that they've already deemed this an emergancy, so a waiting period and what not, isn't needed.

Having skimed through it, I have to wonder where the writers of the bill think the states and other entities that apply for grants are going to get the matching money? 

I know Indiana is already going into a budget freeze and trimming where ever it can.

speaking of the health care area

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 10:30.

there is considerable provision for matching funds being reduced in the nearterm, but higher rates after that. It really looks like they're being reasonable -- and bear in mind, the states generally have some amount allocated Anyway -- if this 'matching funds' business means that they can use half federal money, instead of pure state money, that's money that they can funnel towards other programs (like, say, the infrastructure that has been put off across the country due to lower gas tax revenue).

FINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BILL

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 08:22.

They finally posted it last night around 11 PM.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1694

 

 

Line in the sand . . .

Submitted by cr on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 10:22.

Seems to me this is a line in the sand. Will the stimulus stimulate, is this pork, is this good spedning. . . there are no definite answers. However, both dems and reps are lining up to use this as their primary weapon in the next election cycle. That's why there's so little discussion on this.

Unfortunately, I give this issue to the dems. Debt (and its consequences ) is something vague until much later (I like G. Will in NYT today). I believe that's why Reps aren't really all that conservative in practice. Politicans are politicians first, idealist second. However, short term spending and looking like you're doing something is short term trumps preventing problems. By next cycle, the layoffs will have stopped. Dems can blame reps for whatever the unemployment rate there is. And if the stimulus doesn't work, Dems can take credit for trying.

But, of course, that's guess. It'll be interesting for eveyone years from now to look back on this. I hope we  do a better job of this than "the war on terror". I'm pessimistic though.

 

faster action was needed. the contagion has already spread.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 10:40.

worldwide depression has started.

12% chance it won't be done until 2018.

FDR or Buchanan? whither Obama? the world has yet to decide.

I have read the bill

Submitted by skyewriter on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 11:52.

And posted line by line details on it all last week. It started at 736 pages.

The congressional folks have had time to read it; the final senate version was only ammended with 14 (fourteen) pages-- the new one is at 759 pages (.http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eas.txt.pdf)

They have had *2 weeks* to read the thing. If they haven't it's either sheer laziness or more attempts at obstruction.

Either way, the GOP is hanging itself.

Reading, schmeeding

Submitted by everythingatonce on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 18:16.

What is it going to take for you liberals and idealogues to take the blinders off and realize that this has nothing to do w/ substance, and everything to do w/ paying back of debts owed to campaign contributors.  I heard on the news that Pelosi went through the roof b/c school re-contrusction $ was lobbed off, do you think she went nuts because she cares about schools?

Do the math people, the Teachers Union lobby gives big bucks to the likes of the Liberal Pelosi.  This Bill had NOTHING to do w/ saving our economy and everything to do w/ polictics as usual and "change" for the same.  Wake up.

95% of this bill has been out there for weeks

Submitted by Caroline on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 08:17.

Normally they have staffers and they break it out and read portions then report back. If the Republicans couldn't do that, that's their problem.

IT's also posted at www.house.gov/appropriations so Americans can take a look not only at the full, searchable text of the bill, but summaries, amendments and changes, floor debates, and other information.

So what's your whine about transparency again?

Bottom line: Republicans hope it fails, hope America's economy continues to tank thinking it will help them in '10. Wonder how they'll campaign again the fact that they've all  (save 3 Senators) just voted against the biggest middle class tax cuts in history after voting FOR Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Why no traction

Submitted by lgm on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 11:56.

Why is it that Republicans get nowhere complaining about Democrats ramming bills through Congress?  Is it because memories go back a few years? 

Having skimed through it, I

Submitted by nathanial (not verified) on Wed, 07/22/2009 - 23:15.

Having skimed through it, I have to wonder where the writers of the bill think the states and other entities that apply for grants are going to get the matching money?

 

classified ads |job listings |adjustable beds

The major problem with

Submitted by tiffany and co on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 03:04.

The major problem with Sowell’s post is to claim the risk would be greater under Obama. The risk of terrorists getting nuclear weapons cheap tiffany jewelry