It didn’t take long for representatives and senators to reach a compromise on a $790 billion stimulus bill. Chris Bowers posted a good summary of the bill at Open Left. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s selling point is that the bill that came out of conference creates more jobs than the original Senate bill while spending less money than the original House bill.

I don’t believe the bill is large enough to do the job it’s supposed to do, especially since it still contains costly measures that won’t stimulate the economy much (such as fixing the alternative minimum tax, which hits high-income Americans).

I hope President Barack Obama will take a tougher line in future negotiations with Congress. He did too much pre-compromising with Republicans, to the detriment of the final bill. His original suggestion of an $800 billion price tag for the stimulus, seen by some as a “floor” that would increase when Congress got to work, became a “ceiling” above which any bill was viewed as too expensive.

He also included too many non-stimulative tax cuts in his original proposal to Congress. Predictably, Republicans demanded (and got) even more concessions, even though none of them voted for the bill in the House and only three voted for it in the Senate.

Bowers noticed one Q and A from Obama’s prime-time press conference the other night, which hints that the president learned a lesson about negotiating from this experience.

Bowers believes that “The deal isn’t perfect, but it is still probably the best piece of legislation to pass Congress in, oh, 15 or 16 years.”

David Sirota is also mostly pleased:

I’m not happy that the stimulus bill was made less stimulative by reactionary Republicans and embarrassingly incoherent Democrats. I’m also not happy that direct spending on infrastructure/social programs comprises a miniscule 4.6% of all the government funds spent to deal with this economic crisis. However, considering how far progressives have pushed the debate, I’d say the deal on the economic stimulus package is a huge victory.

Remember, only months ago, the incoming administration and the Congress were talking about passing a stimulus bill at around $350 billion. Remember, too, that Obama started out pushing a stimulus package chock full of odious tax cuts. Now, we’ve got a bill that’s $790 billion (including a sizable downpayment for major progressive priorities) and stripped of the worst tax cuts.

Your opinion of the stimulus may depend on which issues you care about most. Open Left user WI Dem noticed that the compromise bill included more funding for high-speed rail but less for urban public transit, which “has a far greater effect on CO2 [emissions] and on people’s daily lives.”

Via the twitter feed of Daily Iowan opinion writers, I found this piece by Climate Progress on “what’s green” in the stimulus compromise.

The Republican Party is already planning to run ads against 30 Democrats who will vote for the stimulus. It makes sense for the GOP to bet against the stimulus, because they won’t get credit if it succeeds, and their best hope for a comeback in the next election cycle is for Democrats to fail. The main risk for them is that if the stimulus package succeeds, the upcoming advertising campaign people could make more people remember that Republicans tried to stand in its way.

Speaking of Republican propaganda, contrary to what your wingnut friends may tell you, the stimulus bill does not earmark $30 million to save “Nancy Pelosi’s mouse.” It does include some funding for federal wetlands restoration, however.

UPDATE: TPM’s Elana Schor provides surprising proof that no politician is wrong 100 percent of the time. Apparently Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma got a $2 billion “clean coal” earmark out of the stimulus bill.

Greg Sargent explains how “Pelosi’s mouse” went from fabrication to talking point for right-wing television pundits.

Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) announced plans to form a Populist Caucus in December. According to the Huffington Post, Braley plans to roll out the new caucus this week. (Hat tip David Sirota.)

Huffington Post lists most of the 21 founding members, who come from all over the country. There are moderates like Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Phil Hare (IL-17), progressives like Keith Ellison (MN-05) and Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and netroots heroes like Eric Massa (NY-29) and Pete DeFazio (OR-04). According to Huffington Post, Braley would be open to having Republicans join the caucus, although only Democrats have signed up so far.

Braley’s letter inviting colleagues to join the caucus listed these key points of the Populist Caucus agenda:

1. Fighting for working families and the middle class through the establishment of an equitable tax structure, fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and secure, solvent retirement plans.

2. Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care to all Americans.

3. Ensuring accessible, quality primary education for all American children, and affordable college education for all who want it.

4. Protecting consumers, so that Americans can once again have faith in the safety and effectiveness of the products they purchase.

5. Defending American competitiveness by fighting for fair trade principles.

6. Creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America.

Huffington Post also had this encouraging news:

The Populist Caucus will make its first major play by advocating for the inclusion of a “Buy American” provision in the stimulus package.

Bring it on. The “Buy American” provision is important if we want the stimulus to create jobs in the U.S. rather than taxpayer-funded outsourcing.

Though only starting his second term in Congress, Braley is rising fast. He landed a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee after aggressively advocating for Henry Waxman to replace John Dingell as its chairman. He is also one of three vice-chairs of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

When Barack Obama nominated Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary and appointed Larry Summers to be the chief presidential economics adviser, I became very worried. Summers had a hand in some of Bill Clinton’s deregulation policies that have contributed to our current economic problems, and Geithner was a key architect of the Wall Street bailout last fall.

Here and at other blogs, some commenters urged me to “give Obama a chance–he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.”

Geithner confirmed my worst fears today when he rolled out the new-and-improved bailout plan (using the second $350 billion tranche from the Troubled Assets Relief Program). Economist James Galbraith came up with the name Bad Assets Relief Fund (BARF) to describe Geithner’s plan.

Other bloggers have already explained why Geithner’s proposal is an unimaginably pricey gift to Wall Street bankers at the expense of the public interest. This diary by MyDD user bobswern hits all the main points, drawing on a front-page story in the New York Times and other sources.

Writing about how Geithner prevailed over presidential advisers like David Axelrod, who wanted to attach more strings to the taxpayer money Wall Street bankers would receive, David Sirota observed,

Interestingly, the divide inside the administration seems to hearken back to a divide discussed very early on in the formation of the administration – the one whereby progressives were put in strictly political positions, and zombie conservatives were put in the policymaking positions. In this case, more progressive politicos like Axelrod was overruled by corporate cronies like Geithner.

The good news is that at least there seems to be something of a debate inside the administration, however tepid. The bad news is what I and others predicted: namely, that progressives seem to have been ghettoized into the political/salesmanship jobs, the conservative zombies shaping policy aren’t interested in having any debate with them. Worse, we’re now learning that those zombies are as rigidly ideological as their initial policies seemed to suggest.

I stand by my prediction that Geithner will turn out to be one of Barack Obama’s worst appointments. I can’t fathom why Obama wants to “own” the very worst aspects of the Bush administration’s failed Wall Street bailout, while also depriving the government of cash needed for other domestic priorities.

The stock market fell sharply today, perhaps because investors have no confidence in Geithner’s scheme and perhaps because the compromise stimulus bill that passed the U.S. Senate came straight out of bizarro world (do click that link, you’ll enjoy it).

I hope Obama will recognize his mistake and let Geithner and Summers go within a year or so, but they’re already poised to do plenty of damage to his administration.

Speaking of bad appointments, isn’t it amazing that Obama didn’t even make Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire promise to vote for the stimulus bill in exchange for being named Commerce Secretary? Why would you put someone in a cabinet position with influence over economic policy if that person doesn’t even support the president’s stimulus plan?

Apparently Obama’s also considering making a lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce the main presidential adviser on judicial appointments. I’ve long anticipated that judges appointed by Obama would be corporate-friendly, pro-choice moderates in the Stephen Breyer mode, but I never imagined that a Chamber of Commerce lobbyist would be in a position to recommend only judges who would favor business interests.

If Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen becomes Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Obama-Biden magnet is coming off my car.

The Senate is on track to pass the deeply flawed compromise stimulus bill Tuesday after a motion to invoke cloture passed by a 61-36 vote today. (To overcome a filibuster in the Senate, 60 votes are needed for a cloture motion.)

All Senate Democrats, including Tom Harkin, voted yes, joined by Republicans Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter. Two Senate Republicans did not vote on the cloture motion, and all the rest, including Chuck Grassley, voted no.

Last week Grassley said he would vote for the stimulus bill if it included a provision on low-cost mortgages. Looking here I couldn’t find any sign that the amendment Grassley supported made it into the Senate version, so I assume it did not. I will call the senator’s office tomorrow to double-check.

According to Kagro X, a great side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate stimulus bills is here, but I couldn’t make that work on my browser.

The stimulus was the main topic of Barack Obama’s first prime-time news conference as president tonight. Click that link for some highlights.

A funny post by Paul Rosenberg at Open Left pointed me to this post by Greg Sargent:

The Republican National Committee, under new chairman  Michael Steele, has quietly killed an ambitious plan to create the Center for Republican Renewal, a big in-house RNC think tank intended to develop new policies and ideas in order to take the party in a new direction, a Republican official who was directly informed of the decision by RNC staff tells me.

The Center’s goal was to help the GOP reclaim the mantle of the “party of ideas,” as RNC officials glowingly announced in December, and the decision to scrap it has some Republicans, including allies of former RNC chair Mike Duncan, its creator, wondering how precisely the RNC intends to generate the new ideas necessary to change course and renew itself.

Rosenberg mocks Steele’s apparent decision to give up on making the GOP the “party of ideas,” but I think Steele is smart not to waste money on this project. As I’ve written before, I share Matthew Yglesias’s view that the time for Republicans to implement effective new ideas was when they were in power.

Whether the Republicans come back in 2010 or 2012 has little to do with their ability to generate new ideas and everything to do with how Democrats govern.

If Democrats fail to deliver on big promises, the pendulum will swing back. If Democratic leaders succeed, no think-tank generated “new Republican ideas” will prevent a political realignment in our favor.

If only we could explain this concept to the Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are eager to strip from the stimulus bill the government spending that would help the economy by creating jobs (school reconstruction) or increasing consumer spending (more money for food stamps). Those same so-called “centrist” Democrats favor leaving in tax cuts that provide much less “bang for the buck” (tax credits for business, fixing the alternative minimum tax).

In the name of bipartisanship and compromise, Democrats in the Senate may approve a stimulus bill that won’t work. That will do more to revive the Republican Party than the think tank Michael Steele axed. Even if a handful of Senate Republicans vote for the stimulus, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats will pay the price if the economy continues to decline.

President Obama deserves much of the blame for the sad turn the stimulus debate has taken. His negotiating strategy was deeply flawed, as debcoop and Theda Skocpol have explained. He should have started the debate on the stimulus with a much higher dollar number and a clear statement that he would not accede to failed Republican ideology.

I’ve noticed on these stimulus threads that some commenters think Obama would be acting too much like George W. Bush if he applied his political capital toward crafting a strong Democratic (rather than bipartisan) stimulus bill, and shaming a few Republicans into going along. I disagree. The most important thing for Obama is to pass a bill that will help the economy. Voters won’t give him points on style if the economy is still lousy in 2010 and 2012.

Bush’s mistake was not being partisan, but using his political capital to push through policies that failed miserably. If he had rammed bills through Congress that boosted our economy, improved the environment, kept our national debt from exploding and didn’t get us bogged down in an expensive war, he might have laid the groundwork for Republican realignment while his approval ratings were still very high.

Paul Rosenberg has an outstanding post up at Open Left on a report by Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody’s Economy.com. Zandi analyzed different types of tax cuts and government spending in terms of “fiscal stimulus bang for the buck.”

Click here to view the chart showing his conclusions. Various types of government spending all delivered much more stimulus to the economy than even the most effective tax cuts.

Temporary increases in food stamps carried the most “bang for the buck,” $1.73 for every federal dollar spent. That’s because food stamp money goes into the hands of people who will spend it right away. Not far behind was extending unemployment benefits (which also helps people likely to spend money quickly) and government spending on infrastructure (which creates jobs).

Zandi found that even the government spending that delivered the least bang for the buck, general aid to state governments, still generated $1.38 for every federal dollar spent.

On the other hand, most tax cuts generated far below $1 for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government. That’s particularly true for the tax cuts Republicans tend to favor, which mainly benefit high-income Americans or businesses. These generate between 25 and 50 cents for the economy for every dollar they cost the federal government.

By far the best tax cut for stimulating the  economy, according to Zandi, was a payroll tax holiday, which generates $1.28 for every dollar it costs. However, a payroll tax holiday still ranked significantly below various types of spending in terms of “bang for the buck.”

Rosenberg created a second chart combining Zandi’s figures with job creation numbers from the Center for Economic Policy and Research. It shows that millions more jobs would be created by $850 billion in spending compared to $850 billion in tax cuts.

Not only does government spending create more jobs and stimulate more consumer spending, it can also accomplish tasks that benefit the community as a whole. For instance, everyone who uses a bridge benefits from maintenance that prevents that bridge from collapsing. Thousands of travelers could take advantage of improved passenger rail service, which would also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions compared to driving or flying. For those reasons, I agree with the Iowa legislators who have advocated more rail funding in the stimulus bill.

Yesterday the Iowa Environmental Council provided another excellent example of how stimulus spending could produce both jobs and cleaner water in many Iowa communities:

IOWA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

For Immediate Release

February 2, 2009

More money needed in stimulus for clean water infrastructure

The Iowa Environmental Council is encouraging U.S. lawmakers to increase clean water infrastructure funding in the economic stimulus plan, now under consideration in Congress. The House version of the stimulus package currently includes $8 billion and the Senate bill $4 billion for clean water infrastructure. The EPA estimated the cost of meeting our clean water infrastructure needs at $580 billion during the last assessment in 2004, according to a GAO report.

In Iowa alone, the Department of Natural Resources estimates water infrastructure needs to be over $618 million over the next two to three years.

According to Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, 87 of these projects, with a total cost of $306 million, could be underway in three to four months if the necessary funding were made available.

Sixty-six communities in Iowa do not have a public sewer system and 21 communities need help to upgrade their drinking water systems says Heathcote.

“These needs combined with the fact that we could have shovels in the ground as soon as funding becomes available make them perfect candidates for funding under the nation’s economic stimulus package,” said Heathcote.

In letters to Iowa Representative Boswell and Senators Harkin and Grassley, Heathcote outlined Iowa projects that could proceed immediately with available funding:

·         25 communities with sewage treatment plant projects, with estimated needed loan amounts of $165 million.

·         41 small unsewered communities, with estimated total cost of $72 million.

·         21 communities with need for upgrades to their drinking water systems, with an estimated total cost of $69 million.

Heathcote says, in addition to the new water projects outlined above, Iowa communities also need help to address ongoing efforts to separate outdated combined sewer systems and to repair or replace aging sanitary sewer system pipes. Until this work is completed, Iowa communities must continue to deal with the public health threat from frequent failure of sanitary sewer systems that result in discharges of untreated sewage into Iowa rivers.

“While we are addressing our ailing economy, why not make a real investment in clean water?” said Heathcote.

### End ###

Maybe Senator Chuck Grassley, who derides the stimulus spending as “porkulus,” needs to hear from Iowans living in communities with substandard sewage systems and drinking water that could be a lot cleaner. You can reach his office by calling (202) 224-3121.

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress need to do a better job explaining to the public that the spending in the stimulus bill would directly boost the economy much more than tax cuts.  

Didn’t see this one coming. I learned via Iowa Politics that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running radio ads in 28 Congressional districts held by Republicans, including Iowa’s fourth district:

The ads focus on the Republicans out of step priorities by putting bank bail outs and building schools in Iraq before the needs of the Americans in the struggling economy. The Putting Families First ads begin airing on Tuesday morning during drive time and will run for a week.

In addition to the strategic radio ads in 28 Republican districts, the DCCC will also begin a grassroots initiative which includes targeted e-mails to 3 million voters and nearly 100,000 person-to-person telephone calls.

House Republicans just don’t get it.  They celebrate being the party of no and status quo, while more than 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs, the stock market has plummeted wiping out nearly $7 trillion stock market wealth and endangering thousands of investors’ nest eggs, and one in 10 homeowners was delinquent on mortgage payments or in foreclosure this fall.

“These are serious times, hard working families are worried about keeping their jobs, health care and homes – they want action, not House Republicans cheering about doing nothing,” said Brian Wolff, Executive Director of the DCCC. “Republicans’ champagne wishes and caviar dreams simply don’t connect with middle class families struggling to make ends meet and furious that their tax dollars are going to bail out banks, build schools in Iraq, or send American jobs overseas.  The Putting Families First campaign is only the first step, we will continue to go district by district to hold Republicans who continue to vote in lockstep with party leaders and against the folks in their districts accountable.”

There are several versions of the ad (click here for transcripts). This transcript of an ad running in a Michigan representative’s district is apparently comparable to what the DCCC is running in Tom Latham’s district:

Did you know Congressman Thad McCotter opposed over $526 million to modernize crumbling Michigan schools, but supported building new schools in Iraq?  Times are tough, tell Thad McCotter to put American jobs first.

If you’ve heard any of these radio ads, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) to let me know what issue it covered.

There is a lot of overlap between the 28 districts where DCCC ads are running and this list of the 20 most vulnerable House Republicans going into 2010, which Crisitunity compiled at Swing State Project last month. However, there are a handful of Republicans on Crisitunity’s list who are not (yet) being targeted by the DCCC’s ad campaign.

Conversely, the ads are running in some districts where the incumbents may not seem vulnerable at first glance. Latham did not make Crisitunity’s list after he won re-election by more than 20 points in November, despite the fact that Barack Obama carried IA-04. However, the DCCC clearly has not ruled out making a serious play for this district in 2010.

Remember, Iowa’s Bruce Braley is now the DCCC’s vice chair responsible for “offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.”

Taking out Latham in 2010 would make it highly likely for Iowa Democrats to hold three out of the four Congressional districts we will have after the next census. Even if we don’t beat him in 2010, running a strong campaign against Latham could bring down his favorables and improve our chances of holding IA-03 if that district includes Story County in 2012.

UPDATE: Brownsox demolishes Fred Hiatt’s criticism of this ad campaign.

The Senate confirmed Eric Holder as attorney general today by a vote of 75-21. Both Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted yes, as expected. I always thought Holder would be confirmed, but I am pleasantly surprised that he was approved by a larger majority than Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. I believe Holder will turn out to be one of President Barack Obama’s better cabinet appointments.

For reasons I cannot fathom, Obama appears ready to appoint Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, a conservative Republican, as Secretary of Commerce. Chris Bowers concisely explains why this is an awful choice:

So, for some reason, in the wake of total Republican intransigence on the stimulus bill, the Obama administration will respond by putting a Republican in charge of one the federal departments overseeing the economy. Judd Gregg himself has said he will oppose the stimulus package. That is certainly an, um, interesting way for the Obama administration to incentivize Republican opposition. Oppose President Obama, and he will reward you by giving you a cabinet position.

It is worth noting what sort of ideas Judd Gregg has for the economy: a commission of center-right insiders operating in secret and circumventing Congress in order to destroy Social Security and Medicare.

Senate Republicans continue to hold up Hilda Solis’s confirmation as Labor Secretary, and Obama responds by appointing Gregg to the cabinet?

Democrats won’t even get a Senate seat out of the deal, because the Democratic governor of New Hampshire has promised to appoint a Republican to serve out Gregg’s term. The only upside is that the appointee may be easier to beat in 2010 than longtime incumbent Gregg would have been. But that’s not worth handing over control of the Commerce Department to a conservative, in my opinion.

All I can say is, Gregg better not screw around with the Census Bureau and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In a dispatch from bizarro world, Politico’s David Rogers still isn’t convinced that Obama is serious about bipartisanship, even though Gregg will become the third Republican in his cabinet and will be replaced by a Republican in the Senate:

Obama, while talking a good game about bipartisanship, is draining the Senate of the very talent he needs to achieve this goal.

If only Obama were merely “talking a good game about bipartisanship.”

Speaking of Senate Republicans, Kagro X put up a good post on prospects for a filibuster of the economic stimulus bill, and Chris Bowers posted a “whip count” here, concluding that

Overall, it seems highly likely that the stimulus will pass without Republicans forcing major changes. However, given the narrow margins, this is not a guarantee.

The Senate will likely vote on the bill on Wednesday. Grassley has already spoken out against what he calls the “stimulus/porkulus bill.”

It’s easy to complain about “wasteful government spending” in the stimulus bill when you’re in the Congressional minority. Voting against the stimulus may even be a smart political play for Congressional Republicans.

However, Republican governors who have to balance state budgets in this shrinking economy view the prospect of massive federal government spending differently:

Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama’s economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama’s spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state’s share of the package.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state’s congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan. […]

This past week the bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.

“States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression _ anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion,” the NGA statement said. “Governors … support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation’s infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment.”

Will the GOP base become disenchanted with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin because of her public support for the stimulus? I suspect Markos is right:

It complicates matters for the anti-stimulus ideologues who see starbursts in the presence of Palin.

Then again, Palin had no trouble lying about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere. Nothing will stop her from trying to rewrite history three years from now.

Speaking of Palin, I learned from Jeff Angelo that she’s created SarahPAC. Something tells me that a lot of Iowa Republican candidates in will receive generous contributions from this political action committee during the next two election cycles.

Senator Tom Harkin was right to warn in a conference call with reporters today that the economic stimulus bill may be too small.

He is also right to be concerned about the tax-cut provisions. Tax cuts that put more money into the hands of people in high income brackets (such as fixing the alternative minimum tax) will not necessarily boost consumer spending.

He is right about this too:

Harkin said the bill must be seen as more than an immediate jump-start for the ailing economy, and therefore lawmakers should not be timid about its potential.

“This is not just a stimulus bill to put someone to work right now,” Harkin said. “That’s important and we will do that. But we are also going to do things that lay the groundwork for a solid recovery in the future.”

Harkin wants the bill to put more money into renewable fuels and less money into so-called “clean coal”:

“We’re putting money into clean coal technology,” he said. “There’s no such thing.”

You said it, senator.

Speaking of how there’s no such thing as clean coal, if you click here you’ll find another clever ad from the Reality Coalition.

Speaking of senators who are right about things, Here’s John Kerry on the stimulus:

Reacting to Wednesday night’s vote in the House – where not a single GOP member supported the stimulus package – Kerry told Politico that “if Republicans aren’t prepared to vote for it, I don’t think we should be giving up things, where I think the money can be spent more effectively.”

“If they’re not going to vote for it, let’s go with a plan that we think is going to work.”

The Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate suggested tossing some of the tax provisions in the stimulus that the GOP requested. “Those aren’t job creators immediately, and even in the longer term they’re not necessarily. We’ve seen that policy for the last eight years,” he said.

What was that thing Americans voted for in November? Oh yeah, change.

Senator Chuck Grassley voted to confirm Eric Holder yesterday as the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination by a lopsided 17-2 vote. Thomas Beaumont’s report for the Des Moines Register noted that Grassley

has been vocal in his concern about Holder’s role in advising former President Bill Clinton about his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich and his granting clemency to members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group convicted on weapons and conspiracy charges.

“It gives me a great deal of caution,” Grassley said during a conference call with reporters before the vote.

Grassley said ranking judicial committee Republican Arlen Specter’s support for Holder was influential in his own decision.

“Specter has worked on these pardons harder than I have,” Grassley added. “And if he’s willing to forgive on that and accept the explanations, that would lead me to as well.”

Many people believe that Specter aggressively questioned Holder during the confirmation hearings in order to defend himself against a possible primary challenge in 2010. A few days ago the Club for Growth whack-job who challenged Specter in 2004 announced that he will not run for the Senate seat from Pennsylvania in 2010.

Meanwhile, Americans United for Change plans to run this television ad in Iowa to pressure Grassley to vote for President Barack Obama’s stimulus package:

I would be shocked if Grassley voted for the stimulus bill. I doubt he feels vulnerable to public pressure on this issue.

The House of Representatives passed an $819 billion economic stimulus bill today by a vote of 244-188. Here is the roll call. Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted with the majority. Republicans unanimously opposed the bill, including Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05), and 11 “Blue Dog” Democrats also voted no.

All the news reports have emphasized that not a single Republican voted for this package, even though President Barack Obama tried hard (too hard if you ask me) to bring them on board.

It reminds me of 1993, when Congressional Republicans unanimously opposed President Bill Clinton’s first budget. The GOP seems to be banking on running against Democrats’ management of the economy in the midterm elections. For that reason, I think it’s foolish for Democrats to try to cater to Republicans. Passing a stimulus bill that truly helps the economy should be paramount.

I’ll update this post later with more details about what made it into the House bill and what got left behind. I’m pleased to note that an amendment significantly increasing mass transit funding passed. A Siegel tells you which Democrats deserve particular credit for this achievement. By the way, mass transit is not just for large cities.

UPDATE: Congressman Loebsack’s office sent out a release with a long list of provisions in the stimulus bill. I’ve posted it after the jump, so click “there’s more” if you want all the details.

The top point of the release is that Loebsack successfully pushed for school modernization funds to be included in the stimulus package.

At the very end of the press release, you’ll see that the stimulus bill “Prevents [Illinois] Governor [Rod] Blagojevich from directing the use of funds provided in the package.” I understand why people would worry about him administering any funds earmarked for Illinois, but I am with Adam B: this provision is tantamount to “bribing the jury” of Illinois senators who are considering impeachment charges against Blagojevich.

Iowa moved into second place in 2008 in terms of wind power generating capacity, according to this press release from the American Wind Energy Association. (Hat tip to the person who put this link on the Iowa Renewable Energy Association’s e-mail loop.)

Last year Iowa dropped to fourth in wind energy capacity, behind Texas, California and Minnesota. Now Iowa trails only Texas.

2008 was a banner year for the wind energy industry as a whole. More facts and figures can be found in the American Wind Energy Association release, which I’ve posted after the jump.

The renewable energy tax credit has helped promote installations of wind turbines around the country. It was scheduled to expire on January 1, 2010. However, a three-year extension to that tax credit was added to the economic stimulus package the House of Representatives is voting on today.

Congressman Bruce Braley (IA-01) has introduced a bill to extend the renewable energy tax credit for seven years. That bill is currently under consideration by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Extending this tax credit is a no-brainer. It helps the environment by increasing the production of clean, renewable energy, and it creates jobs by increasing demand for products like wind turbines and solar panels.

In addition to offering tax credits, the federal government could help expand wind power capacity by investing in more transmission lines and adopting an ambitious renewable electricity standard (for instance, requiring that 20 percent of our electricity come from clean, renewable sources by 2020).

Just as I’d feared, President Barack Obama is moving toward the Republican position in an effort to pass a “bipartisan” economic stimulus bill.

At the request of the president, the overall price tag will be in the $800 billion range, even though many economists believe we need at least $1 trillion to kick-start the economy.

Also, House Democrats were under pressure to reduce planned spending on mass transit and other infrastructure projects to make room for tax cuts to appease Republicans–even though the tax cut provisions are unlikely to create the jobs we need.

Yesterday Obama personally urged Democrats to remove contraception funding for poor women from the stimulus bill in order to appease Republican critics.

Trouble is, the top two House Republicans have already told their caucus to vote against the stimulus bill when it comes to the floor.

Today Obama met privately with Republican Congressional leaders to discuss the stimulus further. As you’d expect, Republicans keep finding things to complain about, like a few billion dollars for “neighborhood stabilization activities.”

How many more times will the president cave to GOP demands before he realizes that Republicans have already decided to vote against the bill?

He doesn’t need Republican votes to pass this bill.

No matter how many concessions he makes, he won’t get a significant number of Republican votes in favor of the bill.

All he’ll get is a watered-down stimulus bill and a talking point that he tried to work with the other side. Republicans will get the political credit for opposing the stimulus if it turns out to be ineffective.

Obama should stop worrying about bipartisanship and work toward getting Congress to pass the best bill for fixing the economy.

I’m with New York Times columnist Bob Herbert:

When the G.O.P. talks, nobody should listen. Republicans have argued, with the collaboration of much of the media, that they could radically cut taxes while simultaneously balancing the federal budget, when, in fact, big income-tax cuts inevitably lead to big budget deficits. We listened to the G.O.P. and what do we have now? A trillion-dollar-plus deficit and an economy in shambles.

This is the party that preached fiscal discipline and then cut taxes in time of war. This is the party that still wants to put the torch to Social Security and Medicare. This is a party that, given a choice between Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, would choose Ronald Reagan in a heartbeat.

Why is anyone still listening?

Instead of wasting time meeting with Republicans who are not negotiating with him in good faith, Obama could try to get his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on board with the administration’s alleged “no lobbyist” policy.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that last week Obama agreed to delay bankruptcy reform in a fruitless effort to bring over Republicans on the stimulus bill:

Many Democrats, including Obama, have long-supported the strategy of empowering bankruptcy judges to alter the terms of primary mortgages to prevent foreclosures. But White House officials have said they don’t want the bankruptcy provision in the stimulus bill for fear of alienating Republicans, most of whom oppose the change.

Obama should worry more about the substance of legislation and less about whether he can claim a victory for bipartisanship.

SECOND UPDATE: TomP sees the glass half full, arguing that Obama is not compromising further on “core values.”

THIRD UPDATE: As usual, Natasha Chart says it very well:

Some Democrats have fallen prey to the delusion that politics is a gentlemen’s parlor game in which they’re being judged on style, as opposed to a set of deadly serious struggles in which they’re being judged on their results.

It’s a stupid belief that will lead its holders to no good end in the future, just as it has not in the past.

Though likely, long before they suffer any consequence for their foolishness, some young family with crappy jobs, a child or children that they can barely feed already, and no insurance is going to find themselves in a jam this year that these bozos could prevent by funding family planning for low-income households.

My apologies for not getting this in closer to the actual new year, but you could say that “a day late and a dollar short” has been the theme of the new year so far for me. Or five days short, as the case may be.

In any case, before we start the new political year for real, I thought it might be fun to share our predictions for the new year. Here are nine predictions of mine for two thousand and nine.

1. The state budget is in far worse shape then we think. Expect the fight over the budget to get ugly, quick.

The Iowa state fiscal year runs from July 1 2008 to June 30 2009–right in the heart of the economic meltdown. Given that the estimates for this period are just starting to come in, it's reasonable to assume that the stories we're currently hearing about the “budget crisis” represent only the tip of a much larger iceberg. Likewise, the 1.5% across-the-board cut currently proposed by Gov. Culver isn't going to be nearly enough to solve the crisis. It's going to get ugly and fast.

2. Unemployment will hit 10% by the end of 2009, and recovery will not come until early 2010.

Call me a pessimist, but I think things are going to get much worse before they get better. When you combine the potential failure of the Big 3 (a still unresolved issue, by the way), plus a global manufacturing slowdown, with the fact that up to 25% of retail stores may declare bankrupcy in the next year–you have the recipie for unmitigated economic disaster.  

To complicate matters, I do not expect President Obama's recovery measures to be passed before May of this year. (There are already signs that a long battle is ahead for this bill.) That means that many of the infrastructure projects given funds through the program will miss out on the summer construction window–meaning they likely won't start until Summer 2010. Many other measures, like tax cuts or social programs won't go into effect until 2010 as well…moving the light at the end of the tunnel further and further away.

3. The Big 3 will not survive in their current form. Get ready for the Big 2.

Regardless of whether the auto bailout was the correct move at the time, by the time the big ball drops in 2010–there will no longer be a Big 3 as we know them now. My best guess is that one of the Big 3 automakers (most likely Chrysler) will implode into disorganized bankrupcy. No buyer will be found, and the brand will simply cease to exist. This will spark a crisis that will either lead to the organized bankrupcy/restructuring of the other companies, or government assistance with severe Bob Corker style conditions. 

The good news is that out of the multitude of laid-off engineers and designers, we could see new  and innovative technologies, designs, and companies form. By 2020 we could all be driving solar hybrids designed and built by ex-Big 3 designers who started their own companies.

6. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage in the case of Varnum v. Brien.

Beware the ides of March rings true in Iowa in 2009. Expect a ruling on the case of Varnum v. Brien to come down with a rulings for several other cases on March 13, the conclusion of the Court's March session. When that happens expect a whirlwind of craziness to descend on the state: national media, a rush of spring weddings, celebrity attention, half-cocked legal challenges, right-wing rants, Fred Phelps-ian protests, legislative blustering, Steve Deace's head exploding, and who knows what else.

I don't think the moon turning to blood, the dead walking the streets, or any other Pat Robertson-style pronouncements will come true…but expect a wild ride.

5. The Republican candidate for Governor will be a serious contender who already holds a major elected office.

The current fight over the RPI chair has a definite and familiar theme: change. Old hacks are out, new hacks are in. While there is a faction of the GOP that clings to BVP like life preserver, the majority of the party is, I think, waiting for someone new to come along.

That someone is either State Auditor David Vaudt, Sec. of Agriculture Bill Northey, or 4th District Congressman Tom Latham.

Vaudt looks to emerge as one of the main faces of opposition to Culver on budget issues, a position he could use to slingshot him to the governorship. Northey is the darling of the Republican Party and, with agricultural issues on the back-burner this year and little to do, may find the Governor's race an attractive prospect. Latham, by all measures a low-importance member of the minority party might decide that its now or never for him. And he has nothing to lose: if he wins, he's the Governor; if he loses, he can run again as the elder-statesman in the dogfight that will be the new 3rd district.

Kula2316 posted several clips containing economists’ reactions to news that U.S. employers cut more than half a million jobs in November. From a story in today’s Washington Post:

Indeed, the economy is unraveling so fast as to defy analysis through the usual statistical models. Among the phrases found in normally sober reports from the nation’s top economic forecasters yesterday: “god-awful,” “wholesale capitulation,” “shockingly weak” and “indescribably terrible.”

“The numbers here are truly horrific,” said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group, a consultancy. “It is clear this economy is now deteriorating with frightening speed and ferocity.”

Many experts expect the economy to get worse before it gets better. I graduated from college in what we thought was a gruesome hiring environment during Poppy Bush’s presidency. People who could get into some kind of graduate school jumped at the chance to stay off the job market for a year or two.

If you are looking for a job now, or plan to be looking soon, I recommend Teddifish’s Daily Kos diary on How to get a job when no one is hiring. Teddifish’s advice is mainly geared toward people starting out their careers, but the comment thread under that diary is full of ideas that apply to job-seekers of any age and experience level.

For instance, several people recommended sending a thank-you note after a job interview. That can help you stand out among the competitors. Even if you are not hired right away, sending a note to thank the interviewer for his or her consideration can help you in the future. Often an employer’s first choice doesn’t work out for whatever reason.

I’ll share one tip, which got me the job that changed my life: If you are a finalist for a position and don’t get an offer, call to find out why you weren’t hired.

I had had what I thought was a very positive interview in September. I heard a week or two later that I had made the cut to their short list, and they would be making a decision soon. October passed and I never heard anything. I assumed they hired someone else.

This job was in a different city. In January I went to that city, thinking I had another promising lead. While I was in town, I decided to call the guy who had interviewed me in September, who was the director of the institute where I wanted to work. I was nervous, but I had been advised that it was worth asking why I hadn’t been hired.

When he got on the phone, he said, “Boy, am I embarrassed to be talking to you.” It turned out that they weren’t 100 percent happy with any of the finalists, so the position was still open. (I was considered too inexperienced.) But as long as I was in town, he invited me to come down to their office.

Then I got to meet with the man who was going to head the department I had applied for. That interview went very well. He liked me and felt that while I didn’t have a lot of directly relevant experience, I had skills and background that suggested I would have a lot to contribute. He also knew of and respected one of the references listed on my resume.

Within an hour they offered me a job and I was talking to someone in human resources about moving and temporary housing while I looked for an apartment. It was surreal.

I don’t know if professional head-hunters recommend calling to find out why you weren’t hired, but it worked out for me.

Share any thoughts about the economy or job market in the comments.

UPDATE: Several Daily Kos commenters recommended Dick Bolles’ book “What Color Is Your Parachute?” He has a website with information for job-hunters and career-changers here.

Worse than you thought:

Skittish employers slashed 533,000 jobs in November, the most in 34 years, catapulting the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent, dramatic proof the country is careening deeper into recession.

[…]

As companies throttled back hiring, the unemployment rate bolted from 6.5 percent in October to 6.7 percent last month, a 15-year high.

“These numbers are shocking,” said economist Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economics Advisors. “Companies are sharply reacting to the economy’s problems and slashing costs. They are not trying to ride it out.”

The unemployment rate would have moved even higher if not for the exodus of 422,000 people from the work force. Economists thought many of those people probably abandoned their job searches out of sheer frustration. In November 2007, the jobless rate was at 4.7 percent.

I knew things were bad (I have a couple of friends who’ve been laid off this fall), but I am surprised the monthly job-loss total is worse than at any time since 1974. That is terrible.

At Daily Kos, TomP has Barack Obama’s response to the unemployment numbers. Excerpt:

At the same time, this painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people by rebuilding roads and modernizing schools for our children, investing in clean energy solutions to break our dependence on imported oil, and making an early down payment on the long-term reforms that will grow and strengthen our economy for all Americans for years to come.”

It looks like Obama will try to fold a lot of energy and infrastructure programs into a large economic stimulus bill early next year. That’s a smart approach, but I hope he won’t make too many concessions to boondoggles like “clean coal.” Also, I would hope that a large portion of the infrastructure spending goes on fixing and maintaining current roads and bridges, along with expanding rail travel. Too often federal spending on the transportation sector goes largely toward new road construction.