I do not support the bill (as prior posts have made clear), and I think Obama made a strategic error. By a "strategic error", I'm going beyond partisan talking points.
First, I think Obama should have presented his own plan vs. letting the Congressional Democratic leadership fashion a bill heavily weighted towards their own spending agenda, which did not necessarily and legitimately correlate with the concept of stimulus spending.
Second, Obama had an opportunity to co-opt the GOP with even modest concessions, but he ended up with less opposition support than Reagan. McCain and others wanted an opportunity to work with Obama on a bill but found themselves essentially shut out of the process. From a political standpoint, Obama could have "divided-and-conquered" the GOP by offering some concessions (more tax relief, particularly business/investment, and more limited spending, i.e., relief funding (e.g., unemployment extensions) and rigorously selected infrastructure projects), but if anything, the GOP actually coalesced in opposition to the bill heavily promoted by a popular President.
Third, Obama was arguing for a bill before it had even been reconciled by Congress, essentially steamrolling the opposition by arguing speed was a necessity and serious debate of a nearly $800B was not an option. Obama has set high, perhaps unrealistic expectations about the stimulative effects of this bill. Obama could find himself under attack if, as I suspect, the stimulative effect is less than the multiplier effect Obama himself has been promoting. Some could argue Obama didn't push for a large enough bill when he had the opportunity; if the spending is too high, if foreign investors do not flock to the new T-bills, we could see interest rates rise and/or the Treasury crowding out investment dollars for the private sector, hence limiting job recovery.
There are so many things wrong with this bill, it's difficult to know where to start. A relatively late emerging issue, the so-called "Buy American" provision, a form of trade protectionism, a misguided attempt to reserve infrastructure materials for the domestic steel market. A trade war would cause problems for many of our exporting companies, which worsens our trade imbalance. A second major point is a revisited example via Joe the Plumber during the general campaign--the concept of tax credits for workers whom, in fact, pay no federal income tax (also known as "spreading the wealth around"). But basically, as even the nonpartisan CBO has pointed out, only a very modest amount of the $787B is going to be spent in the short term which can have any legitimate stimulative effect. Even shutting out higher-income people from tax cuts is questionable because they have more discretionary income to spend and invest.
Some of the proponents' arguments are particularly annoying. First, the Democrats always talk about cutbacks in spending as laying off a policeman on the beat, a teacher in the classroom, etc.--never in terms of trimming a bloated bureaucracy or shuttering suspect programs or projects. Second, the Democrats talk about not taking any criticism on spending from a GOP President or Congress which vastly grew domestic spending. This is so disingenuous because Democrats did not bash federal domestic spending during the Bush administration. Third, Democrats are talking about "saving" local or state government jobs as a stimulus (the distinction between private and public sector workers in this regard is arbitrary).
I think that most people realize that Obama's rhetoric of post-partisan politics was idealistic, but some writers have enjoyed reviewing relevant passages in The Audacity of Hope, written when the Dems were not in control, where Obama talks about real bipartisanship. The GOP has been particularly effective at pointing out the pettiness of Pelosi and others refusing even to read the bill on the floor on which members were to vote. After talking down the economy, pronouncing the potpourri partisan stimulus bill as "the answer" to the global recession, and the stock market continuing to tank under the new President and the poorly received briefing by Treasury Secretary Geithner, Obama instinctively seems to realize his credibility is at stake and has been cautiously trying to play down the unrealistic expectations; he should realize that an emboldened opposition resisting a President still in his honeymoon, politically very risky for the GOP, is not a good omen. It's also as if he's trying to emulate Lincoln and/or FDR instead of trying to find his own voice.
I am convinced there will be a recovery sooner than most people expect, and I fully expect that Obama and his Democratic Congressional leadership will attempt to claim credit. But make no mistake--they have written a huge check on the backs of America's children and grandchildren, and the growth of government spending as a percentage of GNP has to be paid for. If and when we have to raise government revenues--i.e., taxes, it will be very painful for future growth--and jobs. Obama should know this, but he wants to grow the deficit to pay tax credits to people whom don't pay taxes. It's ideological and it's irresponsible. Obama and the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
