Setting The Record Straight On The Economic Recovery Package

[billspiz]

I know there had been comments in other threads about President Obama's lack of bipartisanship on the recent stimulus package. Rep Louise Slaughter D-NY is chair of the House Rules Committe..this is from her blog:

We’ve heard a lot of noise across the aisle about how partisan the development of the bill was --- that Republicans were blocked from being involved. This is entirely false. In fact, this was one of the most open processes a bill this large has had in over a decade.

They are being disingenuous, or worse. These are the facts:

The bill, as it came to the Rules Committee, the last stop before the floor vote, already incorporated 12 Republican amendments. The Rules Committee then added the 11 amendments: 6 Democratic and 5 Republican, in addition to a complete Republican substitute, and a motion to recommit. They were unable to muster the votes necessary and lost on bipartisan votes. House Republicans may have come together to vote against the final bill, but they split on their own amendments with 40 to 60 Republicans voting with Democrats. Some Republicans even voted against their party’s alternative bill, and it failed on the floor.

The Republican alternative didn’t have a final price tag, consisted entirely of tax cuts, and would actually raise taxes for 26 million American families. In two years, the Democratic bill would create 3.6 million jobs. The Republican substitute: 1.2 million – a third as many as the Democratic bill that passed the House.

President Obama even met with House Republicans more times in two weeks to discuss this legislation than President Bush did with House Democrats in two terms.

The Republicans were certainly allowed in the process, but they wanted to obstruct.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I know there had been comments in other threads about President Obama's lack of bipartisanship on the recent stimulus package. Rep Louise Slaughter D-NY is chair of the House Rules Committe..this is from her blog:

We’ve heard a lot of noise across the aisle about how partisan the development of the bill was --- that Republicans were blocked from being involved. This is entirely false. In fact, this was one of the most open processes a bill this large has had in over a decade.

They are being disingenuous, or worse. These are the facts:

The bill, as it came to the Rules Committee, the last stop before the floor vote, already incorporated 12 Republican amendments. The Rules Committee then added the 11 amendments: 6 Democratic and 5 Republican, in addition to a complete Republican substitute, and a motion to recommit. They were unable to muster the votes necessary and lost on bipartisan votes. House Republicans may have come together to vote against the final bill, but they split on their own amendments with 40 to 60 Republicans voting with Democrats. Some Republicans even voted against their party’s alternative bill, and it failed on the floor.

The Republican alternative didn’t have a final price tag, consisted entirely of tax cuts, and would actually raise taxes for 26 million American families. In two years, the Democratic bill would create 3.6 million jobs. The Republican substitute: 1.2 million – a third as many as the Democratic bill that passed the House.

President Obama even met with House Republicans more times in two weeks to discuss this legislation than President Bush did with House Democrats in two terms.

The Republicans were certainly allowed in the process, but they wanted to obstruct.
I'm not sure that quoting from the blog of a Democratic member of Congress qualifies as "setting the record straight".

Pence and Thune have both stated that they were not involved. But, it doesn't really matter. The Unholy Trinity, with the help of a few RINOs can push whatever legislation they want through Congress and there isn't a thamn ding the Republicans can do to stop it.

And if Ms Slaughter is including the support of Specter, Collins or Snow as an example of bipartisanship well...they just don't count.

[JaneBlow]

I'm not sure that quoting from the blog of a Democratic member of Congress qualifies as "setting the record straight".

Who says something does not determine the truth of what they are saying. If you disagree, what part do you disagree with?

Pence and Thune have both stated that they were not involved.

Do these Senators have a blog that contradicts something Slaughter has written?

But, it doesn't really matter.

Yes it does. It matters if the right wing Republicans say there was no effort to work with Republicans, if in fact, there was. The truth matters.

The Unholy Trinity, with the help of a few RINOs can push whatever legislation they want through Congress and there isn't a thamn ding the Republicans can do to stop it.

Right. Democratically elected representatives can cast their votes the way they think their constituents want them to and there's not a darn thing anyone can do to stop it.

And if Ms Slaughter is including the support of Specter, Collins or Snow as an example of bipartisanship well...they just don't count.

So even if 50% of Republicans supported the bill, it wouldn't be bipartisan because they wouldn't count. Whatever.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Who says something does not determine the truth of what they are saying. If you disagree, what part do you disagree with?

All I was saying was that a Democratic member of Congress is not exactly as unbiased a source for setting the record straight as would be say a reporter. I'm personally not that concerned about the concept of bipartisanship as most people tend to use the term. I believe that the process should be fair to both parties and should follow the rules that are in place. I am also concerned to the extent that I would like for Obama to keep his word. Generally speaking, I believe that both sides should bring their best ideas to the table and let the best idea win. But, I am not particularly concerned about this notion that there should be no bickering, no debating and "can't we all just get along?" I believe the process was set up to be somewhat adversarial in nature.

But, since you asked. There is this
We’ve heard a lot of noise across the aisle about how partisan the development of the bill was --- that Republicans were blocked from being involved. This is entirely false. In fact, this was one of the most open processes a bill this large has had in over a decade.

I believe to say that it was "entirely false" is pretty unlikely. More on that in a minute. And, I don't buy the "most open processes..." for a minute. I don't believe a bill of this magnitude, rushed through as quickly as it was is conducive in any way to transparency.

Do these Senators have a blog that contradicts something Slaughter has written?

I found this on Human Events
Some Republicans reportedly were in the late-night conference. But -- at least from the Senate -- the official Republican conferees were excluded. HUMAN EVENTS has received e-mail confirmations from the staffs of both Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-S.D.) saying that they had no participation in the conference.
But, I'm not sure exactly what role they played so I tried to find the official conferees and found this from the American Foundation for the Blind website:

Senate Stimulus Conferees:
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) 202-224-3542
Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), 202-224-3934
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), 202-224-2651
Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS), 202-224-5054
Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), 202-224-3744

House Stimulus Conferees:
Representative David Obey (D-WI-7), 202-225-3365
Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY-15), 202-225-4365
Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA-30), 202-225-3976
Representative Dave Camp (R-MI-4), 202-225-3561
Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA-41), 202-225-5861

So then, I found this from grassley.senate.gov:

Transcription of Senator Grassley's Capitol Hill Report

MODERATOR: The following is an unrehe****d interview with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley speaking to you live from Washington. Participating in today's public affairs program are Matt Monahan with KDST Radio in Dyersville and Steve Woodhouse with the Knoxville Journal Express in Knoxville.

The first question will be from Matt Monahan.

QUESTION: Good morning, Senator. Thanks for your time.

GRASSLEY: Good morning.

QUESTION: The first question I have, if you could just give us an update on the status of the stimulus package and also what impact that will have on Iowa.

GRASSLEY: Yes. Well, first of all, I was a conferee, but since it was a Democratic-driven bill, Democrat leaders of two committees in the House and two in the Senate met and really compromised between the House and Senate. So Senator Cochran, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and Chuck Grassley as a senior member of the Finance Committee. And then on the House side, our counterparts over there, the four of us really weren't involved in anything except the last meeting of the conference in which there was no business allowed, no amendments or anything.

So, unless a blog is the only source that you will accept as reliable, this would appear to be a bit of a refutation of Slaughter's assertion.

Yes it does. It matters if the right wing Republicans say there was no effort to work with Republicans, if in fact, there was. The truth matters.

When I said it didn't matter, I was referring to whether or not it mattered if the Republicans were on board for it. It simply doesn't. The Democrats have a large enough majority to effectively neutralize the minority party.

Right. Democratically elected representatives can cast their votes the way they think their constituents want them to and there's not a darn thing anyone can do to stop it.

Well, technically, you are correct. Although technically, they can do it regardless of what their constituents want. But surely you recognize that, with the advent of the near Super-Majority in both houses, the system of checks and balances has been weakened and the majority party has a distinct and almost insurmountable advantage.

So even if 50% of Republicans supported the bill, it wouldn't be bipartisan because they wouldn't count. Whatever.
Jane, I pointed out 3 specific Republicans whose voting records and rhetoric clearly indicate that they have a more liberal than conservative leaning. You cannot extrapolate that to assume or presume anything about what my opinion would be under different circumstances. But fine, whatever, the passage of the stimulus bill was bipartisan. And, since numbers appear to count, then the opposition to the stimulus was even more bipartisan.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Here is another thought about the stimulus bill. Every person who voted for it, or signed it, violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Since no one read it all the way through, they had no idea of what was in it. If they didn't know what was in it they didn't know whether or not there was anything within it that could violate the Constitution and therefore could not possibly have upheld or defended it.