Even as the right wing commentators excoriate the stimulus bill and prepare to bitter end oppose it – so much for a spirit of Compromise – events on the Democratic side of the aisle are moving quickly.
When a bill is still in committee and being "marked up" everything is fluid, things like the Simpson amendment to get more Congressional oversight, race through to the bill.
When mark up ends, as it did for the Stimulus bill this week, change becomes harder to come by: a member must submit an amendment, get the Rules Committee to allow it to be brought to the floor, and then win a vote of the house. There are some procedural end runs to this, but in general, the Rules Committee acts as the traffic cop to the floor, and will only move if there is some high ranking support for an amendment, or if the leadership knows that while it will fail, there are too many supporters to bury it entirely.
Two areas where the marked up bill falls well short of the public’s expectations are in transportation and mortgage renegotiation. 94% of Americans are concerned about the nation’s infrastructure, and even hard right wing commentators admit the depth of mortgage desperation.
Both ideas have broad bi-partisan support in one form or another. Several Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. DeFazio of Oregon, have been angered by what they see as road blocks to getting funding in the bill. Two amendments in particular are being expected. One from DeFazio, a key member of Transportation, would restore 2 billion of the 23 billion shorn away from the bill since it was introduced. Jerry Nadler has asked for a direct meeting with Obama to increase the size and spending scale of the bill, and to green it’s provisions, arguing the bill is too small by standard measures, and that more money could be spent effectively. The amount of infrastructure spending directly in the bill, has been the target of criticism from Republican Senators, such as Shelby of Alabama, as well as from Democratic lawmakers.
On the mortgage renegotiation side, there is support from members of the banking committee, and from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Proposals to do mortgage renegotiation have come from executive branch members, following on the model pursued by Bair over at FDIC. However, no one has taken ownership of this. Sources on the Hill have said that critical to making the amendment happen would be the support of Rep. Brad Miller, and Rep. Barney Frank, even if another member actually offered the amendment, the word was that the Rules Committee would be "no go" without cover.
The Senate has yet to take up the measure, since as an appropriations bill it has to begin in the House. Republicans are focusing their ability to derail the bill entirely, and thus force larding the bill with yet more ineffective revenue reductions, in the Senate, where they need to maintain caucus discipline. Observers are watching for smoke signals from Snow of Maine, because she is seen as one of the votes that the Democratic majority would need to get to invoke cloture and allow any bill to move forward. Senator John McCain has already come out against the current form of the bill.
In the end the political question is whether the desire for tax cuts, and keeping the bill in the size range that President Obama dictated – that is 825 Billion over two years – trumps the very wide spread desire to get more money flowing faster. Dozens of local news papers have trumpeted how much their state would get, and "toe-tagging" – as one staffer put it to me, that’s the process of not ear marking in the bill, but creating a decision process which is a foregone conclusion at the other end – is already exerting pressure to up the projects part of the bill. In no small part, this is because many localities fear that any money given to states will be used to plug budget gaps without raising taxes or fees, rather than engaging in new construction.



48 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Naive question number one for me in this thread: Does mortgage renegotiation apply only to those who haven’t already been given the boot from their homes?
It is my hope that, having made fruitless effort at bipartisanship, President Obama will recognize the basic anti-Americanism of many of the Republicans and publicly call them on it. If he can fracture what few pragmatic Republicans might remain in their party, Obama could leave them even more fractured and disorganized than they are now, while building a coalition of pragmatists who realize that their re-elections are best secured by improving the condition of our country.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to make all mortgages 5.25% on primaries than sending everyone underwater to court? Imagine the court expenses alone. And why should someone who overextended get a better rate than a regular American? That’s the part that pisses me off.
We’re bailing out the banks…don’t we have some leverage?
I don’t mean that someone underwater isn’t a regular American. I’m probably underwater myself. But you get my drift. I’m not going to default on my loan.
Who could have imagined the Republicans would be the party of obstruction.
more like anti-human being
i mean ,anti LIVING THINGS is best description
This feels like watching a family home burn, while listening to the arsonist count your cash.
Now that Obama has drawn out the Republicans and exposed them for the conniving obstructionists that they are, he can work around them with impunity.
Mortgage renegotiation occurs before foreclosure, and these days it often happens before the borrower has missed a payment. Renegotiation, if a lender is willing to do it, is based on a showing of need for different terms in order to make the mortgage payment.
I’m suggesting that since the banks are getting 0% money on our dime, perhaps they can accept say 5% on our mortgages.
That’s a fine idea. My mortgage is 6.875 percent. Why shouldn’t we all get a break? Bushco crashed the economy and screwed all of us. My house was worth $325 at the peak of the hot market. Now I could sell it for $200 if I’m lucky. Now I feel like I got to wait it out. No guarantee it won’t be worth even less in the future. You are right. We should all get the same rate 5.25 percent.
You have such a succinct way of putting things, ES! ;-)
I’m hoping Obama’s velvet glove is concealing an iron fist to punch rethugs in their stupid McConnell/Boner/Graham/Cantor faces.
And if those of us keeping up with our payments had the difference in cash, wouldn’t it improve our economy?
What’s the real story? We all go down together or we try to fix the big picture. I’m no economist by any means, but even as a red-blooded American, I would resent another American getting a better deal than me on our collective dime.
He’ll make them bleed.
What happens, if anything, to the bill if, on February 6, the Jan jobless rate jumps to 7.8% from 7.2% in Dec, and there are 800,000 job losses?
Right On. This Bush-Paulson TARP Scheme is a flat-out rip off. Where’s my cheese, mothertruckers?
too lazy to look it up—— anyone know who chairs the rules committee??
nadler is going to get told that Obama agrees with him 100% but….. can’t do it now. Let’s get this done now and we’ll come back again and do all those things in the second stimulus bill, after the first one doesn’t work. It’ll have a ton of support.
More tax cuts… of course.
The malaise of incrementalism. Exactly what Japan kept doing: too little, too late.
Of course, I listened to today talk shows. Tax cuts are the only thing that act immediately.
Not Iron, Titanium … watch what happens in the next couple of weeks.
That Dumb F*ck Cantor was on TeeVee repeating the “tax cuts for rich folks is the backbone of all that is good with Murkah” meme.
The Repubs are going to get rope-a-dope by a Lefty …
how did summers do today? wasn’t Rep. Hard-on on that show, too?
The job loss is going to be over a million, I read that the week of the 17th there were over 500,000+ and the week before that was also 500,000+. I expect the new filings is going to be even higher than a million. I wish I could remember the exact figures….
hope they won’t be expecting that left. and, of, course, hope it knocks the piss out of ‘em.
yeah. Bam gotta watch it. At some point his people – the libruls – are gonna get mad
The figures you cite are for the number receiving benefits, not the newly unemployed, which was 62,000 in the most recently reported week.
And that is an entirely different survey from the monthly one, which is more comprehensive.
Went to the mall near me today and was stunned. At least 10 stores are closed plus Mervyns. And Microsoft is laying off 1000 – may be just the beginning there.
There is just so much ram available to sort through all of what’s not in the stimulus.
Broadband buildout is one area which is poorly lacking.
Some folks say 300,000 jobs are ultimarly created per percentage point growth in broadband penetration.
Yet we are investing only 3 billion on broadband in the stimulus.
One can only hope, Petro, Lawn chair Reid is such a putz for folding…! :-(
Btw, How’s the Great White North…? ;-)
you counting the extra hard drives and equipment it’s going take the nsa to scoop up and store all the extra bits that bandwidth would support?
Me likey! That seems like a genius solution. Economists in the house?
Frrrrizzzingg ! We did get a respite though, it’s only -12 F tonight !
This is why we use the bankruptcy system for renegotiating loans. First, only people who really need help get it. After they go through Chapter 13, they work off a bunch of debt, credit cards, health-related debt, and so on, and then they can handle their mortgages at the reduced prices.
Second, bankruptcy cuts through the contract/securitization problem. It makes it possible to force changes even if the bankers and mortgage servicers don’t want to or can’t be found.
There is a benefit to you as well. It holds up the property values in your neighborhood above where they would be in the cae of foreclosure. It keeps your neighbor’s house from becoming vacant, and a temptation for rats and vandals. The floor on property values is higher, which is good for you. And it keeps your neighbors safe.
I understand your feelings, though. You have done right, your neighbor didn’t, and your neighbor is more protected than you are. It is not an easy problem, and it doesn’t seem fair. It really isn’t totally fair. The question is whether you feel that being stuck in Chapter 13, with very little discretionary income, for five years, is somehow an offset for your neighbor’s apparent good fortune.
Even better, it’s a call to action for activists in those R’s home states, to get up in their Critters’ faces, so that the force for change comes from the people.
A way for PBO to quote FDR: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now MAKE me do it.”
There’s no time for such stupid games.
I saw a clip (was that here at FDL?) of Obama saying that his usual political strategy was to open negotiations by listening to all sides in good faith, but if he felt that someone took advantage of that, then he would “crush them.” With regard to Congressional GOP, we might have a good test case for that strategy.
I do not have time to keep up with the details, but some of the failings of the previous proposals reveal gaps that cannot be explained by Obama’s centrist advisors. While I disagree with much of what I have read of Summers’ approach, there are weaknesses in the previous versions of the stimulus even by Summers’ own criteria, so there must be something else going on.
If Obama does decide to come out and counterpunch hard against any GOP bad faith, I hope he sends out people like Biden or Orszag to do it, rather than Pelosi or Reid or Frank, since I find the Congressional Democratic statements vague and confusing.
I heard a clip of Pelosi today talking about how “nationalization” was a bad term (or concept?). I could not figure out what she was trying to say. Was that a brief comment, or did she give an extended interview, and if the latter, where? Anyone know?
I don’t think Summers’ is a very good spokesman either, from what I’ve heard of him, he tends to ramble and is unfocused.
That’s all a secret bonus. /s
What’s really odd to me.. is 3 billion for broadband is in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, yet another (potential) 3 billion is in play for broadband in the Agro committee.
Shall we call it – Incoherent chicken feed for the big Telcos?
wrt to FDR quote, I agree. Need to advocate loudly for good stimulus and be proactive in analyzing and offering critiques of bad proposals (especially unproductive tac breaks for big business and wealthy).
I’m understand what you are saying. We did have one home go into foreclosure in my neighborhood. (Interestingly, the woman worked for Countrywide, took her money from here and transplanted it to a bigger property and house.) I have no clue where the family is now, financially, but I really would resent it if they were getting a better interest rate than I am.)
And he is really hard to look at…just not a good spokesperson…
Sure, but don’t you think we have to balance the badness of the unfairness of some folks getting a break they don’t necessarily deserve against the badness of a frickin’ depression? I know how I would vote there. If the flat 5.25% deal for everybody would do the trick in terms of freeing up the liquidity crisis (and I don’t know whether it would or not), then that seems like a tradeoff I could happily embrace.
I know nothing of which I speak on this! Just trying to make sense of a situation that could benefit someone who has been irresponsible over someone who has been responsible.
And to make it fair to the banks who have been the most irresponsible and greedy and dumbfucks.
“…(F)air to the banks who have been the most irresponsible and greedy and dumbfucks” would mean letting them go bankrupt, and that would be fine as far as that goes, but if that means we all have to eat Ramen for 20 years instead of being a shining beacon on a hill, then I’m willing to let them live. Just this one time.
Me too. Just this second time.
Yes, second time; I recline corrected.
Stirling, only revenue bills (Ways and Means) really HAVE to start in the House – the Senate has always viewed Appropriations bills as not fitting within the Constitutional category of revenue bills. And there have been tax bills that didn’t start in the House either – it’s pretty simple, the Senate can just take any old bill the House has sent over, strip out everything but the bill number, and substitute what they want, be it taxes or appropriations. It has only happened rarely with tax bills, once in the 1980’s that I remember, and I don’t know about Appropriations – but really, it’s politics, not the Constitution, that makes bills start in the House. If they want to, they can start in the Senate. They rarely want to.