Devilstower writes a great post. Really great post. Go read it. Here's a bit:

Where was the stimulus? Just take a look. From the moment FDR began to enact the programs of the New Deal, the economy began its recovery. After four years of steady declines, Roosevelt's programs brought on an immediate improvement in the national fortune. Within three years, the national GDP exceeded the level in 1929. By the time the bombs fell at Pearl Harbor, the GDP had been up every year but one since 1933, and that one downward tick in 1937 marks the exact point at which budget hawks forced cuts in the New Deal programs.That's the story the numbers tell. The New Deal worked, worked well, and worked quickly

This is an Open Thread.

What is "liberal?" Who knows. More importantly, who cares? When discussing the economic stimulus package, my concern has been 'will the plan work?' 'Will it help?' On this issue, it seems to me it is less important to declare political victory on votes on the bill, than trying to figure out if the bill is going to work. (Incidentally, "political victories" on legislation come at the next election, not during the vote on the bill itself.) At least, that is how I see it. Michael Tomasky takes a different tack:

Ezra Klein writes:

it's been a dazzling display of the most analytically bankrupt strain of centrism: The belief that the right answer lies, by definition, somewhere between the answers that are already on the table. The Nelson-Collins bill hasn't been justified in terms of virtues so much as in terms of abstract numerical positioning.

The only thing surprising about this is that anyone is surprised about this. Clearly, the President seems surprised by it. This is why Nate Silver's writings on the subject have seemed off base to me. These things are not argued on the merits. They are argued "on the middle." Yep, time for my politics is defining the middle quote:

A lot of high fiving going on in some quarters because President Barack Obama has a 67% approval rating on his handling of the stimulus issue (and a job approval rating of 64%) in the latest Gallup poll.

Something to remember - George W. Bush had a 71% job approval rating in an April 2003 Gallup poll. And we know how that ended up.

Results matter. Just sayin'

Speaking for me only

So says Stan Callender:

[T]he 2010 budget process could include a reconciliation bill that increases spending or reduces revenues or both that, because of the rules, won't be subject to a filibuster in the Senate. In addition, the budget resolution that has to be adopted before a reconciliation bill can happen also can't be filibustered.

Problem with that is any bill that violates PAYGO in the Senate (or so Kagro X tells us) is subject to a point of order requiring 60 votes to waive:

and the Democratic President does not, that defines a failed opportunity. MoDo wrote today:

[T]he prince got distracted, seeing Lincoln in the mirror, and instead gave the kiss of life to a bunch of flat-lining Republican tax-cut fetishists. Somehow the most well-known person on the planet lost control of the economic message to someone named Eric Cantor. In his first weeks padding around a White House that still has nails on the walls waiting for new pictures, and phone and e-mail kinks, Barack Obama could not locate the bully pulpit and ended up being bullied.

With a strong mandate for meaningful and effective economic stimulus, President Barack Obama failed to define the political debate. President Obama has done many good things in the start of his Presidency. But he bungled the economic stimulus plan. What is politics at its essence? Defining the middle:

Via Atrios, the phony "populist," and actual Beltway "bipartisan" BSer, Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO), tries to rewrite her own pernicious role regarding the severe weakening of the stimulus package by the Senate:

McCaskill began by stating how glad she was that they got a $100 billion cut out of the bill, that the "silly stuff" that Republicans didn't like is now out. She then switches to a passive aggressive mode in defending the cuts - it's basically the same bill and it wouldn't have made it through the Senate - but glosses her own role in making the cuts. From the way she talks about the bill, wouldn't she have been among those voting against the bill if the cuts hadn't been made and new non-stimulative tax cuts hadn't been added in?

This critique, while effective, ignores the most damning evidence against McCaskill, her comments on the stimulus on January 30, before the compromise legislation was even being discussed:

Proving how unserious and silly she and every Beltway "bipartisan" BSer is, Claire McCaskill twitted:

Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill. Many Ds don’t like it, but needed to be done. The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT.

What McCaskill is celebrating:

The House puts greater emphasis on helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts in services and layoffs of public employees. The Senate cut $40 billion of that aid from its bill . . . The Senate plan, reached in an agreement late Friday between Democrats and three moderate Republicans, focuses somewhat more heavily on tax cuts, provides far less generous health care subsidies for the unemployed and lowers a proposed increase in food stamps.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is not a serious economist in America that will tell you that the Senate plan provides a better stimulus or is truly cheaper than the House plan. Here is one simple change that will improve the stimulative effect in the Senate plan AND lower the overall cost of the Senate bill:

Today President Obama said about the Senate stimulus plan that:

"We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary. The scale and scope of this plan is right. And the time for action is now."

It is simply false, imo, that the "scale and scope of this plan is right." More . .

WaPo:

Obama endorsed the moderates' effort and brought its leaders -- Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- to the White House to discuss their proposed cuts. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel attended the final meetings in Reid's office last night to work out lingering differences. Before Emanuel arrived, Collins said, Democrats were advocating $63 billion in cuts. "Then Rahm got involved, and a much better proposal came forward," she said.

(Emphasis supplied.) F--- me. Obama betrayed Congressional Democrats fighting for the best bill for the economy and the country. Obama fought for spending cuts and GOP tax cuts! Obama the triangulator! It is indeed the era of Nelson, Collins and Obama! The Beltway "Bipartisan" BSers got their man - and his name appears to be Barack Obama.

The Age of Nelson, Collins and Obama! Yes, they did!

Speaking for me only

Fred Hiatt and the WaPo Ed Board Gasbags:

The gang of 20 or so moderate Democrats and Republicans, led by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), heeded the president's call for bipartisanship and hunkered down to produce the bill announced Friday night. Though the details of the package still need to be examined, the senators' effort was an admirable one -- one that aimed at providing the quick and large injection of funds into the economy experts say is necessary, while modifying or removing parts of the bill that were too long-range or complex for an emergency bill . . .

. . . In the end the White House showed pragmatism in striking Friday's deal. Mr. Obama now must go to work to ensure that the fragile consensus survives a conference committee and a vote in Ms. Pelosi's House -- where there has been, as yet, no sign of the new politics he seeks.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

Earlier today, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

This is not the Age of Krugman . . . It is the Age of Collins, Nelson and Obama.

I'll forego the easy point that for the past 8 years, Paul Krugman was right about everything and Andrew Sullivan was wrong about everything and accept his premise, based on the result today on the stimulus bill (if the Nelson/Collins/Snowe/Lieberman Stimulus plan is indeed now the Obama plan.)

The Age of Obama will be a failure if we will follow the precepts of the neo-Hooverism of these so-called Centrists. Obama talked a lot about the urgency of the moment. But his acceptance of this inadequate policy is a terrible harbinger. [More...]