When I learned that 1st district Congressman Jay Inslee had voted with Speaker Nancy Pelosi 99 percent of the time, I was reminded of an old joke.
So I adapted the joke:
Congressman Inslee is on the phone speaking to talking to Speaker Pelosi. We can hear his side of the conversation, which goes like this:
"Yes, Madame Speaker."
"Of course, Madame Speaker."
"Certainly, Madame Speaker."
"Yes, Madame Speaker."
And finally, "No, Madame Speaker."
A curious reporter — and there are a few — can't resist after overhearing this, and so he approaches Congressman Inslee and says: "Excuse me congressman, I couldn't help overhearing you talking to Speaker Pelosi. Do you mind if I ask you a question?"
"No, go ahead," says Inslee.
The reporter asks, "Would you mind telling us what Speaker Pelosi asked you in that last question?"
"Not at all," replies Inslee. "She asked me if there was anything on which I disagreed with her."
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(If you live elsewhere, feel free to adapt this joke. For example, Pennsylvanians can use it for Senate candidate Joe Sestak, just by changing the name, and the 99 to 98.
If you want to check your own congressman or senator, you can do so at OpenCongress.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 30, 2010 12:36 PM | Email This
The worst U.S. recession since the 1930s was even deeper than previously estimated, reflecting bigger slumps in consumer spending and housing, according to revised figures.
The world's largest economy shrank 4.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, compared with the 3.7 percent drop previously on the books, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Household spending fell 1.2 percent in 2009, twice as much as previously projected and the biggest decline since 1942....
The worst quarter of the current economic slump is now the final three months of 2008, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., rather than the first quarter of 2009. GDP shrank at a 6.8 percent pace from October to December 2008, exceeding the prior estimate of 5.4 percent, making it the deepest quarterly drop since 1980.
We may be poorer due to the failed policies during the Bush years, but we can still laugh.
MikeBS - are you aware that the Democrats controlled the Senate for almost four years of the Bush presidency (2001-2003, 2007-2009)?
Do they have any responsibility for contributing to the recession?
MikeBS - do the Democrats that have controlled both houses of Congress from Jan 1, 2007 to present (31 months) have any accountability or responsibility for the "Bush" recession?
For these last 31 months, Obama was part of the majority party in the Senate and President.
Doesn't he have any responsibilty for his actions or inactions?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 30, 2010 03:29 PM
Pelosi also voted with Larsen and Inslee 99 percent of the time.
The irony is that this set of bold government initiatives that saved the country from economic catastrophe remain as unpopular today as when they were introduced.Perhaps none was more controversial than the decision to rescue Chrysler and General Motors, using $86 billion in taxpayer funds and an expedited bankruptcy process that wiped out shareholders, brought in new executives and directors, forced creditors to take a financial haircut, closed dealerships and factories and imposed painful cuts in wages and benefits on unionized workers. It was an extraordinary and heavy-handed government intervention into the market economy that left the Treasury owning a majority of both companies. As one participant recalls, public opinion was divided among those who believed that the companies should have been allowed to die, those who believed they would never survive bankruptcy and those who believed the government would inevitably screw things up. Among the most vocal skeptics: the Chamber's Donohue.
A year later, the auto bailout is an unqualified success. The government used its leverage to force the companies to make the painful changes they should have made years before, and then backed off and let the companies run themselves without any noticeable interference.
The results, which President Obama will tout on a visit to Michigan on Friday: For the first time since 2004, GM and Chrysler, along with Ford, all reported operating profits in their U.S. businesses last quarter. The domestic auto industry added 55,000 jobs last year, ending a decade-long string of declines. Auto sector exports are up 57 percent so far this year and, thanks largely to new government regulations, the industry is moving quickly to introduce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Most surprising of all, GM and Chrysler have already repaid more than $8 billion in government loans, while GM is preparing for an initial stock offering later this year that would allow the government to recoup most, if not all, of its investment.
Emphasis added.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 30, 2010 04:49 PMJust sayin'.
Posted by: Mike H on July 30, 2010 05:03 PMIf Pelosi voted like they did, is doesn't make her much of a leader, does it?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 30, 2010 05:07 PMI expressed no dichotomy, and certainly not the one you present.
Whether or not voters understand bankruptcy I have no way of knowing, and neither do you.
I do think that Pearlstein's article captures the argument of the time (which all 3 US automakers spoke to in front of congress) where detractors had a point of view which today's data rather significantly refutes. The government's intervention has saved a significant US manufacturing sector, producing jobs, exports and profits for shareholders; one of which is us, the taxpayer.
@14 Mike H on July 30, 2010 05:03 PM,
your comment is absolutely true and I'd encourage you to read Pearlstein's article in its entirety. The intervention of the government in the auto industry produced significant benefits for the entire economy and his point is that such intervention is a template (not being driven by the Obama administration) which could be better understood for the aggregate demand issues facing the entire economy.
Enjoy your weekend!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 30, 2010 06:13 PMBut thanks to Obama, you don't have to buy one to pay for it.
Posted by: jvon on July 30, 2010 08:30 PMChrysler and GM would not have turned a profit if it wasn't for the tens of billions in bailout provided. And they still haven't "turned a profit" as they're still billions and billions in Government debt.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 31, 2010 03:44 AMAs far as the economy goes, Bush was pretty much a lame duck when the democrats took over congress causing Americans to lose confidence. I guess MBS must have been out of the country while all this was going on.
Posted by: Jack on July 31, 2010 05:34 AM"My understanding is that GM and Chrysler took bailout money, and Ford declined. And Ford showed a profit before GM and Chrysler. How do you explain that, Mikey?"
I think we should let Puget Sound resident and Ford CEO, Alan Mulally explain it.
CAVUTO: While I have you here, I was reminded when you came that Harry Reid says I guess you owe the auto industry rescue your success. Specifically, this is what the Senate majority leader had to say. Listen to this:(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID, D-NEV., MAJORITY LEADER: My friend says that we bailed out the auto industry. Well, isn't that a good thing we did? Isn't it a good thing today in America we have an automobile manufacturing sector? If it had been up to them, General Motors would be gone. If it were up to them, Ford Motor Company would probably be gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: You didn't take any bailout money.
MULALLY: Not at all. And I think maybe what he was referring to or trying to frame was the fact that clearly when GM and Chrysler were running out of money and they told all of us that they were bankrupt, we made a very big decision to decide to go back to Washington, D.C., and actually testify on their behalf that they get temporary help.
CAVUTO: Why did you do that?
MULALLY: Well, clearly, in the automobile business in the United States, 70 percent of all the parts come from our suppliers and they support all the automobile companies.
CAVUTO: So they would have gone down your suppliers...
(CROSSTALK)
MULALLY: ...if Chrysler and GM would have gone into freefall, then the suppliers would have gone in.But clearly in Ford's case, we had a plan, we had already borrowed the money to transform Ford, to accelerate the development of the new cars and trucks, but it was a surreal experience to go back and testify. But I think in hindsight - we never would have known - but I think in hindsight we did the right thing.
CAVUTO: Yes, but to say that - not pushing on this penny, but to say you'd have been gone had it not been for rescuing GM and Chrysler seems to me a bit of a leap.
MULALLY: Well, we clearly had a plan at Ford. And of the neat things that came out of that was that everybody realized that Ford was not only making great products, but they were also creating a strong business.
So I think we did the right thing for the industry, and the right thing to the U.S. economy.
Key point is that all 3 US automakers were not profitable in the same quarter in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009. They are now.
The federal program administered by Democrats did that, and even the Ford CEO concedes that.
You would do well to study cause and effect.
The loss of confidence in the lame Bush administration and Republican mis governance was the cause for the Democrats being elected by Americans as the majority in congress in November 2006, and again in 2008 and for Democrats winning most of the special elections since then.
But there's a Democrat born every other minute and one to take his place, so we'll see.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 31, 2010 08:51 AMNobody on this post has called GM a success.
I am echoing the president and Pearlstein and calling the Obama administration led and publicly financed rescue of Chrysler and General Motors a success. And I've provided the data which demonstrates why the program has been a success.
And much like the claims by Republicans in 1993 that the Clinton tax increases would lead to calamity, the claims that the auto bailout would not succeed have been proven to have been equally wrong.
One would think rational observers would perceive the pattern by now.
And this is the guy who is supposedly smarter than George Washington and tied on intelligence with Thomas Jefferson who authored the Declaration of Independence.
The riveting question of national import: What's next, "Jimmy Kimmel" or "Jimmy Fallon?"
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 31, 2010 09:20 AMGood one! Did you see the photo of him on the View with the teleprompter?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 31, 2010 09:25 AMMr. Obama is following the Cloward-Piven model to do away with our free market system, which currently controls 2 out of 3 of the major auto companies. MikeBS dk, scottd and anyone else
cannot dispute that with salient facts - no matter how hard they try.
The truth is simple: allowing the massive layoffs that would have resulted from the collapse of the Big Three would have had far more of a direct and indirect financial impact, both for the private market and for federal and state budgets. Whining about the "Cloward-Piven Model" while ignoring those basic facts is downright irresponsible.
Posted by: demo kid on July 31, 2010 12:39 PMI certainly do not deny that the government has a controlling interest in GM & Chrysler. I am trumpeting that fact, because it (as Mulally says) it was right for the US economy and it shall be profitable to the US Treasury.
We the people have a 60.8 percent stake in GM, and when the IPO goes forward later this year it will be the biggest IPO since 2008 and one of the biggest of all time.
Yes KDS, we own it and the changes the Obama administration pushed onto GM turned it around from a bankrupt enterprise to a profitable enterprise that will return a good profit to the Treasury.
That one may see these facts as somehow 'bad' speaks to one's inability to separate observable fact from Randroidian fiction.
@31 - Provide a source/link for your assertions about the auto industry.
Nice try in changing the argument, but it only goes into the abyss. How is bringing up the Cloward-Piven model ignoring basic facts ?
Temporary success and Cloward-Piven models are not mutually exclusive. You are apparently negligent about connecting dots, and conveniently you just holler "crazy conspiracy theorist" Unconvincing.
For someone who just asked for "proof", your dot connecting is patently absurd. You haven't demonstrated how this is related to welfare payments in the slightest.
Or, for that matter, how precisely do you feel that throwing 103,000 employees out of work, in many cases permanently, in many areas of the US already reeling from high unemployment, would "help"? If state and federal governments had to support these workers through unemployment and aid for healthcare, what precisely would have been the cost, compared to taking a share in the company?
There are estimates, of course, but I'm amazed that in your bizarre world, you think that GM could have reorganized without government help during the worst market for cars in recent history. I'm amazed that you think that avoiding the need for unemployment and retraining, while making a profit on the back end, is worse than letting another key sector of the economy collapse.
Posted by: demo kid on July 31, 2010 03:03 PMThis has nothing to do with welfare or unemployment payments up to now. If you provide a reliable source of your monologue, I'd be willing to respond if it relates to welfare or unemployment.
Posted by: KDS on July 31, 2010 04:13 PM"GM is still Government Motors and there is no sign of the Government making any overtures to relinquish ownership, by distracting us while they overwhelm the system."
I am not disputing what would have happened if the Guvmint did not bail out GM and take them over - OK ? Even though they can pay back the Government, can you demonstrate why they do not want to relinquish control ? If you challenge that premise, please provide verification.
The following is what I am challenging
"Mr. Obama is following the Cloward-Piven model to do away with our free market system, which currently controls 2 out of 3 of the major auto companies."
That is currently the situation. This may change in 6 months or 2 years from now though.
Washington voters are idiots.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 31, 2010 07:37 PMAnd so when the leadership comes to me and says, "Dave we need you to take a vote over here, because we want to protect you and keep this majority," I do it.
Yes, to Rep. Riechert, following orders blindly with no questions asked equals independence! I can have only pity for anyone who has ever called him a moderate. His "moderation" is a joke alright, and like Jim's attempt at humor here, it's completely unfunny.
Posted by: tensor on August 1, 2010 01:16 PMThe topic, if we ignore the failed attempt at humor, is the tendency of local Representatives to vote with their leaderships. If 99% is bad, then the 100% to which Rep. Reichert has publicly admitted becomes worse.
Of course, there was no effort made to determine if Rep. Inslee's voting record is at odds with the beliefs or desires of his district; Rep. Reichert has privately admitted that he votes against the values of his own constituents much of the time.
Posted by: tensor on August 1, 2010 03:14 PM"Rep. Reichert has privately admitted that he votes against the values of his own constituents much of the time."
Can you cite any specific times ? I know that when he voted for C(r)ap and Trade, he stated that he was voting for what he thought the constituents would support. Keep in mind that Inslee almost always supports Pelosi, who is a freaking fascist artistocratic buffoon, IMO.
Posted by: KDS on August 1, 2010 06:24 PMPlease read the link I provided:
So, uh, you know, it, it, it, was it was a good vote. It was a good move on my part to do that. Because I've only, I've, supported Wild Sky, I've supported Alpine Lakes, because of the reasons that I just laid out to you. They are -- what I've done is taken out I've taken them out of the game in this district. They're out.
He didn't like Wild Sky, he just voted for what Sen. Murray, Sen. Cantwell, and Rep. Inslee worked so long and hard to create because he needed to fool his constituents into believing he cared. Being a good Republican, he does not really support environmental conservation; he just acts like it when he's being watched. His votes were only to compromise the local environmental movement, not in support of it.
Rep. Reichert is one of the most gutlessly cynical political hacks we're seen around here in awhile, which is why he gets full support from this site.
Posted by: tensor on August 1, 2010 07:49 PMHowever, a member of the House who just votes as the Speaker directs or as someone directs would be an abomination. Members are to represent their constituents.
You may neither like, nor agree with the positions of this Speaker nor your elected representative, but we should expect honest votes.
Goldy uncovered Reichert copping to the type of actual conversation with his leadership that Jim's joke alludes to, and not a word about it over here in conservative land.
Reichert is directed by his leadership to vote for proposals both he and his leadership disagree with for what purpose? The only purpose was to gain power, government power.
Rather than attempting to adapt this joke for a senate candidate across the country, look in your own backyard.
The type of political abuse and malfeasance you scorn is most common with today's Republican party.
If you disagree, please show an example of a WA congressional Democrat doing what Goldy shows Reichert to be.
From Powerline:
Since May 2009, Scott Rasmussen has been asking voters what or whom they blame for our economic woes. Until now, a plurality have blamed the Bush administration more than the Obama administration. Today, for the first time, the Obama administration edged ahead: "48% Blame Obama for Bad Economy, 47% Blame Bush."
Actually, though, that headline is misleading. The body of the story indicates that the choice (as in prior polls) was between "Obama's policies" and "the recession that began under Bush." So not all though who voted "Bush" blamed the recession on his administration's policies.
In any event, the inevitable has happened: President Obama owns the economy. For some time, his blaming the Bush administration for problems that have worsened since he took office has grated. Going forward, that will be even more true.
One more notable point: here, as on nearly every issue, there is a big divide between "mainstream Americans" and the "political class." Sixty-one percent of mainstream Americans blame the policies of the Obama administration over the recession he inherited, while 87 percent of the political class blame Bush. That's convenient, of course. A final populist touch: 62 percent of likely voters trust their own judgment more than Obama's on economic issues. Makes it hard to exert a whole lot of leadership.
Posted by: KDS on August 2, 2010 07:44 PMOther than 'riling' not meaning 'inspiring belly laughter', I've fixed that for you. You're welcome!
Sixty-one percent of mainstream Americans blame the policies of the Obama administration over the recession he inherited...
OK, that was funny! But please do tell us, why should we respect the opinions of persons who, by their very own admission, cannot understand cause and effect?
Posted by: tensor on August 2, 2010 11:08 PMOK, that was funny! But please do tell us, why should we respect the opinions of persons who, by their very own admission, cannot understand cause and effect?
Posted by tensor at August 2, 2010 11:08 PM
If you aren't part of the 61 percent, evidently you are the one who cannot understand cause and effect from what this administration has done. Keep living in denial.
Posted by: KDS on August 3, 2010 07:35 AMAccording to Rasmussen. Care to examine how their numbers worked out for Dino Rossi in the last election?
"48% Blame Obama for Bad Economy, 47% Blame Bush."
When even Rasmussen finds no statistical advantage for the Republicans, they're in real trouble.
Posted by: tensor on August 3, 2010 10:22 PM