January 27, 2009

1/27: A Stimulating Debate

Conservative bloggers were pleased to learn that Barack Obama reportedly urged Dem lawmakers to drop a controversial provision from the economic stimulus bill that provides family planning funds to low-income Americans. Righty bloggers strongly opposed the idea of using stimulus funds to expand contraceptive services, as they believe that such an expansion would do little to improve the economy. Michelle Malkin sarcastically wrote: "Up next: emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, were disappointed that Dems caved in response to the GOP "hissy fit". Lefty bloggers are arguing that (a.) the American public supports gov't-funded family-planning programs; and (b.) the provision in question would provide good economic stimulus. Adam Serwer is particularly disgusted: "[A]re Republicans really arguing that unwanted pregnancies don't result in a significant financial burden for families that are already struggling in an economy that's likely to get worse?"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, McCarthy, Huston, Erickson) are blasting the ten GOP Senators who voted to confirm NY Fed Chair Timothy Geithner as Treasury Sec.
• Liberal bloggers (Kurtz, Beeton, Waldman) are buzzing about the news that House Judiciary Cmte Chair John Conyers (D-MI) subpoenaed ex-WH adviser Karl Rove to testify about the U.S. atty scandal and the George W. Bush admin.'s prosecution of ex-AL Gov. Don Siegelman.

STIMULUS: The Latest GOP Hissy Fit

Liberal bloggers spent much of yesterday criticizing conservatives for making a big deal about a provision in the stimulus bill that provides family planning funds for low-income Americans:

• Atrios: "There's nothing logical about the contraception freakout. The Republicans are betting on the idea the our media will react like 9 year old boys to anything remotely having to do with sex (they're right) and that the public will react likewise (don't think they're right anymore)."
• TAPPED's Ann Friedman: "Q: When do conservatives not like policies that remove bureaucratic hurdles and save states millions of dollars? A: When those policies have the potential to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies."
• digby: "Boehner's cute soundbite about contraceptives is, of course, nonsense. The money he's talking about is for medicaid, which is desperately needed at a time when people are losing their jobs --- and, by the way, will help stimulate the economy by paying the doctors, pharmacies and hospitals for the (much increased) care they give, something that is a big problem at a time when states are going broke."
• TAPPED's Serwer: "Beyond the fact that this policy would save the government money in the long run (a finding from the same office that didn't produce that report on the stimulus), are Republicans really arguing that unwanted pregnancies don't result in a significant financial burden for families that are already struggling in an economy that's likely to get worse? What's the moral justification for denying them the choice of preventing pregnancies they don't want? That having sex should be predicated on yearly income?"
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Conservatives are pretty good at picking tiny pieces out of big bills and making hay with them (remember midnight basketball?), and it was in that spirit that John Boehner spent the weekend complaining that the $800 billion stimulus bill includes $200 million in spending on contraceptives. [...H]ere's the funny thing: culture war issues aside, this is probably pretty good stimulus. If you eliminate the requirement for states to get Medicaid waivers in order to fund family planning, lots of low-income women will take advantage of it, and they'll probably take advantage of it pretty quickly. That's a boon for the contraceptive industry and all the fine people who work in it. Just be sure to buy American!"

TPM's Elana Schor thinks this controversy is a "ridiculous non-issue": "What's being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI -- a ninth, MO, had a GOP governor until this past November). If this policy is truly a taxpayer gift to 'the abortion industry,' as John Boehner and House Republicans claim, where are the GOP governors promising to end the program in their states?"

STIMULUS II: Stimulating Democrats, But Not The Economy

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are strongly opposed to the idea of using stimulus funds to expand family planning services:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "I am not one of these people who thinks that contraception is a sin. Far from it. I just never had it in me to suggest the positively ghoulish idea that providing contraceptives would be desirable so that the state and federal governments can reduce costs in the long term. What's next? Adoption of the Chinese 'one child' policy?"
• Malkin: "As you've all heard, [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi defended contraception funding in the Democrats' stimulus bill over the weekend. Abortion cuts costs. [...] Up next: Emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education."
• The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll: "[T]he family planning issue is just one example of how the left is using the cover of the stimulus to advance their long-term goals of increasing the size of the federal government."

STIMULUS III: A Win For The Good Guys

Needless to say, conservative bloggers were pleased to learn that Obama reportedly urged Dem lawmakers to drop the family planning funds from the stimulus bill:

• Malkin: "Goody. Panicky President Obama wants the Dems to eliminate Pelosi's pet contraceptive funding from the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Only $800 billion more in needless, unstimulating stimulus spending to kill. [...] It's a start."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Democrats thought they could sneak subsidies for Planned Parenthood into the stimulus package, and why not? After all, in a bill that will cost $825 billion, who'd notice? Unfortunately for [Senate Maj. Leader] Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, George Stephanopolous did. After failing to explain how hundreds of millions of dollars in new contraception funding would stimulate anything except libidos and Democrats, Pelosi will reluctantly remove the provisions from the stimulus bill this morning."

STIMULUS IV: Once Again, Dems Cave

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are disappointed that Dems appear to be caving to GOPers' demands:

• Benen: "The right howls, the media blares, Democrats decide it's not worth the bother. As Atrios noted, it's as 'predictable as the rising sun.' [...] I can appreciate the political dynamic here. The Obama White House wants to get at least some bipartisan support for an economic stimulus package, and GOP lawmakers, Fox News, right-wing blogs and talk-radio, and even media figures like Chris Matthews and Jack Cafferty, are telling Americans the policy proposal is right out of the Little Red Book. It's become a distraction, so it's understandable that Democratic leaders prefer to just make the irritation go away. But it's nevertheless frustrating. The public actually supports family-planning programs; states have been screwed over on this for years; it's an easy and straightforward approach to preventative, cost-saving healthcare; and as it turns out, it's actually a pretty good stimulus. By scrapping a good idea, it only reinforces the notion that Republican hissy fits will continue to dictate governing decisions, even when -- especially when -- the minority party is wrong."
• dday: "The report is that Obama personally called [CA Rep.] Henry Waxman, who has jurisdiction over the provision, and told him to ditch it. So now we're listening to Republicans who have no imagination and don't understand the economy. Family planning is a demand-based service that requires staffing. That means jobs. Jobs that now won't be created or will be eliminated by the states because it makes Republicans feel icky."
• Nicholas Beaudrot: "Public opinion on this issue makes Barack Obama's decision look like a mistake. [...] 67% of Americans support giving birth control to teenagers, something that you might think would be controversial. Almost everyone who can afford it uses birth control; it's popular, effective, and people think others should have access to it."

GEITHNER: The Terrible Ten

Conservative bloggers are blasting the ten GOP Senators who voted to confirm Geithner as Treasury Sec.:

• Malkin: "[H]ere are the 10 B.O. (Barack Obama/Bend Over) Republicans who sided with Obama and the Dems."
• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "[H]ere are the ten Republican senators who think it is just fine to have a guy who violates the tax laws policing how American citizens comply with the tax laws -- an incongruity we should overlook because Geithner's done such a great job so far addressing the financial meltdown."
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "Keep the following names in your wallet just in case the IRS comes knocking at your door to arrest you for any possible 'mistakes' in your payment of federal taxes, won't you? For these are the names of those Republican Senators that one can rely upon to absolve us for being a tax cheat. [...] These are the Senators that don't think being a law abiding tax payer is a necessary requirement for being Secretary of the Treasury."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Call Senator [John] Cornyn at (202) 224-2934. Ask him how we can trust him with our money to fund Senate races if we can't trust him to vote against tax cheats for Treasury Secretary."

NRO's Marc Thiessen thinks Geithner's confirmation establishes a poor precedent: "I think the calculation that many Senate Republicans made was that whoever Obama nominated to replace Geithner would have been far worse from a policy perspective. In a time of economic crisis, when the wrong Treasury Secretary could be disastrous for our country, they decided to take the best nominee they could. The problem is that now, when the next nominee comes up with these kinds of issues, there will be a 'Geithner precedent.' And if it's a woman or a minority, they will argue that you gave the white guy from Wall Street a pass. And that will weaken their hand in opposing someone who might not only have failed to pay their taxes, or employed an illegal nanny, but also have dangerous policy ideas."

CONYERS: Trying To Finish What He Started

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the news that Rep. Conyers subpoenaed Rove to testify about U.S. atty scandal and the Bush admin.'s prosecution of ex-AL Gov. Siegelman:

• TPM's David Kurtz: "This could get very interesting. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is going to put Obama's openness and transparency claims to an early test -- by re-subpoenaing Karl Rove to testify about the U.S. attorney firings. Will Obama support Rove's executive privilege claims? Will Rove even bother asserting executive privilege with his patron out of the White House?"
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Could it be? Accountability for Rove in the US Attorney and Don Siegelman cases? Possibly, if John Conyers has anything to say about it, which, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he sort of does."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "So much for hypotheticals, or for looking forward rather than back. Let the investigations continue!"

Daily Kos' Kagro X looks ahead: "What comes next isn't entirely clear. Rove's obviously open to service of the subpoena, as evidenced by the notes on the cover sheet (page 2). One theory says that Bush can continue to claim executive privilege even once out of office. Another possibility: Rove's lawyers go to court to ask that the subpoena be quashed pending the outcome of the final appeals of the Judiciary Committee's lawsuit. Also possible: Rove shows up but refuses to tell the committee anything of value, or anything at all, either pleading the 5th, attempting to invoke some kind of claim of privilege, or just taking his chances and conducting a PR campaign to paint the investigation as a 'partisan witch hunt' that's out of keeping with President Obama's promise to practice a forward-looking bipartisanship."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Limbaugh At The Gray Lady?

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini thinks Rush Limbaugh should replace William Kristol on the New York Times' op-ed page:

"[...What's] disturbing is the notion that the Times' token conservative should be someone who is acceptable to sensibility of liberal (and hence more civilized) Times readers; that only a certain type of conservative will do -- a 'smart,' 'reasonable' figure worthy of dining with President Obama. I have a great deal of respect for Bill Kristol and David Brooks (or for that matter, Charles Krauthammer and George Will), but they play a very defined role in the process -- which is to represent a safe flavor of Beltway-centric conservatism that is acceptable within the Acela corridor. I appreciate that someone has to play this role, but by engaging in this parlor game, we are playing with fire: feeding the left's desire to elevate a narrow elite of Times-worthy conservative pundits whose job it is to hold the braying Coulterite masses in check.

We shouldn't play this game. Either we engage the liberal media on our terms or on none at all. The Times needs someone who is as far to the right, in as hard-edged and partisan a way, as Paul Krugman is to the left. The fact that strident left-wing voices one step voice up from [Markos Moulitsas] appear on the op-ed page is not considered a problem, so why shouldn't the same be true on the right? Perhaps it would be better if both sides' columnists were as reasonable and fair-minded as Brooks and Kristol. But if the Times continues to select liberal columnists who are locked and loaded for bear, we should accept nothing less for the right. To wit, the Times should pick Rush Limbaugh or a comparable full spectrum heartland conservative who defended [Sarah] Palin. Someone who would shock the Upper East Side, not reinforce its worldview in subtle ways. If not Rush, then [Mark] Steyn or [James] Lileks or someone with the intestinal fortitude for a fight."

LEST WE FORGET: Foreman Whips Up Special Batch Of Concrete For Favorite Customer

From The Onion:

"OMAHA, NE -- Schultz Concrete Company foreman Al Grayson, 42, mixed up a home-made vat of his finest concrete blend Tuesday for Brenner Construction employee Charles Jacobin, after inviting his favorite customer to 'follow [him] 'round back for the good stuff.' 'Charlie's been coming to me for years, and I know exactly how he likes it,' said Grayson, adding that his special batch isn't the kind that lasts just long enough to satisfy the inspectors but then falls apart. 'This is concrete the way my grandfather made it, with just a touch of gypsum. There was only one bag left, so I tucked it away for my main man Charlie.' While Grayson refused to divulge his secret recipe, he did claim to use only organic cement, artesian well water, and 'enough quartzite to make any sidewalk sparkle.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at January 27, 2009 12:45 PM