Well, I’ve spent the week listening to a post-stimulus flood of hackery.  I thought it was bad before the vote!  Whew!

Bipartisanship is dead.  At least, that was the discussion around the round table on ABC this weekend.  The Stimulus package passed with no Republican votes in the House and 3 in the Senate.  Not enough tax cuts! No real Stimulus!  Too important to vote down!  So what should I make of it all?

I personally liked Paul Begala’s simple approach for opposition Republicans – don’t take the money.  On Monday he suggested that Governors in opposition to the stimulus package deny the funds.  Granted, states in need of the money (namely, ALL OF THEM), might have something to say about declining aid.  Constituents in John Boehner’s district in Ohio, my hometown district, would probably have something to say about that.  

However, Begala might have gotten some governor’s thinking.  Today, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas hinted at not taking the aid, saying “We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say ‘No thanks’”, even though some states like Bobby Jindall Louisiana have projected budget shortfalls next year of $1.7 billion.  Perhaps ideology can be taken a bit too far?

I do accept that some items in the package may not have been stimulus.  For example, the final bill passed by both houses on Friday included $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.  Now, before you blow up, I’m all for the arts.  I spent a few years in music school, and recognize the importance of arts education in creating successful students.  I regularly support local arts organizations.  But is this stimulus?  I didn’t think so at first, but I may have been swayed.  How different is a broke, starving musician from a broke, starving auto-worker.  

Michelle Bachman  would have you believe that those crazy liberals (spit!) stuffed ACORN funding into the bill, $5 billion no less!  But then, I suppose you have to factor in her belief that “we’re running out of rich people in this country” to shed light on her perspective.

As Dan Ackroyd said on SNL, Republicans have finally gotten what the wanted : “Complete political irrelevance”.  Obviously, this is pretty far from the truth, but the underlying point remains:  The economy is tanking, and the Republican party is looking pretty weak.  And I have to say, as a moderate-liberal, I’m not sure that’s the best thing for the country.  Healthy debate is healthy.  And I’m  not impressed with Pelosi and the crafting of the bill in the first place, but I suppose it is only natural for the political pendulum to swing to far so fast when it was so lopsided for the preceding eight years.

I always enjoy watching David Brooks and Mark Shields debate, the this week’s conversation about the stimulus was really interesting.  I agree most with David Brooks, who agreed somewhat with the nature of the bill, but was generally upset that “we” missed an opportunity to really make a difference.  Not so much bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship, but doing what really needed to be done.  Brooks gets one thing right when he talks about confidence.  He argues that confidence would be better served by concentrating the stimulus money on fewer programs with more money.  He suggests that a payroll tax holiday to the lower-middle class might have been one of the better recipients for such a program.

Next up?  The Banks…