Politics | 02/11/2009 9:20 am

Sen. Boxer on Stimulus: Doing Nothing Is a 'Hostile Act'

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Sen. Barbara Boxer’s steaming mad over the economic stimulus package!

Not only are all but three Senate Republicans refusing to support the $838 billion economic rescue bill, but the Senate will need 60 votes to avoid a Republican filibuster, and none of these things please the California Democrat. "This isn’t easy but to say to do nothing … to do nothing is a hostile act on the American people," said Boxer during an interview with MSNBC this morning, noting that 500,000 jobs are being lost a month, with 600,000 lost in January alone. "You can’t do nothing — there’s no dollars out there."

The Senate approved the bill Tuesday, but now it’s up to House and Senate negotiators to hammer out the differences between their two versions; the House bill is $819 billion. But then, the final bill has to go back to both houses for passage — again. Lawmakers hope a compromise bill can be sent to President Obama by the end of the week for his signature. That means they have to work fast.

"They’re forcing us to get 60 votes," Boxer said of Republicans, adding that even the ailing cancer-stricken Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, came back to vote to make sure Democrats have enough support. "If they didn’t have a 60-vote hurdle for everything, we could get this done. It’s very difficult for me, as a person of action, to see this happen … let’s just have a vote."

Centrist senators like Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE, and Sen. Olympia Snow, R-ME, are promising to vote against the bill if it comes back with a higher price tag. Meanwhile, in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, has been raging against the Senate’s take-it-or-leave it approach to the stimulus bill. In fact, she’s so mad, that she cut off fellow Democrats from complaining about it during a Tuesday caucus meeting because it just got her blood boiling more. Both Obama and Pelosi want to restore much of the spending cut by the Senate, particularly $21 billion in school construction and technology grants, $10.3 billion in COBRA insurance and $8.6 billion in new Medicaid coverage for the unemployed.

"At a certain point, after a couple of members had expressed themselves, she asked that future speakers not address that issue because it was reminding her how angry she was," Rep. Anthony D. Weiner, D-NY, told Politico.

There’s tough negotiations on the stimulus still to come. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail!

247 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Maybe someone needs to fight or talk this out. Refusing to let a bill pass, just saying no, and not giving any solutions. Is certainly not getting us anywhere.

By Grande Camper on 02/11/2009 10:07 am

e-mail alert

Sen. Barbara Boxer’s steaming mad over the economic stimulus package! Considering the mess California is in, California senators and representatives are beginning to lose credibility. Like, who cares about Boxer’s rants… and who really cares about Pelosi’s headache.

By Marjorie C. on 02/11/2009 10:10 am

e-mail alert

Apparently you don’t. Boxer addressed California’s economic problems, and if you’d listened carefully, you would have heard that the Republicans are dug in, refusing to pass a budget- a delay of nearly 100 days now. Even though we have a Republican governor, not one Republican in the legislature is willing to work with him or the rest of the legislature to get our budget passed. I’m am fed up with the Republicans who have ruined our economy and are still so high and mighty that they refuse to collaborate. I hope they all lose their jobs in the next election. Marjorie, you statement parrots the Republican mentality - you just don’t care.

By Maurine H on 02/11/2009 12:46 pm

e-mail alert

Maurine H - How wrong you are! California is a one party State and the political party that has controlled the State for many decades is the Democratic Party. Our economy is in shambles because the Dems have spent the State into near bankruptcy. I see an eerie sameness starting to occur at the Federal level and it is darn scary. The Dems are now in control of Congress and on their very first test of legislation, to write a stimulus bill, what do they do? They load the bill down with measures that have nothing whatsoever to do with stimulus. Their real focus was on adding as much spending to the stimulus bill as they could. The arrogant Pelosi acted as if the recovery was only secondary to their favorite projects. This is unconscionable. In desperation Californians even passed Term Limits Legislation, by Proposition…that bill certainly did not come from the Legislator… and it seems as if once we get rid of a mogul in Sacramento, a la Willie Brown, another takes his place. The State is gerrymandered to such an extent that it would take a Houdini to unravel the knots that have bound the Congressional Districts to the Democratic Party. Maurine you may moan about the “high and mighty Republicans” but what California needs is more of those Republicans to bring the State back from the brink of disaster. This once proud State who took its fiscal responsibilities seriously by maintaining a billion dollar surplus for emergency needs in the event of an earthquake, is now out there on the sidewalk with a begging bowl. It is disgraceful what the Dems have done to this State. We cannot get rid of them because they keep promising their constituents all sorts of goodies by reelecting them to serve in Sacramento. Shameful! And what is even more alarming is the fact that unless there is some immediate changes in the State, California might very well become a foster child of the nation …and start asking other States via the Federal Government to start paying some of our bills.

By Bonnie Oliver on 02/11/2009 1:54 pm

Bonnie—“The State is gerrymandered to such an extent that it would take a Houdini to unravel the knots that have bound the Congressional Districts to the Democratic Party”—and it is only going to get worse. The White House is trying to have the Census Bureau report directly to it rather than Commerce which has always overseen the Census. The sole purpose of this move is political. Rahm Emanuel knows the power that could be obtained into perpetuity if they could control the Census. The census is one of the few government functions clearly outlined in the Constitution and it was originally set up to intentionally avoid any political influence over it. The founders knew the ramifications, that is why they were careful to state that the Census should be totally undertaken in such a way as to not be affected by political forces. Emanuel’s move may be unconstituional and it hopefully won’t fly, that is if anyone even cares about the Constitution anymore. But you can see what the dems are attempting here—they want to seize and maintain power—that is their only goal. They don’t give a squat about this country let alone the economy.

By eleanor roche on 02/11/2009 4:25 pm

eleanor, perhaps you remember some of the bigger anticonstitutional acts: they were done by your buddy, george w bush. there’s a lot of mucking out to do in the federal government these days.

By mary lou s on 02/11/2009 5:28 pm

e-mail alert

Hello Eleanor - I agree with you that the issue of who controls the census may be taken to the Supreme Court. I hope so. There was no other reason for the White House to remove this very important prerogative of the Commerce Department. Of course, If President Obama had been able to get his candidate through the process, then the obligation and oversight of the Census Bureau would have stayed at Commerce. I think the President’s actions alone could provide to the Court the necessary evidence to prove that the Census Bureau is no longer controlled by or in a non-political manner….as it should be.

By Bonnie Oliver on 02/11/2009 5:51 pm

California is a one party State and the political party that has controlled the State for many decades is the Democratic Party. Our economy is in shambles because the Dems have spent the State into near bankruptcy. By Bonnie Oliver on 02/11/2009 2:54 pm Bonnie, that is absolutely correct!

By HA BIBI on 02/11/2009 6:16 pm

e-mail alert

Really, Bonnie? If California is a “one party state” then please explain why the legislature can’t seem to pass a budget. Why does California have a Republican governor who doesn’t know how to govern? You are just one more self-righteous Republican who seems to think that the GOP has all the answers. How do you explain the past eight years when the Republicans were running the country? Wake up and realize that your only hope for a decent future for your children and grandchildren is with a Democratic government which won’t take us down the same God-awful road that the Republicans have. This once proud state, along with this once proud country has been run into the ground by Republican politicians who have gotten obscenely wealthy while the rest of us have gotten poorer.

By Maurine H on 02/11/2009 7:49 pm

e-mail alert

Sorry Maurine, but the proof is in the fact that since the Dems took over California, it has been one great big spending spree. We have a Republican Governor because the last Governor, a Democrat, was recalled and thrown out of office. Arnold Schwarzenegger had name identification and is a moderate. Of course, he would win. But both the Assembly and Senate have remained controlled by the Dems. Of course, the GOP does not have all the correct answers. I never claimed they did. But it was not the GOP that put California at risk so that once again the State’s credit rating is the lowest in the country. That means that as we pass bond measures to improve our schools, roads and water delivery systems, it will cost the taxpayers millions and millions of more dollars to provide the same services that could have been provided at less expense. California taxpayers are being given IOUs because the State cannot afford to send out tax refund checks. Every country government is stretched to the limits as are the cities. The expenditures from Sacramento just keep mounting and no one seems to be able to stop it. This State has, as you said, been “run into the ground” but not by the GOP. There is no way you can justify that statement when the GOP has been out of power for decades. Yes, decades. And I hope the members of GOP legislature continue to block any passage of a budget until that budget is balanced. Do you realize that the $11 billion the State is expecting to receive from the Feds as part of the stimulus bill will only pay for about one quarter of current expenses. That is current - not debt. That means salaries, current debt expense and, yes, tax refunds. I realize that I am being partisan but, in this case, there is no better case to be made than the mess in California is due totally to the incompetency of the Democratic Party. And, yes, for years the GOP, unable to fight the increased spending and only able to a bring small measure of sense to the State’s budget, have went along with the majority and passed budgets written by the Dems. Well, maybe this time the Dems will see the light and draft a budget that will start to put this State back on the road to recovery. If California falls into one the States no longer able to be a “contributor State” to the federal government and instead becomes a “taking State” meaning we will need more money from the Feds than is paid by California taxpayers, then the whole country will be affected.

By Bonnie Oliver on 02/11/2009 8:54 pm

Bonnie: …the $11 billion the State is expecting to receive from the Feds as part of the stimulus bill will only pay for about one quarter of current expenses. One question on this $11 billion… Doesn’t it have strings attached? Isn’t the Federal government going to oversee how the money is spent… or is that left to the discretion of the states? In Massachusetts, another Dem stronghold, there is a lot of talk from our Dem governor, Deval Patrick, that the monies received will not go into the operation budget to shore up the deficit, but will be spent primarily on infrastruction. This is a WPA make-work project, after all. How will the state’s economy be stimulated, if the money is used to pay old bills? How will new jobs be created? What was it we were saying about this stimulus bill is a temporary handout?

By Marjorie C. on 02/12/2009 6:08 am

e-mail alert

Marjorie - It is my understanding from a discussion the Governor had over a month ago, that the $11 billion is only a loan and must be repaid to the fed. It is a process the State has had to follow a few other times in recent years. To ask the Fed for a loan to carry the State through the last months of the year until income tax payments start arriving. I’ve not heard anything new that would contradict that practice.

By Bonnie Oliver on 02/12/2009 5:44 pm

Maurine—“This once proud state, along with this once proud country has been run into the ground by Republican politicians who have gotten obscenely wealthy while the rest of us have gotten poorer.”—present some proof for this statement, especially for CA.

By eleanor roche on 02/11/2009 9:34 pm

Bonnie and Eleanor - There is a plethora of information available about the economy in California, how it operates and who controls it and who benefits most. Here are some articles for you to peruse. Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents in the post-war U.S. Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution have experienced identical income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth under Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on average) and GDP growth (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average); both unemployment and GDP growth have much stronger effects on income growth at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top. Similar partisan differences appear in the distribution of post-tax income growth of households since 1980, despite the fact that the corresponding pre-tax income growth data for that period show little evidence of partisan differences. http://www.correntewire.com/political_party_and_patterns_of_income_inequ… Under Democratic administrations income growth has been more vigorous among the poor than among the rich; under Republican administrations the reverse has been true. The cumulative effect of these differences has been enormous. http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf Where’s the Budget? Who is Obstructing? http://www.speakoutca.org/weblog/the-budget/2008/08/ California Governors since 1983 George Deukmejian January 3, 1983 January 7, 1991 Republican Pete Wilson January 7, 1991 January 4, 1999 Republican Joseph Graham “Gray” Davis January 4, 1999 November 17, 2003 Democratic Arnold Schwarzenegger November 17, 2003 incumbent Republican If you both think this state is controlled by Democrats then why, I wonder, have we had Republican governors since 1983 (with the exception of Gray Davis who, as you noted got booted out of office, and who is having the last laugh now)? Under the guidance of those Republican governors, and in particular, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s economy has gone to hell in a hand basket. So is your argument that the Republican governors were ineffective, unable to bring consensus to their legislatures? Or is your argument that the Republicans, who refuse to even consider taxing the wealthiest Californians while they insist on slashing programs that benefit the middle class and the poor, are smarter than everyone else in government, including all Democrats and the governor they helped to elect?

By Maurine H on 02/12/2009 12:33 am

e-mail alert

Maurine - I regret that the long response I wrote just got zapped and is now lost. However, I think this debate is not going to get resolved by you or I. I will just mention that some of your statement just does not make sense. That might be because I am not an economist or simply because you are quoting left wing websites. I went to the three links you provided and, unfortunately, they are not non-partisan; I would have been much more impressed with your argument if they had been. As for the Governors of California, I will only ask you three questions. Prior to Grey Davis was not California a State operating on a balanced budget? Was not the bond rating for the State the highest, AAA Rating? Did not the State maintain a billion dollar surplus in the event of a catastrophic earthquake? The answer to all three is YES. Maurine, you and I both know that statistics can be skewed to fit almost any assertion. The medium income of Californians may have dropped but are not tens of thousands of people pouring into this State every year. Many of the poorer people in the country or even out of the country are flowing into California because of the generous welfare benefits and in search of work. I would be surprised if the medium income has risen. And, finally, Maurine, I do not find fault with Californians becoming rich. We should want as many Californians as possible to work, succeed and YES become rich. We then want the rich to form new businesses or make investments in venture capital projects so that other men and women become rich. We want the rich to create jobs! We want to the rich to reach deep into their pockets and make huge donations to the arts and to programs that assist the poor. You may begrudge the rich their wealth, I do not. I want them to use their money to make more money, to create more businesses that will keep millions of Californians employed. I don’t care if they build mansions on the bluffs or Malibu or buy old Victorians in San Francisco or even vineyard in the Napa Valley (which would be the most expensive for those who do not know this State). And, finally, I will make a declarative statement. I dislike class warfare. It solves nothing.

By Bonnie Oliver on 02/12/2009 5:30 pm