What a Bipartisan Stimulus Package Really Means

What A Bipartisan Stimulus Package Really Means
by R.J. Fee
January 29,2009

All right. President Obama met with Republican leadership in an attempt to foster "bipartisanship" over his very Keynesian Economic Stimulus (read HUGE NEW GOVERNMENT SPENDING) package. I have a few questions.
1) Didn't his plan already include how much, where and when the spending would take place?

I don't agree with very much of the man's political philosophy, but he is obviously smart enough to create a plan. I know he wouldn't throw together a plan to spend $800 billion in new spending at the eleventh hour. A great deal of research into the effects of implementing this plan had to be studied at great cost of time and money. Which leads me to the next question...

2) With his plan already intact, what is there to meet about?

The spending plan has been formed. Even relatively small alterations to such a plan would have to be studied for their ripple effect throughout the economy. Unless the plan was structured with billions in slush money incorporated into the plan to persuade (read buy votes and support) of opposing party members. Of course that COULD NOT be the case, because change has come to America. Has it not?

3) Was the plan intact, or not?

The current administration can not have it both ways. Either you have a plan, and you are recklessly accepting input related to altering the plan that you have put so much time and effort into formulating, or you incorporated a great deal of slush and are using the taxpayers money to buy votes and the appearance of support. The funny thing is that, practically speaking, the opposition's votes are not needed to pass this debacle. But it is politics as usual, and the appearance of bipartisan support looks good. Who cares if it continues to waste taxpayer money? This leads to a question for the Republican leadership...

4) Which of you will be conceptually against such government spending until some of this slush money is directed to your home district?

The Republicans can not have both ways either. Either you are against such a move away from Capitalism toward Socialism, or you are not. Herein lies the problem with career politicians. Perhaps Winston Churchill made the point best in the following famously attributed discourse (or pehaps parable):

Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”

Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…”

Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”

Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”

Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

This leads me to a definition of Bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship - Ideally being able to agree conceptually on a matter. When unable to conceptually come to an agreement, it is the price at which the party in power must haggle to persuade the other to abandon their facade of scruples and values.