Inside Politics

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By Greg Pierce

UNSTIMULATING

"What's odd is that when the stimulus bill was under consideration, the president said there was no time for a real debate. Why the need for speed if the bill wouldn't begin to take effect for months? This seemed like a rhetorical trick designed to deflect criticism from what was a questionable bill," Jay Cost writes in a blog at www.realclearpolitics.com.

"Relatedly, Republican concerns were brushed aside, with the implicit claim that they were rooted in bad faith. The problem with this argument is that the Republican House caucus was unanimously opposed to the bill. ... The fact that they were unanimously opposed to the bill suggests that perhaps there was something wrong with it," Mr. Cost said.

"All in all, the process that produced the stimulus bill was not a good one. Rather than use his enormous political capital to construct a bill designed to confront the economic crisis head-on, the president left its construction mostly up to Congress, which is inclined to particularism and waste. It was then rushed through the legislature without a full review. The opposition to it was painted as politically motivated. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the final product was a bill that will not produce much effect until some time in the future - and now some are calling for a second stimulus.

"Meanwhile, the president and Congress are moving forward carefully and deliberately on health care. There's a robust debate that includes congressional committees across both chambers, the president, members of both parties, and the public. The president has clearly indicated that this is his top legislative priority, and he intends to do what is necessary to get a good bill that he can sign into law. Over the next few months, Washington's focus will squarely be on health care, even though it sits well below the economy on lists of public concerns.

"This seems backwards to me. It's as if the economy was a secondary concern that had to be dealt with quickly so attention could shift to the rest of the president's domestic agenda."

DOUBLE STANDARD

"The last time the CIA and Nancy Pelosi were in the news together, the House speaker was accusing the agency of lying about its briefings to Congress on the interrogation of al Qaeda detainees. This week, the speaker's fellow Democrats are set to block public disclosure of what Mrs. Pelosi was really told and when," the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial.

"Democrats recently marked up the 2010 intelligence bill, and Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra offered an amendment in committee to require the CIA to make public an unclassified version of its records on congressional briefings. It also would have required the CIA to disclose the information gleaned from those interrogations," the newspaper said.

"Democrats have spent years demanding a 'truth commission' into interrogations, so you'd think such public disclosure would be welcome. Ah, that was when a different guy was in the White House and before Mrs. Pelosi had made her own veracity an issue. Suddenly, she's all for secrecy. And sure enough, Intelligence Committee Democrats lined up to protect their leader and defeated the Hoekstra amendment on a party-line vote. This follows Democratic rejection of a resolution by Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop to initiate a bipartisan investigation of Mrs. Pelosi's accusation.