Bipartisanship

The GOP is talking a lot about biparisanship after Obama said that he wanted bipartisan support for the stimulus legislation. Republicans are accusing the Democrats of not being bipartisan in the matter. They accuse the Democrats of not giving them a chance to weigh in on the bill. The Republicans want tax cuts. But the Democrats want to place their bets primarily on spending programs to jumpstart the economy. The bill supposedly doesn't have the tax cuts that the Republicans want, and they claim that it is because the Democrats have not been bipartisan. But what do the two parties mean by bipartisanship with regard to this bill? At least two interpretations come to mind.

First, bipartisanship could mean that the bill should contain both party's solutions equally. The bill should be split in half and contain each party's solution to the stimulus problem. On this view of bipartisanship, the parties do not have to engage in any real debate about what to do. That's a good way to look at it if discussion is pointless because you have no intention of changing your mind about anything, no matter what the evidence, and you want your ideas put in place. It's good if your only intention in discussion is to persuade the other side to think like you do. It's good if you want to avoid rational critical discussion of the alternatives because the arguments for your ideas are weaker than those for the alternative. It is good if you think that no clear solution is obtainable, that there's not enough evidence to decide who is right -- so we might as well split it down the middle. Perhaps some Republicans have this view of bipartisanship in mind. Rush Limbaugh said that since Obama won the election by around 6 percentage points, the stimulus should be 53% spending, what the Democrats prefer, and 47% tax cuts, what the Republicans want.

Second, bipartisanship could mean that the bill should contain the best solutions that the two parties can arrive at after having a rational, critical debate about the alternatives. This means that members of both parties have to come to the debate with open minds, realizing that an honest search for the truth may require changing or rejecting one's views.

Krugman and Stimulus Package

From Paul Krugman today:
February 7, 2009, 5:36 pm — Updated: 5:36 pm
What the centrists have wrought
I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.
The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.
According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.
Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.
My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.
The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.