So I just found out that a lot of Senate Dems liked this language:

None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used for any casino or other
gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swim-
ming pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater,
art center, and highway beautification project.

Because, you know, "museum" is as pointless and unimportant to the health of our society as "casino." To riff off Atrios, this is clearly one of those "designed to piss off Liberals" types of legislative action. And it worked! I'm pissed! Not only is this a petty, stupid, blatantly polemical, destructive, childish piece of legislation, but wait till you see which of "our" fine Dems voted in favor of it:

The lines of battle over the economic salvation of America and our working class are now crystal clear. It is Republicans and BlueDogs together on one side, acting in furtherance of the same Corporatists who ran public policy under Reagan and the Bushs, versus the rest of us.

So we all, rightly, hate TARP and endless funding for war and invasion and other costly programs that reward the rich and failing at the expense of the working class and poor. But what about the Stimulus Bill? I can't claim to have read all of the damn thing (it's over 600 pages long) but I did research the parts that seemed most likely to have an impact on my life. Insurance for the poorest, funding to struggling states, increased education spending...none of these will directly impact my life, but there's a good chance some of the money will trickle down in a way that makes things at least a little bit better for me and mine. What about you?

Despite inaction from most of the rest of his party, I'm getting not a few emails and calls to "take action" and show support for the stimulus bill from groups and offices that are 'tight' with Obama, most specifically by expressing my support for it to Congresscritters. Apparently the Republican push-back against it is a well-funded and so far very effective campaign to scare those poor, helpless Dems in Congress who can't seem to figure out the difference between a dittohead phone campaign and the wishes of their actual constituents. Have you been asked to make any similar pro-stimulus calls, and if so, are you?

Less than all-encompassing, subject to revision, but some think it is a big deal.

Heh, I'd write "sittin in a tree..." but I don't think he'd go for that. Diss me all you want, but just try to take down the Mighty Glennzilla:

Those claiming that Obama has masterfully depicted the Republicans as arrogant obstructionists by extending the hand of compromise should review this latest Rasmussen Reports poll, which finds the public split almost evenly on whether they support the Obama/Democratic economic recovery package, with a clear trend towards increased opposition.
This is what happens every single time: the Democrats do everything possible to "accommodate" the Republican position and then get attacked anyway (they voted in large numbers for the Iraq War in and then got attacked for being soft on Terror in 2002; they voted for virtually every Bush "Terrorism" policy and the same thing happened, etc.). Here, they did everything possible to change their bill to please Republicans and nothing is happening except full-scale GOP opposition accompanied by a constant barrage of GOP attacks against them as big-spending, reckless, wealth-transferring liberals.
Ultimately, the success of this program will be measured by whether it produces successful results, so why shouldn't Democrats use their majority to enact the policy they think is most likely to achieve that? That's true on this issue and in general.

H/T and hugs to Bo.

So, if it's a "moral necessity" to spend over $100B a year to enforce "women's rights" in Afghanistan, why is it so hard to spend a couple of hundred million on American women who are poor but supposedly already have the right to choose? Just wonderin'.

Gosh, I'm actually glad I found this. I should thank the author for being so blunt; I've read plenty much like this, however variously coded in softer, gentler misogyny:

Putting people to work

What does contraception have to do with to putting people back to work? It was a christmas tree ornament, and an obvious "gimme": something to drop in negotiation.

This is a comment on a liberal blog, on a thread critical of the stimulus bill. I left a reply, rather mild for me but I'm not in the mood for engaging those who use Hugh Hefner quotes as their sig lines. But still, this is just the most blatant example of O-xcusing I've read from supporters, as they ignore the reality of Administrative caving on #1) 40% of the "stimulus" is in the form of tax cuts and #2) Stupid sluts who don't deserve contraception.

I don't think the new administration understands how deeply this one goes, this betrayal, as more strongly worded writers have put it, and the anger it has generated in the feminist community. Women don't forget those who toss them under the bus at the very first, and wholly unnecessary, opportunity. Particularly those women who were told to, erm, 'grin and bear it' during and after the primary season, in the name of "victory" and "unity." It's especially bitter to realize: Obama got *nothing* in exchange for ah, screwing over poor women. Nice job, Hero. Way to help the helpless...to the poorhouse. With bratz in tow, even! I can't wait to pay for their upkeep, can you? I'm so glad those women will be less likely to find jobs and benefits which would keep their slatternly selves and bastards off the public dole. It's where they were meant to be, right?

I won't, um, belabor the point, except to say that strategically, this is in Major Fuckup territory. There is no "solidarity" or "feminist consciousness" in America, but there is one truth to all American women: we take the freedom to fuck when we please for granted. Our boyfriends and husbands do too, even as some of them may not be willing to fight for our reproductive rights or get angry when they are threatened. This isn't about "poor women." It's a statement about the value the new administration places on women as a whole. No amount of apology will make us forget this. I will not "rejoice" when the funding is passed in a later bill, assuming the new administration ever actually gets around to that. Reproductive freedom is and should always be a central, automatic position for any politician calling herself/himself a 'Democrat.' For all women. All of the time.

I hate to say it, but the much-mocked, frequently-hated 'PUMA' crowd scored a big victory today, not that people like the author of the quote would admit that. I'd like to coin the meme, "She told you so," replacing the gender neutral "we." One doesn't have to love the idea of HRC as Prez to perceive and understand how different this particular issue would've been played out, had she or any other Dem woman been in charge. Yeah, I'm starting a flame war. It's a shame to think that I never should've been given the opportunity, and that technically, I'm the last survivor of the primaries with any interest in doing so.

A friend of mine likes to joke that "all Republicans are socialists," meaning that when it comes to the government handing out free money to bankers, large off-shore HQ'd corporations, or Red Staters sucking the Federal tit, they just can't say "No." We've spent a lot of time mocking them for the hypocrisy in this, as it comes from those people who are at the same time, the most loudly against "welfare" and other entitlements and funding for the rest of us. I bring this obvious set of points up, because I think it's time to do some real pushback, and perhaps use this framing as a wedge, against the notion that "tax cuts are good," and "tax increases are bad." In fact, historically and economically speaking, the very opposite is true.

The chatter is that the new administration started out offering 1/3 or 25% of the stimulus package in tax cuts, and the Republicans came back with, and received, the ~40% that are found in the most current form of the stimulus bill. Talk about dumb "strategy." Hasn't anyone in the Administration ever bought a rug in the Middle East? Haggling rule #1: your first offer should be offensively too low.

Here, let me piss off some fans of our Leader. From the now Kristol-free Grey Lady:

The bankruptcy solution would not cost taxpayers money, as would mortgage modification programs that could become part of the government's huge economic bailout package. But it certainly would harm the bottom line for lenders and investors holding mortgages.

Ya got that, chicklets? A no-cost solution that could help keep millions in their homes instead of tossing them on the streets. Sounds great, it even has support, and people willing to attach it to the stimulus bill. But...wait for it...guess who's too chickenshit to let such a win-win provision get added?

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, said Obama persuaded him in a White House meeting Friday to remove the bankruptcy proposal from an economic recovery package -- to ensure it doesn't jeopardize the stimulus bill. But Obama pledged his support for the bankruptcy solution, Durbin said.

Obama said he would work with Durbin to attach the proposal to other ''must pass'' legislation -- with the hope that supporters of the overall bill would not vote against it because of the bankruptcy provisions.