So the Senate lacks the votes to pass the stimulus bill, which is to say, to overcome the Republican filibuster. In order to achieve passage, "they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy." Among those provisions: "$1.1 billion for comparative medical research, $350 million for Agriculture Department computers, $75 million to discourage smoking, $20 million in Interior Department funding, $400 million for HIV screening and $650 million for wildlife management." Some of those initiatives make sense both as stimulus and policy -- as Merrill Goozner notes, the comparative effectiveness research would go to immediate study grants and, in the long-run, save money for the health system -- some may not. But the article says the Republicans want to cut the bill by $200 billion -- which is a very different goal -- a difference of category, in fact -- than making sure the money is frontloaded. Slashing the size of the bill makes it less likely the bill will work, less likely the economy will improve, and more likely that Republicans will see victory in the 2010 midterms. The real question here is why 58 Democrats can't pass the president's top priority. We're learning that the minority still controls the Senate. So long as Republicans fundamentally don't want a bill to pass, they can make virtually limitless demands. The worst that happens is that Democrats simply give up and admit failure to the American people. Put another way: The worst that happens is overwhelming success. The trick is making sure the demands seem reasonable rather than obstructionist. But that's not too hard. Republicans know full well that they won't actually be forced to publicly filibuster the bill and defend their obstructionism while Democrats fan out across the news shows to warn of the economic dangers. Instead, Harry Reid will ask how the bill can be made smaller and leaner and more Republican. And maybe, for this, he'll get the crucial two votes assuring passage of an insufficient measure, the failure of which Republicans will run against in 2010.
