Is a Good Enough Stimulus Good Enough?
February 16, 2009
by Gloria Feldt
|Gloria Feldt is an activist, author (she most recently co-wrote Kathleen Turner’s memoir, Send Yourself Roses), blogger (Heartfeldt Politics), and former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Originally published at Heartfeldt Politics.
Gloria Feldt
Seems like the 787 billion dollar American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 stimulus package Congress has passed and sent to the President’s desk is just good enough. Though notable for its size, it doesn’t advance bold initiatives that could define Obama’s presidency, nor does it grapple with big, confounding issues like universal health care. It’s incremental rather than transformational. But it’s good enough to mind-shift us into a more optimistic view of the short term economy and to offer real help to many hurt by the downturn.
(If you want a quick look at how we’re going to spend 787 billion, see this chart. That sounds like “real money,” but it’s amazing how quickly it goes when you break it down–well, incrementally. For a more detailed summary, the Center for Law and Social Policy provides descriptions and tables with estimated state-by-state impacts of key provisions. Read that full report here.)
Though many economists say the package isn’t big enough, and feminists wonder whether it does enough to build the human infrastructure, Republicans are predictably squealing it’s too big and too diffuse. This despite all the effort Obama went to to engage and appease his Republican colleagues. I thought by now he would have learned the hooker principle (get paid first) and not have expended so much political capital trying to win over those who want only to create campaign issues with which to wrest back Congressional seats in 2010 and take the White House away from him in 2012. (Remember Newt and the Contract on America in 1994?)
I mean, caving to objections over a simple provision to reduce bureaucracy for states wanting to expand their Medicaid family planning programs was simply gratuitous political theater with a high ticket price. He has now framed birth control as “controversial”, despite its approval and usage by over 90% of Americans, and this will come back to haunt him when women’s groups start pushing him to deliver on promised family planning legislation such as the Prevention First Act.
But then, where were the women’s groups who should have stopped this silliness in the first place? They were with everyone else on the progressive to middle political scale, cutting Obama the slack a new president deserves, especially during crisis times.
On the plus side for Obama, perceptions about a leader’s prowess have as much to do with timing and the cushion of good will with which he/she is surrounded upon ascending to office as with actual performance. He’s riding high in the polls, and George Bush left things so bad that, with the exception of the Limbaugh-like loyalists, almost everyone is grateful for any forward movement.
Surely, this stimulus package is an important step forward, and it was accomplished with alacrity during the dawning days of the new administration. It shores up, pumps up, cheers up. It’s going to give relief to many low-and moderate-income families and help states avert drastic shortfalls in their budgets while saving major institutions. These are not small matters.
But courageous leadership isn’t just incremental. The New Deal was transformational. It changed government structure while building national infrastructure. Obama was swept into office in large part because voters saw him as a visionary who could transform and take the nation to qualitatively greater heights.
So let us give great credit to him for leading Congress and public opinion to embrace the current economic stimulus. That’s good enough for starters.
But onward now to universal health care, world class education, green and clean energy self-sufficiency, global leadership in women’s equality and human rights, and technological and scientific innovation that will fuel the next economic boom.
Why is this article posted here? I don’t see how it promotes TNA’s agenda. It clearly is a Pro-Obama, Pro-Democrat sounding bite article which is not appropriate in a non-partisan program.
This post gives excellent information on the stimulus bill. When I click through to the sources I find information about where the stimulus money is going that I had not seen so clearly laid out anywhere else. both by program and by state. When I look at the programs getting funding I see many that are important to women and children.
By the way, Kathy, TNA is non-partisan but that doesn’t mean we can’t have guest bloggers who take positions and articulate them well – that furthers intelligent discussion
That being said, this appears to be a substantive article by a woman who is very important in the feminist community and I thank her for her post on our blog.
Gloria, thank you so much for letting us re-post this very informative article.
I just read too much anti-republican, pro-democrat politics in this article. Too many times Democrat feminists talk down Republicans as if they are anti-women. This is exactly why TNA was founded – to break that mold and find common ground.
Actually, I fail to see how the $trillion stimulus will actually benefit the economy. Most of it is going for construction on government buildings. A scrap is going to women’s needs, and a small bite will actually go to helping the economy.
Furthermore, I checked out the Federal Reserve a month or two ago. It predicted 7.6% unemployment for 2009, which makes this the most benign recession in decades.
I agree with Kathy that this sounds more like a pro-Obama blog post than an actual feminist post. In fact, I do not see where a woman plays a key role anywhere in the article. It is all about Obama and his stimulus.
Now, do not misunderstand me here… I have disagreed with many of the decisions from female politicians featured here. However, I acknowledged those articles as following the non-partisan spirit of group dedicated to all women from all sides of the political spectrum. If this post was actually about a woman who supported the stimulus rather than simply Obama and his stimulus, then I would acknowledge this article in the non-partisan spirit of the group.
However, this article neither features a woman nor maintains the non-partisan standing of TNA.
This is becoming funny: “I sure would like to see some balance here at TNA. It seems like the Democrats can do no right, and the Republicans no wrong according to a lot of the articles here. When are we going to move past personal animus towards the DEMS over the primaries?
Is this a feminist organization or a GOP organization? When was the last time something was written here overtly criticizing a Republican? I can’t remember it. Strange, since their party has opposed virtually every issue we are promoting, from equal pay on.”
Based on the Goals, TNA is not an anti-Obama organization. At the same time, there are reasons for it to be an advocacy organization that does not make itself subservient to any political party or politician.
This article ends with five broad agenda items of which women’s equality is merely a component of one. I think that for TNA to going to make a difference, it will have to focus on its stated agenda items, not the Progressive’s or the Conservative’s agenda items.
At the same time both Progressives and Conservatives should be welcome to express their views, within the context of the TNA goals.
Excuse me, but most of the contemporary American female politicans featured here since the election have been Democrats.
Hilda Solis who was featured in the Feb 11 blogpost “Solis clears an important hurdle….” was a Democrat
In the article “The New Agenda sent out the following press release urging Obama to choose women for the two open cabinet positions”
Donna Shalala – Democrat
Rosa DeLauro – Democrat
Claire McCaskill – Democrat
Amy Klobuchar – Farmer/Labor splinter of the Democratic party
Kathleen Sebelius – Democrat
Jennifer Granholm – Democrat
I can’t find much information for the non-politicians.
The women featured in the Feb 10 article “Our picks for Director of Women’s Bureau….” all look like Democrats. Anita Perez Ferguson supports Planned Parenthood; Mary Beth Maxwell also looks like a Democrat with her work “for NARAL, directing the pro-choice organization’s…”
Feb 9 article “Musings on new developments….” features both a Republican and Democrat who will be running against each other. The article does not take sides and is happy the candidates are women.
Feb 8 “Ohio’s former first lady Dagmar Celeste on Ophelia Monday” Dagmar Celeste is a Democrat
Feb 7 article “Women Senators Come Together to Support Fair Pay Act” is about women from both parties uniting for a common cause for all women.
AND i CAN GO ON……. The Democratic women featured here immensely out number the Republican women featuered here.
My main issue with the article is that is blatantly partisan and does not feature a woman. The paragraph about women at the end is tacked on without anything leading to it. That tiny paragraph is the author’s attempt to make it feminist, but 9 of the 10 paragraphs were all about Obama and how wonderful he is.
Furthermore, Obama is NOT a feminist. He is an anti-feminist. This group was not designed to bash Obama, but it was NOT designed to be permissive of anti-feminists either. We should best remember that, or else we forget the outrage we felt here:
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/0.....he-f-word/
The Obama campaign has utilized misogyny at every step! First with Clinton, and then with Palin. Although the campaign is over and he no longer has to utilize misogyny, he remains a sexist pig at heart.
Thanks, Karen. I’m going to refer to this comment thread the next time someone asks if we’re a GOP front organization.
I don’t understand the criticisms of this excellent and informative post. It encompasses issues that are of great importance to women, and it fits within the larger picture of the current economic crisis and its affects on women.
These issues are integral to the mission of The New Agenda, and if you stick around, you’ll be reading much more on them in the future.
Hi Sheryl – I agree with Karen here. The only issue it discusses is the one regarding birth control and the author’s discontent it was removed from the bill. And, it was discussed in a very partisan way as if the Republicans don’t think it is an important issue. I believe I understood the reason it was removed is because it does not create jobs or give tax relief.
I think articles on how the current economic crisis effects women and what TNA can do to help are great. However, this article does not accomplish that goal. It merely says how great the current administration is in being progressive about this bill, and that the administration needs to be even more aggressive in dealing with the author’s agenda – most of which are what TNA is not focused on. It completely ignores all the controversy regarding the size and content of the bill. Actually, the author is trying to justify the non-stimulative components of the bill because they are important to her.
I still don’t see how it helps TNA’s issues.
While posts on this blog are generally on topics that are relevant to The New Agenda’s mission, they do not necessarily reflect the opinion or focus of The New Agenda, but rather that of the author.
I like the article; it is very informative. It is on the right path if TNA views it as a springboard to track the results of the stimulus through the lens of its goals http://thenewagenda.net/goals/.
Will women get construction jobs; young women, who make up the majority of high school graduates and college students, get scholarships and women-owned business, that make up own 20% of firms with revenues exceeding $1 million, use the small business tax credit?
I think the article is moving in a very positive direction.
Laura Bush was featured also.
Although the campaign is over, and Obama had no need to … he still chose family planning to throw under the bus to try to please the GOP — none of whom voted for his bill anyway. And after he found out they would not vote for the bill, he still didn’t put the family planning back into it.
If TNA does not agree with or focus on what the author says, why permit the author to post it in the first place? If TNA permits something it ultimately disagrees with, it send a contradictory message to readers and group members.
Kevin, your second paragraph begins with “will” and ends with a question mark. It is a standard, albeit lengthy, question, which makes me think you do not know if the stimulus will actually help women. I doubt Obama will give the construction projects specifically to women. You sound like you are trying to rationalize the stimulus.
Steele, Obama hates women. He tossed out birth control for who knows what sexist reasons. In the stimulus, there is $300 mil for women, but those are pennies compared to $6 billion for construction…
Birth control had nothing to do with the Republicans voting against the stimulus. They voted against it because they could not understand how it would create jobs. If Obama were truly bipartisan, he would have understood this and would have made better compromises.
Needless to say, I disagree with you, Karen. I think it’s an excellent article: very balanced, informative, and relevant.
It’s not a question of whether we agree or disagree with an article.
That’s not what I said. While The New Agenda is non-partisan, we do not expect our members to be non-partisan, and we’re glad to post views from all over the political map, when we have the opportunity to do so.
Hi Karen, I am not trying to rationalize the stimulus. I am simply suggesting that it might be a good idea for TNA to track how the stimulus package benefits women.
Just offhand, the article looks kind of mixed. She makes a serious criticism of Obama re the family planning issue — very informative and worth seeing again:
I mean, caving to objections over a simple provision to reduce bureaucracy for states wanting to expand their Medicaid family planning programs was simply gratuitous political theater with a high ticket price. He has now framed birth control as “controversial”, despite its approval and usage by over 90% of Americans, and this will come back to haunt him when women’s groups start pushing him to deliver on promised family planning legislation such as the Prevention First Act.
She sounds patronizing to Obama and also habitually sour toward the GOP:
Republicans are predictably squealing it’s too big and too diffuse. This despite all the effort Obama went to to engage and appease his Republican colleagues. I thought by now he would have learned the hooker principle (get paid first) and not have expended so much political capital trying to win over those who want only to create campaign issues [....]
Sounds like she’s in favor of the ‘movement’ that ‘swept him in’ and hopes maybe he can live up to some of it if they all shout “Live Tinker Bell!” !
Well I think any female Democrat with a brain has to be embarrassed about the misogynist behavior by liberals in the media and Democrat party during the last election. It is that misogyny that made us end up with Obama. We are all stuck with him for the next 4 years. You have to hope he doesn’t do too much damage because we all have to live here. I think any article that explains what team Obama has done is relevant for here because it is not like we can trust any information from the corporate media or the government we need other sources. But I would expect Democrat women and “feminists” to be making excuses for Obama and his administration because that is what they have been doing for months now and because they really, really hope. They still don’t get that the “hope” Obama was talking about was spelled with a Y instead of a O. The smart ones are appalled and disillusioned, the moderately intelligent will be soon enough and there is nothing you can do about the kool aid drinkers.
Yeah Obama and the Democrats have shown how misogynist they are but the Republicans are not white knights. Both parties are willing to sacrifice the health and needs of women to political dogma and power. Neither party has a moral center of reference. None of them take women’s votes seriously. I’ve got both parties calling me because I gave money to Hillary and McCain. I tell them both I only give to candidates I do not give to the parties. And of course I will no longer give to NOW or Emily’s list either. I am an independent. Actually I would like to see a third party.
Great to see you here, Gloria, and great post!
Especially this paragraph; “I mean, caving to objections over a simple provision to reduce bureaucracy for states wanting to expand their Medicaid family planning programs was simply gratuitous political theater with a high ticket price. He has now framed birth control as “controversial”, despite its approval and usage by over 90% of Americans, and this will come back to haunt him when women’s groups start pushing him to deliver on promised family planning legislation such as the Prevention First Act.”
When I read it I thought – wow, that’s just what I would say! And then I remembered where I learned much of this stuff… lol! No wonder I agree…
One thing that has struck me about the stimulus debate, and the first weeks of Obama’s presidency is general, is how upside-down everything is. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on one of the Sunday talk shows that he thinks the banks should be nationalized. The Dems are cutting back infrastructure spending. The new Justice Department appears to be adopting Alberto Gonzalez’ policies on rendition and torture. What the hell is going on?!
Re: http://thenewagenda.net/2009/0.....r-pay-act/
I’d love to see more information on the Republicans who voted yes on the Lily Ledbetter Act (Kay Hutchison from Texas, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania).
It shouldn’t matter which party folks are in (they’re often same sh*t, different pile anyhow) … if they’re supporting women’s rights, they should be showcased here. If they’re not, they should be exposed here (which is happening).
That said, I don’t have the time personally to do the research on this, so I’m offering this bell to another mouse…
OT:
Constance: “… there is nothing you can do about the kool aid drinkers.”
This made me chuckle, thanks!
I’m with you Constance in that I also believe we need some new parties to rise to power. Perhaps TNA should feature Libertarian and Green women? I think that the widespread corruption we have seen over the recent decades is a sign both dominating parties are in political old age.
A question here is: can we trust the author’s viewpoint toward Obama? A lot of people think Obama is a wonderful hero who will save the world.
The author describes Obama cutting birth control as “silly” and is dismissive of this action.
“where were the women’s groups who should have stopped this silliness in the first place? They were with everyone else on the progressive to middle political scale, cutting Obama the slack a new president deserves, especially during crisis times.”
It makes me wonder if she was permissive of the misogyny during the campaign. What she is saying is: Obama’s new and inexperienced, so forget the fact he is a sexist pig.
Karen, Obama “he is a sexist pig?”
What is most distressing about the country is that no one side can show humility; think country first, self-interest second; or even imagine that they are not the sole possessor of “truth.” I am not blinded by the supposed Obama aura but this country is facing an economic crisis, one not created by the current President – but one he must arrest .
I believe I can wish him all the good fortune in the world AND hold him accountable to advance women’s right. A lot of hate and “isms” were throw around during the campaign, by all parties, can we ever turn the page?
Dear Karen, Constance, et al,
I think some of the women’s groups but more so some of the individual women who write as Official Feminists in publications like Slate and Salon and HuffPo are trapped in a dilemma of their own creation.
Before the primary was over, some of them swore that Obama was just as much if not more of a feminist than Hillary Clinton. After the primary, a lot of them swore that if Obama were elected, Roe would be saved, women would earn equal wages for equal work, and the lion would lie down with the lamb and together they would order out for vegetarian burritos.
Now, they have to deal with the reality that electing Obama did not “save Roe” (Roe is already lost, for the most part); it did not correct wage inequality; Obama is flaking on a number of feminist issues; and the lions are still dining on lamb shish on a regular basis.
If these feminists criticize Obama for selling out on a core feminist issue – access to birth control regardless of income – they will have to admit that they were wrong – that Obama is not a feminist godsend (and further, that his commitment to feminism most certainly does not equal or surpass that of Hillary Clinton).
So how do they get around admitting they were wrong? They don’t criticize Obama, or, blame his actions on the GOP (despite Democrats having control of the White House, Senate and House).
(Gloria, by contrast, published insightful, honest analysis of Obama before the election, swimming against a very strong current. She doesn’t have to worry about reconciling her pre- and post-election statements.)
As for highlighting Green and Libertarian party women, Mondays with Ophelia recently featured Rosa Clemente, who I believe was Cynthia McKinney’s running mate on the Green party presidential ticket last year.
I don’t know if there *are* any female Libertarian party candidates…. from everything I’ve seen, Libertarians are the party for guys who want the government to stay away from their porn, guns, and weed. But I could be wrong about that.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...