Editorial #2

This week I chose another article that focuses on the new stimulus package. It was written by Ruth Marcus, a journalist who currently writes an op-ed column for the Washington Post. She was also a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in commentary. The article begins with the stimulus debate, which ended up losing more Democratic votes than it gained Republican ones. Seven Democrats chose to vote against the bill, while only three Republicans voted for it. The Republicans are maintaining a fairly united front against the bill. This is helped along by the peer pressure other party members are putting on those who support the stimulus. Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins said, “The reaction against those of us who negotiated and endorsed the package is really harsh.” The pressure was so great that even Republicans that were “leaning yes” changed their mind when it came time to actually cast the vote. This stand against the President’s stimulus bill shows that the Republican Party still holds some power in the government. As for the three Republicans that voted in favor of the bill, they made it impossible to blame the entire party for the consequences of not passing the bill. The Republicans in the Senate face a tough two years, and they will probably look back on this as the good times of Republican unity.
I found this article interesting because I never thought that peer pressure could play such a major role in the Senate. I remember learning about the whips and how they supposedly kept Senators and Representatives voting within party lines, but I had never heard of a specific example. The story of the “party’s chief deputy whip” standing near a senator, that was leaning yes, during the vote and making him vote no really stuck with me. Hopefully the Republicans will not have such success with future bills.

Editorial #1

For this week’s current event I chose to read the editorial “Why I Support the Stimulus,” by Arlen Specter, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania. The article stressed the importance of government action by focusing on issues like unemployment and earnings reports, which have been bad recently. Senator Specter also discussed the “moderates” bill, saying that it retained the new jobs and tax relief goals while cutting back on less important provision. The article supports the Senator’s version of the bill, saying it creates four million jobs and cuts one hundred and ten billion dollars from the previous version. Some concerns that are expressed include less money for Title I education programs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi especially objected to the lack of money left for education. In terms of Health funding, both the House and Senate have included billions of dollars in funding for programs that deal with wellness and prevention. The “moderates” bill cuts this funding because “such programs are better left to the regular appropriations process.” The Pennsylvania Senator concludes by saying that the “moderates” bill does a good job of balancing the concerns of both right and left wing with the need for immediate action.
I agree with most of what Senator Specter is saying, but there are parts of the editorial I disagree with. The unemployment rates are the worst they have been in years, and many companies are reporting either very low, or even negative earnings reports. These are all signs of how bad the current economic recession is doing. I think that a lot of compromise will be necessary to get the bill passed quickly in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but I do not necessarily agree with what should be compromised on. I think health care should be left to the regular appropriations process, but education should receive money in the stimulus package.