Blethen To The Rescue

Talk about a political intervention masquerading as journalism.

There are enough straw men in the piece to fill a THE WIZARD OF OZ costume party. But the real tell is how much of the column is devoted to imputing impure motives to Sen. Collins critics, and then painting them with the broadest possible brush.

Just another day in the life of the Maine print media.

Collins: Specter All About Politics

From Sen. Collins:

"I have great respect for Senator Specter who has worked hard for many years on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania.

"I am, however, extremely surprised and disappointed with his decision to leave the Republican party.

"Senator Specter has long been a leading moderate voice in the Senate, and I believe that his decision is more a reflection of Pennsylvania politics than anything else."

Contrast Collins' reaction with the senior senator's take.

PPH: Flu Funds Wouldn't Help Economy

Wrap your head around this, from Sen. Collins' defenders and abettors at the PPH editorial board:

Collins' point--and it was a good one--was that the economic stimulus package wasn't the place for new federal programs that didn't have a direct impact on economic growth.

Setting aside for a moment that any stimulus spending would not have come quickly enough to help with the current swine flu situation, such a program is not stimulus. True, while the spending will create government jobs, a program of this type is not like building a road or researching alternative energy, which spur growth beyond any government spending.

A flu pandemic program is more of a direct government service, one that is necessary for the public welfare, but there are better ways to jump-start an economy.

But is this even remotely true?

Beefing up public health infrastructure doesn't just mean hiring a bunch of bureaucrats. It requires investing in medical equipment and computer systems and drug stockpiles.

Those things have to be purchased from somewhere.

And, presumably, vendors pump the money earned from those sales back into the economy.

Now, there may be other kinds of spending that are more stimulative. But the notion that pandemic preparedness funding has no "direct" economic impact? Or that public health investments aren't real investments? Or that building out a robust disease preparedness infrastructure has nothing to do with economic growth?

PPH is either propagandizing to its readers or its editors are deluding themselves.

Now Wait A Second

Sen. Collins has implied since the beginning that she supported the $800 million in pandemic flu preparedness funding, but blocked the spending on procedural grounds--she didn't believe it belonged in the stimulus bill.

But a careful look at her camp's words (see here and here) reveals something murkier: Collins and her handlers always seem careful to avoid taking a firm position on funding levels. And they never come anywhere near endorsing the $800 million figure.

With that in mind, check out these two paragraphs from a new Washington Times story:

The senator's spokesman said Miss Collins does want increased funding for flu preparedness, though she wanted it to be part of the annual spending process, not the one-time jobs-creation package.

"And, in fact, the omnibus appropriations bill that was signed into law in March, less than a month after the stimulus bill, contains $156 million for pandemic influenza research, which is $1.4 million more than the fiscal year 2008 level," said Collins spokesman Kevin Kelley.

So: Mission accomplished? Certainly sounds like Kevin Kelley feels that way.

Except, of course, that we're looking at something like $700 less in flu preparedness funding then was originally planned.

So does the junior senator have a problem with situation as it stands? Or was the whole point of shifting the debate to the normal budgeting process that the result would be drastically reduced funding?

Will someone please ask Susan Collins, point-blank, whether she wants more pandemic flu funding? And if so, what she's willing to do to secure it?

Flu Funds In Perspective

The Collins camp says that Sen. Collins' decision to block hundreds of millions of dollars in pandemic flu preparedness funding hasn't hurt the current effort against the swine flu.

I'm certainly willing to accept that premise until we learn otherwise.

So in an important respect, the junior senator's unfortunate decision appears to be remediable.

But that makes it all the more important that we see Collins--who, remember, professes to support the flu funding--out there fighting for those dollars. And very very soon.

Is Collins willing to alienate Republican colleagues by not just standing up for public health spending but actually proposing legislation and then voting for it? Is she willing to risk something politically to do the important, serious work that the moment requires?

Question of the Day

Isn't it great that Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News asked Sen. Collins so many probing, substantive questions about her bottom line during the stimulus bill debate?

Collins: I Stand By Flu Funds Cut

From SunJournal.com:

In the face of the recent outbreak of swine flu cases reported in Mexico and several southern states, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins stands by her efforts to eliminate $780 million for pandemic flu preparedness from the federal economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year.

The Maine Republican successfully sought the removal of the funding because she didn't feel it met the criteria laid out for stimulus funds in terms of job creation or providing an immediate lift to the slowing economy.

“Sen. Collins supports increased funding for pandemic flu preparedness, but she felt it belonged in the regular appropriations bill, not the stimulus package,” said Kevin Kelley, Collins' spokesman.

Get that? Even though she took the lead in getting flu funds cut, Sen. Collins really wanted them approved--just not as part of the stimulus.

But here's the thing: When it came time to vote on the budget--which included a flu preparedness funding boost--do you think the junior senator voted for it?

Alas, no.

Look, there's nothing incoherent about supporting a piece of an omnibus bill while opposing the broader package. Maybe, in her heart of hearts, Collins does actually believe in increased funding for pandemic flu preparedness.

Unfortunately, as in so many other cases, she's had an awfully tough time finding opportunities to translate that belief into action.

Video flashback here.

UPDATE: The Collins camp spins here.

Of course, the fact that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) hasn't yet been approved by the Senate is a function of Republican stalling. And if Collins has been working to speed Sebelius' confirmation along, I can't find any evidence of it.

Question of the Day

Does Sen. Susan "Gang of 14" Collins think that qualified nominees for key Obama administration legal positions deserve up-or-down votes?

You'd think that the answer would be obvious.

She's Kidding, Right?

Sen. Collins sends the hypocrisy meter soaring:

JEFFREY BROWN: Senator Collins, we heard you raise this question as you look at the new strategy [on Afghanistan] of benchmarks. How do we know if we're winning? How do we know how it's going? Were you satisfied with the response? Tell us more about what your concerns are.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-Maine: That is the fundamental question...And it troubles me that the administration has committed troops and is coming to Congress for additional resources without having a clear set of benchmarks for evaluating whether or not this strategy is working.

That's a mistake that our government made in Iraq, until General Petraeus took over and until we had a different strategy and clear benchmarks to measure its success.

I don't think we should repeat that mistake.

Hmm. I don't remember Collins making much noise about tactical and strategic errors during the first few years of the Bush administration's tragic bungling of Iraq.

And yet here she is, fretting about benchmarks on national television just days into the Obama administration's reworking of our Afghanistan strategy.

What a difference a new president makes.

Remember, this has nothing to do with politics.

Thanks, LCV

The League of Conservation Voters endorsement at work:

Not a single Republican joined with Democrats in supporting a relatively innocuous budget amendment giving Senate committees the flexibility to design a cap-and-trade system that does not increase "the overall burden on consumers."

[...]

"It's a complicated issue to tackle at a time when the economy is weak," [Sen.] Collins told POLITICO later.

Wading In

Sen. Collins appeared yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

If she's been on any of the Sunday morning shows previously, I'm not aware of it. In any event, it's been years.

Collins v. Whistleblowers?

What does Sen. Collins have against oversight? This is starting to look like a pattern...

Collins Zeroed Out LIHEAP?

From CQ.com this morning:

Unlike the House bill, the Senate version does not include additional funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps low-income families pay utility bills. The House bill has another $1 billion for the program.

Um, I thought Sen. Collins favored more money for LIHEAP? (Or is keeping poor people from freezing insufficiently stimulative?)

UPDATE: Gerald reads more carefully than I do: Why on earth did Collins demand a $3.3 billion cut to home weatherization programs?

Why on earth would she characterize a program that will create jobs, stimulate the economy, benefit her own constituents and protect the environment as "bloat"?

UPDATE UPDATE: A source tells us that LIHEAP and weatherization funding had been stripped from the bill that originally surfaced in the Senate. (The CQ article was ambiguous on this point.)

So it's not quite fair to say, based on what we know, that the junior senator demanded cuts to those programs.

On the other hand, she's championing a version of the bill with no LIHEAP funding and $3.3 billion less in weatherization--while rejecting the version that includes those funds as "bloated."

So draw your own conclusions.

One on One

Lost in the tumult of the last few days was a striking admission from Sen. Collins: That her face-to-face conversation with President Obama last week represents the first time she's had a 30 minute one-on-one meeting with a sitting president. (Hat tip: Maine Politics.)

Think about this for a minute.

For eight years, Collins backed President Bush down the line on Iraq, unaffordable tax cuts and torture. She did his bidding when it came to Samuel Alito, telecom immunity and war contracting.

And yet securing her support for these egregious policies--which have crippled our economy, undercut our security, violated the Constitution and diminished our international standing--required not a single block of one-on-one persuasion from the former president.

She was, I guess, already on board.

This tells us something about President Obama. And of course, it's in keeping with what we knew about the other guy.

But surely, it speaks volumes about the junior senator.

The Collins Cuts: 600,000 Fewer Jobs?

That's what Krugman says:

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.

$166 Million Less For Maine

PPH tells us something worth knowing:

The Maine Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees joined forces to bring pressure to bear on key senators, including Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

The groups estimate that about $166 million in funding for education and Head Start in Maine would be stripped from the stimulus bill as part of a compromise negotiated by a bipartisan group led by Collins.

Question of the Day

Now that Sen. Collins is a celebrity, how is her fame helping Maine?

Said Better Here

Via TPM:

What's most striking about this list is that, for all their carping about this hodgepodge of a bill, the Nelson-Collins group seems to have approached their cuts in an even more haphazard fashion. They're not offering a comprehensive or coherent approach to stimulus spending. They haven't established a fixed standard, against which they're measuring each item. They don't have any sense of how big the overall package needs to be in order to work. They're just canvassing members to find out which items it's politically feasible to remove...

If Collins and Nelson had a shred of seriousness, they would be proposing the elimination of individual items--and then the substitution of programs they felt would stimulate the economy more efficiently. Where are the substitutes? Or, if they think the bill is bigger than necessary, they could announce a target amount and a rationale for why that lesser amount would work. Where's the target?

This isn't centrism. It's not fiscal conservatism. It's just grandstanding.

The Collins Conundrum

One of the frustrating things about trying to write intelligently about Sen. Collins--I said trying--is that she's incredibly hard to pin down. And the stimulus is a perfect example.

First, we hear she wants to expand the bill and add more infrastructure. Then we're told that she wants more infrastructure at the expense of other programs. And this week we learn that she wants a significantly smaller bill with infrastructure cuts.

What principle can accommodate all three stances? From what substantive critique of the current bill could all three positions possibly stem?

And if it's not about substance, what is it about?

One thing is clear: It can't just be about getting to sixty votes to avert a filibuster. Because if Collins herself votes for cloture, it means the bill almost undoubtedly already has the 60 votes it needs to come to a vote. (A vote it will win by a very healthy margin.)

So it can't be about trying to help the bill pass. The junior senator must have some other reason for pressing for cuts to stimulative spending during the worst economic crisis in generations.

It would be nice if she told someone in the press what that reason is.

To What End?

It appears that Sen. Collins wants to cut from the stimulus special education funding targeted to forestall hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs in economically disadvantaged areas.

Does she think allowing a massive numbers special education teachers to be laid off won't further hurt the economy? Or that keeping these people employed isn't stimulative?

Does she dispute the notion that the cuts she's calling for would result in layoffs?

Or does she have something against funding special education in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods?

In the alternative universe in which Maine has a functioning press corps, someone is asking the junior senator these questions.