There are some numbers I’d like to put together and I need your help to do it. I’m looking for every specific instance of wasteful, unnecessary or inefficient spending members of Congress have criticized in the Senate or House versions of the stimulus bill. I’m not talking about generic criticisms but rather specific line items such as the funds for contraceptives, research on STDs, refurbishing various buildings on the National Mall, etc. My sense is there aren’t many more than half a dozen that are getting the lion’s share of attention. And I’m not sure there’s more than a dozen that are getting much attention at all. But I want to pull together the examples. So I’d be greatly obliged if you can send in emails with citations and links to specific articles noting the programs and the dollar amounts.

The DCCC is running radio ads against 28 House Republicans who voted against the stimulus plan. That and the day’s other political news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.

Mitch McConnell signaled yesterday that some kind of deal is in place that would allow President Obama to pick Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) as Commerce secretary without costing the GOP a Senate seat, even though New Hampshire has a Democratic governor who would appoint Gregg’s successor:

This just doesn’t smell right, on several levels.

We’re going to have more on this shortly. But as this political battle over Daschle unfolds, it’s critical to remember that Daschle has been a critical figure for Obama for some time. Well, before there was any discussion of building a cabinet or even starting a longshot presidential bid. Daschle lost his seat in the same election Obama entered the senate — 2004. And as Daschle was closing up shop, a number of his key staffers went over to Obama to get his senate operation started, most notably Daschle’s former Chief of Staff, Peter Rouse. Rouse is now an Obama ‘Senior Advisor’ whose office is just a few steps down from the Oval Office.

Whatever you make of the substance of the tax and lobbying issues threatening Daschle’s nomination, I think it will take quite a lot for Obama to pull the plug on his nomination.

Last week the House of Representatives passed the $800 billion-plus stimulus package, but without a single Republican vote of support. This week the bill goes to the Senate for consideration. It’s sure to be just as intense a debate as last week’s, and for a preview we turn to a roundup of the Sunday morning talk shows …

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.

As I mentioned over the weekend, I’ve seen a lot of Republicans on TV complaining that spending programs that demonstrably do create jobs do not create jobs, like buying new and more energy efficient vehicles for government workforces, etc. But where I’ve really seen the press dropping the ball is doing some simple arithmetic on the spending items Republicans say constitute the wasteful spending in the bill.

Now, the tell in my eyes is that almost all the criticisms I’ve heard are about budget items in the millions. And when you’re talking about a bill with over $800 billion in spending, you just have a hard time getting to any substantial percentage of the total spend with such relatively small items.

Now, here’s a representative list from Rep. LoBiondo (R) of New Jersey …

$1.9 billion for high-level physics research;

$1.5 billion for universities to improve their biomedical research programs;

$600 million for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to purchase new satellites to improve weather forecasts;

$600 million to buy new cars for federal government workers, adding to the existing inventory of 640,000 vehicles; and,

$335 million for education and prevention programs regarding sexually transmitted diseases.

Separate criticism has been directed at $75 million for smoking cessation plan.

Set aside whether you think these line items are worthwhile. (And it seems obvious to me that it’s good for the economy to buy more vehicles for the government fleet, when our auto industry is cratering and demand for cars is flatlining.) But just add those up and you get a total — $3.51 5.01 Billion — out of $819 Billion.

The pretty simple fact here is that the Republicans are not willing or able to criticize any of the substantial amounts of spending in this bill. They’re focused on a few tiny parts of it. And too few people are pointing out that these amount to maybe one or two percent of the program total.

Republicans say they want a Palin future for the GOP.

Obama promises “independent board” to monitor the bailout.

All about the GOP rump in the South: Shelby says he wants to filibuster the Stimulus Bill.

I’m watching Andrea Mitchell interview David Broder in what’s amounting to a sort of parody of High Broderism. But setting aside the unsupported a priori assumption that a bill with input from both parties is necessarily better than a bill put forward by a single party, he just said that this Stimulus Bill is a big risk because we already had one Stimulus Bill (i.e., TARP) and it didn’t work:

(ed.note: A few readers say they think Broder was referring to last year’s tax rebate law. I guess that’s possible. Watch the video and judge for yourself. If he’s referring to that, his error would not be as bad as I say below, though it would still be a bad comparison since that was 100% tax rebate rather than a bill heavily weighted toward spending. — jmm)

Now, I think there’s a legitimate debate about the effectiveness of TARP. My own take, by no means definitive or fully informed, is that on balance it helped arrest the collapse in the financial system. It was poorly managed. Treasury cut very poor deals on behalf of the taxpayers. And I suspect that in one form or another, we’re going to have to spend a lot more money to stabilize the finance sector.

But it wasn’t a stimulus bill. A stimulus bill — though a pretty amorphous catch-phrase — is either spending or tax cuts (usually spending, since it’s more efficient) to put extra demand into the economy during a recession. TARP was an effort to recapitalize the banking sector. End of story. It wasn’t a stimulus bill. Nor is this just a semantic point since he’s leveraging his own error as evidence for the perils involved in enacting this legislation.

This is such an elementary point that you really have to wonder why Broder’s being allowed to go on TV.