Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

The Stimulus Fail Trifecta

Submitted by Jon Henke on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 18:24
in

National Journal says the Senate has reached a compromise stimulus deal.   Nevertheless, nobody has much cause to be happy about the passage.  The President, Congressional Republicans and Congressional Democrats have managed to hit the rare trifecta of failure.

  1. The Emperor has no leverage:  President Obama promised to ban earmarks and pork in this legislation, and then folded like a lame duck when Congressional Democrats demanded their earmarks.  Not only can Obama not pass his top priority legislation on his own terms with a major Democratic majority, the Congressional Democrats aren't even listening to him.  President Obama cannot be happy that he's been shown to be so impotent on his biggest policy priority.
  2. Republicans have very little leverage: After years of political domination, Republicans have made virtually no progress on strategic policy goals.  Meanwhile, Democrats look certain to entrench significant policy gains within weeks of the election of a Democratic President.  And while Obama offered some tax cut overtures to Republicans, the massive deficits implicit in the bill make them pyrrhic victories.  Tax cuts can't outrun the bill coming due. 
  3. Democrats had to compromise: I was given a Senate document today that shows the (then-current) status of negotiations.   Note what is being cut (a lot of non-stimulus spending that Unions would like) and what is being added (defense spending).   See the document below the fold...

 

4.6
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (5 votes)

Comments

Try Dealing with Reality if you really want to help our Party

Submitted by BulldogsRule on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 18:59.

Here are the Facts.

How about just a minute or two of perspective?Amount to bailout AIG - at least $85 billionAmount to bailout Citibank - at least $45 billionAmount to bailout Bank of America - at least $45 billion, with guarantees on $118 billion in loansAmount the Bush administration overpaid for bailed-out bank assets - $78 billionProposed cuts to President Obama's economic stimulus bill (currently being debated by 20 "centrist" senators):$1.1 billion to Head Start$24.8 billion to states for budget shortfalls in education programs$15 billion to states for additional education funding$2 billion to Child Care Development Block Grants$150 million to funding for programs in the Violence Against Women ActOh, and, hell, let's just throw this in:Amount of just two years of George W. Bush's tax cuts: roughly $500 billion (adjusting for interest). Two-thirds of that came from tax cuts on the top 20% of wage earners.(Note: this leaves out the cost of operations in Iraq because, well, does it need to be said?)

We help no one when all we do is throw dirt and distort.

 

One way to help our Party

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 19:50.

Pick one.

a) using sentences and paragraphs

b) staying on topic

c) Not commingling tax relief for some family earning $100K with various Paulsen/Gethner "stablization programs".

 

misguided spending

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 17:13.

So let me see...misguided bailouts to banks and insurance companies justify misguided spending on education and child care?  I hope you remember this when the Democrats' budget for FY 2010 comes around.

Folded? You really don't get it do you?

Submitted by BulldogsRule on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 19:01.

Folded like a lame duck? He is attempting to allow our party into the game and all you can do is bring your anger online and act like a 5 year old.

On earmarks

Submitted by Jeffrey Sykes on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 19:37.

The OP is stating that Obama folded on the earmarks pledge. Do you disagree with that assesment?

 

Folding like a . . .

Submitted by cr on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 19:41.

Yeah, he did fold, but I would also say that he wanted to get this bill up and running. I think 'doing something' trumped a pork sandwich on this. I still waiting to see what he does when he has time to craft something on his own. Few people have had to deal with a jobs bomb on entering office.

This still says more about a Dem congress than Obama. . . .

Obama's culpability

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 17:17.

I still waiting to see what he does when he has time to craft something on his own.

HE DID craft this bill.  And then he stood by and did nothing when members of his own party larded it up with obscene amounts of pork, and NOW he's trying to defend the whole thing.  As Rich Lowry pointed out, Obama missed a terrific opportunity to triangulate and actually cast himself as a new kind of Democrat with deeds as well as words.  What did he do instead?  When is he going to call out the Democrat porkers who insist on putting in things like bee insurance into a stimulus bill?

The stimulus bill is not

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 18:49.

"Larded up with Pork."

No matter how much the GOP wants to push this lie.  Keynesian spending is not "pork".

Obama defined it when he said that Earmarks are items inserted into bills without proper discussion or debate.  That has not been the case here.

This bill has been hotly debated for days now, and Republicans have chosen to focus on narrow, sensationalist items in order to influence public opinion.

"Bee Insurance" is another of these lies and distortions.  It is not "Bee Insurance", it s Government help to companies who insure livestock.  AND it was voted on and APPROVED in an earlier bill by the very same Republican hypocrites who now are pretending to be fiscal hawks.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik5-2009feb05,0,4684030.column

That brings us to McConnell and his problem with "honeybee insurance." It turns out that the Senate minority leader took his cue from Neil Cavuto of Fox News, who has been carrying on about the topic for more than a week. Their campaign was joined Tuesday by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who stood on the floor of the chamber challenging "any member to come and explain what that provision was." I'm no senator, but I'm pleased to inform Vitter that it is, in fact, a disaster insurance program for all livestock producers. Beekeepers obviously would be minor beneficiaries next to, say, cattle ranchers, so it's a tad bit dishonest to label the whole program "honeybee insurance." The provision simply continues a program enacted by Congress last year, overriding a veto by President Bush. In other words, the Senate voted on it twice in 2008 -- once to enact and once to override. Connoisseurs of political comedy will see the punch line coming: McConnell and Vitter voted yea both times. So it turns out that McConnell isn't really against honeybees. He's only using them to pretend that he's got a principled objection to a stimulus plan aimed at pulling the country out of the most severe recession in decades. The honeybees, and the rest of us, are merely collateral damage.

 

 

 

"hotly debated for days"

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 18:53.

Wow. I'm sure they made no mistakes.

See defintion of "rush to judgment"  The debate over the Iraq AUMF was held over a much longer period that this shotgun deliberation over spending a trillion dollars of borrowed money.

Looks like the best of all possible worlds to me.

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 19:48.

Obama gets a bill that is plenty  big enough to work, with very little serious GOP input. No filibuster threats. Only three GOP votes, so the Dems get all the credit when the markets start coming back.

The majority of the stuff that was cut can easily be slipped into other bills later this year. And the majority was education related cuts so it can be spun as, "Republicans hate our children."

President gets credit for reaching out a hand, even though nobody was smart enough to take it. Moderates look like they have the power. Conservatives can spend the weekend whining about minutia, and look like the small minded crybabies they are. Liberals get to do what they do best, when it will really do some good. Spend, baby, spend!

Cherry on the Sundae

Submitted by artigiano on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 22:06.

Almost forgot the best part. Now next week's two town hall visits and prime time presser shift from "sell the stimulus bill" to "victory lap" and "control the narrative."

demagoguery

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 17:18.

The majority of the stuff that was cut can easily be slipped into other bills later this year. And the majority was education related cuts so it can be spun as, "Republicans hate our children."

Do you want it spun as "Republicans hate our children"?  Is this the new tone in Washington that Obama bragged about?

I suppose....

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 21:23.

the Congressional Democrats aren't even listening to him. President Obama cannot be happy that he's been shown to be so impotent on his biggest policy priority.

Expect that to last up until the next election cycle.

Democrats look certain to entrench significant policy gains within weeks of the election of a Democratic President.

Hope & Change dukes it out with party built on strength of incumbent House Democrats.

Oddly enough, this at a time when the Far Left, the Radicals, have declared Gay Leotards Day as a national holiday.

And the GOP observes the two concurrent, yet unrelated, phenomenon and believe this must all have something to do with some great technology war.

And so, the Republicans are out on crusade.

How willfully blind do you have to be to yet acknowledge that the election was a referendum on a president less popular (or desirable, for that matter) than Richard Nixon?

Look-- those Bush-McCain '08 bumper stickers and that Hope & Change message were concurrent and related phenomenon.  That other stuff-- forget it.

See the document below the fold...

Most of that crap has needed to be cut for a long time.

Why are we just getting around to cutting it now?

I don't get it....

 

 

Reality

Submitted by stl on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 22:16.

I think we need to look at this as a Lib/Left test drive with their "new majority". 

1. They have learned that they can pretty much control things w/out the R's and w/out a clear majority of public support.

2. They have done this with a "step one" program which will increase our debt by $1T.  They have paid off part of their campaign debts, before trying to fix the other parts of the economic problems (that is: Party First). 

3. From here on out it will be a simple matter to enact their vision of America.  No doubt they can raise a few R's on an ad hoc basic for any "reform".  

4.  So look for big strides in the re-making of America in the image of european countries.

Bear in mind that economic growth is not one of their priorities.  Social Justice, Unionism and Greenism are far more important.

I'm glad the R's showed some backbone, but the weakness of their causus were well known and predicable. 

Now, is there a way for sane people to influence the Media so that the stupid excesses of their agenda can blocked? 

@stl

Submitted by skyewriter on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 23:15.

Have you read the bill? Apparently not.

I have.

If you consider funding school lunch programs, keeping teachers employed, saving the American auto industry by buying a fleet of fuel/energy efficient vehicles, increased security at our ports, coasts, rail system, and power plants (this is the very, very short list) pork, then you are a sad, sad person.

I suggest going to congress's website and dowloading the pdf. I have studied it since they posted it earlier this week, dissected it on my own blog, and you have *no* idea what you are talking about.

Why not think for yourself for a change?

Thinking

Submitted by stl on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 01:42.

Well, what a thoughtful response.  Yes, indeed, everyone who thinks that taxpayer's money (which of course may not include you) should be spent in a hurry-up, non-debatable fashion has not read the bill and is a sad, sad person.

Of course, my post was not aimed at you (this is not dKos). 

If you re-read my post, I'm talking largely about the future.  Did you know that European countries have a lower standard of living?  And that France has an unemployment rate of generally more than 8% in a good year?

Did you know that the UK NHS does not allow certain life-saving Kidney cancer drugs?

Did you know that windmills and solar are not baseload energy sources?

Did you know that there's real concern about our currency and about the ability of our country to get others to lend us money?

No doubt you think that all this is McChimpyBushies fault.

But to the serious readers fo this blog.  Most Americans would reject policies that would impoverish them (but some, like our dear reader, would not mind as long as they get a government stipend)

But this requires a substantial change in the way we do politics.

 

Europe Does Not Have a Lower Standard of Living

Submitted by ToddLuvsLounging on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 12:05.

I always hear that Europe has a lower standard of living for years but as a person who has actually lived in Europe while in the Army, I know that is just not true. Thanks to Google and the internet, everybody can actually do a little research.

Oh how I wish I can say we're #1, but we're not even in the top 10. We're 15. We're like the Cal Bears when they have a good QB.

I suppose you can argue you were talking about the Eurozone as a whole, but Japan with the second largest economy comes in at 8, so if a country as large as Japan can make the top 10, why can't the USA?

This points out the larger problem of the Right. I don't think their leaders are any less smarter than the Left, but the rigid views of their supporters forces their leaders into dumb positions or selects less capable leaders during primaries. Until conservative supporters realize the 1980's are over and we live in new era where everybody can check facts and make decisions about current problems, I don't believe the Next Right will appear until Republicans take a beating until 2020 when there is another generational turnover.

 

 

I agree

Submitted by In between on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 12:27.

I spent 3.5 years in Frankfurt and have been back many times and always thought it as middle class. In the U.S., you learn to stay away from south central L.A., south Chicago and other places. I never avoided an area in Europe. Prague is probably cleaner than New York. The further south you go is dirtier, like Athens and Naples.

The public transportation in Europe is among the best.  

Mr. LuvsLounging

Submitted by stl on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 17:24.

W ell, the UN HDI seems a little controversial. But let's take some basic stats:

Life Expectancy France: 80.9 US 78.1

Migration France 1.5/1000 US 2.9/1000

Children born France: 2.0 US 2.1

Literacy: Both 99%

Education % of GDP France 5.7% US 5.2%

GDP per capita (ppp) France 33.5K US 45.7K

So, dear reader, France's GDP per person is about 25% lower. And from CIA factbook: "France's tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe - at nearly 50% of GDP in 2005" 

Nice place to visit...I see you didn't stay.

PS...I have to add this piece from Mark Steyn to add a little humor to the dreary arguments about European Socialism

The bloated non-stimulus and the under-taxed nominees are part of the same story. I'm with Tom Daschle: I understand why he had no desire to toss another six-figure sum into the great sucking maw of the federal treasury. Who knows better than a senator who's voted for every tax increase to cross his desk that all this dough is entirely wasted? Tom and Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel and all the rest are right: They can do more good with the money than the United States government can. I only wish they followed the logic of their behavior and recognized that what works for them would also work for every other citizen.

 

 

France

Submitted by ToddLuvsLounging on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 17:59.

I didn't realize France (oh, man, you got me, the French) was the representative country in Europe. I didn't realize the thickness of your wallet was the deciding factor of your country's standard of living. I always thought there was more to a country than their economic standing, um, like how it cares for their most vulnerable or how it eductionally provides for their youth.

I loved Germany, but I am American so I came home. Why is it when you make a criticism of this country, your patriotism is questioned? I was taught dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Moreover, what kind of friend would I be if I didn't tell you a booger was hanging out.

I sometimes wonder if conservatives really understand what "socialism" is? If you think what is going on with the bailouts and the stimulus is "socialism," then I say you are just trying to spook people because this ain't socialism. It reminds me of some blowhard who kept screaming 'appeasement.'

 

 

Mais Oui

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 19:08.

hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_FRA.html

2007/2008 UN HDI Report

The Human Development Index - going beyond income

Each year since 1990 the Human Development Report has published the human development index (HDI) which looks beyond GDP to a broader definition of well-being. The HDI provides a composite measure of three dimensions of human development: living a long and healthy life (measured by life expectancy), being educated (measured by adult literacy and enrolment at the primary, secondary and tertiary level) and having a decent standard of living (measured by purchasing power parity, PPP, income).

The index is not in any sense a comprehensive measure of human development. It does not, for example, include important indicators such as gender or income inequality and more difficult to measure indicators like respect for human rights and political freedoms. What it does provide is a broadened prism for viewing human progress and the complex relationship between income and well-being.

The HDI for France is 0.952, which gives the country a rank of 10th out of 177 countries with data (Table 1).

 

 

According to data in these tables, the US LAGS BEHIND France and 11 other countries in Standard of Living, despite our higher average GDP per capita.  Must be something to do with the growing inequality between those at the top, and the middle and working classes, ya think?

WAIT, i know what it is.  Those dastardly FACTS published by the UN must naturally have an anti-US bias built into them, right?

Where to begin

Submitted by stl on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 19:54.

Mr. luvsLounging and Mr. Dandy

First, Germany is actually below the US in the HDI.

Second: the HDI measures Life Expectancy, the Gross Enrollment Index and GDP (ppp) per capita.  It does not measure the Gini Index so there is no disparity of income measure., sorry.

If either of you wanted to be constructive you could say our GER index could be better if high school students would stop dropping out of school.  Conservatives would cheer that thought.

Actually, though, the HDI  is  hard to take seriously.  The life expectancy in the US is 78.1 vs. 78.7 for the EU.  There are many things that go into the life expectancy "equation", so I think this difference is not what you think it is.

The GER appears to assume that the more people are in school the better.  While I agree at the primary and secondary levels, they include the tertiary level.  Well, I know that you'll call me all sorts of bad names, but I'm just not sure that it is a good thing to have 100% of 20 year olds in college (unless you are a teacher of course)

Bottom line, it is a lot easier to sit at the UN making up an index than it is for a country to increase its GDP per capita.

On "disparity of income"

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 20:40.

You misunderstood the point that both LL and  made:  The HDI expressly does not address this issue.

But if a country like ours has a marked difference in GDP per-capita, yet lags behind another country's HDI, we are saying that GDP per capita can easily be distorted by having REALLY high earners at the very top which will pull up the GDP per capita without doing much for the lot of the middle or working classes below. 

You need to know things like the median, modes, and standard deviations to determine whether GDP per capita is a significant measure of economic health for a country's people.

As to Life Expectancy, I think we can agree that it means the average person can expect a longer life.  It is also a fact that the US lags behind in a number of factors that affect LE, including neo-natal and infancy survival rates.

Keynesian pork

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 17:24.

If you consider funding school lunch programs,

Describe to us how this is Keynesian stimulus.

keeping teachers employed,

Describe to us how this is Keynesian stimulus.  And perhaps you could also explain to us why it is simply a coincidence that teachers' unions are one of the biggest supporters of Democrats.

saving the American auto industry by buying a fleet of fuel/energy efficient vehicles,

Describe to us how this is Keynesian stimulus, especially considering that if this is enacted, the government will somehow have to dispose of its existing cars.  Furthermore, describe to us why it should be the government's job to "save" any industry.

increased security at our ports, coasts, rail system, and power plants

Describe to us how this is Keynesian stimulus.

(this is the very, very short list) pork, then you are a sad, sad person.

It is pork for a Keynesian stimulus bill.  These items of government spending may or may not be worthwhile.  But to call all of this Keynesian stimulus is, well, not terribly accurate.

Keynes

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 18:19.

You have no grasp at all of Keynesian concepts.

See, here's how it works.  On school lunches, SOMEONE has to fix them.  Whether you buy them from a private vendor, or hire school lunch workers in a school, SOMEONE gets a new job or keeps the job they have.  In addition, SOMEONE has to provide the food, SOMEONE has to provide the deliveries, SOMEONE has to process the orders, cut the checks, send  out the bills.  That's different from GOP-style tax cuts, which the rich use to buy triple-tax-free bonds or invest in hedge funds.

Keeping teachers employed means the same teachers have money to buy goods and services in their home towns, and provide education to kids so they can find jobs, too, upon graduation.  Teachers' unions are supporters of the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party cares about Education and Educators.  Republicans like you are constantly trying to fire teachers and give Education over to charter and private corporations.

It is Government's job to try and "save" the American Economy.  Darwinist skinheads such as yourself see no need to help anyone except yourself.  You have no concept of working together, or helping someone else do as well as you do.

Increased security at our ports is Keynesian stimulus because the Government pours money in and creates opportunities for companies to hire.  New workers mean new revenue for the Government, new money at the local market, dry cleaner, department store, gas station, dentist, and everywhere people spend new money.

Government money spent in creating opportunities for companies to create new hires or to keep workers on payrolls is, well, Keynesian.

 

Actually, Democrats get Keynes half right

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 18:49.

Yes, he favored using government stimulus to counter economic slowdowns. And much of what Keynes favored is already in place in industrialized economies such as unemployment insurance and food stamps, which increase governmental expenditures when times are bad, and a wage based tax structure, which loses revenue when the economy contracts.

What Obama/Pelosi/Reid want is additional, discretionary stimulus on top of these pre-existing "automatic  stabilizers"  . And it's already been demonstrated a whole lot of this money won;t really get spent until 2-3 years from now; when it will be stimulating the 2012 Obama re-election effort and not the 2009 American economy. Needless to say as well, folks like ACORN and SEIU are not the usual drivers of economic recovery, but are going to be major beneficiaries of this bill.

 What Keynes also favored (and Democrats conveniently forget) was having the government run a surplus when the economy was strong and tightening the money supply when times were good.  Is that what this bill does?. Hell no. It proposes to permanently ramp up federal spending in the out years, (even on objectively unnecessary projects) this of course ballooning the deficit into geosynchonous orbit..

If the Obama administration wanted to propose an honestly Keynesian approach to the current ecomomic crisis (like an interest free federal loan to states and cities to offset their unexpected revenue shortfall) I might swallow it as unpleasant medicine.  But , JD, passing this overstuffed turkey off as Keynesianism means you guys didn;t read the label on the bottle.

 

Wrong

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 19:00.

The time before the stimulus kicks in is a GOP talking point born out of a desperate attempt to distort a PRELIMINARY report from the CBO leaked out by the GOP leadership when they knew it was preliminary.  It's been debunked time and again, yet they keep using it.

The CBO's now-official stance is that 75-80% of the stimulus gets spent in the next 2 years, much of it right away.

I have absolutely no problem with running a surplus:  I was standing in front of the National Debt Clock on 6th Avenue in NYC that blessed day in 1999 when the numbers slowed down, and FINALLY CAME TO A STOP, and for the first time in a generation actually began to DECREASE under Bill Clinton's Administration as revenues actually exceeded expenses and we began to pay down the National Debt.  You remember Al Gore?   It was one of the main planks of his platform back in 2000.

I hope and pray I will see that day again, and cheer just as loud as the people around me did once again.

OK. JD

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 19:07.

Please tell me when the Obama administration plans to either:

a) reduce domestic federal spending below the baseline in place when he took office or

b) plans to balance the federal budget?

I never thought I'd say this, but Barack Obama makes me want Bill Clinton back in office. At least Clinton had some managerial experience in government prior to taking over the White House.   And Clinton (under duress in my opinion) did utter the phrase "the era of big government is over".

JD, please be honest. This bill is designed to make sure the era of big government never ends. I would do the Democrats and President Obama good  to at least

a) admit that publicly; and

b) admit that people opposed to this agenda have legitimate grounds to send this lefty clunker back to the shop for an overhaul.  

Obama and the future

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 20:22.

Obama has consistently said that he is committed to not leaving a debt to his kids.

This is from his website:

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

  • Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
  • Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama and Biden will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but they will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
  • Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than year 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
  • Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama and Biden will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama and Biden will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
  • End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama and Biden have called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama and Biden will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

 

As to Obama's experience, he successfully led a campaign that had a budget similar in size to Bill Clinton's back in his early days as Arkansas' Gov.  He has shown that he has a firm grasp of Economics.

Obama knows that Bill Clinton had to pass his deficit-reducing budget without a single Republican vote in the 1993 Congress.  Indeed, Al Gore as President pro-tempore of the Senate had to come down and cast the deciding vote that ushered in the logest peacetime Economic Expansion in US history.  Guess what Republicans said then?  Same thing as now:  Clinton's plans to jump-start the Economy would fail because they were spending plans that would increase the deficits and would cost jobs and would lead us back into the recession.

 

I think Obama and Democrats are not concerned with making sure the era of big Government never ends.  I think they are more concerned with putting Government back to work on behalf of all Americans, not just their base.

I stiil can't understand how Republicans can argue against rebuilding infrastructure.  The only possible explanation for me is that Republicans only care about their party's rise to regain power and nothing else.  If it helps the GOP, it's good.  If it hurts the GOP, it's bad.  No matter what it means to other Americans.

This is satire....right?

Submitted by stl on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 20:38.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending

Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient

End Wasteful Government Spending

Reinstate PAYGO Rules .....maybe, only after he increases the debt by a few trillion and increase baseline spending by a trillion.

So our PAYGO baseline will be at $4T.  Our taxes right now are just shy of $3T, so do the math.  Those that pay taxes can look forward to a 33% tax increase over the next several years.

Some of this in income taxes, SS taxes and Green taxes.  The Dems can hardly wait to pass the cap and trade stuff.  Wow, all those auctions, gobs of money coming in.

So, in the end, total taxation will be close to 40% of GDP and with a debt of, what, 100% of GDP?

PS, ACORN is not infrastucture, mass transit that constantly runs a deficit year in year out is not infrastructure, those are social programs.

Mass Transit

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 20:49.

is a great example of and excellent place to spend Infrastructure dollars if you're a person who lives in a big city.

If you are a Republican who lives in a state that voted McCain, it is a Social program.

I would just make the point that big cities and states that have big cities pay the bulk of the income taxes.  In NY, for example, in 2005 we only got back 1 out of every 4 dollars we sent to Washington.

and the MTA soaks suburban drivers to pay its operating expenses

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 20:54.

a "you' re welcome" to a suburban driver like moi is called for here, ya think?  ;)

Just be honest

Submitted by stl on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 21:24.

You enjoy riding cheaply, you don't want to pay your fair share of the costs to transport you from one place to another.

Actually, I'm ok with mass transit if states or cities want to pay for it.  But it is less clear why I should pay for your ticket.

BTW, can you give a cite on the 1/4 th number?

redistribution of wealth

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 21:57.

I would just make the point that big cities and states that have big cities pay the bulk of the income taxes.  In NY, for example, in 2005 we only got back 1 out of every 4 dollars we sent to Washington.

I don't know if the 1/4 statistic is true (it seems highly dubious to me), but still I see this point made a lot by lefties.   And yet these are the same people who unhesitatingly support schemes that redistribute wealth.  HELLO - if you really do favor redistribution of wealth, then rich states like NY are going to see a net transfer of revenue OUT of the state!  That is what redistribution means.  But the 'reality-based community' doesn't seem to get that.

Full story

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 23:32.

There's actually some truth to this argument.  I don't care enough to find the relevant links, but if memory serves, New York gets back about two dollars in services for every three dollars it pays in taxes.

There are 2 reasons for this:

1) New York has the fewest military bases per capita of any large state in the country.

2) A lot of SPECTACULARLY wealthy people live in New York City.  They pay HUGE tax bills.  It wouldn't surprise me if Donald Trump, Alex Rodriguez, and Jay-Z contributed more than $100 million in taxes by themselves.

I hope this helps.

liberals discover the law of unintended consequences

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 00:38.

Well sure, it's not surprising when you have the combination of (a) a progressive tax system (supported by liberals) and (b) centralization of power in DC (also supported by liberals).  And then they are surprised when taxes are redistributed from rich states to poor states?  Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences!  But of course liberals instead blame it on some nefarious plot by poor red staters to steal tax revenue from rich blue states and then hypocritically argue against it, verifying Krauthammer's Law once again: liberals think conservatives are evil.

Liberals

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 11:39.

know exactly how Republican Conservatives feel about them, and about America's cities:

We've known for years.

 

We were made even more aware of it when Bush had no problem using NYC as a backdrop for his political stunts, yet held back our Homeland Security monies we needed to train our first responders, while red states got huge grants they hardly knew what to do with.

And yet, we Blue states have no problem with paying taxes to support ourselves and the poor Red states that live on our dole. 

It's Red-state Republicans who live and die for for tax cuts, not Liberals.  It's Red-state Republicans who love to use the charged language "redistribution".  It's Republicans who feel deeply insulted that their taxes are being used for children's health care, mass transit, and to rebuild a run-down America..  .

Here's where I got the 1 out of 4 dollar figure:

 

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/publications/what_came_to_and_left_you...

It shows that NY and NJ were 45 and 49, respectively, in tax dollars returned.

Gerald Ford...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 11:48.

...was the best thing that happened to New York City in th 1970's.  After Wagner, Lindsay, and Beame ran the city into the ground, the Feds had no responsibilty to bail them out (the same applies to California today).

Rudy Giuliani proved that New York City is far better off as a self-reliant metropolis, rather than sucking on the Federal Teat via tin-cup urbanism.

John Lindsay vs. Rudy Giuliani; which model worked better?

Undeniable Truth of Life #27 (2nd. Edition)

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 12:06.

Using federal dollars as a measure, our cities have not been neglected, but poisoned with welfare dependency funds.

 

You need to revisit your math

Submitted by stl on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 12:51.

I think.

Table 4 is:

Expenditures in State per Dollar Paid by State Taxpayers

NY is at $0.73, that is they get back 3 of the 4 dollars they send to DC., not 1 out of 4.

But still, they get back less.  Of course, by definition a lot of people have to get back less...true?

If you look at the list, WVa, Alabama, Miss. are all rather poor, and should (from a redistribtionist POV) get more...ie that's something you support.

Other biggies look like Farm states and therefore are Ag subsidies (btw, that's good for you because it keeps your food costs low, so no complaining there)

DOD doesn't spend much $$$ in NY State

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 13:03.

But the only NY politician who ever effectively lobbied the Pentagon was DP Moynihan, who had the revelation in the early 80's that if Reagan was building up the military to be ready to fight in Northern Europe, a cold weather training base might be a good idea. Hence, we have Ft. Drum.

Most NYC Democrats would like to see the Pentagon itself turned into public housing.

 

And Ballston Spa

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 13:41.

n/t 

Get it straight

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 13:39.

Only refundable tax credits are redistribution of wealth.

Non-refundable tax credits are 'social engineering.'

 

NYC 70's bailout

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 16:03.

Wow, you are still upset by this?  That's too bad, since I was actually thinking of visiting NYC this spring, you know, to do my part for economic stimulus in NYC.  But seeing as how your New Yorker rage against red staters seems not to have abated since the 1970's, maybe I will visit some other city instead.

Thank you for providing a comprehensive list of broken promises

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 20:48.

PAYGO, No;

wasterful spending;  yes.

Pork Barrel,,yes

Oh, he might repeal those terrible tax cuts, since obviously we don't want rich people spending or investing their own money to help the economy these days, now do we? 

You know , JD,, Obama also said he would keep lobbyists out of government and not hire ethical dubious staffers. Oops, broke those promises, too. 

Sure:  You'll tell us he'll keep all these promises all later. Two words . Yeah. Right.  

And I know we've been over this before and certaintly you do recall being corrected on this point, but, the federal budget was not on a path towards balance until after the 1994 election and Gingrich forced the "triangulation" strategy. Perhaps this story from 1996 might refresh your memory about who was the budget hardliner of that era.  

The bottom line JD, is if you want Obama to be deemed as successful as Bill Clinton, you'd better go to whereever you worship and pray a Gingrich comes along to play foil to him.

 

infrastructure

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 22:03.

I stiil can't understand how Republicans can argue against rebuilding infrastructure.

If the bill was ONLY infrastructure spending, then I think this bill would have passed by huge bipartisan majorities already.  Heck McCain campaigned on infrastructure stimulus spending!  The problem here is because the bill is NOT just infrastructure.  It's got bee insurance and school lunches and hybrid cars and all sorts of other left-wing pet projects that are not authentic Keynesian stimulus projects.

J.D's fuzzy math

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 22:14.

JD. Obama's campaign= running a state government 

"he successfully led a campaign that had a budget similar in size to Bill Clinton's back in his early days as Arkansas' Governor"

Hmm, Arkansas state spending in 1992 was $4 billion.  Obama's campaign in 2008 was 1/7 of that amount.

Siimilar in Size

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 11:51.

Obama's campaign spent roughly 1 billion, Arkansas' 1992 budget was roughly $4B.  I said "similar in size".

In some ways, Obama's management of 57 different states and territories like PR, Guam, and the Virgin Islands with a wild assortment of budgets, revenues, personnel, and conditions shifting and changing daily was, I would argue, a more difficult management challenge than Bill's, who inherited a fully staffed working Governor's ofice where many prob lems had been solved, there was an organization in place, and the budget and appropriation and expense numbers were known figures.

I get sick of people disparagiing Obama's managerial skills, as if the experience of leading, training, and inspiring thousands of people nationwide, 24/7 daily in an environment where money swings of tens of millions a month is normal, and where your support, your energy level, your whole organization lives from one primary contest to the next.

I'd love to see just one of these people try it sometime, and see how far they get.  Give credit to Obama for taking it all the way.

well, JD, this why why we don't buy liberal "fuzzy math"

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 12:05.

$1 Billion (actually $700M) is "similar" to $4 Billion . Whatever, Just trust our numbers. They work, Really.  Don;t be an obstructionist.

JD, I've done government and I've done politics. The skill set to give speeches and buy TV ads is far different that dealing with recovery from a tornado; managing a criminal justice system; making decisions about investing in infrastructure; negotiating a budget with a hostile legislature; or filling hundreds of appointed positions with competent people.

It's not just mouthing poll tested talking points and having a record of usually voting "present" on the tough issues.  Real people get badly hurt when government makes mistakes. It's not the damm "West Wing" , folks 

 

 

Having lived in the VI...

Submitted by TimW on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 09:39.

(actually, call that "stayed" since I kept my residency - and tax payments - stateside) I remember that Virgin Islanders don't actually get to vote for president.

I figured the real reason to visit them as stops on the campaign trail was for RR.

And that doesn't stand for "radio repeater".