A 40 Year Wish List?
Earlier this week I found myself feeling a bit peeved with Congressional Republicans when they began urging their members to vote against the upcoming stimulus bill. While I remained uncomfortable with huge amounts of tax dollars rushing out the door and a deficit which will shatter all records, I recognize that the economy is in dire straits and the people we elected to office will need to deal with it. In fact, when I heard that President Obama had gotten the Democrats to remove some sort of family planning measure from it, it sounded like the Republicans weren’t willing to offer their own olive branch. That all changed today, as we found out some more details of this so-called stimulus package. This just in from the Wall Street Journal, saying the following about the 647-page, $825 billion package.
This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years. We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
The list goes on. I can try to swallow the trillion dollar price tag if it is all for “shovel ready” or, at least, nearly ready programs which will actually provide some stimulus, create jobs and unlock credit. As the quoted article points out, there are some programs in here for real infrastructure improvements and the likely creation of jobs. But that only seems to add up a little more than a dime on the dollar. As for the rest of this? I could load up a Cessna with $100,000 in loose bills, drop them over my home town and probably wind up inadvertently creating more jobs than this.
Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey is less than pleased with the plan as well. While he tries to focus more on the angle of Democrats trying to buy votes from their core constituencies, his point is still well taken.
Congress should be embarrassed by this kind of naked political exploitation of economic crisis. Unfortunately, they’re not. It’s up to us to embarrass them. Time to Melt the Phones in DC.
Many of us complained loud and long back when the Republicans took over total control of both chambers and the White House, then subsequently took their own agenda and went wild like a kid in a candy store. The last two election cycles showed where that got them. Now, after barely a week of having complete control, this is what we get? This is outrageous. If you want your own wish list to go into effect, man up and propose a series of appropriations bills for these other items, let everyone vote on them, and then let the voters decide if it was wise management of the public purse in the next election cycles. But stuffing the so-called stimulus package with this nonsense is beyond belief.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
26 Responses to “A 40 Year Wish List?”
Boehner is looking more and more like a Cheney bot for the “Agenda” that won't quit.
It's like a real-life suckky version of the Beavis and Butthead's movie.
Only this one is : “Dick's Boehner and Bush Screw America”. Rated R for destructive content.
And now you know the rest of the story.
Now you know why I am so opposed to this bill. Why it was written by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Why the gop were locked out and then made to appear obstructionist.
Its all politics and the Democrats are going to war with you and me. They are using Shock and Awe on the economy with money we dont have for things that will not help.
They quite simply got jealous and now they want to:
BUILD THIER OWN BRIDGES TO NOWHERE.
You actually pay attention to the WSJ and Hot Air? Step back and actually think for a moment about some of the funds they're screaming about. Yes, working on Amtrak projects can produce jobs. All the whining about it from the WSJ always ignores the ways that the government helps out the oil companies and other transportation systems the WSJ approves of. Apparently they never noticed how much ridership increased recently and just might jump even more if they actually could schedule runs without being overridden by the freight haulers. Daycare? Hard to work if you can't afford it.
And now to take care of the really big lie, the claim of conservatives that President Obama is pushing the program as solely a short term solution. He's said several times that the package is meant to be a combination of short, medium and long term goals. For it to contain things other than short term projects is therefore not any kind of deception. Except of course on the part of those who say that it is.
Maybe you did, Jazz, but “many of us” is an exaggeration.
I fail to understand why so many on the right continue to paint funding for research into environmental (including global warming) research as partisan enterprises. Don't we all benefit from improvements in and protections of the environment? I see those objections as just more evidence of short-term and counterproductive thinking.
Yes, it is a wish list. There is a borad range of social and concrete infrastructure that has not been funded for a while. The trains are a very good example. We pay huge subsidies to airlines in terms of construction costs, and social costs (i.e. Seattle's 3rd runway). It is only by great good luck that the taxpayers did not buy the bankers their new $50million plane. Child care? It's clear that you have never had to struggle with that issue. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, we have gotten past the idea of supply side economics and the focus on comforting the comfortable.
First, the vast majority of the spending is in 2010, 2011 and beyond (8% FY 2009, 21% FY 2010, 20% FY 2011, 51% beyond FY 2011). How does that help now?
Second, from Politco:
“Most of Washington has reached quick consensus: Government must do something big to shock the economy, and it should cost between $800 billion and $900 billion.
But dissident economists and investment professionals offer a much different take: Most of Washington is dead wrong.
“The economy was too big. It was all phantom wealth borrowed from abroad,” says Andrew Schiff, an investment consultant at Euro Pacific Capital and a card-carrying member of the stand-tall-against-the-stimulus lobby. “All this stimulus money is geared toward getting consumers spending and borrowing again. But spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place.”
Washington has a habit of passing legislation in a crisis and suffering from morning-after regrets — the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and last year’s original bank bailout plan come to mind.”
I'm pleased to see that there's opposition to this bill from some Democrats as well. In this article, Alice Rivlin (former Clinton budget director and a fellow at Brookings) makes the important point that the short term and long term ought to be separated and debated as individual bills. There's nothing wrong with kicking off long term investment as quickly as possible to plan for economic recovery, but that's not a stimulus. Actually, I'd make the case that there should be three separate bills- one would be the short term relief package (increasing disbursements to states for unemployment benefits, for instance), one should be the stimulus for short term job creation/preservation (like those shovel ready infrastructure projects everyone's talking about and most people agree on), and one should be the long range plan for investments like energy projects.
But putting all of that into one emergency bill is a disaster in the making. Not only would such a fire drill approach be doomed under the best of conditions, but it's made worse by the fact that we're dealing with politicians here who use such emergencies as excuses to ladle the pork or slip in pet projects (or paybacks) under the radar.
If the Democrats could explain where they are going to borrow the money, they would sound more sensible. Borrowing money from China so that it will pay the wages of illegal aliens so that they can purchase items made in China makes no sense.
Also, what the the metrices that will indicates that the economy is doing well enough to turn off the stimulus and to start making huge cuts and raising taxes to pay off
Not only would there be a better chance of getting each individual bill better, but it would also help the political process because there would be a razor focus. It's really too bad they didn't go that route.
By the way, the full transcript of Rivlin's testimony before the Senate committee last week (from which came the quote I referenced above) is available here, and should be read in its entirety. It's the most sensible thing I've read about this whole debate.
And I don't mean to point out that this is an example of Democratic dissent just to play the typical game (“See, even one of your guys admits this is wrong!”), but rather to show a voice of reason who isn't beholden to party interests. There's so much distrust on both sides that when Republicans like Boehner complain about these aspects of the bill (the spending that won't really create jobs in the short term, or the spending which is obviously going to typical Democratic party donors), it sounds like his points are all based on partisan concerns. But when someone from the Democratic side of the aisle makes these arguments (with thorough explanations, no less), it carries a lot of weight and should be given more attention.
And from reason.com:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), a stalwart friend of free markets and small government in Congress, got curious about the costs of borrowing all those hundreds of billions in stimulus bucks. Being a congressman, he's lucky enough to have the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at his disposal to do any and all hard math he requires for his congressional duties.
And what did the CBO find?: The debt service alone from the stimulus will cost about $347 billion over the next 10 years. As the letter dryly notes: “Such costs are not included in CBO’s cost estimates for individual pieces of legislation and are not counted for Congressional scorekeeping purposes.”
Ron Paul, save us!
Of course Andrew Schiff and his brother Peter believe in doing nothing. They are not just against the existing stimulus package. Do nothing. No unemployment. No social safety net adjustment. This is also the stand of the libertarian web site Reason and pretty much every other libertarian “leaning” organization. I think of it as Sociopaths 'R Us.
Any bets on the Republicans refusing to support it no matter what is done short of eliminating everything but tax cuts, while loudly proclaiming that they realize the economy needs help?
Jim, even if the GOP does so the Dems can easily pass it (unless the GOP filibusters, which is highly unlikely.) As Marlowe mentioned in another thread, the Dems don't want to have to take full responsibility for the effects so they're holding out for more bipartisan support.
Besides, it's quite possible to acknowledge serious problems with the economy while also noting that this particular spending spree is only likely to make that worse instead of better. In that case, the only conscionable vote is no.
You have to weigh what each of these programs provide and compare it to the cost. To just mention the cost isn't fair. It would be like saying, I spent $500 last week, but not explaining if it was on food and bills or on booze and drugs. Some of the programs mentioned will clearly yield jobs, like global warming research. We just need to look at exactly what the benefits are before coming to a final conclusion.
The Dems are just doing their classic vote-buying (of those, at least, whose votes are easily and cheaply for sale) and predictably engaging in gross excess in their desire to exploit the widespread desire of many for the federal government to “do something” about the economic slump.
To answer the previous poster's (commenter's) issue, here is a provision (benefit) versus cost tradeoff that has been made on behalf of the Democrats. (Note that the Dems have done stupid stuff such as wanting to lavish money on the NEA and other things that, in addition to being controversial given their presence and behavior, are obviously non-essential and low- to no-value items. This is just a huge wish list. It's time to pare it down. Sorry, childish, demanding Dems, the word “no” exists for a reason.) There is opportunity here for the more mature, sane Dems to exploit tax reduction, often sought by the Republicans; i.e., for the Dems to “poach” this issue and co-opt the Republicans where the Republicans are strongest (they have been lackluster at pursuing long-overdue spending control, and most want spending as part of a federal stimulus.)
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/ass…
http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?…
“The debt service alone from the stimulus will cost about $347 billion over the next 10 years.”
This is before the coming failure of Social Security and Medicare, which to keep alive will require huge new taxes, benefit cuts, or yet more debt. Medicare is already known to be a problem, as is Social Security to too few of us. (The peaking of the current surpluses of Social Security and their subsequent dimunition is the signal to all but the most dense or dishonest that we're heading eventually for deficits, which is when the real problems _really_ begin, which is before 2020.)
This is before likely Democratic-style inflation (with some in the GOP going along happily), not only to monetize the debt but to make the weaker (mentally and morally) members of the Herd feel better about their lives. I doubt hyperinflation will be tried to “break” the slump, though the Dems may try some (lesser-level) inflation before this slump is over (not waiting for Social Security and Medicare financial stresses and strains, and additional game-playing at that later time.) Maybe I ought to change that position and say that I _hope_ it is not tried, or even the risk of it approached. We don't need 1970s-style disaster (or worse) once again.
I do have to laugh at the idea that we're turning to the WSJ for analysis of the bailout bill. Aren't these the same people that told us Paulson was our economic savior and to not ask questions while we handed $750 billion to him?
So should the moratorium on listening to anyone who supported the Paulson bailout plan apply to everyone who did so? That would probably encompass most of the major editorial boards in the country, and Economist magazine, Allen Greenspan, etc, etc.
“Keeping Amtrak afloat, or improving it, is exactly the type of thing we need to be spending money on because it can have ripple effects in terms of energy efficiency, pollution and the creation of long lasting jobs. Sure it doesn't make money, but neither do big city subways, or even our highways, but we still spend billions on those because they are necessary.”
Amtrak has been a failure for ages. A different model is in order, if (which is highly arguable and debatable) we would keep Amtrak a huge failure, alive at all at this time given our financial difficulties.
Note that only fools believe it's feasible to have a nation-wide high-speed rail network over all the USA. If you think the “Essential Air Service” loss-ridden program is bad… the USA has too little density and too great distances to make high-speed rail work nation-wide. I'm as intrigued with huge-loss-making connectors between regional networks as any other person who likes high-speed rail, but here in the USA the future of high-speed rail is regional or intra-state, not nation-wide, obviously.
Even Acela (the high-speed train for the Northeast Corridor) is deficient. Why such low speeds and why so many curves, for example?
CStanley,
That's one of many reasons not to take the WSJ all that seriously
DLS,
I don't disagree with what you're saying about regional vs. national rail. I just think profitability is a bad benchmark when were talking about transit. We need to decide if a particular transit solution is worth the cost, not expect it all to be self-sufficient.
Well, Chris, if it makes you feel better, again, if we had a scattering of regional high-speed rail networks, I wouldn't mind seeing connector links between them, and I could even conceive of all-day (one-day) travel on an express train from coast to coast (less than 24 hours), but there are other things that take precedence. “Global warming” and “green job” dreams are just that, dreams, being sold; but some kinds of research and development in alternative tech, such as in improving wind power, make sense (even if they won't magically create all the “sustainable” — term used ambiguously currently by proponents — jobs that the current “sales force” is trying to get people to believe). I wouldn't mind seeing infrastructure in the realm of transmission additions and improvements, and going to a nation-wide grid if that is something desired. Medical research isn't a bad thing, either, of course. I just don't think we should be spending as much money as we are facing here, on a number of things that are obviously discretionary or frivolous (or are outright giveaways to special interests or to favored groups or individuals), or based on unsound thinking, expenses we cannot afford and interfere with other, additional, much more important expenditures that might be seen as needed (not “needed”) later.
As to long-distance rail or transit (or other subsidized collective transport or assisted transport) — just wait until the Baby Boomers age. We cannot all afford chauffers when we no longer are able or willing to drive.
* * *
The stimulus bill passed the House. Christmas has come, better late than never, lefties. Ho, ho, ho. (The joke is on the taxpayer, now or generations from now.)
If the Republicans actually made any substantive arguments other than “It has to make it worse because it's the government doing something.” I haven't seen it. If they've suggested anything but more tax cuts it's been equally invisible.
JIm,
There have been real arguments. That much of the spending will have stimulus effects. That the additional debt will cause long term harm. That the debt will come from international sources. That shovel ready stimulus will benefit Mexico and China more than the U.S. That the spending will stay around even after the recession is over (see the ratchet effect).
The spending is excessive, and much of it isn't stimulatory, but gimmicky and downright stupid (the NEA stuff, for example). Others on this site have at times engaged in breathless, wild speculation or “analysis” of what it means, but it seems that the Republicans are at least trying in some instances to cling to what remains of sanity in Washington, are listening to some of their constituents — we know it is risky giving Democrats not only more ability but even encouragement to spend more — or are trying to show they cannot be “steamrolled”; at the same time, the Democrats are ready to “steamroll” the GOP (that's the Dems' definition of “bipartisanship,” these days rephrased by suckers among the public as one definition of “unity”), repay the activist interest groups that fought hard for them, assume a strong position in Congress to begin these next two to four years, and also assert themselves while Obama engages in “outreach” to the GOP as well as in, frankly, some moderation. Plus there are many Dems who simply cannot contain or restrain their ambitions and conceits.
I'll be interested to see what gets changed in the Senate, and what revisions are made to appeal to (buy the votes of) Republicans, as we saw with the second bailout bill. (“Sweeteners,” the appealing features are called, effectively gauging or measuring the price of GOP votes.)
“the spending will stay around even after the recession is over [...] (see the ratchet effect)”
Of course it will! Incrementalism at its finest.