Of course it will! Incrementalism at its finest.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?…

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.