Naysaying the stimulus bill is stimulating for Republicans
As the stimulus bill becomes more and more unpopular with the American public, the Republican Party seems for the moment to be the unexpected political beneficiary, because of their opposition to it.
I haven’t read the bill myself, since it’s over seven hundred pages long. But those who have (and my hat is off to them) describe it as composed of programs that actually might have the desired effect of stimulating the economy, plus another bunch of proposals that will not.
Here’s a summary from Joshua Zumbrun of Forbes:
We estimate some $350 billion is likely to flow into the economy quickly, $255 billion won’t do much, at least not in a useful time frame, and the impact of $144 billion in promised payroll tax cuts are a toss up. The remainder, about $135 billion, is comprised of dozens of smaller programs that would have little individual effect.
Some of the non-stimulus proposals involve energy and the environment, education, and infrastructure spending.
So what are the Republicans proposing? According to Byron York, writing in The Corner:
Several Republicans now want to throw the whole bill out and replace it with a package that is nearly all tax cuts ”” “twice the jobs at half the price.”
The stimulus package highlights not only the usual political jockeying for position and power in Congress, but the very real economic disagreements between the two parties. Republicans have gotten away from their traditional fiscal conservatism in recent years, but now is the moment they just might return to it—especially since a return to principle may suit their political fortunes, as well.
This could hurt Dems in the next election cycles. Voters notice Barack/Pelosi/Reid are not selling the non-stimulus policies based on their merits as policy. We conclude Barack/Pelosi/Reid have no faith in their ability to sell their ideas, and are instead trying to put one over on us voters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James Pethakoukas uses a house on fire metaphor. Dems have the garden hose in their hand. They direct a bit of water at the fire, then a bit to help fill their swimming pool, then a bit to water their lawn, then a bit of water back towards the fire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t like it when Repubs say tax cuts = cost. In this national moment: tax cuts = revenue.
There has been a lot of negative publicity about the so called stimulus bill that the house passed and which is now before the senate. Most all of the criticism is deserved from what I have read about it.
Unfortunately, in the rush to use this bill as a partisan sledge hammer to pound the political opposition with, we forget that the republicans also doled out huge amounts of pork. They did so not only when they were the majority in both houses of Congress but also in the doling out of federal funds under the aegis of Homeland Security in the years after 9/11.
As an electrical engineer, some of the projects I worked on involved the design of security systems at ports and other facilities that were implementing security measures after 9/11 using homeland security grant money. In most cases, there was a need for great haste because the design packages had to be out on the street for bidding by ‘X’ date, which was often unrealistically short. The atmosphere was not especially geared towards security per se, but towards obtaining free money from the feds.
During this time, due to the outpouring of money from Washington, money without any real oversight or accountability (sound familiar?), we saw large companies like G.E. acquiring smaller companies like Interlogix that were in the security alarm/CCTV business. These mergers and acquisitions were happening because there was so much money being given out at the time. They were not alone. I use these as examples because they are examples I am familiar with.
Albeit the money was going for a good cause, homeland security, it was being doled out under circumstances of panic and without adequate review or oversight. Today’s economic stimulus package is being rushed out in much the same fashion. It would, in my opinion, be far wiser to spend money in a wiser fashion and with less haste after studying what can best be done.
In both cases, the main stream media has conspicuously failed to ask any real questions, but has taken a partisan stance and used its resources towards advocacy of its position. It would do us all good to remember that the media’s purpose is not to inform us, but to make money. From what I saw, the blogosphere didn’t ask any hard questions of where homeland security grant money was going either.
Please do not confuse the drunken spending for security at home with the previous administration’s actual prosecution of the war on terror abroad. They are not the same. Nor am I discussing the GWOT abroad.
That being said, it is my opinion, both parties have used catastrophic situations to further political ends and grease the pork chute for their friends. I think that the problem goes deeper and transcends party labels. It seems that we have a political class that operates separately from the rest of the country and acts in furtherance of its own agenda whether it coincides with what’s best for the nation or not. The present democrat congress and administration nominations are the latest and most ham-handed example of this, but the republicans are not exempt by any means. They just aren’t quite the breath taking hypocrites that the democrats are.
It would be nice to see Republicans return to their roots of fiscal conservatism and responsibility. I can only pray that they come through.
I’d really like to see the Republicans – and the fiscally conservative Democrats – work to split up this huge bill. Rather than one bill that includes something for everyone let’s have a series of bills each of which includes one thing: a bill for STD prevention; a bill for Endowment for the Arts; a bill for money to states; a bill for money to cities; a bill for money to community groups; a bill for money to Federal buildings; a bill to cut individual taxes; a bill to cut corporate taxes; and so on. Each bill should be accompanied by an explanation of why it is “stimulating” complete with how many jobs it will create or save.
Then Congress has to vote on – and the President has to sign or veto – money for specific items rather than being able to claim a year fromnow that, “Of course I knew money for x, y, and z was a bad idea but I was really voting for money for a, b, and c.” If nothing else this approach would come closer to fulfilling Obama’s promise to go through Federal spending line by line than one So Big No One Can Comprehend It Bill.
This is very typical of what Republican voters have been presented with for years. The amount of the bill should be $0. But we’re hopeful and relieved that our boys are presenting a bill that is only half as big as the Democrats’.
I’ve read it. Here are a few nuggets:
237 $79,000,000,000 State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
516 $22,290,000,000 Medicare Improvement Fund
40 $22,129,000,000 Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
62 $18,500,000,000 Doe – Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy
157 $13,000,000,000 Education For The Disadvantaged
116 $8,400,000,000 State And Tribal Assistance Grants
66 $8,000,000,000 Doe – Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
Numbers on the left correspond to pages in the draft bill.
Opposition because too few tax cuts: partisan obstructionism.
Opposition because too many liberal wet-dream fantasy Christmas list Utopia-building items: good job.
Obama’s mistake – ordering up all the “SHOVEL READY” projects as a solution. By definition it brings in all the pork projects, all the butterfly gardens, all the fish ladders, all the bridges to nowhere. That is basically what Congress gave him, birth control and smoking cessation and all, and he is apparently unable to say, whoops, that’s not what I meant.
Obama’s mistake – deciding to try to rush this thing through, rather than step back and take a clear look at the root causes of the problem, then addressing those problems, even when the problem is Barney Frank.
Obama’s mistake – Claiming that ‘education spending’ will solve the crisis. This isn’t the Chicago Annenberg Challenge money given to him to piss away on activist projects, and celebrating Juneteenth, but that is how he thinks, and it is now finally coming to light. Everything we need to know about how the POTUS attacks a problem is right there in the Annenberg Challenge.
Obama’s problem – people are seeing through it. Thus the impassioned speeches.
Two solutions for Obama –
1. It’s the housing market. Fixing that problem puts all kinds of people BACK to work. Creating a bunch of new bridge painting jobs won’t do that. Housing drives so many jobs, carpenters, sheetrock layers, lumber, plumbing, manufacturers and laborers, real estate agents, title companies, landscapers, decorators, people who make and sell curtains, rugs, furniture – the list is endless.
It is a SIMPLE FIX.
2. If you insist on pursuing INFRASTRUCTURE projects, you must first institute a ban or a stay on predatory litigious activist environmentalist groups who obstruct, delay and stop those projects with predatory lawsuits, driving up costs and dragging out production schedules for years. Be honest and admit why the New Orleans levees hadn’t been strengthened.
In northern California, CalTrans is proposing to widen curve in a major highway (101) at Richardson Grove. It means cutting down a couple of trees. That simple fix is being fought by the activist community. You can pass all the infrastructure projects through in this monstrosity, it will be YEARS before any of that money hits the private sector IF EVER.
They will also NOT automatically put the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, sheetrockers, real estate agents, etc. back to work. They aren’t going to get hired to build a bridge.
Simply put, this country needs to reject liberalism some day. I hope that’s tomorrow.
Both the Republicans and Democrats are grow government parties lately.
We need conservatism sooner rather than later.
Once people realized they could VOTE themselves goodies – it can only take a tough conservative leader to un-addict the American public to it.
You either live within your means or live beyond your means and ruin yourself.
Baklava Says: Simply put, this country needs to reject liberalism some day. I hope that’s tomorrow.
I join you.
As I said above, while this so-called stimulus package seems to be heavy with pork and is ill advised, the republicans are not much better.
To that end, below is a link to visit that belies any republican claim to be fiscally conservative.
There are no longer any conservatives in congress, democrat or republican. Fiscally speaking.
Set aside the author’s obvious bias, which he freely admits, and look at his numbers. He falls in line with what I was saying in my earlier comment in this thread. That the republicans have been as profligate as any democrats. This seems to me to support my argument that the problems in Washington transcend party and ideology. It seems to me that with this stimulus bill we may have crossed a Rubicon of corruption.
Enjoy