It's Not a Bailout if We Call It a "Stimulus"
by Dana Loesch

Last fall when congress pushed forth billions for the infamous Wall Street bailout people were united in calling that bit of legislation for what it was: a BAILOUT. Nationalism. Big government. The Wall Street bailout was a billion-dollar band-aid on poor business practices and a boon for non-essential, pork items. Now we're faced with another bit of legislation, a $800+ billion dollar handout which, for the most part, covers poor business practices and pork.

Proponents of the legislation hope to distract suspicious constituents by presenting it as a "stimulus package," but discerning voters know another bailout when they see it- a bailout that will cost Americans $1.1 trillion over the next ten years - and a quarter of it won't even be accessible until after 2010.

It passed the House earlier this evening with a vote of 244 Democrats voting yea and all of the 177 Republican representatives voting nay, a 188 total as 11 Democrats also voted nay. Brittney has a list of the Democrats who were against the legislation.

What exactly is in this "stimulus package?" Let's look:

- $600,000,000 for energy efficent vehicles. I strongly believe in being a good steward of my environment but I believe just as strongly that government has no business meddling in the private sector - an action which contributed to the auto loan in the first place.

- $166 billion in state aid, aid caused by embarrassing mismanagement. I love how the argument of Federalism is so ironically selective. Instead of forcing officials to embrace accountability, we'll just throw money at the problem which will establish a heinous cycle of abuse and further wasteful spending.

- $50,000,000 to the National Endowment for the Arts. I don't like the government forcing taxpayers to cover anything that extends beyond it's original purpose of defense.

- Every household in America will get the wonderful gift of $6,700 in ADDITIONAL debt. It begs the question as to whether or not we can expect more sad and grisly occurrences like this.

- $400 million for national treasures.

- $21 billion to modernize schools including $15.6 billion to increase the Pell Grant by $500 dollars. We spend more on education, with regards to the overall percentage of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) than anything else yet we fail time and time again to achieve the results that we say necessitates said spending. This shows that the ineffectiveness isn't caused by funding, rather, it's caused by ineffectual people within the system.

- $48 billion on various energy programs such as renewable energy tax cuts, related incentives, and funding for "smart electricity grids." Instead of allowing the market to lead, the government decides that it wants to take over. How so very un-free market.

The cost of the bailout package is virtually equal to the annual discretionary budget for the entire government and the above are just the highlights. I didn't even bullet the $6 billion the government wants to spend to expand broadband to rural areas, which seems like a nicey-nice enough project if depending upon Papa Government for your every benefit is your idea of a free society.

Let's break it down even further:

President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save three million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $50,000 a year. [via]

The Congressional Budget Office says that only 3% - (roughly $26 billion) will be spent this year; $30 billion (3%) is slated for infrastructure spending which runs contrary to how this bailout is being promoted: as a New New Deal with infrastructure as the panacea to our economic woes.

Needless to say those of the conservative persuasion throughout the blogosphere are fuming. Michelle at A Traditional Life Lived writes:

With this thinking we are adding almost 1 trillion dollars to our existing deficit. There is no way to ever tax us out of this kind of debt. Taxes would have to be so high and people so oppressed there would likely be some kind of revolt. A plan of deficit spending, without desire for consumer spending, will only have a snowball effect from this point forward. 1 trillion this year, 3 trillion next year and on and on until our nation just collapses on itself.

[...]

Finally, in an interview with Charlie Rose two economists (Feldstein and Stiglitz) seem to agree with the very salient point-you canNOT force consumer demand!!!! A huge influencing factor in the economy right now lies in the fact that people are not buying.

Sister Toldjah is suspicious about the "opportunity":

With news of the House’s passage of the earmark-filled “stimulus bill,” it’s made a lot of people, mainly Democrats, happy. No doubt President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who said some revealing things back in mid-November, about the “opportunity” the stimulus package provided Democrats, is especially happy. Click [here] for a flashback those comments, which Emanuel gave at the WSJ CEO Council in DC.

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs does not mince her words:

"It passed ..... but every Republican voted against it. This is a very good day for the opposition. Because at the end of the day, socialism/communism is a failure."

Has anyone even read through the massive stimulus bailout bill? The very people who passed it are unsure of it's meaning. There are entire websites devoted to analyzing its many pages. The Common Room makes such a succinct point:

In a society where petty dictators micro-manage every facet of our lives through legislation, this requirement is only one more way to tyrannize the masses. Nobody could know all the laws. It's impossible.

Indeed.

The Anchoress notes:

We have a responsibility to demand clarity and sensibility of this package and our leadership. If we don’t ask, we deserve what we get.

Now the bill will head to the Senate where John McCain will shock me if he chooses to stop kissing the arses of his adversaries in exchange for popularity and not get "mavericky" with his vote. This vote is being hurried along its way, powered by threats of economic disaster if not passed. It's Chicken Little v3.0.

We're essentially being bullied into a new economic system; Bush was chided for using fear as a way to pass the Wall Street disaster; this is the exact same thing except it's bigger and badder. This is what people don't get: I've heard everyone from liberals to Glenn Beck complain that about not being given a vote but here's the thing: we were. If you voted for the President you knew exactly what you were getting in terms of a restructured economic system. You knew that continued nationalization of the private sector was on the horizon.

Definitive reading list: Porkfest!; For Many Economists, Stimulus Falls Flat; Althouse with some choice links; Committee on Appropriations content (pdf); Overwhelming GOP opposition.

I'll be discussing this on air tomorrow with a few congressional members as well as following along and updating the senatorial roll call on my show's website.

Submitted by Dana Loesch (view blog) on Wed, 01/28/2009 - 9:42pm

Comments

 

Well done, Mamalogues. So

Well done, Mamalogues. So many people have suggested alternatives including cutting the SS tax in half, tax credits for home buying, changing marked to market, etc., for putting money into the economy. Hobbling us and our children with this kind of debt for results that even the GAO says will have no or little impact is frightening.

Submitted by Norma156 on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 04:37
 

Even I'm pissed

Without giving too much away (the rest we can discuss privately) I was watching the debate for the rules and the package yesterday and I was shocked. Look, Pell Grants, Medicaid, Education, Infrastructrue - those things will not only create jobs but should also help states stave off some budget cuts. Ok fine. But then I'm reading through the bill and the amendments and holy hell, what does the National Endowment for the arts need? Also money to improve the National Mall? Excuse my language but What the fuck? (I wish you could've caught the inflection in that one) Even my liberal as anything ass, was like Uh...why? Also WHY?? 

I knew it would pass and I'm thrilled by so much that is in there but good grief money for improvements on the national mall? If say that project was shovel ready and would create jobs, then yeah maybe, but not to turn the reflection pool into a fucking ice skating rink. 

That ends my rant. 

Heather B.
Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada
BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance

Submitted by HeatherB on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 05:22
 

I'm pissed, too

The National Mall, the NEftA, the ... okay, fine, I SMELLED BACON. I DID. And it turns out, bacon does NOT make everything better! We have found the exception to the rule!

Like Heather, I don't hate *all* of it, and am not criticizing it from a purely conservative point of view, but ... yeah. Wow. 

It reminds me of the Patriot Act, wherein a very dire situation is being used and manipulated to pass a wishlist of partisan demands that would otherwise be scoffed at under less terrifying circumstances. This is what I despise about the political process. Fear should not supercede thoughtfulness. 

Those who complained about the opportunistic nature of that piece of legislation should do well to find the same here and/or keep their mouths shut moving forward.  

 

www.jonniker.com

Submitted by jonniker on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 08:11
 

Pls note correction: Mall renovation removed

The National Mall renovations are NOT in the stimulus plan - they were removed. 

Jill Writes Like She Talks

Submitted by Jill Miller Zimon on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 08:36
 

I didn't include mall

I didn't include mall sodding, which was removed begrudgingly after much debate but that's just one bitty thing; the above reflects some of what is in the bill. $400 million for national treasures? At this point we should be selling that crap to offset the soaring increase in our deficit brought on by this package.

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show"
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Submitted by Dana Loesch on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:13
 

Take a deep breath

Dana,

I guess you haven't been reading all the comments - two of them mentioned the mall work specifically. That's why I included the link.  

Jill Writes Like She Talks

Submitted by Jill Miller Zimon on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:21
 

Thanks, Dana

Thanks for writing a post that shows through its comments section that Obama does not have a free pass from people who voted for him or like him.  I added a link from this post to my post "Obama's Clay Feet News to Naive, Honey for Naysaying Saboteurs" to distinguish valid criticism from bad loser complaints. 

Nordette is a BlogHer CE, personal blog WSATA. Also @ Twitter.

Submitted by Nordette on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 15:14
 

I included the mall ...

But like Dana probably inferred, I really only included it as an example of the other stuff that's in there that I didn't dig. Even with it taken out, it doesn't change my feelings on the topic. 

 

www.jonniker.com

Submitted by jonniker on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 16:48
 

I couldn't help but notice...

While there's plenty to quibble with in this particular bill, I have to laugh at the idea that there wouldn't be a second stimulus package under a Republican president. Sure it would have included more tax breaks for the rich and billions for oil and coal instead of smart energy grids, but there would still be a package.

I also couldn't help but notice the juxtaposition of this article and the one below it on poisonous mercury in many common foods we feed our kids - a perfect example of the kind of abuses that happen if you allow the market to "lead."

 

- Lisse

@ Home in the World: International Adoption and Other Travels

Submitted by Lisse on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 19:24
 

Being the recipient of a

Being the recipient of a Pell Grant, in addition to other student aid-both of which supplemented what I could make in part time jobs, since I was a full-time student-which I then translated into not one but two degrees-one a BS in computer science, a BA in industrial psychology, both achieved at the same time while I still managed to be named a Dean's Scholar, as well as graduating Magna Cum Laude-I have to question why you think Pell Grants demonstrate an inefficiency in the educational system?

Question: do you know what a Pell Grant is?

And though I know you most likely prefer charter schools, or education for profit, in addition to the voucher system for private schools, I happen to still believe in public education, where every person has the right to a decent education. More importantly, we are the only country in the world that seems to believe it's okay to mix profit and education. That is what is causing our education system to fail.

As for "meddling" in the private sector, how often in the past have we given tax credits and other aid to the oil and coal industries? So what you're saying, as long as the money goes to dirty industry, rather than clean, it's OK?

Hmmm, market should lead -- how exactly does that work with monopoly utility companies? Electricity in my home is delivered by one utility company. There is no "market" forcing competition. In fact your statement on the electrical grid makes little sense. 

Finally, the note on states. The states still fund most education in addition to most of the infrastructure that surrounds us, and allows us to live in relative comfort. The states are funded primarily by income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes, all of which have been badly hit in this downturn. 

Now you may not care that you have firefighters and police, county medical, and emergency communication and care, in addition to parks, and schools, sewer and water systems, road work, and fluff like all of this, but I do care about such things. I think you'll find, most people do.

 

 

 

Submitted by shelleyp on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 07:14
 

I do know what Pell Grants are

And I do realize that the "to sod or not to sod the mall" discussion is moot but that's besides the point. The point is that despite reducing 206 amendments to 11 and despite changes to the rules this bill contains a significant amount of BS in order to stimulate the economy. Then again, no bill is perfect. Like the time they included mental health parity in a previous stimulus bill. It's like Congress can never just do one thing and then do something else separately. That's what grates my nerves. 

Heather B.
Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada
BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance

Submitted by HeatherB on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 08:02
 

I was primarily responding

I was primarily responding to Dana's specific objections.

I don't have a problem with the work on the Mall, because it is a national property, should be kept up, and the work provides jobs. 

I don't think the Arts grant was a good use of money, not for a stimulus package. There are a couple of other issues I also felt should have been pulled into longer-term discussions, including some of the energy initiatives. 

On the other hand, I approve of the state aid, the infrastructure improvements, and the educational monies -- in addition to longer unemployment, and some health aid for the unemployed, though I share some concerns that this will sidetrack longer term health care reform.

I also support any effort used to build renewable energy options into our infrastructure, because this is ultimately a win-win for our country. We need to move away from fossile fuels. Period. The only way this is going to happen is to make significant and drastic changes. The bill has a start. Also allowing states to set tighter emmissions is a start. 

The Republican idea is to cut taxes. That's it. Wow, I'm so impressed. Golly, takes a lot of work to act like a parrot.

*bwock* *cut taxes*

*bwock* *The rich want a cracker*

*bwock*

Submitted by shelleyp on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 09:32
 

Yes

This is precisely how I feel, Heather. I loathe that in every bill, special interests and seemingly unrelated things are sneaked in, diluting the value of its initial purpose. And it's true almost universally across the board, but with something of this magnitude and breadth, I would have liked to see it more finely focused. 

I like a lot of the bill, and as Dana said, I did know exactly what I was voting for when I voted Obama. I have a vastly different perspective on government than a hardcore conservative like Dana, but that doesn't mean I don't see the value in some of the criticisms. And to the other commenter above, of course McCain would have come up with a stimulus package, but I like to think/hope that critics would have been just as vocal on both sides, so I don't see how that argument matters all that much.

And Shelley, remember that, too -- Dana's coming at this with a vastly different ideology than you probably are, so yes, you're going to fundamentally disagree on a lot of the things that seem like basic rights to you. 

 

www.jonniker.com

Submitted by jonniker on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 12:02
 

"And Shelley, remember that,

"And Shelley, remember that, too -- Dana's coming at this with a vastly different ideology than you probably are, so yes, you're going to fundamentally disagree on a lot of the things that seem like basic rights to you"

I'm sorry, but I have no idea why you felt you needed to clarify something I'm already very aware of. I wrote in disagreement of what Dana wrote. Is that not acceptable comment policy now?

Dana, you win. Obviously I cannot respond to your rather confrontational material. To do so, either you think I dislike you, or comments like this are made. So, I'm out of here.

Submitted by shelleyp on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 15:44
 

My Obligation to Reply

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  So much so, in fact, that I debated about moving right along with my precious moments of free time as a stay at home mother of a sleeping toddler.  But this is ridiculous. 

 Has anyone heard of John Maynard Keynes?  Quick review here, for you FOX viewers:  interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms.

Important words here.  Mitigate..adverse effects.  Remember Bear Stearns was nearly one year ago.  And that other one, oh yes, Lehman Bros.  AIG.  Morgan and Citi.  How many more banks need to collapse before you believe what the word "stimulus" means?  Yes, it's large.  Is it large enough?  The economy is grinding to a halt as I type this response.  Consumers are no longer spending, recovering from the same nasty hangover with our wonton hyper-consumerism ways.  We couldn't spend our way out of this one, anyway.  We are within a paradigm shift with this crisis: our economy can recover, but not without help. 

I have news for you.  Free markets got us into this.  Then they packed up, took their bonus checks, and left for vacation.  Hedge fund regulation?  What Ponzi scheme?

As the EconomistMom blogs: There are still many things that government can do that the private sector cannot, even over the longer run–not just right now when the private sector seems paralyzed and unable to do any of the consumption. 

The only issue I can even remotely come to the table with you on is the issue of near-term spending of the stimulus, which should happen in the near-term.  Meaning this year.  We can't sit on our hands forever.  Even Senators know that.

CDB

http://fingersandpaws.blogspot.com

Submitted by CDB on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 12:39
 

Keynesian policy fails everytime.

Just like it failed in the 30's  which FDR's own Treasury Secretary admitted at the time.

"Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Just like it failed in the 1970's. And finally, just like it failed in Japan during the "Lost Decade".

Keynesian policy was not the answer then and it not the answer now. Here and here are clear explanations of why it fails.

The fact is the government is not in a position of creating wealth-it can only spread around wealth that already exists. Spreading a shrinking pie does not make the pie any bigger; it simply waters down what is available for everyone. The government is incapable of spending one dollar efficiently; one dollar spent by the government would have been spent 10 times over in the private sector. Giving payroll tax cuts (immediate money available right now) and allowing the markets (credit, stock, banks) to stabilize themselves is the only answer.

It will be painful, for sure, but anything else is just a miserable failure with a hefty price tag.

Submitted by madmadmad on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 07:50
 

You are absolutely right. In

You are absolutely right. In addition, the protectionist tilt evidenced during the campaign was addressed at Davos this weekend by leaders of other countries alarmed at the language in the stimulus package on buying US.

In addition, people who think that government can get us out of this crisis need look no further back than at the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The reckless lending, coupled with their GSE status, took risk from the marketplace. Bankers bought the mortgage backed securities from FM/FM because they knew the government would not allow these giants to fail. 

Why not cut payroll taxes? They're presumably not used to fund government as mentioned by the contributor below. It would put money in people's pockets immediately. It would be siimple to implement. It would keep people in their homes and increase spending. 

Submitted by Norma156 on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 07:00
 

Allowing Markets to Stabilize..

Themselves?  Really?  Do you honestly believe that?  The market is a leading indicator.  It's predictive.  And guess what it's been predicting.. more, more, more to worse.  Companies with negative EPS are not going to miraculously stabilize, nor will currency, nor will commodities.  Too much fear, too many unknowns.  So, you'd have us spin out of control until we implode.  Nobody knows whether Keynesian economics will work in this dire situation, just like they didn't know in the 30s.  The difference here is fiscal policy, but you might not want to bring up the important differences between now and the 30s if you're trying to prove Keynes wrong. 

You cannot finance a government (even without a stimulus) with payroll tax cuts.  Before you retort, remember predicted unemployment numbers run into double digits.  The math does not work.  Not right now.

 Governments are not as efficient as markets, sure.  But are also not as greedy and scheming.  Put some money in the hands of bankers and... oh wait.  We did that. 

I think the important theme to remember here is the temporary nature of this package.  Nobody is ignoring fiscal responsibility.  It's the shift in thinking to allow government to be part of the solution, not a drain to slower growth.  Remember, there are rich Democrats out there too.

CDB

http://fingersandpaws.blogspot.com

Submitted by CDB on Sat, 01/31/2009 - 12:34
 

Jonniker rules

I probably would have posted earlier if every time I reread this thread I didn't get sidetracked giggling uncontrollably about the notion of me (or any conservative on this board) including such smug, condescending pearls in our argument as:

"Has anyone here heard of Karl Marx and his ideas on how to make the slow but methodical transition from capitalism to communism? Here's a quick review for you MSNBC viewers."

or

"Change! Bwock!"

"Fox News is a biased outrage, and is completely different than MSNBC. I wish I could go shoe shopping with Rachel Maddow. I have no valid argument to support my views but they're right and trendy. Bwock!"

"Al Gore has earned the right to have the carbon footprint of a Sasquatch on metabolic steroids. Geithner and Daschle made honest mistakes when they took those $25,000 tax deductions for nipple clamps. Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005? Christopher Dodd who? Bwock!"

or, borrowing from a previous thread:

"Liberals are people that are just clinging to the same stale economic philosophy that has been a proven failure time and time again in every country in which it has been applied. Anyone who can't see the severe limitations of this isn't using their gray matter."

and the classic:

"In actuality, liberalism is nothing but a thinly veiled proclamation of the ‘My political views are completely third-grade idealistic, unrealistic, dramatically emotional, government should help me run my life and make my decisions, I lack-any-perspective-balance-or-boundaries-so-let's-call-a-fish-a-sea-kitten-and-get-envirohysterical' philosophy of life."

Please. I'd be nailed to a cross right now if I would have started this thread out by doing that. Oh crap, I was supposed to "leave my God out of it." Sorries!

Submitted by NOfreelunch on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 19:12
 

Thanks, and yeah ...

That's exactly what I meant. I got prickly the other day when a conservative implied that liberals were stupid sheep, and I get just as pissy when the reverse happens. I don't understand why we can't assume a level of intelligence while acknowledging a difference of opinion, nor do I understand why we can't discuss the issues without rudely trying to change each others' minds on broad, fundamental issues, especially when we *are* talking about smart people here. I know that Dana doesn't think I'm stupid, and I don't think she's stupid, you know? 

Of course you know.  I happen to believe partisanship is a good thing, and is the backbone for our system of checks and balances that is so vital to government. Without polarized beliefs and the ensuing discussion, we will have failed as a country, but the key is to be able to have the discussion rationally and not unkindly (and without taking your ball and going home). 

This kind of crap isn't anything new, and I wouldn't say it most other places, but because it's BlogHer, where presumably smart women hang out, by and large, I have a slightly higher expectation for mutual respect. 

 

www.jonniker.com

Submitted by jonniker on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 10:37
 

Not taking my ball and going home

Jonniker, you have a great point. I really struggle to NOT take my darn ball and go home when I run across the partisan threads, but I agree, at least in principle (though it's hard  for me emotionally at times to actually DO) ...that we need the partisan dialogue, and yes, that consideration and mutual respect is critical.

 

One site that I had forgotten all about till I found this thread and which was very useful  to my perspective (not affiliated with yours truly I don't even post there...) but I found it veddy interesting... is here.

 

Cheers and best regards to you all, even the ones I disagree with :) 

Ms.S.

 

http://manicmeltdown.blogspot.com/

Submitted by Ms_Sanity on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 13:29
 

Fear Mongering

: a $800+ billion dollar handout which, for the most part, covers poor business practices and pork.

: I don't like the government forcing taxpayers to cover anything that extends beyond it's original purpose of defense.

: government has no business meddling in the private sector

(Except, of course Dana, in the case of keeping the private sector honest [Bernie Madoff] and properly hedged with bank reserve requirements and capital risk regulation.  We should just..let the boys be boys?  See how big the bonuses get?)

YIKES, Yikes and yikes.  You've covered, by now, the massive quantities of departments that are provided funding through this Bill.  You have managed to sum them all up, irresponsibly, as "pork."  I didn't know I was entering a debate with a slew of Libertarians, who prefer no government at all.  I thought that the entire point of Dana's post was that fear mongering via slant and bias was a bad thing.   I agree.

Let's be mindful that some countries have gone bankrupt, running into the arms of the IMF.  Some states are issuing IOUs.  This is not a normal period in history. 

 And for the record, Bush had a few protectionist import tariffs of his own when he needed to thank some folks in the steel industry.. but that, the Kyoto debacle, WMD in Iraq.. all ancient history. 

The important thing is that we're talking about it.  Yes, it's large.  Because that's the only way to effect any effect (see Keynes' and the multiplier effect.) 

CDB

Submitted by CDB on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 20:38
 

Quibbles n' Bits

CDB:
When someone writes "$800+ billion dollar handout which, for the most part, covers poor business practices and pork," I'm not sure how you can fairly make the jump to stating "you've managed to sum them all up, irresponsibly, as pork." It seems like an overstatement, unfairly misrepresenting what Dana wrote. However I'm not trying to speak for her. But I find it interesting that you're calling "irresponsible" those who would think the bill is a porkfest. Because if so, you're calling approximately 62 percent of the polled public irresponsible, according to a Gallup poll out Tuesday that reflected only 38 percent of respondents supported the stimulus bill as is. I can't relate (politically) to anyone who looks at the package and doesn't find plenty of things to scratch their head over, regarding how they are supposed to stimulate anything but the pockets of some of the people and organizations who helped get Obama elected.

Also, as an Independent who finds herself nodding her head at some basic philosophies of Libertarians, I think you're grossly misrepresenting people who identify as Libertarian when you say they "prefer no government at all." Even in the most extreme cases that's incorrect. While admittedly there is a huge range of viewpoints held by people who call themselves Libertarian, even the fringe element still are in favor of governing bodies. I think an excellent explanation of that can be found here, written by author Timothy Sandefur. I'm not sure how you're making the jump from reading the comments of the people in this thread (some being Democrats) using their independence of thought to be interested in and question where the money in the proposed package is going to by saying "I didn't know I was entering a debate with a slew of Libertarians, who prefer no government at all." How are you making that leap of thought? People who bother to question or disagree with some or all of the package are transformed into a "slew of" anarchist Libertarians? Huh?

This article in Forbes regarding stimulus is interesting and pretty even handed, in my opinion. A portion of the article that supports my disagreement with the stimulus as it stands reads,

"Supply-siders argued that certain changes in tax policy--lowering marginal tax rates, reducing taxes on entrepreneurial income--were especially powerful, economically. Keynesians think that just putting dollars in peoples' pockets in order to stimulate consumption is the key to growth... The failure of rebates has shifted the focus to public works and other direct spending measures as a means of stimulating aggregate spending. A study by Obama administration economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein predicts that the stimulus plan being debated in Congress will raise the gross domestic product by $1.57 for every $1 spent.

Such a multiplier effect has been heavily criticized by a number of top economists, including John Taylor of Stanford, Gary Becker and Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago and Greg Mankiw and Robert Barro of Harvard. The gist of their argument is that the government cannot expand the economy through deficit spending because it has to borrow the funds in the first place, thus displacing other economic activities. In the end, the government has simply moved around economic activity without increasing it in the aggregate."

The author also makes a point that I've heard and read plenty of others make: that many of the things included in the stimulus package will not be able to make impact for several years down the road. While arguments could be made that these changes would be positive for America and eventually necessary, what we need in this drastic situation is more suggestions that will stimulate the economy right now, not years from now, if at all.

Submitted by NOfreelunch on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 23:53
 

The Hard Decisions - Are You Willing To Make
Them?

I have felt this way during the occupation of Dubya and more so after the election. This financial crisis is no joke. It is deep, the level of fraud and criminality is staggering. It is like trying to stop a Tsunami with leaky buckets. Anybody want to volunteer for the front line?

I have said it before and will say it again. Let these companies fail. No government cash for corporate criminal activities. Let them crash, burn and release us from greed beyond measure.

Oh, yeah and I would also like to see a few Harvards, Yalies, Printonians and assorted white collar criminals do orange jumper time. I want their property claimed as criminal assets. I'm not kidding.

Y'all can waste time salivating over the gotchas but I would suggest the time would be better spent preparing for your worse case personal scenario.

That would be easier than contacting your local and national representatives and telling them point blank to cut the fat and do only what is necessary to stabilize the fall.

Or we could suck it up and increase taxes a bit for a short amount of time to cover a portion of the debt.

Naw can't do that. Or we could accept a reduction of services for a short period of time. Nope, not willing for that to happen either?

How about closing all but essential state and national services for three months?

If you don't like what happening give viable solutions! This is not about party lines, this is our survival.

This bailout/stimulus package was a sham served up as a necessity and it is still a sham with extra pork loaded up by both sides. It may be necessary to provide an easier step down into more bad times but it will not fix anything. It will help in some sections of the country but we are all going to feel turbulence.

I am not fooled by the so-call sudden conversion of Republicans wanting to provide help to those that are facing foreclosure.

I am not deceived by their proposal to provide $15,000 to help people buy new homes or pay off mortgages. Let's we forget, you need 20% of the home's current inflated value as a down payment. You need to prove income, credit worthiness and you will fill out papers up the ying-yang. Oh did I mention they will have to back track to find out who has the mortgage to your property?

And banks, gee have they released any of the money to small businesses and others that are struggling to do business? Wasn't that the intent of the "bailout?" SOBs haven't done it yet have they?

Yeah, Banks are going to give out mortgages to people that need governmental help to buy a home. Bwwahhhaaah.

Where is a fiscal republican when you need them?

A liberal who can count on politicians to pork it up if left to their own devices. Screwed no matter which party you affiliate with...

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Submitted by Gena Haskett on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 20:55
 

The Most Important Debate of Our Time

Let's start over, NoFreeLunch.  You are right that there is a depth and a breadth to the Libertarian ideology that I did not give proper credit. To answer your question, I was directly responding to Dana's comment that (her words) "I don't like the government forcing taxpayers to cover anything that extends beyond it's original purpose of defense."  I happen to believe our Founding Fathers dreamed up a brilliant government of and for its People that also, as one example of many, educated its People.

The Stimulus (Economic Recovery Act) is critical to debate; it is critical to get the components correct, and it is critical that we not cripple ourselves down the road, cutting off our nose to spite our face with increased deficit spending leading to slower and slower growth [GDP].  I'm not proposing that we accept every proposed bit of it, but I think the case has been made that something must be done. 

What I cannot get past is the gross ideological differences presenting themselves.  How is okay that the Republican set is blackmailing the moderates into putting $70 Billion Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] reform into this bill, when it would normally be addressed in the regular budget process, so that its cost can be offset?  Because they can?  Quid pro quo, as usual, no Congressman/woman will agree to anything without something in return.  As EconomistMom explains it:

"Note that the list of untouchable tax cuts in the recovery package includes the $70 billion for Alternative Minimum Tax relief alone–which the Tax Policy Center grades as a “D-” in terms of its “stimulus effect,” saying it’s “neither timely nor targeted” and “makes no sense as economic stimulus”, and which economist Mark Zandi says has a multiplier (”bang per buck”) effect of less than half a dollar per dollar spent–one of the most ineffective forms of stimulus he has considered in his analysis.  Meanwhile, Zandi’s analysis clearly shows that infrastructure spending is one of the most direct and effective ways for the government to stimulate the economy (immediately boost GDP and create jobs).  So why is cutting out any tax cuts off the table?  Because tax cuts sound like they lead to smaller government and have broader benefits than construction projects to modernize particular schools, even if that school construction would actually create more jobs than AMT relief will (especially per dollar spent). "

Think back..when we first heard about this legislation, it was to be "timely, targeted and temporary."  As reported in the Washington Post: "Two sticking points for Republicans were funding for school construction and Head Start, both viewed as worthy programs but not ones that would provide a sufficient boost to the economy", a great example of programs I believe in, but believe won't pass the test of short-term stimulus. 

I continue to believe direct gov't injection of capital and assets into the Economy that can be immediately utilized by its people is still what we need.  Most of all, I believe that we need it as stimulus, not, as Dana put it so prominently in the title of the post, as a "Bailout".  When we hear Initial Jobless Claims [2/12], Retail Sales, and Consumer Sentiment [2/13] this week, I think more will agree.

CDB

http://fingersandpaws.blogspot.com

Submitted by CDB on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 12:19
 

CDB, this Bill Is Still a Joke

...and it would be funny if it wasn't so sad for the country. Just a few points, as I'm ill and that's all I have the strength and temperament for now.

You wrote: "What I cannot get past is the gross ideological differences presenting themselves." Well, that's one thing on which we can both agree. So much so that I don't think debating the issue will get us anywhere.

You say: "How is okay that the Republican set is blackmailing the moderates into putting $70 Billion Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] reform into this bill?"

So if McCain had won the election and this was his 850 billion dollar stimulus bill (consisting of paybacks and tips of the hat to lobbies and special interests of the people who elected him), you would call any comparably tiny concessions the Republicans made to Democrats "blackmail?" Somehow I doubt it.  In my opinion, someone complaining about 70 billion worth of tax reform buried in this joke of a massive, partisan and disgustingly wasteful bill just doesn't make any sense.  Regarding the Tax Policy Center grading the tax reform a D-, it's too bad there's not a Government Waste Acknowledgement [G.W.A.] organization grading the other lines of this package.  Take for instance the gift to (or, rather, the bailout of) failing Amtrak. The millions to the National Endowment of the Arts. A repulsive and daunting two hundred billion dollars to bail out pathetic, irresponsible spendaholics at the (blue) state level, and paying for cushy new things like golf courses and recreation centers.  Six hundred fifty million for digital television converter box coupons.  Four hundred million for STD prevention.  One hundred fifty million for the Smithsonian (just to randomly name a few, since there are so many lines that won't create jobs or increase GDP).  I can only imagine the abysmal set of F minuses those lines would score.

You said: "Meanwhile, Zandi's analysis clearly shows that infrastructure spending is one of the most direct and effective ways for the government to stimulate the economy (immediately boost GDP and create jobs)."

No. The analysis doesn't "clearly show" or prove anything.  There's not just one economist who has all of the correct answers and is an economic Nostradamus.  I could again name the prominent economists who are highly vocal in speaking out against this bill as I did in my post above, but there would be no point in repeating that.  Both of us can quote economists whose views support our own. How that would be advancing either of our arguments over the other, I'm not sure.

Your quote: "When we hear Initial Jobless Claims [2/12], Retail Sales, and Consumer Sentiment [2/13] this week, I think more will agree."

I hope not. For the sake of the country, I hope that Obama, Congressmen and women and anyone else who is actively fear mongering about the economic crisis we'll "suddenly" find ourselves in if we don't "act immediately" on this bill will not make a difference. I hope that Republicans, fiscal conservatives or any other opponents of this bill won't feel pressured to accept something that they deem wasteful, unnecessary, unable to be verified in the future and just plain wrong. I mean, come on! Taking a few more days or even weeks to figure out how to more responsibly spend this massive amount of money that will leave our kids and grandkids in debt is wrong? Taking the extra time to eliminate more waste will make any negative difference in the financial mess we're in already? Is anyone actually buying that?

Submitted by NOfreelunch on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 21:59