PDA

View Full Version : You won't believe what's in that "stimulus" bill



Little-Acorn
01-28-2009, 05:37 PM
I thought this "Stimulus Bill" was supposed to "stimulate" the economy?

"This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."

--------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

(A Wall Street Journal editorial)

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. 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.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

red states rule
01-28-2009, 05:40 PM
Oh I believe it - I even started a thread about it

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21091

DannyR
01-29-2009, 11:00 AM
Can't let a good spending bill go by without a little pork. Thats what congressmen are for. If only we had a real Ross Perot (minus the crazy) leader who actually cared about our national debt. But neither candidate this election made that a priority.

One statement in the post however does irritate me:


Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs.
Renewable energy needs a LOT of cash so it can take off. And 8 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate welfare that big oil has gotten. And saying it doesn't pay off is short term thinking. Renewable more than pays off in the long term. Price of oil isn't just reflected in the cost per barrel. Its also paid for in pretty much our entire military defense budget which protects that oil. Be nice to have a nation that could run on its own without importing a drop.

As for transit, living in a city that desperately needs more mass transit, I hear all the time about how our poor MARTA system is always needing money to operate.

Well, duh! Its a *public* transit system. Makes me laugh out loud when people complain about spending money on it, when every single road we have was built with tax dollars! Mass transit funding is a pittance compared to the dollars spent on roads in our state. I don't go driving on most of them, just like others don't necessarily take the train. But we all have to pay our fair share.

Do agree that the unions running them are generally poor however.

red states rule
01-29-2009, 11:01 AM
Can't let a good spending bill go by without a little pork. Thats what congressmen are for.

One statement in the post however does irritate me:


Renewable energy needs a LOT of cash so it can take off. And 8 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the corporate welfare that big oil has gotten.

As for transit, living in a city that desperately needs more mass transit, I hear all the time about how our poor MARTA system is always needing money to operate.

Well, duh! Its a *public* transit system. Makes me laugh out loud when people complain about spending money on it, when every single road we have was built with tax dollars! Mass transit funding is a pittance compared to the dollars spent on roads in our state. I don't go driving on most of them, just like others don't necessarily take the train. But we all have to pay our fair share.

Do agree that the unions running them are generally poor however.

A little pork?

Most the bill is pork. Check it out

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=21114

DannyR
01-29-2009, 11:04 AM
quite well aware of it. As I said, thats what congressmen do, from both parties.

red states rule
01-29-2009, 11:06 AM
quite well aware of it. As I said, thats what congressmen do, from both parties.

and I thought Dems ran on cutting pork, and puting the money toward roads and bridges

and I thought Obama was bringing change

DannyR
01-29-2009, 11:08 AM
and I thought Dems ran on cutting pork

Of course. Don't you know that the definition of Pork is money spent by the other party. *lol*

red states rule
01-29-2009, 11:11 AM
and I thought Dems ran on cutting pork

Of course. Don't you know that the definition of Pork is money spent by the other party. *lol*

Dems ran against the pork Republicans spent while they were in power - as did I

Now they are out porking Republicans

When Chris Matthews - who get a tingle up his leg when Obama speaks - is asking questiions

That is how damn bad it is

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=yduzkUnzpr" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=yduzkUnzpr" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Immanuel
01-29-2009, 11:50 AM
Can't let a good spending bill go by without a little pork.

I think that needs to be reiterated. This is not a stimulus package it is a spending bill. Nothing more, nothing less... well except for the political paybacks to organizations like ACORN. How much will go to Moveon.org?

$825 Billion in money we don't have. Is Uncle Barry simply planning on having the U.S. Mints go into high gear and produce more cash like Brazil did in the 80's (I think)? Inflation here we come.

Whether or not the economy "needs" a boost is a matter for debate. Personally, I believe in the economic cycle and I am certain we will come out of this just fine without the spending bill. Unfortunately the bill is only going to lead to one of two things. Carteresque inflation and/or interest rates or tax rates reminescient of the Truman/Eisenhower years.

I hope President Obama succeeds, but I am skeptical of this bill.

Immie

red states rule
01-29-2009, 11:58 AM
I think that needs to be reiterated. This is not a stimulus package it is a spending bill. Nothing more, nothing less... well except for the political paybacks to organizations like ACORN. How much will go to Moveon.org?

$825 Billion in money we don't have. Is Uncle Barry simply planning on having the U.S. Mints go into high gear and produce more cash like Brazil did in the 80's (I think)? Inflation here we come.

Whether or not the economy "needs" a boost is a matter for debate. Personally, I believe in the economic cycle and I am certain we will come out of this just fine without the spending bill. Unfortunately the bill is only going to lead to one of two things. Carteresque inflation and/or interest rates or tax rates reminescient of the Truman/Eisenhower years.

I hope President Obama succeeds, but I am skeptical of this bill.

Immie

If Dems really wanted to boost the economy they could do so very quickly

!) Across the board income tax cuts

2) Take the capital gians tax to zero for about 12 to 18 months

3) Cut the corporate tax rate to around 10%

4) Cut ALL PORK FROM ALL SPENDING BILLS/ or make all pork stand alone in its own bill

5) Pass the line item veto. I think it will pass the USSC now

actsnoblemartin
01-29-2009, 12:51 PM
good ideas


If Dems really wanted to boost the economy they could do so very quickly

!) Across the board income tax cuts

2) Take the capital gians tax to zero for about 12 to 18 months

3) Cut the corporate tax rate to around 10%

4) Cut ALL PORK FROM ALL SPENDING BILLS/ or make all pork stand alone in its own bill

5) Pass the line item veto. I think it will pass the USSC now

red states rule
01-29-2009, 12:56 PM
good ideas

They are the perfect ideas to bring the economy back

Which is why Dems will not implement them. They want as many people as possible dependent on government so they can stay in power

actsnoblemartin
01-29-2009, 12:59 PM
thats how it works


They are the perfect ideas to bring the economy back

Which is why Dems will not implement them. They want as many people as possible dependent on government so they can stay in power

Little-Acorn
01-29-2009, 01:52 PM
Unfortunately the Line Item Veto might not pass this USSC, or any other. It is borderline unconstitutional.

The Const refers to the President's authority to veto A BILL, and nothing else. No mention of his being able to cut out parts of a bill. And the spirit of the legislative process, is that the Prez can sign or veto the bills Congress passes... to me, that implies "in the exact form Congress passed them".

I wish the Prez did have the Line-Item Veto. I believe it would ultimately lead to smaller government, which this country badly needs. But it might be necessary to amendment the Constitution to get it. And the LIV would have to take a number and stand in line - there are many more important issues that need Constitutional amendment. Such as chopping off the first half of the 2nd amendment, or adding the word "explicitly" between "not" and "delegated" in the 10th (to mention just a few).

BTW, neither of those changes would actually change the meaning of those amendments at all, of course. But they would cut down the arguing, and maybe even the active violations, of those amendments.

red states rule
01-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Unfortunately the Line Item Veto might not pass this USSC, or any other. It is borderline unconstitutional.

The Const refers to the President's authority to veto A BILL, and nothing else. No mention of his being able to cut out parts of a bill. And the spirit of the legislative process, is that the Prez can sign or veto the bills Congress passes... to me, that implies "in the exact form Congress passed them".

I wish the Prez did have the Line-Item Veto. I believe it would ultimately lead to smaller government, which this country badly needs. But it might be necessary to amendment the Constitution to get it. And the LIV would have to take a number and stand in line - there are many more important issues that need Constitutional amendment. Such as chopping off the first half of the 2nd amendment, or adding the word "explicitly" between "not" and "delegated" in the 10th (to mention just a few).

BTW, neither of those changes would actually change the meaning of those amendments at all, of course. But they would cut down the arguing, and maybe even the active violations, of those amendments.

I think it might pass with CJ Roberts and Justice Alito now on the Court

I would love to see the Federal Budget actually be smaller then the previous year

-Cp
01-29-2009, 02:34 PM
<embed type='application/x-shockwave-flash' src='http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/oreillyplayertemplate/oreillyPlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf' id='mediumFlashEmbedded' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' bgcolor='#000000' allowScriptAccess='always' allowFullScreen='true' quality='high' name='oreillyPlayer' play='false' scale='noscale' menu='false' salign='LT' scriptAccess='always' wmode='false' height='354' width='385' flashvars='playerId=oreillyhomeplayer&referralObject=3475782&referralPlaylistId=bbeb11095dff273e354ffbd0dfa4c07 0c9e8730b' />

red states rule
01-29-2009, 04:09 PM
More and more pork in this bill is being found


kid you not. $150,000,000 in earmarks and pork for “honey bee insurance” was stuffed into a dark corner of the latest version of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama spending / debt bill. Honey bee insurance?!

Senate Republicans released these new highlights of your tax payer dollars being spent under the guise of economic stimulus. They were also kind enough to remind us what Barack Obama had promised, swore, to the American people days ago:

“We Will Ban All Earmarks In The Recovery Package.”
- Barack Obama, Press Conference, 1/6/09

Here are just six points in the bill:

$20 million “for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers.” (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “20,000,000 for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers)

$400 million for STD prevention (Pg. 60 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “CDC estimates that a proximately 19 million new STD infections occur annually in the United States …The Committee has included $400,000,000 for testing and prevention of these conditions.”)

$25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails (Pg. 45 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration”)

$34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ (Pg. 15 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: $34,000,000 for the Department of Commerce renovation and modernization”)

$70 million to “Support Supercomputing Activities” for climate research (Pgs. 14-15 of Senate Appropriations Committee Report: $70,000,000 is directed to specifically support supercomputing activities, especially as they relate to climate research)

$150 million for honey bee insurance (Pg. 102 of Senate Appropriations Committee report: “The Secretary shall use up to $ 50,000,000 per year, and $150,000,000 in the case of 2009, from the Trust Fund to provide emergency relief to eligible producers of livestock, honey bees, and farm-raised fish to aid in the reduction of losses due to disease, adverse weather, or other conditions, such as blizzards and wildfires, as determined by the Secretary”)

http://rightsoup.com/