Congress
Risch Calls Stimulus “Giant Fraud on the American People”
Not surprisingly, Idaho’s two Republican senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch voted against the Senate version of the economic stimulus bill today, both with strong feelings about it.By Jill Kuraitis, 2-10-09
 |
|
 | |
| Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) | |
|
A few hours ago, the full U.S. Senate voted 61 to 37 to send their version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to a conference committee with the U.S. House of Representatives to reconcile differences between the two versions.
Not surprisingly, Idaho’s two Republican senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch voted against the Senate version of the economic stimulus bill today, both with strong feelings about it.
“Despite the call by our President for a robust spending bill to create jobs now, only 13 percent of the appropriated infrastructure spending in this bill would be spent this year to create jobs,” Crapo said. “The Congressional Budget Office says over the next ten years this bill will seriously damage our economy because of the huge federal debt. I very strongly oppose this dangerous legislation because we can’t spend our way to prosperity. There are better ways to create jobs than this plan, but unfortunately, it appears big spending is back in Washington, DC.”
A better idea, Crapo said, would be to advance federal spending for targeted infrastructure projects such as cleanup at the Idaho National Laboratory.
Risch called the bill “an irresponsible, giant spending package” and said it is “a giant fraud on the American people.”
Saying the bill should be about “creating jobs and helping families,” Risch did support some amendments such as a home buyer tax credit. “Nearly everyone agrees it was a crisis in housing that led to this recession, yet that very market was being ignored in the original bill. Raising the tax credit up to $15,000 for home purchases was a good addition,” Risch said.
Not all of the amendments Risch liked made it into the bill. “Unfortunately, good amendments, such as preventing agencies from adding new spending programs, and tax changes to make the Child Tax Credit and marriage penalty relief permanent were defeated,” said Risch. “Another amendment to refinance or offer new mortgages at a rate of 4 percent was also killed.”
Senator Risch said the hurried push to get something done was also part of the problem. “Unfortunately, the rush to get a bill to the President has allowed members of Congress to bypass the regular committee process. The deeper you look, the more things you find, like $500 million for climate change research. We should be asking hard questions about proposals like this and what, if anything, we will get for the money.”
Risch also said he objected to bypassing the process of scrutinizing how the money will be spent.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
What the hell?
As well, $825 billion is barely a nick in our GDP, and if spaced over 10 years of GDP it might as well be spent on cocaine and hookers for all the long term "damage" it might do.
They're playing fear mongering games with the American economy, lying to their constituents and getting away with it, because no one will hold them responsible.
Oy.
Jay Kanta, I have lost my will to do any research on these charlatans, but I imagine they're lying as well. Most analysts have looked at the $15,000 home buyer tax cut and concluded two brothers could sell their houses to each other and pocket 15 grand each. Then sell them back.
Jill, keep your chin up. The haters will hate no matter what.
Under old habits die hard: Crapo's "cleanup at the Idaho National Laboratory" sounds much like an earmark
The Statesman's moderate economic columnist Ed Lotterman agrees with many of his professional brothers and sisters that all government spending stimulates the economy to varying degrees for varying periods. Spending does not have to linked directy to a bridge, road, levee, or capital project to effect confidence and spending. See his column here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/lotterman/story/662993.html
The CBO should do a worse care, not optimistic base line like used now, that details the length and breadth of the crash if nothing is done.
This economy has been hit by a flock of geese, both engines are out, and there is no Hudson river in sight.
Jill who can get rid of the annoying sound effect on this site?
This could have been done over about 10 weeks and had merits of funding much better debated and justified. Now we have a huge list of liberal crap in there that is not really stimulus. It could nto stand on its own so it is lumped in and fear mongering to pass it. What a load of crap.
and also, let me guess what you wanted instead: tax cuts, right?
Before you reply, please get a list of "liberal crap" and let us know what you think isn't useful to a stimulus package. Maybe you can educate us "liberals". Doubtful, but maybe.
As far as the stimulus, just when we really need one, we get a typical spending bill, except huge and long term. What a disgrace. If you want to put money into the economy, then put it into the economy. Anybody who thinks the government is going to quickly get things going through this boondoggle is mistaken. That money should go directly to where it is needed. Who in their right mind thinks Obey, Pelosi and Reid know anything about stimulating the economy? They do politics and only politics, so this is a political bill, full of pay offs, pet projects, and ideologically driven spending. And Obama has failed to lead, he turned it all over to political hacks instead of crafting his own bill, because apparently he does not have the courage to take responsibility for the outcome., which he knows is uncertain. He's already saying he's not responsible for the bad parts because it came out of Washington (but he handed it to the hacks). This is politics as usual and at the worst time. I thought maybe Obama would rise to the occasion, but he has abdicated his leadership and turned it over to those promoting special interests. The Republicans are right this time, at least in their rhetoric: a stimulus should be timely, targeted, and temporary. Drop your knee jerk reactions for a moment and think about it. It's a no brainer. It would be better to simply hand the money to the American people with an obligation that they spend it in certain ways, or to small businesses with strings attached, who employ the majority of Americans. Shame on the Democrats. They are a disgrace to their country in a time of crisis.
How about some of your comments or "Jay Kanta", "Crapo and Risch and the rest of the trickle down lying Republicans" , or "Mickey Garcia", "dumb ass, obsolete and hypocritical old white guys", or the "kind" words of "critic". by the way, I like the sound effect; it could be the last way for a private citizen to make and KEEP money.
Have a nice day, you don't need to respond...
By the way wasn't it our newest Sec of State that said; "I'm tried of people who say critizing the administration is un-patriotic" or how about "Speak truth to power" or "Question Athority!" I guess that only works with Republicans. Ask youself again "What's wrong in America?"
The spending is spread out to have 64% spent within the first two fiscal years. Since this fiscal year is almost over, not much can be spent until next fiscal year, when the majority of the bill gets pushed out to various economic factors across America. There are tax cuts, which go into effect immediately and are targeted at the middle and lower classes, the people that spend the most, compared to what they take home in income. Then there is a large amount that goes into infrastructure, which won't be spent until the projects are planned, bid on, and awarded. That takes time. While that spending is starting up, the stimulus bump from the tax cuts drop off and the longer term spending should still be propping up a limping economy with research and more infrastructure spending.
Was that too difficult?
Tax Cuts will return less than $0.30 on the dollar, to the economy, while much of the spending is estimated to bring $0.70 to $0.80. So "Ken" there has no clue what he is talking about, and neither do Riche or Crapo.
And silly me, I always thought that when someone lies about facts, they should be called a liar for it. I never knew I should be nice and claim that their intentionally directed "mistake" should be softly spoken about in order to not harm Republican's sensibilities.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/10/fox-news-commenters-bash-obama-over.html
It's the pre-election outburst about Pres. Obama visiting his dying grandmother.
Jill, nice piece of reporting.
i would agree with you that instead of funding projects, paying out to various companies or what ever, a simple bill that alots a certain amount of money to the people may be a good idea, we are the investors, the spendors. but If the money was handed to the people, you really couldnt tell them how to spend it, there is no real way to enforce conditions on so many individuals, and you would have to give the people the money in much more significant amounts then the 400-1200 dollars that was given out last year,
for most of the general public that most likely went to paying bills.
I beleive that they should give the tax payers about 150k to individuals and 200k to married couples, make it to where if you make 100k a year you would get a reduced amount, say 50k for individuals, 150k for married couples, and so on till those that make 200k or more a year are inelligible. limit the lower end to being 18 and above and haveing had filed taxes the year before.
of coarse this would still get taxed, as an income.
But please, keep talking up your "trickle down economics" and how giving back to the taxpayer is the end all solution to our economic woes. It will make it that much easier for Democrats to take over a few more seats next year.
The so called infrastructure will do nothing, except give enviros a lot of excuses to file lawsuits demanding studies of this that and the other. By the time they get done with the lawsuits the country will either recover on it's own, or have gone down the tubes. Look at the jobs lost in the last few days by withdrawing drilling permits, shutting down offshore drilling, stopping the building of coal fired plants etc. And this at a time we need every job we can get.
I fear that, as usual, we will fail to heed the lessons history has to teach.
The current value of the American dollar has slowed American exports to buyers overseas. With a rapid influx of dollars into the American economy, part of the plan is actually to reduce the value of the dollar which will increase exports and build up the GDP.
Of course, this is also pretty well spelled out by a lot of various economists, but the neighing of the spoiled right wing has made it difficult to get those facts out to the people.
Hmmmmmm: I don't know how to spell it out any plainer. Tax cuts and tax rebates (credits) have a limited time frame and an even more limited return on government investment.
But for anyone that says government spending isn't going to be the answer, I have to ask: what is the answer then? Because right now government spending is the only spending that is available to the American economic system on the level that it will take to build consumer confidence, increase bank lending and slow the loss of jobs, specifically in the public sector.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf
Senate bill: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf
In summary, both bills deliver relief over the first three years. Projections out to 2019 are have of very low probability of being accurate. To pick remote out years to characterize the CBO studies is intellectually dishonest.
I would like to see the CBO do an estimate on the pessimistic, worst case side if nothing is done. What if we just wait? Not that this a comparable situtions in a world economy but it is interesting to note that the U.S. stock market didn't return to 1929 levels until the early 1950's. Then there is human suffering in the middle and low income levels a prolonged deep recession, if not depression, would cause.
Thanks for the response. I am not sure, however, that the 'value' of the US dollar is the prime cause of the reduction in US exports. The weakness of the US $ over the past 2 years certainly spurred additional purchases of US-produced goods, but the current vlaue of the dollar is now roughly where it was for the past decade. On exchange-rate terms, our exports should be around the same level they were prior to the 'boom' of thw past 2 years. However, our exports are falling, despite the fall in the value of the dollar, because the appetite of foreign importers has been crushed by the collapse in the credit markets, coupled with economic uncertainty. It would seem, therefore, that further weakening of the US$ will do little to spur our exports, but will do much to increase the cost to us of importing goods. For the protectionists out there who may start to rub their hands with glee at this thought (i.e. trade protection), the main result of this will high inflation. Given the current global ecomic conditions, a reduction in the value of the US$ will likely do us far more harm than good.
As a quick aside, I cannot accept your assertion that tax cuts/rebates are 'government investment'. Tax cuts are simply charging taxpayers less for services rendered. False tax cuts (i.e. reducing tax receipts without a corresponding reduction in government expenditure) is simply bad management. Unless the government is spending less, it has no right to charge less, since it will have to put the nation into further debt to finance the budget shortfall.
My position is that government spending, as outlined in the stimulus bill, is likely to do more harm than good in the long run. This believe is based on the results of similar intervention in the past. Whilst I am no expert (and do not claim to be one) I would think that providing direct assistance to people who are in financial dire straits as a result of the bursting of the housing bubble should be the main concern of government. Job creation is best left to those best placed to create jobs - businesses. Let the businesses who have messed up fail, and watch as entrepreneurs jump in to fill the void. Doing this will be painful in the short term (hence my suggestion that direct assistance be provided to individuals), but in the medium to long term we will all be better off.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you on how a falling dollar value will prop up the economy, especially over 2-3 fiscal years. By dropping the value of the dollar and bringing it to equitable levels around the world we may be able to capitalize on other economies that will not be as slow to recover as ours. Given a GDP value of $14.1 trillion (if I remember the figure correctly), the likelihood of our recovery taking about 5 years is probably not all that far off, and that would be just the beginning of the recovery. Equalizing the value of the dollar may actually be less protectionist.
As for your "Job creation is best left to those best place to create jobs - businesses", I also tentatively disagree. Businesses are fearful of expenditures at this time, almost more so than consumers. With little worldwide spending and a continually decreasing consumer confidence here, businesses will continue to shrink and shed jobs until a demand is created. In the case of a stimulus package, such as this one, that is designed to increase consumer spending in the short term, as well as increase jobs by creating infrastructure spending and research funding, there is very little left uncovered. Sitting back and waiting to see what happens, given all of the information at hand, appears to be allowing the hole to dig itself deeper.
I'm also going to assume that you are talking about the New Deal and possibly the Japanese 1993 depression when you say "This believe is based on the results of similar intervention in the past". Those two seem to be the most recent events that are the favorite to bring up by revisionists. Ben Bernanke is possibly the worldwide expert on the Great Depression, and his analysis is that the spending by the New Deal was necessary. In the case of the Japanese depression, which is more recent, many analysts believe that their stimulus package was shorted at the most critical time and the spending that would have taken them through the worst of their crisis was cut by their conservatives.
Is there wasteful spending in this bill? Probably. Is there spending in this bill that won't have the desired effect? Absolutely. Will those amounts add up to anything more than 2-3%? I strongly doubt it. Given that we are nearing uncharted territory, no one is going to have the right answers, but at least this stimulus package is a fairly honest effort. Much more than we ever got under a Republican majority.
Another point: Where would the Japanese economy have gone, how far under, without massive government spending. It is also sometimes pointed out that comparing Japan with it's limited natural resources, including energy, with the US is a stretch.
Nice Job Jay. Very well put together comments.
Risch.. let's take a look at all the partisan fraud he has inflicted upon the people of Idaho. We need to go after these people who are speaking for us... NOT each other.. working together collectively can provide great ideas into our stucture of society.
I don't see how you could have been more unbiased.
Very good article.
Remember when that Republican commented on this very website that if Obama ever came to her neighborhood she would be waiting with her sawed-off shotgun? You wanna compare hate? How's about that time your leader, Rush Limbaugh, mocked a man with a horrible disease (Michael J. Fox) on his show? You still wanna compare hate?
Mickey, your comment is LOL funny! Also Risch is in one of the ten richest U.S. Senators -- in our corrupt system, that means ultra rich. He wouldn't want anyone rocking his gold laden boat.
There is a little something for the working guy though...$13.00 more in his paycheck every week for a few months. No I didn't forget a comma, no need for one.
The cut in drilling permits affects absolutely no one. Drilling off American shores right now, while oil prices are low and expected to stay low during the economic downturn, would be a negative return on investment. Oil companies will not drill, they just want to buy up the leases so they can drill at some point in the future when it would be profitable to do so.
And take your environmental hate somewhere else. Your proof is lacking, your facts are invisible and all you are doing is spreading misinformation because you're spiteful. Get on with your life.
And for all the folks who think conservative talk radio is some sort of dominating power, remember it is "entertainment", "comentary on the news" and has an audiance of the same 20 million each day. The main stream news networks that are very supportive of the new administration have an audiance of 80 million. Now the administration is building an un-uniformed army of citizens to convince their neighbors to "go along", "support the effort", "be Patriotic". In my memory this has only happened once before and I have to say it makes me very uncomfortable. I pray it all works out well because it will affect all of us if it does not.
If no jobs are lost and you really believe the oil companies are going to just sit on the leases...that is found money. The government will take in money and the land or ocean will remain jsut as it is. Frankly the government could use a little found money right now.
The same thing applies to every timber letting that is pulled. But libs in their infinite wisdom are willing to bankrupt the country to "create jobs".
I'm going to have to disagree with you again. A falling dollar does three things - it makes exports cheaper, imports more expensive, and pushes up inflation (since we import a wider variety of goods that we purchase day-to-day than produce domestically). The hope that other countries will purchase more of our exported goods faster than we will increase our purchase of imported goods is misplaced: most developing countries, where GDP growth has outpaced ours over the past decade, are suffering thanks to a huge reduction in our purchase of their exports. Thus, they have less money to spend on our imports. A falling dollar is far more likely to lead to inflation than a surge in US exports.
Whilst it is indeed the case that businesses are largely fearful of investment at present, that is in large part due to an inibility to secure the loans necessary for growth expenditure. A business i am involved in is having problems securing a loan to purchase capital equipment because [a] the pool of banks willing to loan on this type of equipment has shrunk to less than 10% of the number last year; and [b ] the banks willing to loan are demanding a business model that shows an income-return on investment 80% higher than was required last year. In short, the banks are scared to loan, so businesses are suffering. The 'stimulus package' in its current form does little to address this issue (and TARP has been a spectacular failure in this regard too). Infrastructure spending is not going to do much to help the avergae working family. In the Gallatin Valley, for example, spending money on infrastructure projects like the new Belgrade I90 Interchange will do nothing for the carpenters and masons who cannot find work. It will just shore-up companies like Knife River. similarly, research funding is going to help academics, but not your average 'working Joe'. Big ticket projects are easier to fund, but they have a positive immediate impact on fewer people. I'm not saying that spending on infrastructure is wrong per se, but rather that spending on large infrastructure projects in an attempt to kick-start the economy is misguided.
I raised my eyebrows at your implication that any negative take on the New Deal is necessarily 'Revisionist'. That Bernanke has spent a lot of his time studying the Great Depression makes him an expert in the facts, not necessarily in the interpretation of those facts. Milton Friedman also studied the New Deal in depth, but his conclusions oppose Bernanke's. Either could be right, both could be wrong. The historical trend, however, shows that countries that respond to recessions with tax cuts and government spending sprees end up with huge budget deficits, high unemployment rates, and high levels of inflation. Why? because the funding for all these expenditures have to come from somewhere. If tax receipts are down, the money is not coming from the tax payers. So the government has to issue more Treasury Bills. If the market loses its appetite for, or ability to, purchase (what happens when China slows or stops its purchase of our government debt?) the government has to resort to printing more money. The dollar in your pocket loses more of its value, the cost of goods goes up, and we begin another round of inflation.
Yes there is wasteful spending in this Bill. The hurried manner in which it has been pushed through Congress has insured that there has been insufficient discussion and contemplation of every element included. The Administration has repeatedly claimed that we need action 'NOW!' and that there is no time to worry about the 'less than perfect' inclusions in the bill. Bush did this to us in '02, and now it seems Obama is doing the same thing - feed the fear, and rush the bill through. This is our money, our country, our debt. We have a right to expect a more thoughtful response to the situation.
We are in agreement about TARP and lending, though. From what I have seen, the increase in accountability and a much more measured payout of funds to banks may have a much better effect than Bush's Treasury paying out funds to anyone that was a friend of the Administration, with no strings attached and no justification needed. I am optimistic about the future spending of the $315 billion in TARP funds going to banks and financial institutions that genuinely will use them to increase business lending, which should be viewed as an essential part of the ongoing attempt to stimulate the economy.
I look at much of the stimulus package as businesses used to: during slow economic periods, businesses would reduce production and new product creation and instead would focus a great deal on research and development of new technologies. This put those businesses in a position to capitalize quickly on positive changes to the economy, which in turn spurred new growth. Yes, it does leave the blue collar workers in a bad position, and they're the ones that spend the greatest percentage of their income, which has positive results for government revenue and economic recovery. But each thing has to happen in its own time, you can't rush the recovery of production or you end up deepening the depression with higher surpluses.
For that, you need to extend unemployment benefits, insurance and services. Those are all done with this stimulus package, which is conveniently overlooked by people like Risch and Crapo, as well as news sources which are pushing the $13 per week amount as if it was really news.
As for a thoughtful response, I would have expected it from anyone other than the Republican party, which has taken great pains to throw feces at the stimulus package when a gracious hand was held out to them. The American people suffer because the Republicans wanted to act like children instead of part of a solution.
$30 million towards wetlands protection in the Bay Area, sounds like a horrible horrible thing to me.
I agree with your comments regarding conservative radio as entertainment listened to by the same 20 million every day. The fun factor often dissolves -- like when Limbaugh calls for violence in Denver or for his people to falsely register to vote for Hillary in the primaries. His lawyers shut him down on both counts but many of his 20 million devotees are sheep-like enough follow their "anointed one" and "saviour" even to swearing falsely -- in Ohio for example -- to being a democrat. He and his brother and sister demagogues keep their true believers filled with half truths, unsupported dogma, and underlying distrust of all things "government", except militarism.
The MSM presents more balance. Have you watched CNN lately? They have been critical of the new administration.
But ultimately the MSM also fails to serve its function as being essential to a true democracy which is acknowledged by its protection in the First Amendment. In a political system in which power is concentrated in special interests, corporations, and the oligarchy, in a political system which is at its core corrupt, where bribery is legal and corruption is normalized, the MSM has become part of the problem by not being independent from the power structure itself, being much too comfortable and embedded in the the status quo and its trappings of power and celebrity.
I listen to Limbaugh and Hannity for entertainment and for leads on facts to check out.
As for your brief commentary on TARP, you claim optimism without suggesting why we should be more optimistic about this use of funds than of the last tranche. Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but the 400+ point drop in the Dow after Geitner's announcement doesn't suggest that the market is particularly optimistic.
On the stimulus, you seem to be saying that indeed the 'blue collar' workers are not going to benefit int he short-term, but that hopefully there will be a 'trickle down' effect that will benefit them in the longer-term. As you rightly say, the blue collars are the ones who spend the most, and thus stimulate the economy quickest. Ummm, so why isn't the government trying to 'stimulate' them? As I wrote before, this Bill is too hurried, and doesn't appear to be offering much in the way of real stimulus.
I agree that unemployment and health benefits should be provided to those hundreds of thousands of families who find themselves without their incomes. THAT is a stimulus measure. What we don't need is increased public debt to fund infrastructure projects that will benefit a relatively small percentage of those who have been hardest-hit by this recession.
"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America", published by Threshold Editions, a conservative publishing house.
The classic revisionist creed by Powell:
"FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression", published by Crown Forum, a conservative branch of Crown Publishing.
Those are the current top two sellers, I'm sure I can find a ton more, and very easily. So I do have a pretty good basis for my claim that New Deal revisionists are published largely by conservative publishing houses.
And we can be more optimistic about the current TARP spending, because it isn't a free for all frenzy for friends of the administration. There will be more accountability and transparency.
The only way to increase blue collar spending is through tax cuts that have an incredible short life span as a stimulus. The only people that think tax cuts are the best solution are the Republicans that got us into this mess in the first place. Time to do something different.
And are you insinuating that infrastructure projects don't provide economic stimulus? Because, if so, then this conversation is over. I'd prefer to deal in reality.
There is a significant difference between the terms 'largely' and 'solely'. Your original claim was that ALL books questioning the effectiveness of the New Deal policies were SOLELY produced by right-wing publishing houses. If you are going to change the strength of your claim, at least admit your error.
Ah yes, 'accountability and transparency'. Such wonderful buzz-words. The Bush administration did an excellent job of crushing our faith in government accountability. Unfortunately, Obama has chosen to give us more of the same, with Geitner being given a waiver for his non-payment of social security taxes. What was that about preferential treatment for 'friends of the administration'? Why the about-face on Daschel? Maybe the new administration realised that the public wouldn't stomach yet another example of 'one rule for the government, another for everyone else'.
Tax cuts are NOT the only way to get blue collar workers spending - especially if they are not earning enough to pay taxes. That is why unemployment payments are likely to do more to stimulate spending, which will spur companies to increase production, hire more workers etc. Tax cuts, when not accompanied by cuts in government spending, do more harm than good.
I did not 'insinuate' that infrastructure project provide NO economic stimulus, rather that they provide less 'bang for the buck' than other uses of our money.
If you wish this conversation to be over, so be it. I was getting the impression that you were running out of steam - it must suck when someone fails to join you in a partisan mud-flinging contest!
I too agree that benefits for unemployed do need to be extended and health insurace bnefits extended.
President Obama hs stated that tax cuts would do nothing, he insured that with the whopping $13 tax cut to workers! That will do nothing for the economy for sure. Cutting ALL payroll taxes would do something, but he is not taking any chances on that.
The effect of "infrastructure" projects will depend oh how many environmental lawsuits are filed to delay or stop them.
Then of course we have to figure how many jobs will be lost due to such things as protecting the Pelosi Swamp Rat. I believe we are going to lose more than we gain.
And if you were so aware of my "mistake", possibly you saw the "Now" that headed up my statement. My intention was to point out that the current crop of revisionist titles that attempt to cast aspersions on the New Deal are the ones that are being funded and published by conservatives.
As well, your statement "Tax cuts, when not accompanied by cuts in government spending, do more harm than good." only applies to the beginning of a recession, or indications of a possible recession.
And I see you don't understand the Geitner issue any more than Rush Limbaugh or any of the other Republican criers. Geitner was working for three different employers at the time, and made a mistake due to the complexity of the tax code for his specific situation.
Daschel, on the other hand, appears to have actually been trying to avoid paying taxes on services rendered. Apples to oranges, two different situations that have nothing to do with each other.
So are you aware that the current stimulus bill has a large portion dedicated to unemployment benefits on top of tax cuts and that those two things are just the beginning of a much more complex stimulus package that spans across 4 fiscal years?
For evidence in support of my claim about 'bang for the buck', a report from the Congressional Budget Office says:
“Practically speaking, however, public works involve long start-up lags...Large-scale construction projects of any type require years of planning and preparation. Even those that are ‘on the shelf’ generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy.”
As for you use of "Now", it was after your claim that Friedman had spearheaded the 'revisionist' trend. Since he was published by a non-right-wing conservative company, your reference to current works is superfluous - your argument was that anyone questioning the effectiveness of the New Deal was by definition a revisionist, evidenced by their works only being published by right wing companies. Since Friedman questioned the effectiveness of the New Deal, and was not published by a right wing company, he is an effective counter-example to your assertion. Since you then modified your assertion, I merely asked that you own your error.
Evidence, please, of your assertion that deficit-worsening tax-cuts only do more harm than good at the beginning of a recession.
To your Geithner comment - is it even a possibility that you can propose an actual argument rather than resort to name-calling? Anyway, while working at the International Monetary Fund, Geithner was audited in 2006 and found that he failed to play self-employment tax in 2003 and ‘04. He immediately paid those taxes but did not go back to check his 2001 and ‘02 returns, in which he had also not paid the self-employment tax. He would have to be far too ignorant to be given the job of Treasury Secretary to not realise that he would owe taxes for the prior years, yet he did not pay those back taxes until confronted by President Obama’s vetting team last year. Apples and Oranges, yes, but they are still fruit; knowingly not paying your taxes is still not paying your taxes. But it seems such similarities are ignored by apologists (or is that revisionists?) such as yourself, Jay. If you are going attempt to ride the moral high-road, be prepared to accept that even members of the current administration are falible.
Duh, yeah I'm aware of the enhanced unemployment benefits contained in the bill. Pay attention, Jay. My discourse the whole time has been concerned with the debt this bill will put us in, the we high inflation and higher unemployment it will cause, and the likelyhood that it will make us worse off rather than better off. Putting a teaspoon of sugar on a pile of manure doesn't make it more palatable.
Check this out:Economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey, while still mostly projecting growth in U.S. gross domestic product by the third quarter, largely agree that a second-half recovery is looking much less likely now than it did a few months ago. Recent data showing just how sharply growth in the U.S. and abroad has declined in the final months of 2008 have cast a deepening shadow over 2009.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123445757254678091.html?mod=djemalertNEWS
Although our culture expects microwave-quick results, the economy wont respond immediately after the gomt pushes a few buttons.
In regards to your ongoing FDR discussion, please note that from 1933 to 1937 the US economy grew at an average rate of 9% before he tried to reign in gomt spending, arguably leading to a 2 year recession. I believe that growth rate is the fastest in US history. Also one could argue that at the macroeconomic level WWII spending was one massive gomt directed spending program.
"knowingly not paying your taxes is still not paying your taxes"
Knowingly? You can prove intent, eh? Evidently you're much better at this than all of the Republicans that sat in on his confirmation. Maybe you shouldn't be mad at Geitner, but mad at the Republicans that don't recognize your expertise on intent.
My quote: "Now books claiming that the New Deal had only a negative effect are a dime a dozen and are published solely by right-wing publishing houses." is the first place that I mentioned publishers, and I stand by this quote, completely.
As for deficit causing tax cuts doing more harm: 7 years of Bush tax cuts that did nothing except reward businesses and reduce revenue, leading us right up to a strongly weakened dollar and a housing bubble explosion. That they are interdependent is logical, especially when that is the data that all of the economists that predicted this recession used. Now we're in a completely different situation that will require government spending to give a boost. Unfortunately it means debt, but it also means increased revenues to the government.
As for books questioning the New Deal: Jim Powell's book, 'FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression ' is published by Three Rivers Press, owned by Random House, which also publishes The New York Review of Books. A right-wing publishing house?!
I have no where attempted to defend the economic policies of the Bush administration. As I wrote earlier, it did a great job of crushing our faith in government accountability. It also did a great job of increasing public debt and, through mismanagement of the various government agencies overseeing the market, facilitated the housing boom (which I also referenced earlier). I have also said that government spending of our money is necessary, my concern is with the way they propose to do it. So, Jay, please pay attention.
And I'm saying that the Bush years provide enough evidence that tax cuts are not the way to stimulate an economy. I could go back and point to Reagan as providing more evidence, if you'd like. Voodoo Economics doesn't work.
"The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault"
"The Church of Liberalism Godless 1st Edition 2006 Crown Forum"
"Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics"
"Bully Boy: The Truth About Theodore Roosevelt's Legacy"
"War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror"
Why do you feel the need to embarrass yourself at such regular intervals, Marion?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1253.cfm
Marion believes that every time the weather dips below 32 degrees at her home in Cody that global warming is disproved. Search her comments in the archives if you don't believe me.
It is no use arguing with her. the fact that she is running with that "mice" story that was debunked 2 seconds after the RNC sent out the press release to Rush, Hannity, and Fox is further proof. Statistics are right over her head, as are most multiple syllable words. Everyone here knows she is a troll, so it is best to ignore her.
Sounds familiar, kinda like when you suggested that most economists believe FDR’s policies helped to alleviate the great depression and I served you up over 200 economists that think that you and the stimulus are full of beans.
http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality
Very persuasive Jay LOL.
Yep, those are the people we should all be listening to. Thanks Max! You're super.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9976/hr1aspassed.pdf
Let me guess…..The CBO, also a right wing think tank HAHA!
Calm down dude, it’s going to pass, just go to sleep at night believing that most economists think this a good idea.
There is nothing there that says the Stimulus will harm the economy in the long run. A search of that document doesn't even contain the word "harmed". That level of analysis appears to have been added by republican analysts later.
If you're going to try to get the best of me, maybe you should try doing some work instead of making lame assumptions.
If you can actually link to an actual representative of the CBO making that statement, I'll apologize. Otherwise, you're no better than Marion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/earmark-less-bill-gives-pelosis-mouse-cookie/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/pelosis-mouse-explained-w_n_166442.html
Marion = troll.
"There are no earmarks in this bill. There is no earmark for rats in San Francisco. There is money that goes to the EPA and the Department of the Interior for cleanup of wetlands and maintaining of wetlands and apparently this is on a list of ready-to-go projects but it, like many others, must compete within the departments for that money. It is not a specific earmark within the bill," he said. "That trivializes this bill."
“CBO estimates that the legislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency’s baseline forecast of between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009, between 1.1 percent and 3.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010, between 0.4 percent and 1.3 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011, and declining amounts in later years (see Table 1).”
Look at table 1 man, by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3
“relative to the agency’s baseline forecast” that means having done nothing at all.
Is that broken down Barney style enough?
Lincoln, the first Republican president, had great feeling for the suffering in our population during the Civil War. No numbers the CBO project includes such considerations.
I would like to see the CBO do a pessimistic estimate worst case if-nothing-is-done scenario -- standing on supply side, trickle down theory which turned out to be not much more than a smoke screen for greed and transfer of wealth to the already wealthy. 400 US families, all worth billions, now control more wealth than all of the families in the lower 50%.
During Reaganomics' first ten years there was a need to return more balance to the economy but since then economic fairness has slumped to a level not seen since the 1920's. Check out the Gini coefficient (an indication of fairness) here to see where the US ranks as calculated by the CIA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Reality: President Kennedy was right: A rising tide does lift all boats. Data from the Bureau of the Census show that earnings for all income classes tend to rise and fall in unison. In other words, economic policy either generates positive results, in which case all income classes benefit, or causes stagnation and decline, in which case all groups suffer. As Chart 11 illustrates, the high tax policies of the late 1970s and early 1990s are associated with weak economic performance, while the low tax rates of the 1980s are correlated with rising incomes for all quintiles.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1253.cfm
A fairness indicator?? Nice Wikipedia refrence BRR, I think that might be one rung above Huffington.
I have never heard of anything more un-American, I would prefer the government NOT dictate what is and isn’t fair. Lincoln is rolling in his grave.
Pretty incongruous to see someone demean Wikipedia who cites Cato and Heritage reports. In its Gini article, Wiki aggregated several sources, including this primary source:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
Since the government installed a particularly unfair economic model over the past 25 years, it is responsible to return to a balance in which all can prosper.
But I would argue that it is far more incongruous is to mention Lincoln birthday while at the same time celebrating income redistribution, Hitler would be more appropriate.
"Hitler never delivered a more ominous speech or one more cunningly calculated to befuddle his opponents and create dissension in democracies. The speech boils down to a declaration of intention to reapportion the distribution of the world's wealth among nations." Time Feb. 13, 1939
As for "a rising tide lifts all boats", perhaps the plethora of articles stating how the disparity in the American classes has grown since 2001 might be a pretty good indication that that little meme is full of the same stuff that makes up the Cato Inst. and Heritage.
And I love the "wealth distribution"! Want to call everyone socialists and communists next? When will you be Godwin'ing this thread? Maybe if I hadn't mentioned it I could have started a poll on when you would get around to it.
By the way, in case you were too allergic to that Huffington post and didn't actually read it? It basically pointed out how Marion was lying about the Pelosi swamp rat. Not that she cares, because she's out there working on the next series of lies so she can ignore all of the ones that she's been caught at already.
Also, Max, you might want to stop acting like Marion. Neither of you are showing the intelligence or the maturity to actually be discussing matters that are far too complex for you.
Everyone can go home now, Max ruined it for all.
Please tell me the Huffington Post is your scholarly answer to Cato and Heritage.
You’re right I’m going home for now, I think my work is done here.
Andy, I don't deal well with the ignorant or the liars that have populated these forums for far too long. People like Marion that come in and won't admit they make far too many mistakes to have any credibility. People like Max that throw out Heritage Foundation misinformation as if it were fact.
Both Max and Marion have bad history with me, and I won't tolerate the fools or their lies.
That is also true of all of the things we use everyday, including our computers.
If you think trickle up economics are teh way to go, you must be livid at the whopping $13. tax relief for working folks in the so called stimulus package and that only for a few weeks.
Can you lsit the boost to the economy and the jobs that will be created by protecting the Pelosi rat?
Please prove you have the least bit of intelligence.
And no, debating civilly doesn't apply to you. As I explained, I don't tolerate fools. In your case, I also don't tolerate trolls.
The Laffer Curve, from which you fools think all knowledge derives, is a joke.
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/01/27/the-new-laffer-curve-logic/
But please, Marion, continue lying about Pelosi's rat, but realize that it just makes it that much easier to make fun of you.
"If you think trickle up economics are teh way to go, you must be livid at the whopping $13. tax relief for working folks in the so called stimulus package and that only for a few weeks."
Wow, the stupid just rolls off that quote, doesn't it? How many facts did you get wrong just in that little bit? I'll let you do the research, I'm tired of doing it for you.
Instead, how about you just admit that you were incredibly wrong about the CBO report and go away?
I thank you for the Laffer curve link ... it's in my ref library.
Can someone clue me on what Godwin'ed means?
Boise Rabble Rouser
Wall Street Journal
Godwin's law basically states that as an argument in Internet comments goes on, the chances that someone compares another person to a Nazi approximate 100%.
I think there should be a corollary that anytime you argue politics with a right winger, the chances of getting called a socialist or communist are basically 100%. I think that is what Jay is saying as well.
Thanks... much truth there. I notice that taking a centrist or even slightly left of right position is prima facie socialism and sometimes communism. I guess it's more socially acceptable to be called a socialist than communist.