Senate Kabuki Dance
The posturing on the Stimulus by Republicans is such a Kabuki dance. The MSM has underestimated Barack's political prowess from the beginning. I looked back at a post I wrote on June 4th when the Clintonistas were hanging on by a thread but still saying Barack had to pick Hillary as VP to survive. The media totally bought in to that narrative.
I think our President is handling the Republicans like a virtuoso. The chances that they would filibuster the Recovery Act, after tomorrow's unemployment numbers are announced, are close to zero. Collins, Snowe and probably Spector will vote with the Democrats tomorrow night to approve the bill. It will then go into conference committee, where Peter Orzag will run the ship, and emerge for a vote by Thursday. The final bill will pass both houses with a small number of Republicans. We can all celebrate on President's day and then get on with the next issues.
A few highlights of the House bill . . .
$275 bn in tax cuts
$142 bn for education ($250 mn to fund systems to monitor student academic performance; $200 for teacher incentive funds; $100 mn for teacher quality enhancement grants)
$90 bn for transportation, plus $30 bn highway infrastructure investment ($1 bn for light rail and commuter systems)
$79 bn for state fiscal stabilization (Feds borrow so States don’t have to)
$54 bn for energy efficiency and substitution
$20 bn for unemployment benefits and food stamps
$16 bn for science and research
$6.1 for healthcare
$3 bn for crime fighting . . . that sure will stimulate the economy!
$1 bn for the 2010 census . . . but, funds have to be used in 120 days.
And, my favorite: $200 mn for LUST enforcement (leaking underground storage tanks)
February 6, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's about jobs creation, DOR, and about getting these dollars into circulation.
And so your point here is what, exactly?
February 6, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's my point? Most of the education spending (and I'm very big on education spending) isn't going to create a single job. Ditto for the crime fighting (well, maybe a few cops).
That's my point.
February 6, 2009 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
DOR:
Your "points" only reference less than 4% of the amount earmarked for education. And, of that 4% - almost half - "systems to monitor student academic performance" have to be designed and implemented (I assume by people) therefore creating new JOBS, or at least contracting out for those services, creating JOBS in the private sector.
So, just what is your point?
February 6, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
February 6, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it a stimulus to business or to the economy?
February 6, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Business IS the economy.
February 6, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. Consumers are the economy. "Business" is an amorphous construct devoid of any real meaning.
February 6, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? So if you have a couple hundred people standing around in a parking lot that's an economy? (Snicker)
February 6, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, it is... just as soon as one reaches into his pocket and pulls out some crack to sell.
Or one barters with another to gain his help in carrying a couch out to the curb at home.
My point here is that kgb999 is right. An economy happens wherever two or more people (consumers and sellers) come together. But business doesn't happen at all in the absence of consumers.
February 6, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is absolutely true. And no buyers, means no sellers. Or, is it no sellers, means no buyers? Oh well no matter. Stiff business and subsidize buyers, and everything will be peachy.
February 6, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
maybe its a Sears parking lot and they're waiting for the store to open so they can buy goods.
OR, maybe they're waiting for a factory to open so they can apply for some of the jobs that the stimulus created.
heh heh
February 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stimulus is also designed to keep jobs. A good portion of the education funding is designated to keep teachers from being laid off.
And in rural areas like where I live, schools are often the largest employer. So school lay-offs have major consequences.
Trust me, I know. I serve on my local school board, and we're already laying off staff.
February 6, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Shooty's point is that to be "stimulative" and not just "spent," the money should produce business-like entities that--once they are seeded by the government-- can become self sustaining, revenue producing entities that don't need continue to need an influx of federal dollars to continue to produce jobs.
This is not a bad point. The NYTimes ran an article on Japan this morning that makes this point: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html?th&emc=th
Frankly, given the way our school systems are currently set up, if my school distict has a funding shortfall, I expect them to over rule the local Republicans and raise my property taxes. If NYC has a shortfall, I expect them to raise Mayor Bloomberg's.
To counter Shooty's point, I just think that we have no real great ideas for revenue producing, self sustaining businesses seeded by government. People liked the green revolution for that reason, but I don't hear that much about it these days, which doesn't surprise me because I don't think it's really here yet.
February 6, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Self sustaining is a perfect description. Well done there.
It's also true that Government isn't equipped to come up with that, very few people are. In addition people that can are usually the very same people the left hates, successful businessmen.
Eliminate capital gains taxes and stand back. That would do the trick and for no implementation costs. A partial reduction worked very well for Clinton, and balanced the budget as well.
February 6, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "left," or at least this "lefty," doesn't hate successful businessmen (or businesswomen).
What I do dislike is those who get their "success" by non-productive speculation Enron style, manipulation of financial markets and/or exploitation of workers and the environment who employ long term destructive policies in the pursuit of short term profits.
As for eliminating the capital gains tax, surely you jest. Lowering capital gains - to a point where they were still higher than today, was not what balanced the Clinton budget. Raising taxes on upper incomes did. And, remember no Republican voted for it. They claimed it would cause a depression. I guess they were wrong, again.
February 6, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 6, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
how can raising taxes on the top 5% be bad?
February 6, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well John, maybe you're right. In fact let's go for the top 10%. That's about where the cut off is for the the top tax bracket of $373,000/house. That's where 35% kicks in.
It's safe to say that this will be left reset at 39.6%, and that the SS cap will be abolished, adding 6.2%. Then there is medicare for 1.45%, And state income tax (California) of 9.3%. So at $373,000 of taxable income one owes 56.5 % of the rest to the Feds. Property and Sales taxes could account for another 5%, yes?
So at some point Government gets 62.5% of what is earned, leaving the taxpayer with 37.5%. I'm sure you think that's fair, after all anyone earning that much surely doesn't deserve it. Heh.
John, you're not going to believe anything I tell you, so I say go ahead and beat the rich up. Tax them till they howl. Make them part with that filthy lucre, and let's see what happens. It's your show now, do your worst.
February 6, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You all need to see Obama talking to the dems on Cspan. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?ProgramId=HP-A-40550
If the link doesn't work, Josh has a link that does on the front page of TPM. This is what needs to get out to MSM.
So, DOR, all those taxs cuts for the last 8 years worked real well didn't they. Think about people keeping jobs. Ask your state reps what kind of money they have for state services, state employees, state universities in the next year and what thier projected revenues are. This isn't pertty, I agree the fed and most state govs could be trimmed, that is trimmed not eliminated.
February 6, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Naked Elephants doing a Kabuki Dance? Struggling with bubbles of their own creation? If this image doesn't expose the lack of positive on the part of the G. O. P. (Grumpy Old Pachyderms??) I don't know what will.
http://www.firstanimationart.com/sitebuilder/images/FAN_Elephant_dance-421x356.jpg
February 6, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the Kabuki dance, I'm sure it will pass, but without real Republican support. And for good reason. This is a TRILLION dollars tossed down the gaping maw of bureaucratic need. It will do nothing for the economy and we will be worse off this time next year than we are today.
Sadly, this is one reason why I voted for Obama. Ever since the Clinton tax increase was linked to prosperity we've needed a real demonstration of the effects of liberal economic theory in a time of crisis. How many here know that Clinton also cut taxes just before the budget balanced? Not many I'll wager.
Lastly, let me leave you with the real question here.... When was the last time a poor person gave you a job?
February 6, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter asks:
shooter, now that's profound, a question for the ages.
February 6, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
scooter142, we have had a demonstration of the effects of tax cuts for the rich over the last 8 years, along with a demonstration of the effect of feeding a few trillion down the gaping maw of the bloody sands of Iraq.
We will paying for these mistakes and the fiasco called the Bush administration for many, many years to come.
February 6, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last thing Obama should be doing is betting his prestige on this POS "stimulus" bill.
He promised us middle-class tax cuts. Where are they?
Better he should take last year's $600/$1200 "rebates," multiply them by a factor of ten, and send us the checks.
February 6, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elloen,
aren't his middle class tax cuts separate from the stimulus?
First things first.
February 6, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got laid off two weeks ago. My wife works, and we have a decent amount of savings. If you gave me $12,000, you know what I'd do with it? I'd sock it away until I have my former level of income coming in. Stimulative effect: nil.
And this is exactly what would happen with millions of middle-class Americans. That money wouldn't be spent until we are in a 30's-Depression era situation, and by then it will be too late to have any stimulative effect.
This idea is the boondoggle to end all boondoggles. No wonder Republicans thought of it.
February 6, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where would you "sock it away"?
In the bank? And what would the bank do with it? Lend it times ten?
There's your "stimulative effect"!
P.S. Maybe if you had an extra $12,000 in that savings account, you'd feel more secure and -- take your wife dancing?
February 6, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lest anyone be mistaken, I am in favor of the stimulus package. I don't necessarily think it will work (i.e., achieve the objective of pulling the economy out of the worst post-war recession), but that's another issue.
Posting the break-down of some of the (House) spending proposals was aimed at generating some discussion about where the priorities should be, nothing more.
February 6, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink