2009 Stimulus Plan

[joerockhead]

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.
In Today's Opinion Journal


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."

Yup, great plan. :rolleyes:

The only real change we will see from President Obama, is the CHange in our pockets. And not bills.

[zpr]

Maybe I should have waited a few more years to become successful. I'd quit my job and suck up some benefits but I'm a "white male construction worker" (support construction anyway).

[fmb]

I'm hoping the idiots in Washington attempt to create somthing useful; however, I don't really believe this will happen. Although this spending bill seems wasteful, I can't help but harken back to the original bill passed just a month or so back. Originally, the bill was for around 350 billion dollars and totaled three sheets of paper. After the politicians got through with the proposal, it was for about 800 billion and took over 500 pages to hold all the detail.

Pork is government. Government is pork.

[Krasch]

Ok, joerockhead, I can't say I'm surprised at any of that, assuming it's accurate (and I am)

The hard-left Dems who have had a stranglehold on the party since 1964 live for this sort of thing, even if Obama doesn't (which is still up in the air AFAIC)

Might you have a link to the source for that quote?

[CD]

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.

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?
I don't agree with probably a whole lot of the bailout, but I want to go into detail on these 3 paragraphs...

1) Amtrak. There are a lot of government programs that don't make a profit. Sometimes they are there for a reason. Take the US Postal Service. You know they are losing $6 billion a year. There is talk of them cutting out Saturday service cause it could save $1.9 billion a year. So do we cut all programs that don't pull a profit, or was this just to rally a certain segment of the population to shoot the bill down?

2) What do you tell a Mother currently on unemployment, trying to find a job, to do about her 2 kids? Child care is expensive, and a friend of mine is going through this as we speak. She is going to lose her house, but during these tough times, I really don't think the kids should suffer, when a Mother (or Father) has to decide between 2 impossible choices.

3) No argument about the digital to analog boxes. If you didn't know last year that you needed one, you maybe shouldn't be living outside the old folks home. Besides, those frequencies have already been promised to researchers and other areas that will now be losing money because of the additional delay.

4) Fixing bridges and highways is one of the best things we can do as a country. I've said it numerous times in the past, that infrastructure is the best thing a country can do to help itself out in bad financial times. Too bad nobody wants to pay for those fixes or improvements until one collapses. I, however, am all for part of the money to go for this.

5) Electric grid development is a must! We as a country should not still have power lines above ground. Too many people can die when blizzards knock out power and kill the heat. Not only that, but the cost savings in the long run are hard to ignore. Hell, at the very least it saves trees! And we'll need those trees as our air quality goes to shit.

6) We should be putting money into renewable energy. Why in hell should we as a country not try to capitalize on an energy source that is not finite? I'm sure Exxon would try to argue with me, but looking forward to a time when we aren't putting gasoline into our cars should be a BIG priority. Not only that, but it would also keep a LOT of the money in this country from leaving.

7) During these times of financial crisis, we definitely need good management... but as I said earlier, there are services provided that aren't supposed to pull a profit. Yes, I'd like to see a great streamlined service, but to say that they are run by incompetent management that votes liberal, is more of a knee-jerk reaction then a statement of truth.

[Krasch]

I don't agree with probably a whole lot of the bailout, but I want to go into detail on these 3 paragraphs...

1) Amtrak. There are a lot of government programs that don't make a profit. Sometimes they are there for a reason. Take the US Postal Service. You know they are losing $6 billion a year. There is talk of them cutting out Saturday service cause it could save $1.9 billion a year. So do we cut all programs that don't pull a profit, or was this just to rally a certain segment of the population to shoot the bill down?

2) What do you tell a Mother currently on unemployment, trying to find a job, to do about her 2 kids? Child care is expensive, and a friend of mine is going through this as we speak. She is going to lose her house, but during these tough times, I really don't think the kids should suffer, when a Mother (or Father) has to decide between 2 impossible choices.

3) No argument about the digital to analog boxes. If you didn't know last year that you needed one, you maybe shouldn't be living outside the old folks home. Besides, those frequencies have already been promised to researchers and other areas that will now be losing money because of the additional delay.

4) Fixing bridges and highways is one of the best things we can do as a country. I've said it numerous times in the past, that infrastructure is the best thing a country can do to help itself out in bad financial times. Too bad nobody wants to pay for those fixes or improvements until one collapses. I, however, am all for part of the money to go for this.

5) Electric grid development is a must! We as a country should not still have power lines above ground. Too many people can die when blizzards knock out power and kill the heat. Not only that, but the cost savings in the long run are hard to ignore. Hell, at the very least it saves trees! And we'll need those trees as our air quality goes to shit.

6) We should be putting money into renewable energy. Why in hell should we as a country not try to capitalize on an energy source that is not finite? I'm sure Exxon would try to argue with me, but looking forward to a time when we aren't putting gasoline into our cars should be a BIG priority. Not only that, but it would also keep a LOT of the money in this country from leaving.

7) During these times of financial crisis, we definitely need good management... but as I said earlier, there are services provided that aren't supposed to pull a profit. Yes, I'd like to see a great streamlined service, but to say that they are run by incompetent management that votes liberal, is more of a knee-jerk reaction then a statement of truth.
I'll definitely agre with #3 to #6, and maybe even #7 too.

Regarding #1, What does $1 billion going to Amtrak have to do with job stimulus, likewise for the monies going to the NEA, and global warming research? That's a hell of a lot of money going toward stuff that at least at first glance has squat to do with creating jobs.

Number #2 doesn't seem to have a lot to do with job creation either, but it's only $2 billion, it will mostly help poor Americans, and it WILL likely end up at least going into the economy.

[CD]

I'll definitely agre with #3 to #6, and maybe even #7 too.

Regarding #1, What does $1 billion going to Amtrak have to do with job stimulus, likewise for the monies going to the NEA, and global warming research? That's a hell of a lot of money going toward stuff that at least at first glance has squat to do with creating jobs.

Number #2 doesn't seem to have a lot to do with job creation either, but it's only $2 billion, it will mostly help poor Americans, and it WILL likely end up at least going into the economy.
Hmm...
#1 My guess would be to look into seeing if Amtrak does more then just commuter travel. You also have mass transit picking up in bad financial times, so I might guess that if it went away, it would cause a lot of problems. I don't know for sure though... just taking a guess. Global warming research shouldn't get any more money then they currently get. So I don't agree with putting more money into it.

#2 Sometimes an indirect help such as child care assistance will allow other areas to pick up and help the economy. I have no doubt that this will help, especially when I know a few people that are hurting in this area right now. You can't move forward as a country when one area is being held back... it's like the weakest link in a chain theory.

[joerockhead]

CD, my problem is that they call this the "STIMULUS" package.

I have little problem with the spending as a "SPENDING" bill, but the Stimulus part is small.

Yes, those programs need to be funded, even Amtrak. I would not mind if Congress did it right and made a stimulus package, and then made a spending bill. Different ones! Yes, the spending bill would be high, but look at how a lot of the money is spent anyway.

And the current Stimulus plan is lame! I am more upset with our crappy Congress then the President.
They are driving us deeper into the whole then President Obama is, at lest right now.
Of course, President Obama did say "I win!" after the bill was passed.

I really really look forward to my taxes going up later this year. Yippeeee. NOT!

[Krasch]

CD, my problem is that they call this the "STIMULUS" package.

I have little problem with the spending as a "SPENDING" bill, but the Stimulus part is small.

Yes, those programs need to be funded, even Amtrak. I would not mind if Congress did it right and made a stimulus package, and then made a spending bill. Different ones! Yes, the spending bill would be high, but look at how a lot of the money is spent anyway.

And the current Stimulus plan is lame! I am more upset with our crappy Congress then the President.
They are driving us deeper into the whole then President Obama is, at lest right now.
Of course, President Obama did say "I win!" after the bill was passed.

I really really look forward to my taxes going up later this year. Yippeeee. NOT!
As a foreign observer, I have to agree. Obama is at least ostensibly trying to bridge the gap across the isle, but the Dems in Congress aren't even going that far.

What they forget is that although they may be on top now, what goes around comes around and they will inevitably be on the receiving end for their current childish actions.

I imagiine most Americans are tired of partisan politics and will not look kindly on crap like this come next election.

[SC/TGrandAm]

http://stimuluswatch.org/
http://www.readthestimulus.org/

$99,600.00 for doorbells
$600,000,000.00 for an afro-american trail
$500,000.00 for a dog park

fuck obama and the democunts.


Oh and the largest one is $17,500,000,000.00 spent some place in Puerto Rico.
17 Billion spent outside the US. Seriously, this is fucking bullshit. Then he's going to bump your taxes up to fund this bullshit. Next thing he will be taking all your tax dollars and giving handouts to every ghetto nigger that refuses to work in america.

[93crawler]

off topic

[kulotsalot]

As a foreign observer, I have to agree. Obama is at least ostensibly trying to bridge the gap across the isle, but the Dems in Congress aren't even going that far.

What they forget is that although they may be on top now, what goes around comes around and they will inevitably be on the receiving end for their current childish actions.

I imagiine most Americans are tired of partisan politics and will not look kindly on crap like this come next election.

Apparently the stimulus stuff in Harper's budget isn't that great, either. Or at least the $ value of the tax cuts etc. don't amount to that much.

ETA What is the part of it that went to Puerto Rico? What was it for?

[Juan.Camaney]

Although we appreciate heated debate, please try to keep it somewhat civil. Also, please leave the modding to the mods. Every post should contribute to the main topic or to a reply and try to keep it on the same topic.

[Krasch]

Apparently the stimulus stuff in Harper's budget isn't that great, either. Or at least the $ value of the tax cuts etc. don't amount to that much.

ETA What is the part of it that went to Puerto Rico? What was it for?
Perhaps so, but remember our toal budget and population are but a small fraction of the USA's, and our economic outlook not nearly as crappy.

(1. Because our mortgage lending requirements are far more stringent, and 2. because we didn't engage in the dodgy ninja loan shenanigans that precipitated the credit and housing crises.)

It therefore stands to reason that Canada would take (and reasonably be able to) a more measured approach to any stimulus deals.

[ravenshrike]

Perhaps so, but remember our toal budget and population are but a small fraction of the USA's, and our economic outlook not nearly as crappy.

(1. Because our mortgage lending requirements are far more stringent, and 2. because we didn't engage in the dodgy ninja loan shenanigans that precipitated the credit and housing crises.)

It therefore stands to reason that Canada would take (and reasonably be able to) a more measured approach to any stimulus deals.
Don't forget 3. The growth and demand for low-income housing that started this mess both in the US and Britain never really occurred in Canada, so there was never a push to make dodgy loans in the first place.

[Krasch]

Don't forget 3. The growth and demand for low-income housing that started this mess both in the US and Britain never really occurred in Canada, so there was never a push to make dodgy loans in the first place.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, yes and no.

Maybe not so much in rural areas, but go to the big cities, especially like around Toronto, and there was and is still a huge demand for low income housing. Mostly because the condo builders have been going hells bells in the area for a while using a huge share of available land, partly because few want that low-incone housing in THEIR backyard killing their property value.

They want there to be more housing for low-income people, but not where THEY live.

The stringent mortgage lending requirements are the primary reason we're not in that mess.

[ravenshrike]

Oh there's demand, but the expansion was much, much less. And while there may be general housing expansion, how much expansion was there of low-income single family homes(not condos or apartments, which for the most part are not the issue)? What killed the US markets was the initial massive rush to get everybody to own the white picket fence ideal(I'm unsure how much this is enshrined in the Canadian psyche), and then the upgrade mentality that entered the picture after the mess started to grow, leading to the housing price bubble and subsequent lending crash ofter the housing bubble burst.

[Krasch]

Oh there's demand, but the expansion was much, much less. And while there may be general housing expansion, how much expansion was there of low-income single family homes(not condos or apartments, which for the most part are not the issue)? What killed the US markets was the initial massive rush to get everybody to own the white picket fence ideal(I'm unsure how much this is enshrined in the Canadian psyche), and then the upgrade mentality that entered the picture after the mess started to grow, leading to the housing price bubble and subsequent lending crash ofter the housing bubble burst.
Perhaps it's just a local thing, but there's demand for low-income family homes. In fact, that's maybe the sole market where there is still a decent amount of movement (although still hambered by the credit crunch).

That said, every time you turn around you'd see yet another new luxury condo development, or huge townhouse development and with Toronto's housing prices, that's not low-income.

That also being said, we just sold our condo for a relative bargin of just under $200k (mind you it was by far the highest sale price for any unit at that point, and since the market did the plunge a few weeks later, nobody is getting near that now) so suffice it to say we got pretty well versed in what's in demand and what's selling in Toronto these days.

I also have relatives who work for financial institutions, so I can tell you prety definitively it's the more stringent mortgage requirements and higher regulatory controls that were the primary reason we're not doing as bad as the US. A person here couldn't get a ninja loan for all the maple syrup in Quebec unless he went to one of them money lender places that charge rates close to usury.