- A million dollars in tightly bound $1,000 bills would produce a stack 4 inches high.
- A billion dollars in tightly bound $1,000 bills would produce a stack about 300 feet high.
- A trillion dollars in tightly bound $1,000 bills would produce a stack about sixty-three miles high.
Fiscal responsibility? No such thing.
In case you were wondering, Senate Republicans are putting out a history of this 'stimulus' package and how it grew. Take a look:
As The $827 Billion Spending Bill Continues To Grow, Taxpayers Remember When It Was A Much Smaller Proposal
$56 BILLION
POLITICO: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) today announced a $56.2 billion stimulus package." ("Second stimulus announced," Politico, 09/25/08)
$61 BILLION
CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY: "The House Friday passed a $60.8 billion economic stimulus package designed to pump money into infrastructure projects, unemployment insurance and Medicaid, but a similar measure failed to advance in the Senate." ("House Passes Stimulus Measure; Senate Proposal Fails," CQ, 09/26/08)
$100 BILLION
MCCLATCHY: "Washington is poised during the next 90 days to approve spending perhaps $100 billion to jolt the ailing economy." ("Can a $100 billion stimulus save a $14 trillion economy?," McClatchy, 11/09/08)
$150 BILLION
DENVER POST: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for a new $150 billion economic-stimulus package today and suggested Congress may need to act this year." ("Pelosi: New stimulus package needed," Denver Post, 10/08/08)
$200 BILLION
WASHINGTON TIMES: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Wednesday to hold a lame-duck session to pass a $200 billion economic-stimulus package likely to include rebates to middle-class taxpayers, despite recent failure to enact less ambitious plans and Republican charges it is a 'spending hike to exploit the nation's economic troubles.'" (" Lame-duck session eyed to OK stimulus," Washington Times, 10/16/08)
$300 BILLION
WASHINGTON POST: "With fears rising that the nation stands on the precipice of a prolonged recession, House Democrats are contemplating a huge infusion of public cash — as much as $300 billion — to stoke economic growth by creating public jobs and padding the wallets of struggling consumers." ("House Democrats Consider Large, New Economic Stimulus Package," Washington Post, 10/14/08)
$400 BILLION
THE NEW YORK TIMES: "The programs will be a part of a larger economic stimulus package whose outlines are faint but which is expected to cost $400 billion to $500 billion." ("Proposal Ties Economic Stimulus to Energy Plan," The New York Times, 12/04/08)
$500 BILLION
MCCLATCHY: "President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to a $500 billion economic-stimulus package that they want to move next month even before Obama takes office." ("Obama, Democrats Agree to $500 Billion Stimulus Package," McClatchy, 12/13/08)
$600 BILLION
POLITICO: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has increased the size of the economic stimulus package she will support when Congress reconvenes next month, saying it will need to be $500 billion to $600 billion." ("Pelosi sees bigger, greener stimulus," Politico, 12/12/08)
$700 BILLION
WASHINGTON POST: "Facing an increasingly ominous economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama and other Democrats are rapidly ratcheting up plans for a massive fiscal stimulus program that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years." ("Democrats' Stimulus Plan May Reach $700 Billion," Washington Post, 11/24/08)
$775 BILLION
WALL STREET JOURNAL: "President-elect Barack Obama's economic team is crafting a stimulus package to send to Congress worth between $675 billion and $775 billion over two years, according to officials familiar with the package..." ("Stimulus Package Heads Toward $850 Billion," The Wall Street Journal, 12/19/09)
$800 BILLION
THE NEW YORK TIMES: "Ask just about anyone in Washington involved in the $800-billion-plus economic stimulus legislation churning its way through Congress and they will tell you it is a milestone — but without question the less expensive, and politically and technically less chancy, part of the Great National Bailout of 2009." ("Spending More Than $800 Billion Is the Easy Part," The New York Times, 02/08/09)
This is a Democrat-led government in action. Of course, there are projections that show the final price tag as being close to $1.2 trillion if you consider the amount of interest that will have to be paid back, too.
If you look at the sum total of the bailouts that Congress has done, it comes to almost $10 trillion:
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.
Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. Recipients' names have not been disclosed.
"We've seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country," Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. "Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?"
That's what the American people want to know, Senator! Why are you and your fellow Democrats hiding the truth??In the meantime, 48% of Americans think that further government spending will hurt the economy (only 35% think it'll help). A full 62% of Americans now want tax cuts rather than increased spending to help the economy.
Some new details are coming out on yet another ugly portion of the Theft/Pork bill: $50 billion for mortgage adjustments. Michelle Malkin:
Yes, you read that correctly. $50 billion more of your money made available to tax cheat/bailout failout architect Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to force banks to do loan modifications with homeowners deep under water on their mortgages. That's in addition to the $20 billion already allocated by the House last month for the same purposes.
Banks have been engaged in these "mo mod" programs over the past year. The Democrats want to accelerate the pace and use the power of government to essentially provide a blanket amnesty for borrowers and lenders who made bad financial decisions. Yes, I know there are many responsible borrowers out there having trouble negotiating loan modifications. I've heard from some of you. But this $50 billion giveaway to the banks — the brainchild of unscrupulous borrower Chris Dodd - is exactly the wrong way to go.
As I've said before: If you give bad loan risks more money, you will get the same result.
Where's the fairness in forcing prudent homeowners and renters to subsidize people who bought overpriced houses and the banks who lent to them?!
Repeat after me: Housing is not an entitlement. Credit is not an entitlement. Stop artificially propping up the housing market.
That's why Obama is still out there on campaign-style trips to beat the drum of doom-and-gloom if it doesn't pass. The only tool the Left has now to ram this thing through is panic. Unfortunately, the American people are wise to them and clearly don't want this bill, but Congress is apparently deaf to their own constituents since they are going to pass this beast anyway (in the name of 'doing something' to avert the 'panic').
Well, here's what that 'something' includes:
* $2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
* $39 billion slush fund for "state fiscal stabilization" bailout
* $5.5 billion for making federal buildings "green" (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
* $200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
* $275 million for flood prevention
* $65 million for watershed rehabilitation
* $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
* $650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
* $307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
* $1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
* $100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
* $300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
* $800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
* $10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
* $1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for "science" at NASA)
* $100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
* $10 million for urban canals
* $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
* $1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
* $300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
* $198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
* $255 million for "priority procurements" at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
* $500 million for State and local fire stations
* $180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
* $500 million for wildland fire management
* $110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* $522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
* $650 million for abandoned mine sites
* $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
* $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
* $412 million for CDC headquarters
* $500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
* $160 million for "volunteers" at the Corp. for National and Community Service
* $750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
* $224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
* $850 million for Amtrak
* $100 million for lead paint hazard reduction
And guess what? That's a partial listing of the stuff that's in the compromise amendment. Yeah, that's right, the very same compromise amendment that those sell-out Republican Senators demanded in order to 'shave some pork' out of this bill.
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world, and the maddest hatters of all are in the U.S. Senate. God help us.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment