Barack Obama is calling for Republicans to not let politics get in the way of passing this urgent 'stimulus' legislation. That's a joke - as has been well documented on this blog already, this is not a 'stimulus' so much as a partisan Democrat wish list fulfillment bill. You'll see even more evidence of that in a moment. Obama is also saying that economists have a consensus that this needs to happen, but that's not true, either:
Ironically, France -- a genuinely socialist country -- just rejected a bill that wasn't nearly as bad as what Obama is proposing for America. That's a bad sign!People like Robert Reich, who try to back up the claims of President Obama and Vice President Biden that "economic advisers across the political spectrum support Obama's plan," have managed to come up with two names of economists who support the stimulus plan and would not be regarded as left of center: Martin Feldstein of Harvard, a former top economic adviser to President Reagan, and Mark Zandi of Moody's, who was an adviser to John McCain last fall. And now the Washington Post has blown both of those names out of the water. Leaving — by my count — exactly zero libertarian or conservative economists on that much-touted spectrum. As the Post notes this morning:
Democrats lost Feldstein on Thursday when the Harvard professor published a Washington Post op-ed declaring the House bill "an $800 billion mistake" laden with ineffective provisions.
...Post reporter Shailagh Murray actually asked Zandi about his politics.
"I'm a registered Democrat," he acknowledged.
He signed up with McCain when Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the candidate's chief economic aide and a longtime friend, asked him to join the campaign's diverse economic advisory team. "My policy is I will help any policymaker who asks, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat," Zandi said.
So . . . the count of Republican or conservative or libertarian economists who support Obama's biggest-spending-bill-in-world-history stands at . . . zero. And hundreds of economists have declared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and other papers that they don't support the plan. It's time for politicians, pundits, and journalists to stop making this claim.
So let's look again at this beast.
One of Obama's campaign promises was to have 40% of this 'stimulus' in the form of tax cuts. Aside from the fact that when he says 'tax cuts' he really means 'redistribution', he didn't even deliver that:
Here at 2Cents, we call that liberalism creep.
Another fun detail -- and another instance of where liberals screw up and accidentally tell the truth about themselves -- would be this:
Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly, on why eleven Democrat House members voted against the stimulus:
The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district . . . Many of the districts are more conservative, and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that.
Surely he did not mean to imply that the stimulus bill was fiscally irresponsible.
Oops.Ace of Spades offers this concern and perspective:
Given that the spendulus is rapidly declining in popular appeal, and that a plurality prefer a tax-cut only version of the bill, will Republicans hold out for a good deal or fold like lawn furniture the moment The One makes the smallest concession?
Perspective: If you spent a million a day since the day of Christ's birth, you still wouldn't spend as much as Obama and the liberals want to spend in 3-4 years.
With most of that spending coming after the recession, incidentally, and at least $200 billion ongoing and on-growing until the Messiah comes back the second time. (Or the first time, for our Jewish friends.)
All humor aside, as the truth gets out more and more about this monstrosity, the support for the 'stimulus' plan really has plummeted, and now half the country say it's likely to make things worse. Some recent Gallup numbers:"[O]nly 10% of Americans say the economy will get better this year as a result of Obama's stimulus plan."
"Only 44% of Americans say the plan will make their families' situations at least a little better, while the majority of 53% say the plan will not have an effect at all, or will actually make their financial situations worse."
In terms of outright support/opposition, here's the situation from Rasmussen:
Right. That's because the American people aren't stupid, and can tell when they're being screwed...if the truth gets reported to them. The more details leak out about this, the more apparent it's becoming to millions of Americans that this isn't much of a 'stimulus'. Want some more examples?
- up to $18 billion to crush brand new cars (yes, literally crush them - SUVs and trucks)
- $5 billion for ACORN
- $500,000 for dog parks
- $4.5 million for butterfly gardens
- $6 million for water slides
- $886,000 for a disc golf course
- $20 million "for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers." (whatever those are...)
- $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails
- $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce headquarters
- $70 million to "Support Supercomputing Activities" for climate research
- $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Dept. of Energy defunded last year because the project was inefficient
- $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film (this has already been killed, but I thought you should know they wanted it)
- $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship)
- $448 million for constructing the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
- $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters
- $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees
- $400 million for the CDC to screen and prevent STD's
- $1.4 billion for a rural waste disposal programs
- $125 million for the Washington, D.C. sewer system
- $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
- $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion
- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities"
- $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges
- $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI
- $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction
- $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River
- $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas
- $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings
- $500 million for state and local fire stations
- $650 million for wildland fire management on Forest Service lands
- $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities
- $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs
- $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service
- $412 million for CDC buildings and property
- $500 million for building and repairing NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
- $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service
- $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the VA "National Cemetery Administration"
- $850 million for Amtrak
- $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint
- $75M to construct a new "security training" facility for State Dept Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies
- $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems
- $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations
- unspecified millions to illegal immigrants (in the form of 'rebate' checks)
Now, let's think about this for a moment...if this is an economic 'stimulus' package, what will most of these do to 'stimulate' the economy?
Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
One of the more odious (and less publicized) clauses in here is a virtual unleashing of welfare:
Those of us on the Right have often suggested that Obama wants to 're-make America' (his words) into a nanny state where the government provides everything to everyone. That suggestion seems to have a great deal of substance in the light of this clause, don't you think?Buried deep inside the massive spending orgy that Democrats jammed through the House this week lie five words that could drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms.
The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.
But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new "stimulus" bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.
"Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund," Democrats wrote in Section 2101 on Page 354 of the $819 billion bill. In other words, the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself.
Another poisonous clause in here deals with health care, but I'll cover that in another post later.
Fortunately, there are some conservatives in the Senate who are working hard to strip out as much of the garbage as possible. Tom Coburn, in particular, is offering amendments to do the following:
2. Strike $246 million "Hollywood earmark" for the purchase of motion picture film. (passed last night)
3. Strike "biggest earmark of all time" – $2 billion for FutureGen clean coal power plant.
4. Sense of the Senate that the Congress should support President Obama's "Plan for Restoring Fiscal Discipline." (Specifically relating to cutting costs and inefficiencies of government.)
5. No funds shall be used for casinos, aquariums, zoos, museums, golf courses, or swimming pools (mirror House language).
6. No more than $1 billion may be spent on projects for federal agencies inside the beltway.
7. Require that any contract that is awarded must be competitively bid.
8. Convert $9 billion for broadband into loans for internet service providers/telecom companies to build infrastructure in market-sustainable areas.
9. Prohibit any Corps construction funds appropriated in this Act from being used for initial construction projects until all unfinished Corps projects have been completed.
10. No funds from the Federal Building Fund may be used to construct new federal buildings until the government reduces its inventory of surplus/excess real property by 50 percent as of the date of bill passage.
11. None of the funds made available for the National Park Service may be expended unless such funding directly reduces the deferred maintenance backlog.
12. Strike authority for the Director of Indian Health Service to spend all health information technology funds ($85 million) at his discretion, regardless of current law (competitive awards, bidding, etc).
13. Cut $3.25 billion in funding for Workforce Investment Act programs since WIA has not been reauthorized and GAO has found duplicative job-training programs across 8 different federal agencies.
14. No funds in the Act may go to a public or private institution of high education that has an endowment of more than $15 billion and/or spends more than $100,000 on lobbying annually.
15. Make the "making work pay" tax credit non-refundable (the plan to give $500 or $1,000 checks of every family).
It's progress, but they all have to be passed before they'll be taken out, and it's still possible for them to get added back in the House/Senate committee. But, for the Democrats to even be considering dropping some of these things is a good sign that they know the GOP isn't going to completely roll over. Personally, I'd say that if you have to strip out 90% of a bill, you might as well kill the whole thing and start over, but that's just me.
My concern is that some of these will pass, giving a handful of Republicans just enough cover to sign on with the bulk of it, thus providing Obama the bipartisan cover he needs to escape what is certain to be the disastrous effects of this bill in the next couple years. This bill is so bad that it needs to go away entirely - there's no way it'll get gutted enough to make it worthwhile. I'm seeing a very mixed bag of reactions from all sides, so I'm still not sure how this one will go down, although it seems that the opposition is generally increasing, as the polls above indicate.
I think we need to encourage our Senators more than ever to hold the line on the core principle of fiscal responsibility, and that means that this bill needs to be killed.
Keep calling. The truth is getting out and the tide is turning, so kick it up another notch. For the first time, I'm beginning to think we might pull this off, but we've got to have the GOP hold the line unanimously in order to make it happen. When you call and e-mail your Senators, be clear that you don't want a handful of reductions in this thing, but rather the entire thing should be killed outright. Suggest that we need proven methods of economic stimulus like tax cuts (real ones, not Obama's redistribution). I'll have another post in the next day or two with some real solutions that are outstanding. Stay tuned.
Until then, keep up the pressure...!
There's my two cents.
Related Reading:
The Case For No Stimulus
Inmates In Charge Of The Asylum In DC
The House's Pig Pen
Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #5
Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #4
Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #3
Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #2
Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #1
It's Not Stimulus If It Doesn't Stimulate
The Bailout List
Sources:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/50_say_stimulus_plan_likely_to_make_things_worse
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/generational-theft-act-includes-water.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/kristol_new_poll_shows_stimulu.asp
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/04/sen-coburn-obamas-stimulus-is-morally-reprehensible-and-the-worst-act-of-generational-theft-in-our-nation%E2%80%99s-history/
http://minx.cc/?post=282313
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/03/generational-theft-act-fun-facts-from-sen-coburns-office/
http://patterico.com/2009/02/03/france-rejects-obama-style-stimulus/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTg1NGYzNDMxNzgyZGRlOTZhMzU4ODMwYWRhYzcyNzA
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/obama_asked_for_300_billion_in_1.asp
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2IyY2MxNzliNmVmYzJjOGUzZTJjOTUxZGYxYTUzYTk
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/unreal-stimulus-includes-government.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/30/stimulus-slush-fund-for-the-housing-entitlement-mob/
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/31/obama-we-cannot-let-politics-get-in-the-way-of-passing-this-crap-sandwich/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/01/the_welfare_stimulus.asp
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/figures-dems-crap-sandwich-gives-cash.html
http://minx.cc/?post=282332
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/02/03/economists-across-the-spectrum-continue-to-flee-stimulus-bill/
No comments:
Post a Comment