 by: Matt WelchThis weekend's Wall Street Journal, in the course of sketching out the fiscal contours of Stimulus II, makes that claim. Excerpt: Remember how $200 billion in federal stimulus cash was supposed to save the states from fiscal calamity? Well, hold on to your paychecks, because a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future. The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ten states have a deficit, relative to the size of their expenditures, as bleak as that of near-bankrupt California. The Golden State starts the year another $6 billion in arrears despite a large income and sales tax hike last year. New York is literally down to its last dollar. Revenues are down, to be sure, but in several ways the stimulus has also made things worse. How's that? Read on: First, in most state capitals the stimulus enticed state lawmakers to spend on new programs rather than adjusting to lean times. They added health and welfare benefits and child care programs. Now they have to pay for those additions with their own state's money. A few governors, such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas, had the foresight to turn down their share of the $7 billion for unemployment insurance, realizing that once the federal funds run out, benefits would be unpayable. "One of the smartest decisions we made," says Mr. Daniels. Many governors now probably wish they had done the same. Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries. Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes. The upshot? This is the opposite of what the White House and Congress claimed when they said the stimulus funds would prevent economically harmful state tax increases. In 2009, 10 states raised income or sales taxes, and another 15 introduced new fees on everything from beer to cellphone ringers to hunting and fishing. The states pocketed the federal money and raised taxes anyway. Now, in an election year, Congress wants to pass another $100 billion aid package for ailing states to sustain the mess the first stimulus helped to create.
 by: Tad DeHaven Huge deficit spending, a supposed stimulus bill, and financial bailouts by the Bush administration failed to stave off a deep recession. President Obama continued his predecessor’s policies with an even bigger stimulus, which helped push the deficit over the unimaginable trillion dollar mark. Prosperity hasn’t returned, but the president is persistent in his interventionist beliefs. In his speech yesterday, he told the country that we must “spend our way out of this recession.” While a dedicated segment of the intelligentsia continues to believe in simplistic Kindergarten Keynesianism, average Americans are increasingly leery. Businesses and entrepreneurs are hesitant to invest and hire because of the uncertainty surrounding the President’s agenda for higher taxes, higher energy costs, health care mandates, and greater regulation. The economy will eventually recover despite the government’s intervention, but as the debt mounts, today’s profligacy will more likely do long-term damage to the nation’s prosperity. Some leaders in Congress want a new round of stimulus spending of $150 billion or more. The following are some of the ways that money might be spent from the president’s speech: - Extend unemployment insurance. When you subsidize something you get more it, so increasing unemployment benefits will push up the unemployment rate, as Alan Reynolds notes.”
- “Cash for Caulkers.” This would be like Cash for Clunkers except people would get tax credits to make their homes more energy efficient. Any program modeled off “the dumbest government program ever” should be put back on the shelf.
- More Small Business Administration lending. A little noticed SBA program created by the stimulus bill offered banks an “unprecedented” 100 percent guarantee on loans to small businesses. The program has an anticipated default rate of 60 percent. Small businesses need lower taxes and fewer regulations, not a government program that perpetuates more moral hazard.
- More aid to state and local governments. State and local government should be using the recession to implement reforms that will prevent them from going on another unsustainable spending spree when the economy recovers. Also, we need fewer state and local government employees – not more – as they’re becoming an increasing burden on taxpayers.
The president said his administration was “forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve.” Mr. President, nobody has forced you to do anything. You’ve chosen to embrace – and expand upon – the big spending policies that were a hallmark of your predecessor’s administration.
by Dacia Nichol
First they denied it, then they ridiculed it...now they admit it while dismissing its relevance altogether in favor of a progressive agenda: Obama is not trying to fix the nation, he’s trying to destroy what’s left of American exceptionalism while using the economic disaster as his excuse and opportunity.
This week’s issue of Time Magazine boasted as its cover feature an article titled, “What Barack Obama Can Learn from FDR.” Basically, this means that the final conclusive idolatry has been had: Our great president is trying to emulate the man responsible for ushering in the failing socialist programs that we still fight today for financial breathing room.
The irony behind this article is that it dismisses the very myth that liberals have used as their cushion for years by stating that government spending during an economic crisis does not stimulate recovery, and using FDR’s “New Deal” as proof that it does is an absolute sham. In the author’s own words:
“It’s old news that FDR’s New Deal did not end the depression.”
Is it though? This author [yours truly] has been ridiculed, quite recently actually, for having made that suggestion a few articles back. Perhaps the commenter should take his argument up with Mr. David Kennedy also, the author of the Time article in question, for even he seems to agree on this point. If only Mr. Kennedy would have stopped there with his FDR worship fest. Alas, such was not the case and we must continue here...
An objective view of FDR’s policies would have been more welcome - even one spun in a positive light to ignore the fiscal and constitutional issues at stake with them. That’s expected. Kennedy however takes his suggestions to a level that is so absurd, they make the profanity-ridden Republican hit pieces in the Rolling Stone magazine seem credible.
Here are the most outrageous claims of Mr. Kennedy:
by Sean Overpeck
This is the consequence of pushing a $787 billion, 400-page bill through Congress and into law in less than three weeks. Under the economic recovery plan, laid-off workers and welfare recipients (blood suckers) have seen a $25 weekly bump in their unemployment/welfare checks as part of a broad expansion of benefits for the under-achievers. A record 32.5 million people now participate in the food stamp program, and 6.8 million on are on unemployment.
This is where it gets funny. The unforeseen result of giving out this extra money (which is costing our children $165,000 each), is that is goes above the cap for food stamp eligibility, so the extra money has pushed a lot people over the limit, and thus ineligible for hundreds of dollars a month in food stamps.
The perfect example is this guy; Mark Milota, 47, of Marietta, Ga., who was laid off in November from his job at a medical billing company. The Georgia Department of Human Resources explained in a letter to him last month that, because of the stimulus, he was ineligible for food stamps. He now makes an extra $100 each month, to bring his total to $1,538 a month in welfare -- $21 too much for a family of two to qualify.
Milota said he was told that, without the stimulus money, he would have received about $300 a month in food stamps. "I truly believe when it came out, they felt it was to help people, and they never wanted to hurt people," said Milota, who says he leans Republican but voted for Obama.
Lets see. He's been out of work since November. I used to live near Marietta. I was also on a salary a Little higher than what he gets from welfare (except I earn my money).
1). How is this guy having trouble.
2). Why has he not found another job yet? Any job. Burger King, Waffle House, etc.
Seven months. I was looking for a second job, it took me about two months of searching a little time here and their, but I found one. Oh boy and it is near Marietta also, only 10 miles away. Okay, lets give him the benefit of the doubt; No car. Well Marietta has a bus system. Not the best, but they have one. Atlanta ranks among the lowest as far as good transportation, but we have it. Anyone wonders why? It's Government run, and the City refuses to allow it to become privatized. God forbid a company comes in and makes it better.
Stacy Dean, director of food assistance policy at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, (a liberal think tank group) said "People were aware of this but, as you recall, the stimulus was moving along and then it was passed in about a day, there was not a lot of policy discussion on this."
 by Thomas Craig
President Obama is announcing that he is going to "ramp up" the stimulus spending over the next three months. The improvement in consumer confidence seems to make the President think that his stimulus is working. I happen to think that perhaps consumer confidence in the economy is improving because we no longer are subjected to the President of the United States coming on television every day and declaring that we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. (That of course was a lie.) Its amazing how people can have a little more faith that hell has not frozen over when our elected Leaders stop screaming about how the sky is falling. So far, we have spent $2.7 Trillion dollars. That is only what we have spent, not even what we have PROMISED to spend. This amount of debt is unbearable by any means. Let's give the President the benefit of the doubt and say that the stimulus was a great idea and the economy is going to bounce back as a direct result of it. My question now is, how do we go about paying all this money back? I know the President is busy planning even more spending on his universal health care, but how do you suppose he is going to pay off the debt? Well, let's look at our two options...
First, we do nothing and our currency inflates. The influx of money into our system will cause prices to rise more and more. Our salaries, of course, will not rise at the same level. This brings us to a sharp inflation of the dollar and the economy will suffer because of it. This will completely counter the stimulus measures that the President put into place and our economy will be even worse off than it originally was. Let's also not forget the world's confidence in the dollar will crumble. Some of our biggest Lenders will no longer want to gamble on our economy. (China, we're looking in your direction.) We can sit by and watch this happen, or...
We can pay off the ridiculous debt we have accumulated. Once again, let's assume the economy improves under the stimulus. This is all borrowed money that we used and since ignoring it will lead to another economic crisis, we can take the initiative and pay off our debt. We don't want to borrow even more money to pay off our previously borrowed money, so we do the only thing we can do raise the sufficient funds. Raise taxes substantially. (Or possibly set up a stand and sell pies to China.) Nothing can turn an economy flaccid quicker than a hefty tax hike. Unfortunetly, the President is going to have to do more than just tax the wealthiest five percent of the Country. If you took all the money owned by the wealthiest 5%, every last penny of it, it still wouldn't be enough to pay off this debt. We are going to have to have taxes raised on everyone, including businesses already struggling by the current economic crisis.
So as the title puts it, we have two options and neither looks fun. It is a true lose-lose situation, brought to you by the Democrats. The Reagan solution of lowering taxes significantly to stimulate the economy isn't looking so bad now, is it! Always remember, "Change" is NOT always a good thing.
 by Thomas Craig
Recently, a Bill by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) has proposed a "rescue" of American Newspapers. His Bill would allow certain newspapers to restructure as a non-profit, allowing several tax breaks to help strengthen the industry at the cost of the taxpayers. Obviously this was only a matter of time. Every industry out there is in line for their own bailout. I'm not opposed to this for the reason that many others are. Lots of Conservatives fear this would cement these newspapers as Liberal mouthpieces. This Bill would in fact stipulate that any newspapers receiving federal money would be restricted from making any political endorsements. Why newspapers, which are supposed to be objective, endorse any candidate in the first place is another topic. Every morning I read the newspaper on my way into work. Every night I ride the train home and look at nothing but my blackberry and read the news from there. Nine out of every ten people on my train also are reading from their phones, and most of them are doing that in the morning and the night. Perhaps we can consider the fall of our newspapers as a sign of innovationa nd technology. News up-to-the-minute is superior to news a day old. Instead of going in depth on this, here is one of the greatest scripted speeches in movie history. This is from the film "Other People's Money", and is spoken by Danny Devito to a room full of shareholders of a company he is trying to dissolve. It rings true to Sen. Cardin's Bill.
"This company is dead.
I didn't kill it. Don't blame me.
It was dead when I got here. It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered and a miracle occurred . . . and the yen did this and the dollar did that . . . and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead.
You know why?
Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence.
We're dead, all right. We're just not broke.
And do you know the surest way to go broke?
Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure.
You know, at one time there must have been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now, how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company?
You invested in a business, and this business is dead. Let's have the intelligence--let's have the decency--to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future.
"But we can't," goes the prayer. "We can't, because we have a responsibility, a responsibility to our employees, to our community. What will happen to them?"
I got two words for that: who cares?
Care about them? Why? They didn't care about you. They sucked you dry. You have no responsibility to them. For the last ten years, this company bled your money. Did this community ever say, "We know times are tough. We'll lower taxes, reduce water and sewer"? Check it out. You're paying twice what you did ten years ago.
And our devoted employees who have taken no increases for the past three years . . . are still making twice what they made ten years ago.
And our stock, one-sixth what it was ten years ago.
Who cares?
I'll tell you.
Me.
I'm not your best friend. I'm your only friend.
I don't make anything? I'm making you money.
And lest we forget, that's the only reason any of you became stockholders in the first place. You want to make money. You don't care if they manufacture wire and cable, fried chicken, or grow tangerines! You wanna make money!
I'm the only friend you've got. I'm making you money.
Take the money. Invest it somewhere else. Maybe . . . maybe you'll get lucky, and it'll be used productively. And if it is, you'll create new jobs and provide a service for the economy and, God forbid, even make a few bucks for yourselves."
 The AIG outrage is understandable. Americans are well within their right to protest the use of funds by criminally-inept businessmen in a dying company which we were forced to become 80% owners of (despite overwhelming opposition). That being said, it makes me sick to my stomach to listen to all the empty rhetoric coming from Washington about this. Why is all our outrage aimed at AIG? Why do we not direct a large bulk of that rage towards our elected leaders, who KNEW about this long ago. Not only did they know about it, but politicians such as Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) made sure to protect these bonuses by sticking in provisions to the stimulus bill. I suppose those kinds of things happen when Congress accepts a bill without reading it first. (Makes you wonder what else was plugged into the stimulus bill.) Now, everyone is calling for AIG's blood. We are angry that they were not fiscally responsible with our money. THEY WEREN'T FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THEIR OWN MONEY! If these people knew how to manage money properly, we wouldn't have had to bail them out in the first place. We should have expected this type of moronic behavior from them. If your dog gets into your closet and destroys your shoes, is it his fault? Perhaps it is the fault of the owner who left their shoes on the floor and the closet door open, and assumed that the dog will reason that the shoes hold value to its owner and therefore should not damage them. Come on! President Obama knew about this, Geithner knew about this, hell everyone knew about this. They are getting a free pass on this for some reason. Perhaps these "Leaders" who are just sooo angry right now can make an effort to show their solidarity with the People by donating the contributions that AIG made to their campaigns to charities which will increasingly be the life support for millions of Americans who lost their jobs, many thanks to AIG. Politicians such as President Obama or Sen. Dodd who both received over $100k from AIG. Why would we expect something like that though, from the Congress which receives automatic pay raises every year. There is something brewing within the American People and we are all starting to get a whif of it. While Obama governs on a policy of "hope", let us show our Government what something real looks like, for instance... VOTING THEM OUT!
by Thomas Craig
 by Thomas Craig
Tonight President Obama will address the Nation on the economy. I applaud the President for the new level of transparency he has brought to the Office. The People should have plentiful updates regarding the Country, especially in times like these. What I can't stomach though, is hypocrisy. The President wants to cut the deficit which of course we all support, however, it is almost comical for anyone on the Left to speak of fiscal responsibility after spending over $1 Trillion just a week ago that was borrowed by the Chinese (my apologies to Spkr Pelosi's Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse which received $30 million from the stimulus). We have committed our future generations to paying off this debt, we have put ourselves into an even deeper handicapped position with China, and we have done it all for the "hope" that this plan will work. All this despite the fact that this spending plan has failed every time it's been tried, either here or abroad. What also bothers me is that many Americans do not realize that there is more spending to take place. Many people think about the stimulus and fail to realize that we are not even half way through this fiscal year (Oct 1-Sept 30). There are many more opportunites for the Democrats to spend and believe me, they will! After all, remember what Rahm Emanuel says, "You can't let a crisis go to waste."
 by Thomas Craig
Congressional Republicans (with the exception of 3), proved to themselves as well as America that the GOP understands the need to return to core values. That being true, the stimulus has been passed and signed by the President so the attention is now on the disbursements. The news is playing up the fact that a few Republican Governors, such as Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), are possibly going to reject a small portion of the stimulus which is intended for their states. The true story in the press is the "hypocrisy" of Republicans who opposed the stimulus accepting the money from the stimulus. I personally think it would be fiscally irresponsible for any Governor to turn down this money, regardless of their stance on the stimulus. No elected official should be in the position to tell their constituents that they will not receive money yet they will still be on the hook for paying off this outrageous debt. If by rejecting their portion of the stimulus, the People of that particular State would not be required to commit the next few generations of their family to paying this off, then I would support rejecting the funds completely. Unfortunetly, we all are going to have to pay this off no matter what, buy hey, at least we'll get an extra $13 per paycheck. Perhaps that will cheer up your child when they are asking why they pay all of their income to taxes. I do have one question... If the stimulus will create jobs, won't it take a continual ongoing budget of the same enormity to KEEP those jobs later on? Aren't we just kicking the problem down the road? (Forgive me, I'm new to socialism and curious to see so many People in the country celebrate the fall of capitalism.)
 by: Thomas Craig
Bipartisanship seems to be the word of the day lately. Sure, Americans all say they want a "bipartisan" government, yet the meaning of the word seems to have lost its meaning. Under President Obama's administration, bipartisanship seems to mean that we all come together and do what the Democrats want. I'm not one of those people who complain that the President didn't try and involve the GOP on the stimulus. He in fact did make an effort. The problem is that he underestimated the resolve of our Party. Republicans get it now. We understand that the last eight years marked a sharp turn away from our core principles. We grew government, we expanded it's power, and we increased borrowing and spending. We did this and we suffered the consequences. Unfortunetly for the Democrats, we did in fact learn this lesson and we aren't going to go back to bad habits. That is why (all but 3) Republicans voted against this Bill. If by being bipartisan, the President wants our Party to enter into talks with an open mind and be willing to negotiate, that is fine but that is not what is happening. Thankfully, Obama is at the least willing to listen to Republicans, which is more than I can say for the closed door policies of Pelosi and Reid. One last note on this... the only thing worse than a government torn apart by partisan politics is a government ruled by one Party and one thought. I wouldn't want our government to be 100% Democrat just like I wouldn't want it to be 100% Republican. It is difference of opinion and different ways to solve our problems which make America great. Don't believe me? Ask the Cuban people how one Party rule is working out for them.
|
RSS Feed