The huge federal stimulus bill is winding its way through Congress, with the House expected to pass it in the next day or so, and the Senate shooting for enactment by the Presidents Day Holiday. I have attached it below, and although it is expected to pass with heavy Democratic support President Obama has had difficulty attracting Republican support. See the Bob Herbert column in today’s New York Times for the general Democratic feeling on this Republican opposition. But I do believe that there might be some opportunity here that the President may be missing. I have attached the House Appropriations Committee executive summary of the bill, and there is some thought in Democratic circles that we may be mixing apples and oranges here. Should the stimulus bill put money into areas that need more thought and planning? (High Speed Rail, Energy Conservation and Conversion to Renewable Energy Sources, Rebuilding our Energy Grid come to mind). I am happy to see such funds included in this bill, but after passage of such a monster financial bill will that be all there is? Alice Rivlin testified before Congress that we should look at splitting the package in two. From the Washington Post:
In testimony before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Alice M. Rivlin, who was President Bill Clinton’s budget director, suggested splitting the plan, implementing its immediate stimulus components now and taking more time to plan the longer-term transformative spending to make sure it is done right.
“Such a long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package. The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away,” said Rivlin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. The risk, she said, is that “money will be wasted because the investment elements were not carefully crafted.”
Rivlin’s point is worth thinking about. A failure here while we are expending huge amounts of money could condemn some badly needed investments to the political back burner. The administration feels that this package is just a begining, and they may well be right about how to approach this. But failure in the energy and infrastructure areas could be fatal to getting America on the right track in these areas. Just some food for thought!
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
This is not a stimulus plan. This is a Democratic Campaign platform for the election cycle which begins when this dog passes. No Republican should put their name on this super earmark. Unfortunately, many who lack courage will.
My detail view.
Democratspeak Definition: Reinvestment.
Derived from investment meaning TAX. Reinvestment means RE-TAX.
If you are at home after just being fired which of these items will supply money for you to become a consumer, provide capital in the market place and provide me with confidence that a recovery will continue?
Forcing the Automobile companies to build fuel efficient cars at rates that do not exist, with the rates set independently by each of the 50 states. How do you produce cars efficiently doing that, and when does the first dollar go into your pocket? (Campaign fodder for the green crowd). The government is now the marketing departmaent for the automobile industry?
Tax cuts and extended unemployment insurance would be the ONLY stimulus items in this boondoggle.
Clean Energy is years away; to far for this recession.(campaign fodder for the green crowd). Until gas gets up near $4 will this be meaningful.
Transforming our society means what? Do you think, your Honor, that the Democratic party is capable of TELLING or ORDERING the American people what our future will be? That is the job of the marketplace. This is just Socialism or Fascism at it’s potential worse. I think we are still a constitutional Republic. But, maybe not.
Saving public sector jobs. That makes no sense to me. This a kiss to the Unions. The government is applying a stimulus to its own operation? That is stupid.
The Federal Government should get out of the education business. It’s not good at it. Heck, we haven’t prepared our students for the 20th century.
Modernizing roads and bridges, etc. would be helpful on many grounds. However, once fixed, what instrument is going to insure maintenance is budgeted and applied faithfully for the future?
Finally, putting health care records on computer may be useful from what I read. But, I fear this is Democratspeak for universal health care.
The Democratic party and its supporters are leading the country into socialism.
Jules
LikeLike
Your Honor,
I response to President Obama saying every economist agrees with is plan, read the pdf file.
Click to access cato_stimulus.pdf
Jules
LikeLike
Your Honor,
Is it true that Obama, the anti-pork crusader, is handing over 5.2 billion to ACORN, the community Organization under investigation by Federal Authorities?
It’s official. Obama is a liar. “this package will NOT have pork.” says the “One”.
Even the faaaar left George Soros is questioning the wisdom of these Bailouts.
All Pork-All the Time.
Jules
LikeLike
Your Honor,
Prof. Feldstein, Harvard Univesity Economics Expert was quoted by the Deocratic Party as giving approval to the Stimulus plan has changed his mind after viewing the final version from the House.
The professor views are displayed here from the Boston Herald;
“Feldstein, a former economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, surprised many last year by embracing the Keynesian concept that more government action – in the form of massive spending increases and tax cuts – was needed to confront the economic crisis facing the nation.
Ever since, liberal Democrats have cited Feldstein’s views when pushing President Barack Obama’s massive $800 billion-plus economic-stimulus package.
But Feldstein yesterday took aim at the Democrats’ general plan – a version of which passed the House earlier this week – saying it’s a “mistake” and needs to be “thoroughly revised.”
“We need a stimulus plan, but we cannot afford a badly designed plan,” Feldstein said in an e-mail exchange yesterday with the Herald. “The Senate should build in incentives for consumer buying and eliminate waste in the government spending.”
In a separate Washington Post op-ed, Feldstein was blunt about what he didn’t like.
The administration’s proposed tax cuts won’t spur consumer spending, he said. Instead, he suggested tax credits for households and businesses that purchase cars and other large items – and postponement of scheduled tax hikes on dividends and capital gains.
“On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment,” he said.
Some initiatives will take years to implement, while others could lead to actual job losses, he wrote.
States would also get billions of dollars without detailed plans on how they should spend money, he said.
“The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big, but that it delivers too little,” Feldstein concluded. “It is worth taking the time to get it right.”
So did the good professor dumb down or wise up since the Democrats embraced him.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
If you’re at home after being fired, about the last thing you’re thinking is how to consume more goods. Also note that since we manufacture so little, consumer spending probably does more to solve our import partner’s problems (read: China) than it does our own. Isn’t this what happened with the last two Bush the Younger stimulus attempts?
Faaar left George Soros objected to Paulson’s handling of the Bush/TARP stimulus bill, not the current one, or at least, I haven’t found a reference. It seems that over the past two years at least, his predictions have been correct. I wonder if his fund has any openings …
No one seems to know where the genesis of the Republican charge of money going to Acorn is: one reference puts our right honorable friend Rush saying that Acorn may get as much as 4 million, which is three orders of magnitude away from your quote.
It’s always funny how much fuel efficiency rules get knickers in a twist, especially when high efficiency vehicles are already being built. Isn’t building low efficiency vehicles one of the reasons Detroit is failing in the first place (you know, when gas was 4.00 / gallon, all the way back to last summer?).
As I alluded to in responses to the Laffer curve thread, I’m not sure how much tax cuts stimulate consumers (in this case, tax cuts may lead to future savings, which would then be trapped in banks that will not lend, or to paying down personal debt, again, trapped). In fact, counter to your example, Mr. Feldstein agrees. However, I think unless you are VERY secure in your job, anyone in their right mind would be postponing big ticket purchases (assuming you can get financing) right about now.
It is an interesting statement you make in saying that it’s the market that tells us what our future is, and not the government. I always thought that capitalism was an economic system, not a duly elected form of representation of all. Maybe the basic difference between liberals and conservatives is that we cannot agree on which is the tail, and which is the dog.
I’m not sure how much more or less to support or refute: when capitalism fails, something will step in. If you choose to call it socialism, so be it. It’s a term, like any other. The economy needs jobs, and support for those who have lost them. Like it or not, we’re stuck with the 21st century WPA for the short term. I just hope it doesn’t come to WWIII in the long term.
-FM
LikeLike