PDA

View Full Version : Economic stimulus or just more pork?



sws4420
01-30-2009, 07:28 PM
Is $200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall a crucial way to stimulate the U.S. economy? How about $276 million to fix the computer systems at the State Department? And what about $650 million to repair dilapidated Forest Service facilities?

As Congress rushes toward what leaders of both parties predict will be a speedy passage of an $825 billion economic stimulus package, critics from GOP lawmakers to government watchdog groups are questioning whether key parts of the bill will spur economic growth or whether they're wasteful pork.

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana pointed to a $50 million outlay for the National Endowment for the Arts - an agency that conservatives have long criticized - to help arts groups hit by a drop-off in philanthropy.

"This is stimulus?" Pence asked.

President Obama, responding to the concerns, is making an aggressive sales pitch for the package. In his first presidential radio address Saturday, he said it would accomplish big things: renovate 10,000 public schools, build 3,000 miles of new electric grid, computerize all Americans' health records in five years, weatherize 2.5 million homes, provide Pell Grants to 7 million college students, and protect the health insurance of 8 million Americans who risk losing coverage during the downturn.

Top administration officials also warn that without the plan, the unemployment rate could hit double digits and the economy could sink deeper into recession.

"It is worse, quite frankly, than everyone thought it was, and it is getting worse every day," Vice President Joe Biden said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

All sides agree the plan carries a hefty price tag: It will be paid for with borrowed funds and could swell an already mammoth $1.2 trillion deficit forecast for this year to more than $2 trillion.

Obama had hoped to pick up bipartisan support for the plan, but Republicans have grown increasingly critical of the size of the package. GOP leaders also argue that some of the provisions seem more aimed at achieving liberal policy goals rather than reviving the economy.

Contraceptives
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticized a part of the bill's $87 billion package to help states with Medicaid costs that would allow states to expand their family planning services. Leaving a White House meeting with Obama on Friday, Boehner said, "How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, appearing on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, defended the spending. "The family-planning services reduce cost," she said. "The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now, and part of it, what we do for children's health, education, and some of those elements, are to help the states meet their financial needs."

When Obama announced this month that there would be no earmarks in the bill, it sharply curtailed the ability of lawmakers to steer money for pet projects in their districts. But critics say the move won't remove politics from the process - it simply shifts the power to bureaucrats at state and federal agencies, who will distribute billions for roads, schools and other projects.

"In the past, in the appropriations bills we could see a list of the projects. They were right there printed in the bill," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group. "Now it's going to be a lot more difficult to see where the money is spent. You will have to contact each agency and each program manager to find out where the money is going."

Recovery Web site
Obama and Democratic leaders are hoping to allay those concerns by creating a Web site - www.recovery.gov - where the public can track how the money is being spent.

Some of the biggest winners in the package are federal agencies, which would see a huge infusion of money. The Social Security Administration would get $400 million to replace its 30-year old computer system. The Agricultural Research Service would receive $209 million for deferred maintenance at its facilities. The General Services Administration would get $600 million to replace its older fleet of vehicles with new alternative-fuel cars and trucks.

Democrats say their goal is to create jobs by speeding up work on federal and state projects that would otherwise have waited years for funding.

"The whole idea here is there are lots of projects that have been in the pipeline, on the planning boards, and we're saying, let's get it now," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said last week.

The Democratic plan took a hit when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 7 percent of infrastructure money would make its way into the economy by the end of the year, and only 38 percent would be spent by the end of the 2010 fiscal year. Obama's new White House budget director, Peter Orszag, disputed the findings, saying 75 percent of the money would be spent by fiscal 2010.

Saving millions of jobs
Other parts of the package, including the tax cuts and the direct aid to states, would be injected more quickly into the economy. The bill would offer a payroll tax cut of $500 to individuals who earn less than $75,000 a year, and a $1,000 credit to married couples who earn less than $150,000 a year.

Democrats defended their proposal by citing an analysis by economist Mark Zandi of Moody's, who concluded that the plan would create or save 4 million jobs and keep the unemployment rate 2 percentage points lower than it would be without the package.

The House, with its sizable Democratic majority, is expected to easily pass the bill on Wednesday. In the Senate, Democrats are confident they can pick up the one or two Republican votes needed to reach a 60-vote majority.

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the GOP presidential nominee last year who has pledged to work with Obama, said Sunday he won't be among the Republicans supporting the package.

"As it stands now, I would not" vote for the bill, McCain told Fox News on Sunday, explaining that he'd like to see more tax cuts and GOP input into the bill.

Useful or wasteful?
Supporters say key provisions of the $825 billion economic stimulus bill will help create jobs and revive the U.S. economy, but critics see some of the spending as wasteful. Here's a sampling of how some of the money would be used: $44 million for repairs at the Agriculture Department headquarters in Washington.

$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall.

$360 million for new child care centers at military bases.

$1.8 billion to repair National Park Service facilities.

$276 million to update technology at the State Department.

$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install bomb detectors at airports.

$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles.

$2.5 billion to upgrade low-income housing.

$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research.

$426 million to construct facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

$800 million to clean up Superfund sites.

$150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed a hazard to navigation.

$6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.

$400 million to replace the Social Security Administration's 30-year-old National Computer Center.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/26/MNU515G2DD.DTL

trojanmiro
01-31-2009, 03:44 AM
i believe the bulletins at the end of the article create a vast variety of jobs from many different positions of labor.

sws4420
01-31-2009, 10:31 AM
Show me one of them you'd feel comfortable having a non-skilled workforce, Obama's target for this job creation nonsense, perform.

Cutesunshine
01-31-2009, 10:47 AM
The money just isn't there to do all of these things, which is why these projects have been on the back burner for so many decades. Isn't this the problem with the economy anyway? People spending what they do not have. Self indulgence of people, corporations, and the government???

These jobs are wonderful. For Skilled people. Carpenters, and tech geeks... But what about the average people who don't have a trade? Where does that leave them? Still unemployed. And what happens when the money is gone, and the jobs are over.... and we're right back to where we started, except 825 billion dollars more broke.

What needs to be done is a freeze on taxes on all levels. Use the 825 billion where our tax dollars used to go. Shut off free trade, and penalize any american company who has taken their business there or keeps it there. Give companies incentives to corporations to stop outsourcing, and bring back business. This will create Long term jobs, and increased cash flow. If people aren't paying taxes for a short period of time, shopping increases, debt load of people can go down, prices will be lower because companies wont be paying the federal gvt either. Start reintroducing the taxes when employment increases and more cash enters the economy.

Lets also face it, if this were an idea by a republican, it wouldn't even come close to being approved.

trojanmiro
01-31-2009, 11:44 AM
FDR used many of the same programs to put americans to work and start to dig america out of the depression.

i agree with what your saying that debt needs to be treated responsibly. but that is basically an impossible task when people are out of work.once the economy starts to recover...... thats when i believe its time to start pressing fiscal responsibility more.

sws4420
01-31-2009, 12:19 PM
FDR prolonged the Depression with his programs by tripling federal tax rates and introducing taxes on things like alcoholic beverages, electricity, etc. The money is going to have to come from somewhere.

debbie
02-03-2009, 12:33 PM
"The Proposal"



When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be
eliminated as well.



Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.



Our government should not be immune from similar risks.



Therefore:

Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.

Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).

Then, reduce their staff by 25%.



Accomplish this over the next 8 years

(two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.



Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:



$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165 200 pay/member/ yr.)



$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)



$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.



$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks
are at $15 Billion/yr)



The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for
the good of our country!



We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.



Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone,
computers, cell phones to name a few)



Note:

Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators
that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.



Summary of opportunity:



$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.



$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.



$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.



$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.



$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.



$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.



$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)



Big business does these types of cuts all the time.



If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.

Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

Bob
02-03-2009, 01:32 PM
That's just ridiculous.

Cutesunshine
02-03-2009, 04:22 PM
jeezis, didnt realize that people who virtually do nothing made so much money.

sws4420
02-03-2009, 06:34 PM
Looks like a good idea to me.