Interesting Article-Stimulus

[jasonxctf]

I'm sure people here will hate the messenger, (Paul Begala) but within this partisan article, there is a valid argument. If you think that the Stimulus is such a horrible thing, don't take it.

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina took umbrage at my writing that his approach to the economic crisis is to do nothing. I'll deal with his "ideas" in a moment, but first let me make a modest proposal:

 

If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.

 

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.

 

Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "laboratories of democracy." So let's experiment. Gov. Sanford can be the guinea pig. His Palmetto State already gets $1.35 back from Washington for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, according to 2005 numbers, the latest calculated by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group.

 

South Carolina is a ward of the federal government. It's been on welfare for years. If Gov. Sanford is so all-fired opposed to federal spending, let's start by cutting federal spending in South Carolina. Otherwise, he's got about as much credibility on fiscal conservatism as A-Rod has on steroids.

 

Under the Bush-Sanford economic theories, South Carolina's unemployment rate has reached 9.5 percent -- among the highest in the nation. But if Gov. Sanford wants to continue those policies, good luck to him.

 

Make no mistake about it, Republicans like Gov. Sanford want to go back to the bad old days of George W. Bush. In his CNN.com column, Gov. Sanford expends 605 words attacking President Obama's plan to turn the country around after eight years of Bush-Republican-Sanford economics.

 

That is his right, but attacking President Obama's plan is not itself an alternative plan. Nor is dredging up hoary old gripes about the New Deal. Nor, indeed, is deriding neighborhood electric vehicles -- which create jobs, save money and reduce pollution -- as "streamlined golf carts." But that is what Gov. Sanford offers us. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on the stimulus plan

 

Then Gov. Sanford turns to his ideas (keep in mind he was responding to my charge that he favors doing nothing). He devotes precisely one half of one sentence to his plan to save the world economy; 24 words that will create millions of jobs, restore liquidity to capital markets, protect investors and consumers, regenerate stagnant demand and restore the capitalist system. Here they are:

 

"... cutting the payroll tax, opening foreign markets through an expansion of our trade agreements, and reducing our corporate tax, which is among the highest worldwide."

 

Wow. As we say in the South, I've got the vapors. So cutting taxes and cutting trade deals will get us out of this mess? That's all we need to do?

 

We don't need to extend unemployment insurance, or update health information technology, or move to renewable energy or repair roads or rebuild bridges or modernize the power grid or prevent states and cities from laying off teachers and cops or any of the other myriad proposals in President Obama's plan?

 

To be sure, President Obama's plan includes tax cuts -- mostly for middle-class families. But cutting taxes on corporate profits is of little utility when there are no corporate profits to tax. And precisely with whom would Gov. Sanford cut these miraculous trade deals? In case he hasn't been watching CNN, the entire world economy is in the tank.

 

If cutting taxes for the rich and for big corporations and promoting foreign trade alone could energize the economy, we wouldn't be in this mess. But maybe Gov. Sanford is right. Let's keep our federal money -- give it to states where the governors will actually put it to good use. We'll let Gov. Sanford try his plan, we'll try President Obama's plan.

 

Something tells me Gov. Sanford won't take that gamble. Because for all his rhetoric about hating federal spending, he can't wait to get his hands on our money.

 

[lostfan]

I actually like Gov. Sanford and think Begala is a shameless Kool-Aid drinker, but he really does have a point. Find me a Republican governor who opposes the stimulus but won't take any of the federal money. At least Charlie Crist is keeping it real.

 

edit: also, Begala's original piece that Sanford's op-ed was in response to was kinda sad. Begala never has any original thoughts whatsoever, they're all pure regurgitated Democrat talking points.

Edited February 16, 2009 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

I'd love to see them come up with a way to institute a proper stimulus plan.

[Texsox]

I'd love to see them come up with a way to institute a proper stimulus plan.

 

Because economics is an inexact science, there is no way of truly knowing the outcome of any plan. Some have a better chance of succeeding than others. Harry Truman had a great quote "what I need is a one armed economist". Sending everyone a few hundred dollars didn't seem to do much except buy some votes. That may have been all that was hoped for.

[Balta1701]

Because economics is an inexact science, there is no way of truly knowing the outcome of any plan. Some have a better chance of succeeding than others. Harry Truman had a great quote "what I need is a one armed economist". Sending everyone a few hundred dollars didn't seem to do much except buy some votes. That may have been all that was hoped for.

Actually, it produced a fairly prominent spike of GDP growth in the U.S. in the 2nd quarter 08. The U.S. probably should have been in a recession in the 3rd quarter. Instead, GDP grew by about 3.3%, after a stagnant first quarter. Altogether that's probably about a $100 billion increase in GDP, almost entirely due to the $150 billion tax credit pumped in. Sad part is, we'd be even further down the rabbit hole had that package not passed. The numbers are almost entirely consistent with the stimulus having worked, just not having been anywhere near the magnitude of the problem, and they show the typical lower-middle income tax multiplier of just under 1.

[jasonxctf]

I actually like Gov. Sanford and think Begala is a shameless Kool-Aid drinker, but he really does have a point. Find me a Republican governor who opposes the stimulus but won't take any of the federal money. At least Charlie Crist is keeping it real.

 

edit: also, Begala's original piece that Sanford's op-ed was in response to was kinda sad. Begala never has any original thoughts whatsoever, they're all pure regurgitated Democrat talking points.

 

and that's where I get a bit frustrated by the "partisan" comments about this bill. There are plenty of Republican lawmakers who agree with this plan or at least a good portion of the plan. They just don't happen to reside in DC and are local Govenors/Mayors, etc.

[Balta1701]

and that's where I get a bit frustrated by the "partisan" comments about this bill. There are plenty of Republican lawmakers who agree with this plan or at least a good portion of the plan. They just don't happen to reside in DC and are local Govenors/Mayors, etc.

I've gotten the impression that there's a decent number of Republicans in DC (Cao, for example) who agreed with either this bill or with the concept of a stimulus package of this magnitude, but the Republicans whipped very, very hard against this bill. They basically figured out what the Dems failed to realize on Iraq; if it goes well, they're screwed whether or not they support the package, if it goes poorly they're in much better shape if they said no.

[bmags]

I've gotten the impression that there's a decent number of Republicans in DC (Cao, for example) who agreed with either this bill or with the concept of a stimulus package of this magnitude, but the Republicans whipped very, very hard against this bill. They basically figured out what the Dems failed to realize on Iraq; if it goes well, they're screwed whether or not they support the package, if it goes poorly they're in much better shape if they said no.

 

If it fails, the minority party will benefit no matter.

[Balta1701]

If it fails, the minority party will benefit no matter.

But take a look at the Iraq war for reference. I can name 3 major Democratic Presidential contenders from 2004 and 2008 who voted for it, and 1 who spoke out against it. The 3 who voted for it are: John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton. The one who spoke out against it was this kid in Illinois named Obama. They may benefit no matter what...but they take the biggest gains if they stand up against it from the start and don't have to do the John Kerry dance like in 2004 on the Iraq war.

[bmags]

But take a look at the Iraq war for reference. I can name 3 major Democratic Presidential contenders from 2004 and 2008 who voted for it, and 1 who spoke out against it. The 3 who voted for it are: John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton. The one who spoke out against it was this kid in Illinois named Obama. They may benefit no matter what...but they take the biggest gains if they stand up against it from the start and don't have to do the John Kerry dance like in 2004 on the Iraq war.

 

I think you can effectively argue that in 04's election America still felt Iraq could be turned around. It had been a little over a year and I don't think anyone besides Bush thought there'd be a stable democracy by then. And as per Hillary, of the reasons why she lost to Obama, I'd put her Iraq War vote pretty low on the list.

[Balta1701]

I think you can effectively argue that in 04's election America still felt Iraq could be turned around. It had been a little over a year and I don't think anyone besides Bush thought there'd be a stable democracy by then. And as per Hillary, of the reasons why she lost to Obama, I'd put her Iraq War vote pretty low on the list.

IMO, if Kerry stuck to an actual coherent formula on Iraq, he'd at least have had a much better shot, rather than setting up the obvious flip-flopper meme. And IMO, and in a lot of people's opinion, if Hillary voted against the Iraq war resolution, the Obama campaign never happens.

[Chet Lemon]

I've gotten the impression that there's a decent number of Republicans in DC (Cao, for example) who agreed with either this bill or with the concept of a stimulus package of this magnitude, but the Republicans whipped very, very hard against this bill. They basically figured out what the Dems failed to realize on Iraq; if it goes well, they're screwed whether or not they support the package, if it goes poorly they're in much better shape if they said no.

 

Excellent analysis

 

[bmags]

IMO, if Kerry stuck to an actual coherent formula on Iraq, he'd at least have had a much better shot, rather than setting up the obvious flip-flopper meme. And IMO, and in a lot of people's opinion, if Hillary voted against the Iraq war resolution, the Obama campaign never happens.

 

Well, Hillary was fighting the culture wars of the sixties and the republicans of the 90s and it was an old school, boring, inefficient campaign. Kerry, of course, was completely incoherent on a lot of his answers, and again, another inefficient campaign. Why the hell would you have leftover money? Kerry was much more enjoyable this year than in 04. He had no swagger.

[mr_genius]

I'm sure people here will hate the messenger, (Paul Begala) but within this partisan article, there is a valid argument. If you think that the Stimulus is such a horrible thing, don't take it.

 

Actually, that is not really a valid argument. If the federal government is taking money from taxes, without local support for federal actions, representatives have a obligation to try to get some of that money back to their constituents in any way possible.

 

 

[mr_genius]

I actually like Gov. Sanford and think Begala is a shameless Kool-Aid drinker, but he really does have a point. Find me a Republican governor who opposes the stimulus but won't take any of the federal money.

 

They might if they are given legal assurances they will not be paying for any of it with federal taxes. States that do not take the money shouldn't be forced to pay in; this could be worked out in the form of lower federal taxes on residents in states that do not take the money. That will never happen though, therefore there is an obligation to try and salvage some of this money.

[lostfan]

They might if they are given legal assurances they will not be paying for any of it with federal taxes. States that do not take the money shouldn't be forced to pay in; this could be worked out in the form of lower federal taxes on residents in states that do not take the money. That will never happen though, therefore there is an obligation to try and salvage some of this money.

Of course I don't actually expect them to turn the money down, that'd be borderline retarded (eh, for now I'll ignore the fact that a lot of the red states use more federal money than they contribute). Just looking for some consistency is all. I was doing the same thing a few months ago when Palin was screaming "SOCIALISM" after she bragged in front of the RNC that she gave Alaska oil revenue back to the taxpayers, and at the same time Alaska is basically the welfare baby of the union. By her own narrow (and silly) definition that's socialism. I also apply the same principle when Republicans start having a fit about Democrat spending, because they're apparently concerned about the budget, but their solution is to cut taxes. Both will blow a hole in the deficit, what's the difference? (Not a question directed at you mr. g, since I know you'd say the Republicans are being stupid too)

[mr_genius]

Of course I don't actually expect them to turn the money down, that'd be borderline retarded (eh, for now I'll ignore the fact that a lot of the red states use more federal money than they contribute). Just looking for some consistency is all. I was doing the same thing a few months ago when Palin was screaming "SOCIALISM" after she bragged in front of the RNC that she gave Alaska oil revenue back to the taxpayers, and at the same time Alaska is basically the welfare baby of the union. By her own narrow (and silly) definition that's socialism. I also apply the same principle when Republicans start having a fit about Democrat spending, because they're apparently concerned about the budget, but their solution is to cut taxes. Both will blow a hole in the deficit, what's the difference? (Not a question directed at you mr. g, since I know you'd say the Republicans are being stupid too)

 

Basically what has happened is the Republicans aren't in control anymore and they needed to 're-invent' the party. They have decided economic conservative approach is a good one right now. Of course, this is a fairly bizarre transformation as GW Bush and the GOP Senate was completely reckless and fiscally unsound.

 

Now I think this stimulus is much more to do with giving out money to pro-Democrat special interest and paying back bribes than an economic fix. But I don't trust the Democrats at all, don't trust the GOP either. The bank bailouts where much worse than this stimulus spending Obama got through, the GOP is just postering. The GOP nationalized the banks for f***s sake, I don't know why they think people will buy this new 'transformation' they claim to be having.

 

 

[Balta1701]

The GOP nationalized the banks for f***s sake, I don't know why they think people will buy this new 'transformation' they claim to be having.

That hasn't completely happened yet, but all signs say its coming.

[Texsox]

Basically what has happened is the Republicans aren't in control anymore and they needed to 're-invent' the party. They have decided economic conservative approach is a good one right now.

 

If they actually became fiscally conservative, like they were pre-Reagan, I would find it much more appealing to support their candidates.

[lostfan]

Fiscal conservatives =/= blindly hawking tax cuts at every opportunity for no reason whether they make sense or not.

 

Bill Clinton called himself a fiscal conservative in an interview, I actually never thought about it like that. Yeah he raised taxes, but he cut back spending and created an annual surplus to where his successor could've paid off quite a bit of debt had he chosen to do so. Which meant that if he wanted to push some reasonable tax cuts later (like Bush's first round), he could have, without hurting the budget.

Edited February 17, 2009 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Fiscal conservatives =/= blindly hawking tax cuts at every opportunity for no reason whether they make sense or not.

 

I don't know about you, but I'm really looking forward to that $8/ week we'll be paying back for the next 30 years!

Edited February 17, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Back before Reagan we had tax and spend Dems and Don't Tax and Don't Spend Reps. Reagan brought us Don't Tax and Still Spend DEMReps. Both sides love that. We demand they go borrow some money and give it to us, while we believe someone else will pay for it.

[lostfan]

Reagan at least had the Soviet Union there to justify his absurdly large defense budget if nothing else. We are still holding onto some of these defense programs though and we're always caught up in "next war syndrome" ignoring the fact that the second largest defense budget after ours isn't even anywhere close even if we cut it back significantly.

 

Bob Gates is aware of this though, he's a practical guy and he wants to spend money on stuff we need rather than a bunch of cool stuff we think we can use one day. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...ss-politics-cnn

[Texsox]

Reagan at least had the Soviet Union there to justify his absurdly large defense budget if nothing else. We are still holding onto some of these defense programs though and we're always caught up in "next war syndrome" ignoring the fact that the second largest defense budget after ours isn't even anywhere close even if we cut it back significantly.

 

Bob Gates is aware of this though, he's a practical guy and he wants to spend money on stuff we need rather than a bunch of cool stuff we think we can use one day. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...ss-politics-cnn

 

To get the Dems behind his absurdly large defense budget, he gave them every damn program they wanted. Then made certain not to piss anyone off by raising taxes. Once the pols realized how happy everyone was, the vault was open.

[lostfan]

To get the Dems behind his absurdly large defense budget, he gave them every damn program they wanted. Then made certain not to piss anyone off by raising taxes. Once the pols realized how happy everyone was, the vault was open.

Yeah, I agree that the politics were different in the 80s... there was really no reason it should've happened again this decade though.