by Deb Cupples | The New York Times reports that the U.S. Senate settled on a $789 billion economic-stimulus bill, an amount that's about $50 billion lower than the Senate's earlier package and about $70 billion lower than the House's.
Three Senate Republicans were instrumental in cutting the stimulus package: Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins -- despite a strong penchant on the part of congressional Republicans (and ex-President Bush) from 2001-2006 for borrowing and spending and not giving a darn about our national debt.
How did a mere three Senate Republicans manage to make so many cuts to the stimulus bill at a time when our nation needs so much economic stimulus? Because support from those three politicians was needed to prevent a filibuster.
One must read all the way down to paragraph 17 of the New York Times article to see a glaring and intensely ironic issue addressed:
Interestingly enough, Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins had voted for the first phase of the Wall Street bailout, designed to funnel up to $700 billion into the pockets of a relative few corporate executives who'd helped drive their companies -- and out nation's economy -- into a ditch (see roll call vote).
Many congressional Republicans also voted for the AIG bailout, which added around $150 billion to the bailout total.
That aside, many Republicans seem reluctant to put money into the pockets of ordinary consumers -- the very people whom our economy depends on from the ground up. Why do I think consumers are so important?
First, because consumer spending makes up about two-thirds of our nation's economy. Second, because --
- Less $ for consumers means less $ for businesses - Less $ for businesses means more job cuts - More job cuts mean even less $ for consumers - Which means even less $ for businesses - Which means even more job cuts and so on...
Over the last decade or so, many of America's hyper-wealthy folks have become even wealthier -- while median household income for middle-class Americans largely stalled in the $40,000 range.
If making corporations and wealthy individuals wealthier really had stimulated consumer spending and job creation, then our nation would not have lost 3.6 million jobs just since December 2007 -- a figure that may indeed increase to 4 million when February's job-loss statistics are released a few weeks from now.
With all that in mind, here's the New York Times' summary of the Senate's new stimulus plan:
"The final bill includes $507 billion in spending programs and $282 billion in tax relief, including a scaled-back version of Mr. Obama’s middle-class tax cut proposal, which would give credits of up to $400 for individuals and $800 for families within certain income limits. It will also provide a one-time payment of $250 to recipients of Social Security and government disability support....
"The final agreement retained a $70 billion tax break to spare millions of middle-income Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax in 2009. Some Democrats decried the provision as a costly addition that would not lift the economy and that Congress would have approved, regardless of the recession...."
In the meantime, the White House is busy deciding whether to have bill-signing ceremony on prime-time TV, which would amount to political theater despite disappointing results.
I think it's safe to say that many of our Washington Politicians need to severely adjust their priorities.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Save Jobs by Cutting Executive Pay
* Why Arlen Specter Supported the Stimulus Package
* Despite Huge Job Losses, Republicans Want Tax Cuts for Wealthy
* Economists Want Stimulus Soon, "Free Marketers" Flip Flop Again
* Wealthiest Got Wealthier and Paid Lower Tax Rates
* Are Bailout Funds Being Misused?
* Cleaning up Political & Corporate Culture Could Help Economy
* Real Bonuses Based on Fake Profits
Good God, man, you're stupid.
A rudimentary understanding of economic theory would help you understand that:
a) Economic mobility, not artificially defined "classes", is the key to a successful economic system; as such,
b) Wealth disparity is a wonderful, wonderful thing. In fact, the more wealth disparity, the better! Consider that Brin and Page were students at Stanford a mere ten years ago and now they are Google's billionaire owners. So... ten years ago, they were the downtrodden poor... and now they are the evil rich controlling huge amounts of capital?
The free market is the most transformative of economic systems. It fosters innovation and invention.
It produces new industries, products and services and improves upon existing ones.
Millions of individuals freely engaged in an infinite variety of actions each day, it is impossible to even conceive all of the benefits that occur in our economy at any given time.
The free market creates more wealth and more opportunities for more people than any other economic model. This is exactly why the Left -- be they socialists, or Marxists, or left-leaning Democrats -- attack it relentlessly.
That's why they lie, describing the free market as the cause of the current financial crisis. But it was in fact they, through onerous and arbitrary regulation and out-of-control governmental appendages like Fannie Mae, who twisted and distorted the free market.
The free market promotes self worth, self-sufficiency, shared values, and honest dealings. That doesn't mean to say there aren't crooks: they exist in every endeavor (especially government). But when you consider the trillions of transactions that make up the free market, the number of crooks is relatively tiny.
The free market enhances the individual, the family and the community. And it discriminates against no race, religion or gender.
The truck driver does not know the skin color of the individual who helped create the diesel fuel that powers his vehicle.
The cook does not know the religion of the dairy farmers who delivers milk to his restaurant.
The airline passenger does not know the gender of the factory workers who manufactured a critical component of the aircraft.
Nor do they care. The free market is an intricate system of voluntary economic, social and cultural interaction that are motivated by the desires and needs of the individual and the community.
The key to understanding the free market is private property, which is why the Left does not believe in it.
Private property is the material manifestation of the individual's labor: the material value created from a person's physical and intellectual efforts.
Oppressive taxation and regulation of your private property can become a form of servitude, particularly if such confiscation occurs because of arbitrary and illegitimate decisions on the part of a government bureaucracy. That is: decisions that are not Constitutional.
That is why the Conservative believes the federal government should only raise revenue that the Constitution authorizes and no other.
Otherwise, what are the limits on government power? What are the limits on taxation and regulation of the individual's labor? How do we contain and limit government? How do we draw the lines -- and on what basis?
The Marxist class struggle formulation pits the working class against the wealthy (sound familiar?). It serves as the Left's principal rhetorical argument for the confiscation of private property.
But it is anathema to the free market, for the individual has the power to make for himself anything he or she wants! There is no static class structure layered atop the free market! The free market is mutable, dynamic and vibrant.
And for this reason, we Conservatives believe the free market is a vital bulwark against totalitarianism. And it would appear the Left agrees for it is relentless in its assault on the free market.
The Left's rejection of Constitutional limits on government power is always justified on material grounds. In the name of "economic justice", "equality" and "fairness."
The Left creates an illusion of class struggle through a variety of inventions like the "Progressive" Income Tax. But the bottom 40% of wage earners pay no income tax!
"Economic equality" is unachievable, even in the most brutal and oppressive socialist states.
Posted by: Adam Smith | February 12, 2009 at 09:19 AM
This whole stimulus bill is ridicules. It does nothing to create long term jobs. These are all short term projects that they want to do. What are all of these people working on these projects going to do once everything is fixed? They will be jobless without any where to turn and the economy will go back down. If we are going to throw money around, lets throw some into creating jobs outside of the government. One job resource that could us a jolt of life is our manufacturing industry. I was reading articles over at americanboom.com about how much of this problem could have been avoided if we had not outsourced all of our manufacturing to China. We need to stop relying on the government to bail us out and start bailing each other out. If we support companies that employ Americans then maybe they will not move to China.
Posted by: Anthony | February 12, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Adam Smith,
First, insults are a strong indicator that one is not rationally debating.
Second, your comment did NOT address economic theories -- and did NOT address the points I made in my pose.
All your comment does is discuss labels and vague concepts -- not practical problems, their causes, and their solutions.
Leaving corporate executives alone while they loot financial institutions and big public companies is one of the things that so-called "Free Market" proponents fought for.
And now we have numerous nation's economies in a downward spiral. You think that's a "wonderful" result of leaving people unchecked?
Posted by: Deb | February 12, 2009 at 01:26 PM
I really don't see how 3 republican can mess up whats already so mirky and dirty anyway. I'm glad they sided with the Demos on this one--this package needed to past to assure Obama's down fall.
Posted by: Ron Russell | February 12, 2009 at 09:22 PM
I would bet good money that not one of the critics of the stimulus bill posting on this board has the slightest clue what's actually in it.
In fact, I'd bet they have no clue at all.
"Adam Smith" doesn't know that economic mobility has been studied in some detail, and what one finds is that there's very little upward mobility. Most wealthy people inherited their wealth. Some, like Bill Gates, leveraged their family's modest wealth into much greater wealth. A tiny number actually earned their money.
Anthony doesn't stop to think in which sector there are a lot of unemployed people (hint: it involves building stuff). Are those people supposed to re-train to become economists? Why not give them jobs building needed infrastructure. When the economy perks up, and other stuff needs to be built, they can get a private sector job.
It's great, Anthony, to talk about rebuilding manufacturing-- it would have been even greater if Republicans hadn't torn it down. But what is the government supposed to do? It can't start companies, design products, and build factories. It can do exactly what it does: support innovation through the SBIR program, provide business loans through SBA, and--in the case of vital industries like autos-- provide bridge loans or even subsidies to keep them operating until economic conditions turn.
We have a recession because we have so many Americans who don't know s--t about what government actually does, care only for themselves, and are themselves corrupt, angry, empty people.
::cough::
Present company excluded, of course.
Posted by: Charles | February 13, 2009 at 06:13 PM