Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


The Two Percenters

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 19:12:11 PM MST


Did anybody catch Dennis Rehberg's impassioned opposition to the recent House stimulus bill?

And yet, while Montanans are watching our economy keel over, the Pelosi-Obey "so-called" Stimulus Package that the House passed on Wednesday was packed full of new government programs, long-term spending and even a facelift for the grass on the National Mall.

Ultimately, it did more to stimulate the government than to stimulate the economy.

Rehberg said he wanted a stimulus package to be "timely, targeted, temporary, and transparent," and claimed that it didn't meet any of those criteria. Of course, it is all those things; the most efficient means to creating jobs and jump starting the economy is spending for unemployment and food stamps, spending that helps people keep their heads above water, and spending that's most likely to be directly injected into the economy in a meaningful way as soon as it's given out. Then there's the infrastructure investment, which puts money into workers' hands and returns tangible, useful roads, bridges, and rail to taxpayers.

But let's get past that for a moment. Let's say the stimulus bill is wasteful and ideological. Okay. So. What would the Republicans have trimmed from the bill?

Yesterday, the House Republican caucus released a list of "what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated." It is, to be sure, a pretty long list, identifying 32 specific spending measures that the GOP considers either wasteful, lacking stimulative value, or both.

Now, putting aside the merit of the provisions, I went ahead and did some back-of-the-envelope math, adding up the grand total of all of the measures in question. I came up with a total of roughly $18.7 billion....
While $18.7 billion is a serious chunk of change, it's also just 2% of the $884.5 billion package under consideration in the Senate.

In other words, after House Republicans carefully combed through the bill, searching for anything they could deem "wasteful," and finding 32 specific measures they found offensive, the GOP lawmakers are still comfortable with 98% of the Democrats' bill.

Better yet, check out the list. Among the expeditures the Republicans object to include purchases of computers for public community colleges, Amtrak funding, FBI salaries, renovation of public buildings, remediation of lead-based paint, etc & co. In short, the list contains mostly infrastructure projects; few, if any, long-term left-based "ideological" projects.

(For the record, I'd like to see the $2 billion for the "zero-emission" Illinois coal plant to be scratched, too. Same with the $246 million tax break for movie producers.)

So...let me get this straight. The projects the House Republicans object to...are mostly infrastructure projects...some of which would even pay for themselves (like buying hybrid vehicles for federal employees)...and comprise only 2 percent of the bill's entire proposed expenditure? And this is why all of the Representatives voted it down?

Yes, it was a political stunt. It has to be. There's no ideology in the programs marked by the GOP, there's none of what Rehberg, for one, claims was in the bill and should be hacked away. There's no long-term, social programs here. Politics. An attempt to divide the electorate, build an opposition bloc to, if not the overwhelmingly popular President Obama, than his allies in the Congress.

But, given the fact that 2% of the proposed bill seems easy enough to compromise, and given the stimulus bill's national popularity, look for some "compromises," a billion or two shaved here and there, and more Republicans supporting this thing, then claiming victory at having stood up to Obama and the Congressional Democrats, and "won."

In fact, when it comes back to the House after changes made in the Senate, expect Rehberg to vote for the bill, still touting its imperfection, but saying we need to do something now for the economy, even if imperfect. (After all, Montana is getting a lot of money in this thing...) That's how Rehberg operates. We've been down this road before with Real ID, CHIP and Mother's Day. You know the drill: Dennis Rehberg votes down a bill, trash talks it, then when he realizes people are paying attention, he turns around, supports the bill and claims he was for it all along.

Heck, he'll probably even use my patented, extra-handy "Double Backflip" template the next time you hear from him on the subject...

Jay Stevens :: The Two Percenters
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Two Percenters | 20 comments
same old story... (0.00 / 0)
conservative obfuscation is strictly a stall tactic to make sure america fails. if they drag their feet, america fails, obama fails and their guy gets elected in four years.that is their tactic...

the middle class is wise to conservative tricks. they will lose more seats in two years for tactics like this. hypocrits who are more than willing to prolong the suffering of american workers just to achieve their political goals of paving the way for the wealthy and the elite.

they are scared to death of unions. they are scared to death that obama will succeed. it would be the death of conservative republicanism. notice i said CONSERVATIVE republicans, not reasonable republicans. getting rid of these pack of rabid greedy power-crazed jackals would do the country and the republican party good.  

United we stand, divided we fall.

power to the polite people!


Ol' jed is inclined to think its time to knock off with the pork. (0.00 / 0)
On this issue I'm afraid it puts him closer to the Republicans than to the Reagan Democrats who just keep piling up those earmarks--even in the stimulus bill!

[ Parent ]
Pork? (0.00 / 0)
So coming up with $11 million to redo Missoula's Russell Street...new bridge...widening...is pork?  Give me a break.

Government spending...lets see...the money comes down to the states, they have projects...those projects go out to bid...private companies bid on them...they get the work and people get a job...this is bad?  Maybe Bill Gates should put up the money to pay for these projects?  It wouldn't be government spending....and it isn't gonna happen!

Tax cuts won't create jobs...they might give a quick start to the economy....if people spend the money on new purchases and not paying down debt...

The fact that the Repubs. have a problem with ONLY 2% of this stimulus package, yet 100% in the House voted no...sure looks as if they would rather play politics than solve serious problems....

Rehberg had better wake up...people are on to this politics as usual bull shit and they won't stand for it.

Thanks Jay for holding Rehberg accountable and telling it like it is...


[ Parent ]
The Republican plan is just about one-half of the one (0.00 / 0)
which was passed by the house.  That is one long step from 2%.  
As far as infrastructure is concerned--I am opposed to a lot of spending on the interstate system when it is very clear that our biggest environmental headache is proliferation of more automobiles.
We need to shift our efforts away from one man one automobile toward mass transit.
And honest evaluation of the plan being considered by the Senate leads one to realize that--as the G.O.P. is presently trumpeting--it will be better to cut out the pork which will serve no real purpose beyond gratification of very narrow interests...

[ Parent ]
Yes, But (0.00 / 0)
The Republican plan is just about one-half of the one
which was passed by the house.  That is one long step from 2%.

Most economists I've read say the same thing:  The Republican plan won't work.  It will continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of, get this, the wealthy.  And that won't get the economy moving again.

Your comparing apples to oranges when you speak of the Republican plan.  But by bringing up the Republican plan, you do point to more Republicant foolishness.  They claim that their plan will cost half as much, but when they review the Democratic plan, all they seem willing to cut is the very 2% of which Jay wrote.

Also, you write our 'need' to shift to mass transit.  That is ideally a terrific goal, but not feasible in the near future. I fear that you keep falling into the Republican trap of mistaking the point of the bill.  This is not legislation to completely stake out the liberal vision of the future.  It is to get the economy working so that we can work on the issues like health care and the environment.  The unemployed, uninsured and and underemployed aren't gonna give a flip about saving the planet as they live in a box under the freeway.  The stimulus is for the protection of our economy, and thereby the global economy, and it needs to be now.

I offer you this, jed.  We could easily improve our economic prospects at half the cost (initially) that this bill contains.  All we need to do is crank up the war machine ... maybe China would be a good target.  You know  as well as I do that that would stimulate the economy.  Would you accept that world?  I wouldn't, and I doubt you would either.  We can spend government money on ourselves and our needs, or we can spend it on the government.  The Republicants would have you believe that were doing the latter.  Not so much.

Further, electric, hydrogen and hybrid cars still need a roadway on which to run. Please keep that in mind.    


[ Parent ]
We sure could shed a lot of national debt (3.00 / 1)
going to war with China. But I don't think that they are willing to lob the first volley, like Japan did with Pearl Harbor. But they may lob some financial volleys. Like refusing to finance any more of our debt.

You know, the whole economic expansion of the last 3 decades has been predicated on the notion of outsourcing American manufacturing to the third world. But with that outsourcing, in addition to oil dollars flowing to OPEC nations, we have created a situation where our national security is at risk, economically.

If the global market keeps tanking, and nobody wants to purchase American goods, and we keep buying Chinese goods because American goods are more expensive (but usually better quality), we keep building cities like Dubai with American oil dollars, and the Chinese decide they no longer want to invest our dollars back into our country, then it doesn't make a rat's ass bit of difference what happens with this stimulus bill. It is a drop in the bucket of the structural problems in the global marketplace.

I took over 10 years for WWII to come around and begin to drag America out of the great depression. The key here is for Obama and his team of rivals to figure out how to avoid having to repeat that scenario. Otherwise, China or Pakistan had better start looking for ways to beef up their defenses. Because the next republican up to bat for the presidency doesn't have a clue about global politics. Ya betcha.

Further, building roads and infrastructure for the automotive transport of the future doesn't necessarily resemble building transit systems for gas and diesel guzzlers. That isn't to say we shouldn't repair the system we have, but dollars spent will need to begin to reflect the new era.

For instance, here in Missoula we have a huge community argument about what to do about 3rd and Russell. Two widely disparate ideas on the future of transportation in Missoula. The traditional, and state mode is to go big and build for cars, cars, cars. The other, enlightened crowd in Missoula want to see the project built looking towards mass transit, bicycles and alternative modalities. Unfortunately, as I have warned, if the stimulus manages to provide funds for this project (which has been back-burnered for far too long) it will only be to ramrod the state plan through.

So yes, immediate stimulus to preserve jobs, and put people back to work where they were before. But we need long term stimulus and investment in new technologies and transportation modalities. And this current stimulus bill doesn't get there.

I'd say dump everything from the bill that doesn't get immediately to jobs (and this would include most of the tax cuts), and cut the partisan, ideological crap.

Then we can work on a series of bills to work on the different sectors of the economy and the New Reconstruction. And that will take trillions, and can be stuffed down the republicans throat one quarter trillion dollar package after another for all I care.

Trading the ability to reject failed republican ideas for needless bipartisanship is just not the way that Obama needs to start his administration. It is setting a horrible tone, and playing into republican strategists' hands.

To put it in terms that Obama would understand: the republican's pressure half court defense is unveiling some serious weaknesses in Obama's offense. He needs to get the ball downcourt, and then slam dunk the damn thing.


[ Parent ]
I'm constantly reminded of being blackballed from twenty four blackbirds; (0.00 / 0)
because of my contempt for Reagan Democrats.
They are the folks, Rob, who now continue to pretend that half a loaf is satisfactory--so long as it gets us just a smithereen closer to our ultimate goal.  
I'm of the mind that we no longer have time to shilly-shally like that.  
Even if it cramps our comforts a tad we have to get the one-man-and-his-dog-and-his-pickup crowd off the road right away.
And that way has to be mass transportation--even it is nothing but carpooling along section roads between Bumfuck and Billings--or Yokelville and Great Falls--or between Redneck City and Missoula.
If George Bush felt it was okay to keep on shopping while we went to war for oil; somebody smarter has to convince Barack Obama it is not okay to keep driving while we spend money to improve our highways in order to pay large sums of money to improve our economy.
Progressives have got to realize we have already wasted two years of our Democratic congressional majority.  (I can't remember that happening since 1994--that a party would piss away its advantage, I mean.)
We haven't got time to fix the economy and then figure out how to fix the environment. We are going to have to learn to multi-task...

[ Parent ]
wait a minute... (0.00 / 0)
...Jed...you support the GOP's tax breaks for big corporations and oppose the Democrats' proposed expenditures on increasing unemployment, food stamps, and infrastructure projects?

And you're calling me the Reagan Democrat???

To paraphrase a line from a very funny movie, I'm beginning to think you don't know what that term means...


[ Parent ]
Now you're putting words in my mouth, jaybird. (0.00 / 0)
I doubt I have supported a Republican program since 1976. What I said is I was a lot closer to their stimulus bill than to the one currently being considered by the Senate.

There is a good deal of difference between plundering and
reapportioning--and its not the welfare of the middle class which concerns me. It is--has been--will be the welfare of the underclasses.
Pork and earmarks have never been for the betterment of the folks who really needed betterment.

This left-in-the-west crowd seems to have largely forgotten--along with most of our federal representatives--that there are large numbers of Americans who do not make donations to either party--because they are to busy worrying about whether to heat or eat--because the only healthcare they have is provided by emergency room personnel, the school nurse, or an occasional free clinic [i]pro bono[/i]ed by AMA or ADA.

In my book, jaybird, Reagan Democrats are those who are wringing their hands for the poor neglected middle-classes...    


[ Parent ]
Hope you'll take my word for it (0.00 / 0)
We haven't got time to fix the economy and then figure out how to fix the environment. We are going to have to learn to multi-task...

Multi-tasking only works within a system that functions with at least a degree of efficiency.  Where I'm coming from is this, we need to fix our government first, if there is to be any hope of multi-tasking.  I'm a true believer ion the Kossack ideal of more and better Democrats because I believe that only Democrats hold to the simple ideal of Democracy.  You're welcome to call me naive based on the simplicity in which I put this truth, but government should exist to serve the people, and that's what the stimulus bill is all about.  If we can't get that working, then the government itself doesn't work, and your concerns will be damned as a painful afterthought.  Republicans will 1)  poison the well yet again, or
2)  halt any progress until the worst that can happen does happen.  Any fire, no matter the desperate desire for it, needs fuel.  If the economy doesn't get moving, then Republicans will have starved any spark you hope will burn.  

Again, the stimulus package is for the short term.  It does not, as our Republican brethren would argue, create a huge government bureaucracy that will damn us for ages.  It is meant to set the conditions whereby the people are willing to work for each others benefit, as well as their own, contrary to the Republican model of piss-down largess from the rich. If these simple conditions cannot be met, then using the force of party majority won't accomplish a damned thing.  We will have no economic motion to speak of whereby we can fix health care or the environment.  If global warming decides to wipe us out while we're getting our ducks in a row, then I sure can't help that.  But trying to commit all of our efforts to preventing catastrophe is exactly what the Bushies did, with predictable authoritarian results.  I'm not advocating baby steps here.  I'm advocating one big adult step in the right direction.  The rest will follow.  


[ Parent ]
Defending increased government spending (0.00 / 0)
Your article is actually defending additional government spending when the federal budget is already in deficit territory. Up is down and left is right.

I recently lost my job and my wife took a pay cut. We are not looking for ways to increase our spending. The federal government already has many redundant and unneeded organizations (8 of these are just for providing health care to people who can't afford it). How about pairing those bureaucracies down and using their ever increasing budgets to fund the worthwhile infrastructure projects?

How does purchasing hybrid vehicles for federal employees pay for itself? Your premise is flawed. Purchasing any car is putting money in a depreciating asset. And the gasoline savings given the current economic REALITY does not even justify the extra expense over the vehicle's projected lifespan. How about we get rid of government provided vehicles altogether? Let the employees use their personal cars and reimburse them for mileage like the rest of America.


Government spending... (0.00 / 0)
I am advocating government spending...during a recession. Absolutely. One of the worst things to do on the cusp of a recession is to cut spending. Ask Hoover.

After this thing is done, we'll have to balance the budget, of course.

That's why, personally, I advocate spending on short-term, one-time projects, like building bridges, schools, rail, making repairs to mass transit, etc. Pump money into the economy, create jobs, get something meaningful and useful back.

And consider: when we withdraw from Iraq, we'll be saving about $12 billion...a month.

As for government vehicles: some agencies require their own cars. Like the Forest Service. Or the FBI... and if you think gas is going to stay this cheap, I've got a bridge to sell you.


[ Parent ]
I have to agree with you (0.00 / 0)
here Jay.  It has to be cut a great deal more than 2%.  

At this point, and until they show me something a little more, I have no confidence in most of the Republican Legislators in Wash. and even less (haha) in the Democrats.

I'm surprised actually about you wanting the zero emission coal plant scratched though.  Why aren't you for that?

And are you on record then for wanting the Stimulus pared down, or is this more a commentary on the Republicans?


- Keeping the Left honest since 2001


what i'm for... (0.00 / 0)
Sydney! Haven't you been following this blog? I'm not a fan of "clean" coal. There's no such thing. It's basically a multi-billion dollar boondoggle.

In a previous post, I also decried the long-term highway projects that lard this bill. Projects that don't do anything to fix current infrastructure or reduce the congestion on the roads. Interesting that none of these projects made the GOP cutting board.

So, yeah, I think there's lots of stuff that could be shed.

And I admit I don't know how much we should spend right now -- no one knows. Is $800 billion enough? Too much? Will it work?

Ultimately, if I were doing this thing, I'd do only infrastructure repair and investment into spending that'll go right back into the economy. Unemployment benefit expansion, say. I'd scrap the wasteful highway projects, tax cuts for upper income brackets and corporations. And the infrastructure I'd build would have efficiency and usability foremost in mind. Mass transit...subsidies for alternative energy...etc...

But, then, politically my bill's not feasible. The way these *sshats in DC work -- both GOP and Dem -- is that everybody needs a taste of the action. Thus, the highway projects.


[ Parent ]
I admit, (0.00 / 0)
That I follow Left in the West but do not know all of the nuances of your opinion on energy, hence the question.

So basically we're going to have to disagree on the coal issue.

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001


[ Parent ]
Fair enough... (0.00 / 0)
Coal-to-liquid was a pet peeve of mine for awhile, and I spoke out against Tester and Schweitzer on the issue quite a bit.

Here's a couple of older posts on the issue.

Basically, coal-to-liquid is (a) dependent on sequestration, which is mostly theoretical now, (b) massively expensive and inefficient (~ $4 billion per plant), so any project would have to be underwritten by government spending, (c) requires a sh*tload of water (something like 3 parts water per 1 part finished product), something we don't have much of in Montana, and (d) would produce, at best, a few million barrels of diesel a year.

The only reason I could see building a plant would be for national security purposes, to build up a reserve of fuel for the military that's not reliant on the Middle East. And if we build a plant, it probably should be in Central Washington, where's there's water and the type of shale that lends itself to the best kind of sequestration.

Why is everybody talking about production of energy, anyway? The quickest and cheapest way to the reduction of consumption and towards energy independence lies in efficiency, on the consumer side.

A plan, say, to provide low-interest government loans to weatherize houses would not only repay the government investment (bringing in revenue), it'd save the consumer money and reduce energy consumption.

And there are other ways to earn revenue from state lands other than digging up coal. Raising cheat grass for cellulosic ethanol, say, or harnessing the wind and shipping the energy out of state (which relies on power lines).

Coal is poison. Coal has enormous external costs that you don't see on your energy bill, but you see in taxes and health care costs and fire fighting expenditures; and coal may be the undoing of Montana's agricultural base.  


[ Parent ]
Simple, Jay (0.00 / 0)
"Why is everybody talking about production of energy, anyway?"

That's where the profits are.

There's no profit to be made off of conservation (other than the initial investment to get there). So in a world where resources=money=power, it's pretty simple.

Build a better lightbulb, or fight wars in the Middle East. Who gets the glory and the money?


[ Parent ]
Whoa, now (0.00 / 0)
Looking at the list of "wasteful" spending, I can see where some of it might look a little silly at first glance (tax breaks for movie film?). But looking a little closer, there's a lot on there that doesn't seem "wasteful" at all in the real world, like the construction of DHS buildings, and repairs to the D.C. sewer systems, or spending on AMTRAK, the Smithsonian, and Mississippi River flood control systems.

These so-called "wasteful" projects require contractors and construction crews, heavy equipment purchases & steel production (to name a few areas that would fire up our factories and put people back to work).

I could even argue that the purchase of hybrid cars isn't the big "waste" that it's portrayed to be in the long term. (We're way past worrying about depreciation now: if the economy continues to tank, the only 'asset' I'm going to be concerned with is a big enough supply of amoxicillin for barter.)

Once again, increased demand for hybrid cars = more factory orders for components = more mining of raw materials = more jobs. Don't forget that an increase in hybrid car sales would also stimulate more research projects into better hybrid technology, while also reducing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels (good economically; good strategically). That's not what I would call "wasteful".

On another note: yesterday my newsrag ran a story about the GOPer plot to lower taxes, including cutting the bottom tax rate from 10% to 5%, on earnings up to @ $8800.00 per year. 'Luckily', my son is in that demographic, and he had just gotten his W-2 from work. So, we figured it out, and it came to a whopping $2.53 per week for him!  Wow! Whatever will he do to spend this GOP largesse?

That's today's GOP for you.

I think wolverine hit the nail on the head in the first post.  Unfortunately, the GOP may not be economic masters, but thay are certainly masters at whipping up the mighty media Wurlitzer to spin the narrative in their own direction.


$8800 per year? (0.00 / 0)
Is your son in high school?

To gross $8800 over a calendar year working 40 hour work-weeks, one ends up making around $4.25 and hour.  Just that.


[ Parent ]
Once again (0.00 / 0)
You miss the point completely.  The point of the stimulus package has nothing to do with what an individual earns.  It has to do with what we all have to spend.  That's what will get the economy moving, consumerism.  If deb's kid is in high school, so what?  The point is to give him better prospects such that when he leaves high school, he will have a job that makes him the money to spend on consumer product, and not be unemployed.  Do you actually think that offering this guy an additional $130 a year will matter?  Never mind, of course you do.

Then again, he could always overstate his credentials ...

I hear at times that there's money in that, if you don't get caught.  What do you think, Rusty?


[ Parent ]
The Two Percenters | 20 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox