Number one suggestion..stop spending money on failed stimulus. Tax relief!!
A full third of the ARRA was tax relief. That's why payroll withholding dropped last year. It is why there's a $400 or $800 Make Work Pay tax credit on people's returns this year.
Beyond that, the spending in the stimulus didn't fail, unless our Congressman is advocating for cutting short COBRA subsidies or unemployment insurance. Hilariously, Congressman Rehberg tweeted this yesterday, around the same time he was touring the stimulus-funded Northern Hotel renovations:
When the two reached Nelson's basement office, Rehberg's work began. The congressman inquired about what the government could do for the Northern, promising to have a staffer look for grant options and Department of Energy assistance.
A year ago, by cooperating with the city of Billings, the Northern was able to sell $20 million in tax-free "stimulus bonds" to pay for the hotel's remodeling. Investors like the government-backed, tax-free bonds, which were made possible through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Rehberg is looking into government grant options and DoE assistance for private projects? Sounds like government spending to me.
Even worse, our Congressman is apparently aware that he's full of it:
In an interview with The Billings Gazette editorial board Tuesday, Rehberg, who opposed the ARRA and is advocating a shift toward tax cuts, said the construction projects funded by the ARRA had merit....
If Denny Rehberg thinks COBRA benefits, food stamps, unemployment, and local business projects like Northern renovation are failures, he should say so explicitly. He's trying, as always, to have it both ways.
And keep in mind when Rehberg rails about government spending that his office repeatedly calls for higher spending on numerous programs. This guy is absolutely all over the map.
Fresh in the inbox, a Congressional newsletter from Montana's junior Congressman Dennis Rehberg:
Congressman Denny Rehberg
HAS A SOLUTION TO OUR DEBT PROBLEM:
STOP SPENDING AND BALANCE THE BUDGET!
Already, Cappy McShout, let's see your solution:
Congress can decrease the deficit and decrease the debt by:
* Freezing non-defense discretionary spending
* Reforming "entitlement" spending
* Increasing tax incentives for small businesses
* Lowering taxes for hard-working Americans
Low-hanging fruit first: Items 3 and 4 will increase the deficit, not reduce it. Cutting taxes means slashing revenue. Budget deficits by definition amount to expenditures minus revenues. If revenues get smaller, deficits go up.
Obviously, some practitioners of voodoo economics will argue that resulting improvements in economic growth will make up for any loss of revenue, but the math here is quite fuzzy and, at the tax rates currently levied in the United States, almost certainly inaccurate. There are policy arguments for cutting taxes and accepting the deficits, but we're almost certainly on the wrong stretch of the Laffer curve to have tax cuts actually increase revenue.
But let's look at the other two proposals, starting with the discretionary non-defense spending freeze. First, this is an Obama proposal. Second, in terms of the budget, it's virtually meaningless. Check out this interactive budget graphic from The New York Times. Look at the overall budget, then click on the "Hide Mandatory Spending" button. Now, pretend that the National Security and Veterans Benefits (I'm presuming Rehberg isn't advocating freezing spending on Veterans). Look at what a small share of the budget is left. Now remember that we're not slashing this, we're freezing its growth.
So, not really a big deal.
What's the last proposal? Entitlement reform.
Where to begin with this one? Entitlement reform is GOPese for "cutting Medicare and Social Security," often through privatization. Depending on the particular privatization scheme with Social Security, there's a good chance that Rehberg's proposal would actually increase costs.
But let's just keep in mind that any savings on the Social Security front are likely to be minimal. The real driver of costs within the long-term budget is Medicare (which is one of the big reasons I favor health care reform). Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Republicans' point person on the budget, solves this problem by voucherizing Medicare and freezing its spending, a proposal that has the virtue of balancing the budget solely through spending cuts. Of course, Rehberg has also played politics by pretending to oppose any reduction in Medicare services. Instead, he'll just destroy the program in wholesale fashion.
One last point, despite Paul Ryan's ability to balance the budget solely with spending cuts, it is worth knowing that he had to instruct the CBO to assume no revenue reductions, which means no tax cuts.
In short, Montana's Congressman is pushing fiscal snakeoil. No surprise there. As Tyler Gernant put it a few weeks ago:
While Rehberg claims that fiscal responsibility is at the core of his being, Gernant said he voted for "a massive tax cut for the wealthy that completely eliminates our budget surplus and returns us to deficits."
Gernant said Rehberg voted to put two wars on the country's credit cards and voted for a pharmaceutical drug plan that lets the big drug companies charge the U.S. government whatever they want.
Rehberg doesn't give a shit about the deficit. He's either an idiot or a liar on this stuff. What he really wants is to destroy government, except when he can have a press conference to take credit for it.
Sadly, politicians rarely explain the federal budget to constituents. Neither, really, does anyone else. That means we're left with misleading crap like this being peddled instead.
Something that hasn't been noticed much. That Research 2000 poll commissioned by Daily Kos shows Dennis Rehberg very vulnerable next year.
Tyler Gernant just sent out an email highlighting this fact. Not too surprising, given that Rehberg denies that there even is a crisis in healthcare right now.
Following our Congressman on Twitter is an absolute pleasure. It lets me encounter items like this:
As economy improves, beware politicians taking credit. Stimulus was designed to create jobs, but jobs lag behind.
This is an amazing amount of wrong to pack into a Twitter post.
Note, just to begin, that the first sentence predicts economic recovery and the second sentence downplays recovery.
Next, let's think about the number of projects Congressman Rehberg has taken credit for despite voting against (including a number in the jobs recovery bill).
Third, let's note that the reason why "jobs lag behind" is that the Bush/Rehberg recession was worse than anticipated by the White House. Our Congressman is right that jobs lag behind -- but it was his party driving economic policy in this country for the last 8-14 years, depending on whether we're counting WH or Congress or both. Add in Randian Fed chief Greenspan and the run is quite long.
In his time in Congress, I've not seen many Rehberg economic proposals that make much sense. His constant criticism of textbook macroeconomics, his outright denial of the problems associated with healthcare inflation, and his steady vote for the Bush Administration tell me that I need to beware his taking credit for anything economically related.
I should also note that our Congressman recently claimed to be paying his own health insurance tab and didn't respond to my mild fact-checking. Members of Congress have 2/3 of their premiums covered. As a millionaire, picking up that other 1/3 is unsurprisingly not much of a problem. Perhaps if our U.S. Representative's financial situation more closely mirrored that of the typical Montanan, we'd see a different tone on healthcare.
Well, this is good to see. Rep. Rehberg's letters to constituents are a bit more honest about his views on health care than his public utterances. Here he is rambling about socialized medicine:
Thank you for contacting me regarding health insurance. It's good to hear from you.
As you know, a lot has been made recently of the benefits of socialized medicine. Critics of the current U.S. system of joint public and private insurance point to Canada or Europe for models of how we ought to run our system. The need is the overwhelming number of 46 million uninsured Americans with no access to healthcare.
Roughly 46 million Americans lack healthcare coverage. However, this number requires a closer examination. According to the 2006 US census data, 250 million Americans either enroll in public health insurance plans such as CHIP or Medicaid or have private coverage. Of the 46 million uninsured, 11.4 million individuals are in families making less than the poverty level and are eligible for public assistance, but have chosen not to enroll. Another 18 million are in their twenties. This younger group tends to be healthier and thus some of these individuals may choose to forgo spending money on insurance in favor of other things. Roughly nine million are in families making over $75,000 a year. Most telling is that of the 46 million, around 21 million will be uninsured for longer than a year.
The scope of the problem is how to insure the group of 8 million individuals who make less than $50,000 a year, but more than their state's threshold to qualify for assistance through Medicaid or similar programs. This can be accomplished through a series of coordinated federal and state initiatives. On the federal level, I have long advocated for the passage of Small Business Health Plan legislation. Such plans would allow small businesses to band together to form a larger insurance pool and negotiate lower rates. With 18 million uninsured working Americans employed by companies with fewer than 25 employees, this legislation would be a big help.
Additionally, we need to work to break down costly insurance mandates. In Montana, the cost of all state and federal mandates is $21.22 per person per month for a typical family of four. Some of these mandates serve legitimate medical concerns, but the overall cost is a burden on middle class families trying to get even minimal coverage.
What we must avoid is being overwhelmed by the complexity of the problem and resort to government run, single-payer healthcare. A quick comparison between Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and the U.S. system shows the problems and inadequacies of government run healthcare. Right now, 1 million Britons are on waiting lists for procedures, and another 100,000 operations are cancelled yearly due to various staff and equipment deficiencies. New technologies offer many advances in the medical field, yet because of its government run structure, the NHS cannot take advantage. For instance, while the U.S. has 13 computed tomography (CAT) scanners per million people, Great Briton has half of that. This results in a wait time of over a month for what in the U.S. is a routine imaging service. The most telling number is that a majority of NHS workers would not want to receive treatment in the system.
America offers the highest quality care in the world. Rest assured that I will work to make sure everyone has access to that care. The U.S. system needs reform. But those changes can be made without relying on bureaucrats to make our healthcare decisions for us. Healthcare should be between a patient and his or her physician, not between a patient, doctor, and a low-level bureaucrat in D.C.
Thanks again for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my e-newsletter, please visit my website at www.house.gov/rehberg. Keep in touch.
The U.S. House is moving pretty quickly on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (better known as Waxman-Markey). This bill is the primary vehicle for a carbon cap in Congress, which is to say it is the primary vehicle to stop global warming.
New modeling shows a 9 degree rise in global temperatures is a highly probably outcome of global warming at this point. This is what trained scientists refer to as a "Holy Fuck!" scenario, because it is really, really bad news.
So the next question, obviously, would be, "What can we do to get this shit under control?" And the answer, so far, is that the Clean Energy and Security Act is our starting point, but unlikely to be the final answer.
Here's some details:
The original draft [...] was a mixed bag: its "complementary policies" (the 75% of the bill devoted to energy stuff unrelated to cap-and-trade) were excellent, and its targets for climate pollution reduction were bolder than anticipated, but it allowed for far too many carbon offsets and left unsettled the key issue of how the pollution permits under cap-and-trade would be allocated.
Since then, the decision has apparently been made to give away permits rather than auctioning them (a net loser for most of us AND for the environment since auctions would raise revenue to rebate to offset costs to the low-income and also to build out things like mass transit and since auctions would put additional downward pressure on carbon).
And the bill probably just doesn't go far enough in attempts to limit carbon output. Now, I'm seen as a jerk in some corners because I think global warming is a big enough environmental problem that I'm open to nuclear or clean coal technology to avoid our planet frying alive. It ain't my goal, of course, but I've found the Gods have yet to issue me fiat power over our government, so I'm open to carbon sequestration and other things.
But all that said, what is fascinating to me is watching how the carbon debate mirrors the health care debate:
It comes down to how you see the big picture and the larger forces of history-that Rorschach blot. Those who have turned against the bill think there will be one chance to do this; they cite the Clean Air Act to show how crappy compromises get cemented in place in legislation and become very, very difficult to reopen. They're worried that if a weak bill is put in place, by the time the country seriously revisits it it could well be too late. It blows the one chance.
The bill's supporters think history is on their side. They see the most important goals as establishing a long-term declining cap on CO2 (the 2030 and 2050 targets remain strong in W-M), getting a carbon trading system up and running, and above all shifting off the status quo trajectory. They also point out that the U.S. desperately needs something to take to the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Only a show of good faith will get the rusty gears of multilateral negotiation turning again, and that process, too, cannot wait. As time passes, they say, climate change will hit harder, increasing political pressure to strengthen the system. States will accelerate their own programs; clean businesses will gain size and lobbying muscle; everyone will get much more serious about the problem and cognizant of the opportunities. This is the beginning of a journey that will only gain, not lose, momentum.
That's the single-payer folks and the HCAN team spelled out right there. It's the one-fell-swoop crowd v the incrementalists.
I had a fairly long conversation last evening with one of my favorite local conservation leaders. This discussion was at the very heart of it. When you're a principled incrementalist, the question is always what you're willing to settle for, because the reality is: if we pass major health care or global warming legislation in 2009, it will not be on the agenda again for at least several years in the same way.
Conversely, what we know from history is that when the issue dies in Congress, politicians back off their support for it, the media finds different stories, and the issue does not return again until a champion finds it once more.
Health care reform is very likely to occur this year before we move on to considering the carbon pollution caps (I don't coordinate the ball, I'm just reading the program they gave me), but this issue is going to be even tougher to navigate. It is nearly impossible to convince Americans that our healthcare system isn't broken. In the realm of climate science, disinformation still has sway.
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what this has to do with killing health care reform but couldn't find the connection and one of Rep. Rehberg's staff appealed to my larger conscience, so here goes:
Our Congressman has launched a worthy project to provide support for the stateside families of deployed troops called Battle Buddies. It is a good endeavor and worth checking out.
Let me note, briefly, though that policymakers have huge powers to make systemic changes that are good for people and not just act as charities. Denny Rehberg has not been a particularly bad vote for veterans as far as I know, but things like Jon Tester's proposals to improve healthcare for rural veterans are huge and worthy of the attention that the Battle Buddies program is likely to get.
Three months ago, our Congressman wrote on Twitter about his lunch with Thomas E. Woods, a dude who had all sorts of connections to the neo-Confederate movement.
On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are. (Emphasis added, obviously)
Paul Krugman gets shrill about the economy in the near run, noting that jobs reports are showing very, very quick rises in unemployment.
The second problem he notes is that infrastructure spending will take time to phase up as a lot of infrastructure we could put money into isn't really ready to move yet. Infrastructure -- highways, bridges, rail lines, power lines, etc. -- takes some thought to do properly.
Atrios says that means all the more reason to quickly up aid to state and local governments, plus transit agencies.
Cutting those checks can do a lot to keep public sector layoffs from adding to private sector layoffs. Plus states may be able to start more infrastructure projects with an influx of money.
Second -- now would be a smart time, as councilman Jason Wiener already noted in Missoula, for municipalities and states to start budgeting and preparing infrastructure projects that could be funded and revved up quickly to infuse some money into the economy.
There's a free screening tomorrow night in Missoula of I.O.U.S.A. -- 7pm at the Wilma -- which I've heard is a very eye-opening look at the fiscal situation our country faces. There are some decent arguments to be made about our country's fiscal realities. But right now is no time to be penny wise and pound foolish.
Jay already mentioned this, but it unfortunately appears that there is a lack of agreement in our Congressional delegation on whether to reconsider the deregulation of Wall Street that allowed for this mess to occur:
Rehberg said he favors some curbs on excessive executive pay and wants to have a full debate on the House floor. He wouldn't say whether he favored more regulation of the banking industry.
A few things we need to be clear about -- this isn't just the banking industry. It's the larger financial sector. And as much as I'm all for more accountability for executives, what we're talking about there is small potatoes in the larger scheme of things.
The better questions revolve around a lot of the newly ginned up financial instruments that were largely operating without oversight.
Unfortunately, the penchant for deregulation as silver bullet hasn't dissipated. Despite a bit of outcry over McCain's recent writing in an actuarial magazine that the best route for health care is to deregulate in the same way that we deregulated the financial services realm, similar ideas continue to percolate.
From Duane Grimes, Republican candidate for State Auditor:
Grimes said his plan would ease some insurance regulations and give consumers more information so they could have more choices and competition in the private health insurance market.
[...]
Analyzing how health insurance mandates drive up costs, and possibly pushing to eliminate mandates so insurers can offer less-costly products that provide only the coverage that some consumers want.
No one is going to argue that subprime health insurance is going to cause BCBS to be overleveraged and crash our economy. But the other problem will still be real. On a cashflow basis, toothless insurance is cheaper. The monthly bills are lower.
But the point of insurance isn't to protect against the harms you foresee, but also against the ones you don't. Narrow insurance isn't really insurance at all. And especially in health care, what mandates largely cover are preventive approaches that most people agree are what we need more of, not less of.
Health insurance deregulation is likely to exacerbate America's health care problems, much of which is driven by overconsumption of health care by the rich and underconsumption of health care by the poor. The overconsumption by the rich drives of the price. The underconsumption by the poor results in people seeking (costly) treatment at the emergency room.
Look -- from everything I've heard Duane Grimes is a stand-up guy and a friendly human being. I actually think there's a decent chance he'll be the next State Auditor. Fortunately, in that role, he won't have the power to deregulate the health insurance sector unilaterally (as far as I know).
But it should raise concerns that he wants to take the approach to health care that got us in this financial mess.
Well, I have to admit I like this -- within 24 hours of its release, Retired Lt. Col. Jim Hunt has signed on with the responsible plan to get out of Iraq. His website features a link that a reader tipped me off to this morning. I don't see a statement yet, but hopefully one will come out sometime soon.
I'm not sure if Jay already posted this and I missed it, but thought I'd flag that it is official -- Jim Hunt has filed:
Hunt said his campaign will point out the distinct differences between the candidates on basic values, such as the right to privacy, the Iraq war and the environment.
"If people become aware of our values, I think people will see a dramatic difference between us," he said Friday.
As an example, Hunt said Rehberg "has supported the president on the Iraq war, at a cost of $12 billion a month, at the expense of our health care and education (programs)."
Billings Republican Michael Lange made his bid for the U.S. Senate official Friday when he plunked down $1,693 at the Montana Secretary of State's office and filed his official candidacy documents.
"We are overwhelmed with support," Lange, a state representative, said shortly after his filing. "Every week we're out on the road campaigning."
When you're from Montana, it's hard to find things to do - so practical jokes come in handy.
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) recently played a gag on Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) on their Middle East congressional delegation trip last month.
Rehberg left an "Idaho Travel Package" on Simpson's airplane seat.
Contents included a stuffed sheep with gloves attached to it (draw your own conclusions), a Village People CD, books on cross-dressing and sign language and a T-shirt that reads, "My senator may not be gay, but my governor is Butch."
Rehberg is proud of the gift bag. "I spent a bit of time putting the things together," he boasted.
Nice use of your paycheck, sir.
That whole mixing anti-gay humor with beastiality innuendos? Not so cool, especially for a guy with a history of telling AIDS patients to die.
I've already had several people ask me what I know about Jim Hunt. The honest answer is not a ton -- especially not much more than what has already come out from his campaign. His profile is great in some ways. He's a lifelong Montanan, born and raised in Northcentral Montana, an active gun owner and sportsman, a leader in his church, etc.
Does he have a chance? Sure. We'll see what kind of campaign he runs, but his profile isn't bad and it could be a good year for Democrats nationally and in Montana. We'll see.
The U.S. House by a fairly wide margin approved a new energy bill to increase fuel efficiency, fight global warming, and decrease dependence on foreign oil.
Unsurprisingly, Dennis Rehberg voted "Aye" to inefficiency, a hotter planet, and foreign oil.
Why would he do that? Well, one of his colleagues had this to say to the LA Times (linked above):
"The static electricity created by my shoes rubbing across this carpet creates more energy than the Democrats' energy bill," said Rep. George Radanovich (R-Mariposa).
That's a great line, but it misses the point. An energy bill shouldn't be about creating more energy any more than a crime bill should be about creating more crime.
The goal -- and this is not a partisan goal -- is to use energy more efficiently and to have a smarter energy policy.
In fact, the good news for this energy bill is that it can reduce energy consumption, waste, and pollution. Again, from the LA Times:
An analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a Washington think tank, said the bill would reduce the projected energy use for 2030 by almost 8% and carbon dioxide emissions by 10%, with about half of the savings coming from the tougher vehicle economy rules.
Now, it's quite possible that having the government subsidize energy waste creates a handful more jobs in some Congressional districts, but it happens at massive cost to the rest of us.
And just like a bill aimed at locking up innocent people just may do some good for the private prison industry, that should never be the goal of our criminal statutes.
Is Rehberg nervous about Bill Kennedy? He's certainly going on the attack awful early for someone who has been hailed as a safe incumbent.
Two possibilities:
The Rehberg operation knows that 2008 could be as rough as 2006 and since Rehberg hasn't been tested since 2000, a serious challenger with deep roots in Montana's most populous county could be a real threat.
Dennis Rehberg is the biggest jerk in Montana politics and the Montana GOP proved with their death porn mailer during the legislative session that no blow is low enough at any point in the cycle.
Keep in mind that both could be true.
There's plenty of evidence that Rehberg is the nastiest man in Montana politics.
There's also plenty of evidence that he's actually nervous. His caving on CHIP and college affordability are votes that simply weren't expected, come Hell or highwater. Good for him for voting right, but is it just because he's running scared for a change?
Rehberg was moved. Big props to WEEL on this -- they've been beating the drum on it for a while. The big push from some national organizations, Raise Montana, and Forward Montana probably helped a bit, too. And I'm sure it didn't hurt that Bill Kennedy has been pushing hard on this.
It's good to know that Rehberg is movable when pressure is applied.
Jay has already written pretty widely about the wiretapping votes that occurred last week, but they are another great example of just exactly how big the gulf between the two parties is -- especially here in Montana.
Max Baucus and Jon Tester were not part of the group that broke in order to support Mr. 28%'s desire to hear our conversations and further weaken our privacy protections.
Dennis Rehberg, on the other hand, took his typical route and rubber stamped the President's desire to increase executive power with no oversight.
Meanwhile, even as the U.S. Congress takes action to increase federal power again, the state's leading libertarian blogger finds the most interesting story -- enforcement of military law against a right-wing gadfly at Daily Kos. Check out the comments to find out why Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org did what he did. It wasn't censorship. It was his obligation to enforce military code. Still, good to know that blogger conventions are more interesting than abuses condoned by the U.S. Congress.
