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.
GOP proposes capital gains tax cut to attract new businesses to Montana
Yargh! Capital gains taxes don't depend on where the investment is made, but where the investor lives.
In other words, you cut capital gains taxes in Montana and Montanans invest...wherever the hell they want.
Second problem -- and I'm not entirely clear how this plays in Montana -- but federal income taxes generally make state taxes deductible, partially or wholly. So we cut capital gains taxes in Montana, Dennis Washington invests in New York, pays lower state taxes but higher federal taxes.
Third problem -- most investment is not driven by tax rates but by perceived success or failure of a business. The idea that huge numbers of people are scared out of investing because they'll pay a tax if the venture is successful is ludicrous.
Don't just take it from me, take it from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy's Issue Brief on the subject:
Advocates of capital gains tax cuts make no bones about the fact that working taxpayers receive very little benefit from such cuts. They argue that capital gains breaks are designed to encourage economic development by rewarding investment. But there are reasons to believe that capital gains tax breaks are an ineffective strategy for achieving state economic development.
First, capital gains tax breaks have not been shown to encourage additional investment on the federal level-and this linkage is even more tenuous at the state level. A general state capital gains tax break is highly unlikely to benefit that state's economy, since any new investment encouraged by the capital gains break could take place anywhere in the United States or the world.
Second, a substantial part of any state capital gains tax break will never find its way to the pockets of state residents. Because state income taxes can be written off on federal tax forms by those taxpayers who itemize their federal income taxes, and because the ability to write off state income taxes is most valuable for the wealthy Americans who realize most capital gains income, any reduction in state capital gains taxes will be partially offset by an increase in federal income tax liability. For example, ITEP has estimated that 25 percent of the state revenue losses from the Arkansas capital gains tax deduction are directly offset by federal tax increases, and that this "federal offset" increases to 34 percent for the wealthiest taxpayers.
Few policy makers would seriously propose an economic development program that simply threw away 25 percent of its allocated budget-yet that is essentially what lawmakers are doing when they propose a capital gains tax break.
Update -- Wow. Must have been in a hurry yesterday, I called Mr. Dennison, "Mike Dennis." My bad.
Charles Johnson has a story this morning fleshing out more of the details. The tax break is apparently aimed at capital gains tax cuts for new businesses starting or moving to Montana in the next three years. I'm not sure exactly how you do that on the personal income tax side of things instead of the corporate income tax side of things, but apparently this works.
This takes care of one in three of my concerns, but doesn't do anything to address the federal deductibility issue or the fact that capital gains tax cuts just haven't ever been shown to have a stimulative impact.
Turns out voters want the economy ficed. New poll numbers from the AP:
Favor or oppose the new economic stimulus package:
Total Favor: 52%
Total Oppose: 41%
President's Handling of the economy:
Approve: 68%
Disapprove: 27%
Democrats in Congress handling of the economy:
Approve: 49%
Disapprove: 45%
Republicans in Congress handling of the economy:
Approve: 33%
Disapprove: 59%
When it comes to solving the country's economic problems, how much do you think Barack Obama is doing to cooperate w/ Republicans in Congress:
Too much: 6%
Not enough: 30%
About the right amount: 62%
When it comes to solving the country's economic problems, how much do you think Republicans in Congress are doing to cooperate with Barack Obama:
Too much: 5%
Not enough: 64%
About the right amount: 27%
Our Congressman is apparently parroting Rush Limbaugh's talking points and repeating at least one straight-out lie while discussing the recovery act.
In a story in this morning's Gazette, Rehberg is quoted saying the following:
"Two years down the road, I'm not sure we'll see much improvement in the economy," he told members of The Billings Gazette editorial board Monday. He warned people to watch for interest rates creeping up, triggering inflation, because Congress is "piling debt upon debt."
Nevermind that there are indications that we're witnessing deflation or that interest rates are hella low right now. This is economic gobbledy-gook, but it's not nearly as bad as this:
Finally, he said Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada inserted a provision in the stimulus bill to spend $8 billion building a high-speed rail from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.
That's a lie. The provisions for high speed rail were inserted by the White House, not the Majority Leader. And there is no line from Las Vegas to LA. Check out real facts here.
I have to say, though, nice catch by Jan Falstad on this one:
"I fall in the category of 'throw the bums in jail,'" Rehberg said, but he added that the country can never eliminate greed through legislation.
That said, in January Rehberg voted against a bill to impose some retroactive accountability into TARP, including limiting pay to top banking officers.
I look forward to seeing the bill introduced by Rep. Rehberg to "throw the bums in jail."
For a sane take on this bill, look to this article with our Senators' views. Perfect bill? No. Better than not acting? Yes. Better than Rehberg's alternative? Fo sho.
Yargh. Every time I start thinking about the way that macroeconomics is being discussed by the press and Republicans in Congress, I just want to shoot myself in the face.
Take Senator John Ensign's ridiculous claims this morning. The fact that he doesn't get laughed out of a television studio for saying that state budgets are bloated and deserve cuts, that aid to states should be removed from the federal recovery act, and that no firefighters or teachers should be laid off is all nuts. Or, as Matt Yglesias put it, "stupid."
There are two big competing theories of generally how economies work in stiff recessions. One is the classical theory that the economy contracts, but eventually money becomes cheap enough (as deflation convinces lenders to give it away for 0% interest presumably) that borrowing ticks back up in the private sector, new ventures form, existing ventures expand, and the economy gets moving again.
The competing theory is the Keynesian theory, which is that you basically end up in a downward spiral of tightwaddedness. Everyone gets too nervous about their own economic situation to spend money. Lenders become worried about people with bad credit and pull in loans. Even as money becomes cheaper, no one wants to extend loans at low interest rates for fear that if they misjudge the coming growth, they'll get screwed. Fear and uncertainty rein.
So the assumption of the Keynesians is that you need to do some predictable short- and medium-term government spending in order to get money moving in the economy again.
It turns out aid to states is a really good way of keeping money moving in the economy, because otherwise states cut their budgets, laying people off (putting people into unemployment systems) or cutting back on health care benefits or other programs. Keeping that money in the pipeline is the probably smartest use of quick money to prevent job loss.
So of course it is in the crosshairs. Like I said, Yargh.
(Wait...is this right? Montana Republicans won't pass the state budget until the stimulus bill is passed?
Why? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Another day, another hypocritical vote by the extremist House Republicans. Today, among other empty rhetoric during the day; 48 House Republicans voted against HJ 12, carried by Cheryl Steenson (D-Kalispell), that urges Congress to pass the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to create jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
Never mind that Flathead unemployment level is approaching 10% and Rep. Dee Brown, Rep. Bill Beck, Rep. Jon Sonju, Rep. Mark Blasdel, Rep. Janna Taylor and Rep. Scott Reichner all voted against this resolution to put Montanans in the northwest back to work.
But remember the reason we cannot move the budget forward in Subcommittee is the House and Senate Republicans want to wait until the Recovery and Reinvestment Act passes Congress before they vote on any part of the budget. Say what?
Recap - 48 House Republicans vote against the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, yet won't vote on Montana's budget until it passes congress.
Yep, the Good Guv was right, they are smoking pine cones.
Voting No to Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs:
Rep. Duane Ankney, Rep. Elsie Arntzen, Rep. Russell Bean, Rep. Gerald Bennett, Rep. Tom Berry, Rep. Joel Boniek, Rep. Ed Butcher, Rep. Ray Hawk, Rep. Gordon Hendrick, Rep. Dennis Himmelberger, Rep. Roy Hollandsworth, Rep. Brian Hoven, Rep. David Howard, Rep. Pat Ingraham, Rep. Llew Jones, Rep. Dave Kasten, Rep. Krayton Kerns, Rep. Harry Klock, Rep. Bob Lake, Rep. Gary MacLaren, Rep. Tom McGillvary, Rep. Walter McNutt, Rep. Scott Mendenhall, Rep. Mike Milburn, Rep. Mike Miller, Rep. Micheal Moore, Rep. Penny Morgan, Rep. Bill Nooney, Rep. Jesse O'Hare, Rep. Ken Peterson, Rep. Lee Randall, Rep. Keith Reiger, Rep. Scott Reichner, Rep. Don Roberts, Rep. Scott Sales, Rep. Cary Smith, Rep. Wayne Stahl, Rep. Ron Stoker, Rep. Gordon Vance, Rep. Chas Vincent, Rep. Bob Wagner, Rep. Wendy Warburton, and Rep. Ted Washburn
(I suspect Rehberg's release was penned before the sod expenditure was pulled -- but does this mean he'll support the bill now? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Jay's post on Rehberg's ridiculous excuses on the stimulus package is spot on...but I wanted to point out something that he missed.
Rehberg's been defending his vote (in a very defensive fashion) in an oped that's appeared in the Gaz and the Trib (and maybe other newspapers.) He sent out the editorial last Wednesday, after the vote on the legislation.
In it he says something very interesting.
Dennis Rehberg explaining his no vote on economic recovery, last Wednesday:
We need to jolt our economy back to life like a defibrillator stimulates a heart beat. That means getting the money where we need it in the short-term, not over multiple years. Targeted means we need to do it in a way that maximizes the tax dollar's return on investment, by targeting the engine of our economy - jobs created by small business - while avoiding cosmetic projects like resodding the National Mall.
On Tuesday evening the House Rules Committee stripped two provisions from the stimulus package: the family planning money that President Obama personally lobbied Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to remove yesterday, and the $200 million to refurbish the National Mall.
I think most can agree that this legislation is the most important that will ever face Congressman Rehberg...so I believe that we deserve an answer. Is Rehberg purposely misleading Montanans about what was in this legislation? Or is he such a backbencher that he didn't even know that this wasn't in there?
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 itall along.
Heck, he'll probably even use my patented, extra-handy "Double Backflip" template the next time you hear from him on the subject...
I've read your rationalization for failing to vote in favor of the stimulus package presented to you yesterday, and found it wanting. I sincerely wish you would not use the expression "Montanan's realize..." when trying to justify your own preconceptions. Perhaps the term, "Montana millionaires like me, with free goverment health care realize..." would work better when you justify your votes against the interests of the average Montanan. You should have voted for this stimulus package, and I expect a better response when it comes before you again. I'll be following the issue closely.
I just got a press release from Jon Tester's office outlining a bit of what the Appropriations Committee approved today for the stimulus package:
· $27 billion to upgrade America's highways and bridges.
· $12.375 billion to improve water projects across the country, which will create more than 180,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide.
· $10 billion to guarantee loans for energy transmission projects like the Montana-Alberta Tie Line (MATL), which will connect power lines between Canada and Great Falls.
· $5.8 billion to undertake energy efficiency and renewable energy projects at schools and hospitals nationwide.
· $5 billion to improve housing and quality of life for members of the military and for improvements at Veterans Administration (VA) facilities.
· $2 billion to create jobs and improve conditions in Indian Country.
· $800 million to lower the risk of wildfire through forest management.
The Senate needs to get money for mass transit into this package. Much of this can't just be about throwing big money at existing things. That's fine for short-term shot-in-the-arm economic stimulus. It is a terrible way to take long-term advantage of what is very much a one-time opportunity for a huge capital investment in public works.
But let me also say that money for energy efficiency with public buildings: brilliant.
Two reports on the state-by-state impacts of the stimulus package were just released by the U.S. House Committees on Appropriations (PDF) and Transportation and Infrastructure (PDF). Both files are PDFs and contain info for all fifty states.
Time is short -- can't write up the Montana portions.
Talking Points Memo's latest operation TPMDC is reporting that mass transit got cut from the stimulus proposal to make way for tax cuts.
Some words from Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), who chairs the relevant House Committee:
That is why we set forth this $85-billion initiative from our committee. It's been reduced in the final going. We expect that it'll come out somewhere around $63 billion, but $30 billion for highways.
The reason for the reduction in overall funding -- we took money out of Amtrak and out of aviation; we took money out of the Corps of Engineers, reduced the water infrastructure program, the drinking water and the wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines, reduced that from $14 billion to roughly $9 billion -- was the tax cut initiative that had to be paid for in some way by keeping the entire package in the range of $850 billion.
But I'll say that our portion is the one that really creates the jobs. Our portion of it is the one that's going to put people to work because unlike anything else, these jobs can't be outsourced to Bangalore, India.
Meanwhile, Missoula's local government officials who focus on transportation issues are taking issue with the proposed disbursement of funds under the Governor's requests for infrastructure projects and requesting more money in general for the county.
Transportation policy isn't really my forte, but reading this stuff makes me wish that we were talking about this opportunity to make passenger rail a reality in places like the I-90 loop of Montana.
