Obama Might Need These to 'Kick' Congress in the Ass...
The US Senate is often referred to as 'The Place Where Good Legislation Goes to Die'. That's because they like to tinker with the bills that the House of Representatives sends them. Sometimes they do mess things up, but soemtimes they are the body that brings at least a modicum of restraint to Washington DC. That was evident this week, with the economic stimulus bill.
We've been saying it for a while here, and most voters agree, that the stimulus bill, while it has many decent and potenially effective qualities, has some things on it that needed to be cut - and the Senate is doing it. While chopping off $130 billion seems like a daunting task, the facts are that these are not cuts, they are lower spending increases, so if you hear someone anywhere whine about taking food out of someone's mouth, don't believe it. It is only giving less of an increase. But, overall, it has been interesting watching this all happen, and we have a couple observations.
Barack Obama Messed Up
Yep, the man is human. Even I mess up sometime. Here is where he f'd up... First, the extra week the Senate has taken is not ruining America. I think the light speed with which DC blew the first $700 billion in TARP money without pinpointing HOW Wall Street should spend the money showed that time sved turns into money wasted. Hey, I like that... I sound like Ben Franklin.
Secondly, he adopted the Dems crappy rationalization this week that because he and the Dems were elected, that they gave them the green light to go ape shit and start spending in dollar amounts that start with 'T'... No matter whether you win by 12 or 200 electoral votes, America never has a mandate in it's elections, and they expect some sensibility. 'America voted me in, and this is what they want' doesn't cut it. They didn't expect this kind of spending. Obama has done a good job of trying for bi-partisan support, and he will get his bill passed. Patience, Barry...
Who Loses?
Well, the obvious loser in the long term are the voters, or more likely, their kids and grandkids, for they will have to pay this back eventually, but that's a no-brainer. The big losers in the short term are the states - and they should be. Like South Carolina, the state budgets have skyrocketed in the last few years. Double digit budget increases for 4 or 5 years in a row are a recipe for disaster, and it finally came. How the hell can California have a $44 BILLION dollar deficit? I'm afraid to even look at the bullshit in that state's budget.
Spending Vs. Tax Cuts
Here is the big debate. Which works better? Well, it depends on what you're shooting for. The Republicans want to cut taxes, the Democrats want to spend money. While I am not a big fan of Keynesian Economics, which is all they teach you in college by the way, a targeted project that puts people to work immediately works faster than an incremental tax cut. But.....
Here are the facts. Most of these changes will take a long time to have ay effect at all, and the economy likely will recover on it's own by the time it hits. Some of you seem to have trouble grasping the tax cut theory, so here it is - in simple microeconomic terms that should make sense....
Most of us Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and that is our fault. When we lose a job, for every month that we are out of work, it takes 3-4 months to make up for that loss. My personal example? It took me 18 months to get back to where I was for a 4 month stretch with no income. But, the key engine in America's economy is still and will always be the American consumer. That is why the mortgage crisis was the true cause of this recession. An extra $200-400 month on a crappy mortgage ruins households. They can be repaired, and most of them are, but it takes time. Try as we might, there will NEVER be a quick repair to an economic downturn. We are an impatient, fix-it-now nation, and DC's attempt to fix anything within a month or two will not work. It takes time....
For real, long-term economic sustainable growth, Americans need to have money to spend in their bank accounts. To do that, they need to have less taxes taken out, and to be able to obtain a REASONABLE amount of credit to buy a home and one credit card without getting fucked in the ass financially. Financial recovery is a slow, tedious, painstaking process, but eventually, it happens. Americans budgets have had a big whammy hit on them this year, but cutting taxes eventually does work it's way towards a good economy.
Like most issues, both the Democrats and Republicans have good points, and Congress does need to take it's time to put together a solid plan to fix America, but no matter what, don't expect any miracles in 2009. It takes time.. Patience, America.....
.
11 comments:
Did you see the crap the DeMint amendment was asking for? It was Grover Nordquist's wet dream list. This after 8 years of tax cuts and deficit spending. Can't happen.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All this money ought to go to strictly infrastructure projects. That would mean jobs and then at least if it does not work, we'd have some new briges, wastewater treatement plants and other shit.
It would also ease the burden on a local level, as states could use money earmarked for such infrastructure on other shit.
Yeah, I saw the list, and it is a little old school style plan that mostly benefits the upper class.
The key to everything is moderation. Some infrastructure projects would be good, and some middle class tax cuts to free up some cash.
State and locally, i don't have 100% confidence that they can curb spending. they have to balance a budget every year, but when there is excess revenue, it ends up as more spending, then every 6-7 years, we end up with this.
A good example of the stupidity in budgetary spending is the Indigent Defense problem we're having.
They decided they needed to fund civil appointments and took over $2mil out of the budget for that. They forgot, with the move to more use-based tax, when the economy goes down, that money ain't there.
So then they have to pull that money from the criminal appointments. The problem with that, is there's a constitutional mandate for criminal representation. You can't take that money away.
Now...I love criminal work and I take just about every criminal appt that comes throught the office, because I enjoy it. I've only filed for OID funds, I believe, twice. Both were cases that wound up being trials that took several days, so that's why I did it.
I prefer to not file for that money because I know there are other attys out there getting a lot more appt'd cases who need that money (which usually runs out each year) because they've got monster cases that require much more preparation.
Most attys I know feel they same way. So, trust me, no one is getting rich off of these cases. In fact, all we ask is that we don't bankrupt those attys who get cases which practically force them to ignore paying clients for months at a time.
Good personal example P-Luv. It once again shows where common sense governance woudl make both of us happier. I favor a flat income tax myself, rather than user taxes, it's the only true ability to pay indicator.
I wasn't taking pot shots at Stephen. Locally , they depend on State and Federal money. Since Columbia has been on a spending spree, led by a group of leaders that my own party has problems with, they're stuck now. Sanford's been telling them for a while now, but no one was listening.
What's your opinion on Sanford saying he ain't taking any of the bailout money?
Personally, I think it is a perfect example of Sanford's problem: he is all about promoting himself instead of actually serving his constituents. How does him not taking money, money that's gonna get spent on someone, WTF does that do for South Carolinians?
The only reason is 1) he's so opposed to it for ideological reasons or 2) he wants to be able to brag about not taking it when he runs for the White House in 2012.
As to #1, that's horseshit. Sanford showed his true goldwaterness (or lack thereof) over the I Believe nonsense.
So its all about self-promotion as far as I can tell.
Mark has a bit of an ego and he doesn't mind ticking people off. He is a borderline Libertarian, and if you ever met one, you know how they are.
I don't think Sanford's running for President. SC is too small, too conservative, and Sanford does not communicate well enough to lead the nation.
Would he like the money. Yeah, I think so, but I think he sees the hypocrisy of taking it,after his stance after all these years. He almost HAS TO say he doesn't want the money..
I've got some old law school republican buddies who seem to think it's a given he's going to run.
It's hard to ignore how much he has used that Chairmanship of the Republican Governor's Conference to get himself national press.
I also don't think you can ignore the I believe plate issue. We all know Sanford doesn't worry about pissing people off. According to his own comments he was against it ideologically (it would result in lawsuits and cost money in the end - wastefully, he knows, because he knows its unconstitutional) and morally(basically saying you should express your faith by how you live your life).
So why not veto it? The only answer that makes sense, is because he doesn't want to piss of the religious right. Why would that matter if 2006 was really his last campaign as he tried to sell at the time?
I disagree with your buds in Cola, although I definitely am out of the loop now. If he is entertaining thoughts in 2012, my advice is to finish his term, pass on 2012, and ride off into the sunset.
2008 was the year to run, Obama will be stronger in '12, because I have no doubts that the economy will be better then than it is now, stimulus or not.
My guess on why no veto is just what you said - he really has no ability to NOT take it, and it's not really a sustainable position.
i want my bail out money
If your bosses stopped figuring out how to make money, they might get some..
you know this bill they just passed is screwed up democrat party is going to be the down fall of this nation
Post a Comment