Senate Democratic leaders conceded yesterday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written and said that to gain bipartisan support, they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy.
I think this is the right way to do it. Moreover, I wonder if this won't make more sense for Democrats, ultimately. The stimulus package as written by the House did let them advance some priorities, like health insurance, but was so expensive that it was going to make it much harder for the Democrats to pursue broader reforms.
I think this is the right way to do it.
-----------------------------------
Agreed. If you're going to try stimulus it should be chalk full of make-work infrastructure, budget plugging state payments, tax cuts and continued unemployment/welfare insurance.
Everything else can wait.
k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com
So here is a question I sincerely wonder.
If during the last decade or more of property, a prosperity that virtually everyone says will not come back any time soon (Obama included). At what point will the economy recover enough to not need indefinite "stimulus"?
What happens to all the employees that are basically paid for by the stimulus once the stimulus dries up? Will private companies begin hiring all these former government workers?
Is there an exit strategy, so so many are fond of wondering before we jump into things? Or is the goal just to spend until things get better?
What do we define as better? What will we do once we get there with the current programs that have ballooned passed historic proportions?
And repeating some wonderings which I've posted elsewhere, and still have. Is it wise to borrow money to pay for interest on money that we borrowed to pay for interest on money that we borrowed to pay for interest on money that we borrowed? It's not like we've done it once, we continually keep on doing it. Is there a negative repercussion to this? (is what the economy experiencing now part of that negative repercussion? I think its a possibility)
I suppose it depends on one's priorities. There are, I suppose, at least some Democrats that would prefer more spending on current programs to broader reforms, and it is still easier to attach extra spending to an emergency bill like this than a standalone bill where paygo might be theoretically applied.
This is all reminiscent of the TARP package in the Fall. After all is said and done, the bill will be 1.2 trillion dollars in order to buy off enough votes.
Seen this particular movie way too many times. We are standing at the precipice of fiscal insanity, and it appears we are going to jump in head first.
It seems to me the thing should be split into at least three pieces: short-term stimulus ("shovel-ready" spending, tax cuts, whatever can be done in 6–9 months), recession mitigation (food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc.), and long-term stuff (infrastructure rebuilding, health care reform, fur-bearing trout subsidies, etc.) The first two can and should be passed quickly, but there's no great urgency about the latter.
I don't believe the igorance of the American public. First, the American Government shouldn't be the entity to drag our economy out of the situation that it is in. Commercial businesses and investors created this problem and should be funding corretive action. Good ole' American greed has us in this positon. Secondly, the so called stimlus package is loaded with paybacks to the Presidential Campaign. Less than 100 billion will go towards programs to fix the economic problem. People need to take a closer look at what they intend on supporting instead of listening to the drive-by-media......
The feds bailout/stimulus is $900 billion or $3000 for every man, woman and child in the country. I say scrap the stimulud bill and give every man/woman&child $3000 each. If they spend it, the economy is kick started. If they save it, the banks are saved. And it happens right away. Send the checks before Valentine's Day so that we can by gifts.
What bothers me about the stimulus is that there really isn't any long term vision of how we want things to be in the future, once (if) we get out of the current mess that we are in. It seems obvious to me that we can't go back to the way things were a couple of years ago - living and buying stuff like we did on borrowed money. Our lifestyles and values are going to have to change.
Has anyone else thought about this?