A great deal has been in the press this past week about the stimulus package now in debate and negotiations in the US Senate. Herein, I try to sort through the muddle, listing articles and websites that clearly delineate where the spending package stands. I also offer my own analysis and commentary where I believe it to be appropriate. In this entire process, certain things have become abundantly clear. The Congressional Republicans continue their calls for bipartisanship while making singularly partisan demands of the bill. Although Democrats have given the Republicans most of their demanded tax cuts and significantly reduced social program spending, the Republicans still claim that the stimulus is not bipartisan. In this process, the GOP has revealed that it plans to be obstructionist at every turn, thus greatly reducing the opportunity for the new President and Democratic leadership to succeed. The Republicans, not having a plan of their own now seek only to prevent the Democrats from the success that this country desperately needs. Democrats have given up too much to those Republican demands and the package will now be far less effective than even the pork-laden package approved by the House of Representatives last week. The Republicans have called for smaller government, but have removed practically all spending that would have benefitted smaller state and local governments in favor of increased federal allocations for the Department of Defense.
Sen Nelson (D-Neb) and Collins (R-Maine) have co-sponsored amendments that scrap educational and school construction increases in favor of increasing, by the same amount, spending for the Pentagon. Where are their priorities; hasn’t the discussion of old militarism versus new progressivism been had and lost? What do we need more of, better public education or more bloated military spending? Veterans know that those Pentagon increases will not be seen by the average troop on the ground, nor those who have gone before, but will be wastefully mismanaged to the benefit of defense contractor cronies of the GOP.
Greg Sargent's blog, The Plum Line, at whorunsgov.com, contains the article, Latest Cuts To The Stim Package: Head Start, Child Nutrition, Food Stamps Public Transit, which can be found at http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/stimulus-package/latest-cuts-to-the-stim-package-head-start-child-nutrition-food-stamps-public-transit/, lists program cuts and upgrades. According to his list the following programs are to be cut from the stimulus package entirely: Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged, School improvement, Child Nutrition, Firefighters, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, Prisons, COPS Hiring, Violence Against Women, NASA, NSF, Western Area Power Administration, CDC (Centers for Disease Control), Food Stamps. Meanwhile these federal spending areas are to receive increased funding: Defense operations and procurement, STAG Grants, Brownfields, Additional transportation funding
Also cut was direct federal stimulus aid to states, which, unlike the federal government, cannot engage in deficit spending on a recurring basis. This is an interesting demand from the GOP, the party of smaller government, to hold, since the concession indicates that any direct market infusion should come only at the level of the larger government entity. In appeasement to Republicans and economically conservative Democrats (“Bluedogs”), the Senate bill was stripped of direct stimulus spending to states in order to afford increases in spending within the federal government, particularly the Pentagon. This betrays the hypocrisy of economic conservatives’ already, via the Bush administration, discredited calls for smaller government.
In his New York Times article, What the centrists have wrought, found at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/, Paul Krugman writes, “Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.”
In the CNN article, Senators debate stimulus after reported deal, which can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/stimulus/index.html, Senator McCain’s comments on the stimulus package making its way through the Senate reveal that he has entirely fallen victim to failed conservative economic ideology. "This is not bipartisan," said Sen. John McCain, "If this legislation is passed, it'll be a very bad day for America." The Senate version of the stimulus package contains nearly 80% of Republican demands for tax cuts. Sen. McCain misses the facts; all of the most respected economists have agreed with the Obama plan and also conclude that Sen. McCain’s plan would not have stimulated the economy much at all. These same experts came to the conclusion that Sen. McCain’s plan would in fact have lengthened the recession and probably produced a worldwide depression. The Congressional Budget Office did not claim, as Republican leadership has said, that the Obama stimulus package would do little or nothing to relieve the recession; the CBO statement, in fact, made the opposite claim; that the Obama stimulus would have good short and long term effect upon the economy.
Another by Senator McCain, “ This is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.” Huh? How else do you propose to stimulate? More tax cuts? The stimulus package already contains major concessions granting tax cuts wanted by the Republicans. That is still spending, as it reduces the revenue to support the expense stream. And a stimulus bill is a spending bill, by definition. While responsible spending is a worthy ideal on the microeconomic level, it must be remembered that Republican insistence on reducing spending in the middle of a crisis is what lengthened the Great Depression.
In Ryan Grim’s Piece, GOP Opposes Pay Limits On Bailed-Out Bankers, found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-opposes-pay-limits-on_n_164544.html, it is reported that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side" for the president's efforts to reach across the aisle. But, said Inhofe, "as I was listening to him make those statements [regarding Obama’s executive pay-cap at bailed out institutions] I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"
Sen. Inhofe, these businesses went begging to congress for this assistance and then abused the aid given them so that they now again need money. The government is now a major shareholder in these institutions, and, as all shareholders are, is entitled to a say in operations, especially when the American people are footing the bill. One part of implied government assistance etiquette is that one not use the funding to throw a party celebrating one’s previous failure. Over the weekend it has become apparent that even the Europeans are seeing the need to reel in the high living of banking executives in favor of returns on investment that help maintain prosperity. In Europe, this move is coming more from the banks themselves rather than being mandated in conjunction with government assistance.
This entire week we have seen that the Republicans plan to entrench themselves in their tried and failed economic ideology. The GOP has nothing new or workable to offer, so they intend to promote failure through obstructionist action. It is obvious that the Republicans do not have the best interests of America or Americans in mind. Their loyal opposition to the Democrats is rapidly becoming disloyal opposition to America.
No comments:
Post a Comment