Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators

[007]

Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators​

Some Senate Democrats are joining the Republican chorus in opposition to the $900 billion economic stimulus package.

President Obama is stressing bipartisanship when it comes to the $900 billion economic stimulus plan being considered in the Senate, and he may get it -- in unity of opposition.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he "can't believe that the president isn't embarrassed about" the stimulus packages that have passed the House and the Senate appropriations and finance committees.

The Senate is set to take up debate on the plan Monday afternoon. Republicans insist it won't go through in its current form.

"It'll need to change if it'll do any good. I mean, things like $150 million honey bee insurance and $650 million to buy government employees cars is not what the American public had in mind," McConnell said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

 

[Xenophon]

It's about 900 billion to heavy in fact.

 

[DiamondDave]

Xen

Now I cannot say that... any spending dealing with true infrastructure etc, that is not incredibly abnormal, would not be bad... but then again, I don't consider ATV parks 'infrastructure'...

This is not a 'stimulus' bill.. it is a bill to get thru all of the pork that the DEMs have wanted... and pork is going to get us nowhere except for a place worse than we are today

 

[ReillyT]

Xen

Now I cannot say that... any spending dealing with true infrastructure etc, that is not incredibly abnormal, would not be bad... but then again, I don't consider ATV parks 'infrastructure'...

This is not a 'stimulus' bill.. it is a bill to get thru all of the pork that the DEMs have wanted... and pork is going to get us nowhere except for a place worse than we are today

The economy cannot absorb a high enough amount of money in purely infrastructure improvements in the first two (or even 3) years. Infrastructure improvement take time to get off the ground. In order to stimulate, money will have to be spent in other ways, such as support to state and local governments. Buying cars for the US government, for instance, provides a stimulus to the automotive industry and presumably increases the efficiency of the government automotive fleet. Building an ATV park sounds silly, but perhaps that creates a number of jobs. The "what" it is spent on matters less (all things considered) than the bang for the buck that comes out of it in job creation.

Step 1: Stop the bleeding.

 

[DiamondDave]

Xen

Now I cannot say that... any spending dealing with true infrastructure etc, that is not incredibly abnormal, would not be bad... but then again, I don't consider ATV parks 'infrastructure'...

This is not a 'stimulus' bill.. it is a bill to get thru all of the pork that the DEMs have wanted... and pork is going to get us nowhere except for a place worse than we are today

The economy cannot absorb a high enough amount of money in purely infrastructure improvements in the first two (or even 3) years. Infrastructure improvement take time to get off the ground. In order to stimulate, money will have to be spent in other ways, such as support to state and local governments. Buying cars for the US government, for instance, provides a stimulus to the automotive industry and presumably increases the efficiency of the government automotive fleet. Building an ATV park sounds silly, but perhaps that creates a number of jobs. The "what" it is spent on matters less (all things considered) than the bang for the buck that comes out of it in job creation.

Step 1: Stop the bleeding.

If they really wanted an 'automotive stimulus' and were not all consumed with the power they could influence, there was a simpler way to do it... use them money to provide back or cut the taxes of the citizen taxpayer, and provide a tax free purchase of an American car... would have benefited the taxpayer and would have directly benefited the auto companies... but no, it was not about 'stimulus', it was and is about power and growing government bureaucracy

Some basic infrastructure improvements do not take a ton of time.. but things like new bridges etc, do... but this 'stimulus' bill is not concerned about time anyway... as the majority of the funding will not be spent until well later

The 'what' matters a great deal.. as government has no business being involved with more and more things... government needs to trim spending and trim areas it has an imprint on.. needs to be less wasteful and to focus on the core of government... highway improvement/repair... OK... stimulate with jobs and all on that.. ATV parks and honeybee crap, no fuggin way

 

[ReillyT]

If they really wanted an 'automotive stimulus' and were not all consumed with the power they could influence, there was a simpler way to do it... use them money to provide back or cut the taxes of the citizen taxpayer, and provide a tax free purchase of an American car... would have benefited the taxpayer and would have directly benefited the auto companies... but no, it was not about 'stimulus', it was and is about power and growing government bureaucracy

Some basic infrastructure improvements do not take a ton of time.. but things like new bridges etc, do... but this 'stimulus' bill is not concerned about time anyway... as the majority of the funding will not be spent until well later

The 'what' matters a great deal.. as government has no business being involved with more and more things... government needs to trim spending and trim areas it has an imprint on.. needs to be less wasteful and to focus on the core of government... highway improvement/repair... OK... stimulate with jobs and all on that.. ATV parks and honeybee crap, no fuggin way

A tax refund on the purchase of a new car would be a stimulus measure. Perhaps it will find its way into the bill. General reductions in taxation appear (from the studies that I have seen referenced) to provide less bang for the buck than spending.

There are immediate stimulus measures and those that take some time. Some of the infrastructure improvements will take time, but may be necessary regardless - immediate stimulus or no.

When you say government has no business being involved with more and more things, that is a political perspective that some don't agree with. Stimulus can take place in the context of an expanded government, and if the party in power believes that an expanded government is necessary for the social good, then that is the manner in which stimulus dollars will be spent. What you perceive as the "core" of government will not be consistent with what others believe should be the "core" of government activity. Economic stimulation is not the only thing government is concerned with.

If $1 of honeybee insurance provide a greater amount of stimulus than $1 of tax cuts, then why not? I don't know that it does, but I doubt few people really do. It very well could.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This bill is theft, pure and simple...

.12 cents on the dollar are dedicated to something which will be spent this year and which could be arguably said to represent something 'stimulus' oriented... the rest is little more than a socialist pork orgy, a poorly disguised transfer of wealth.

As I said many times... all the cacophonous rage spewed by the democrats (the left) referencing 'fiscal discipline' or other such crying regarding 'spending' by the Bush administration was NEVER about 'sending per se... IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY WAS BEING SPENT.

They didn't like it that so much money was being spent on national defense... AGAIN! They were NOT pissed that it was being spent, JUST THAT IT WASN'T BEING SPENT ON THE FOOLISHNESS INHERENT IN LEFTIST POLICY FAILURES.

 

[DiamondDave]

If impact is less in one possible area than another, but that area is in the core responsibility of government.. I support that over something with more impact but involving expanded government... there are many MORE things that could theoretically provide even more 'impact' on the economy... but if government was not mean to be in that area, government still should not get it's hands into that area...

Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD do it... government has the power to do much more than what it was intended to do... and IMHO, and the opinions of many others in this country, that is a bad thing

 

[dilloduck]

This bill is theft, pure and simple...

.12cents on the dollar are dedicated to something which will be spent this year and which could be arguably said to represent something 'stimulus' oriented... the rest is little more than a socialist pork orgy, a poorly disguised tranfer of wealth.

As I said many times... all the cocauphnous rage spewed by the democrats (the left) referencing 'fiscal discipline' or other such crying regarding 'spending' by the Bush administration was NEVER about 'sending per se... IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY WAS BEING SPENT.

They didn't like it that so much money was being spent on national defense... AGAIN! They were NOT pissed that it was being spent, JUST THAT IT WASN'T BEING SPENT ON THE FOOLISHNESS INHERENT IN LEFTIST POLICY FAILURES.

Good point----if it had been spent on soemthing like saving the polar bears, all would have been fine.

 

[ReillyT]

If impact is less in one possible area than another, but that area is in the core responsibility of government.. I support that over something with more impact but involving expanded government... there are many MORE things that could theoretically provide even more 'impact' on the economy... but if government was not mean to be in that area, government still should not get it's hands into that area...

Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD do it... government has the power to do much more than what it was intended to do... and IMHO, and the opinions of many others in this country, that is a bad thing

What areas the government is mean to be involved in is essentially a political decision (and a legal question at the margins). The politicians in Washington will ultimately make that decision.

There is little in the stimulus bill that I see that represents an overhaul of the populaces relationship with government in the way that the New Deal was. It seems relatively modest in that respect (no universal healthcare for instance). Beyond that, if the emphasis is on bang for the buck, whether it be honeybee farms or ATV tracks, I think I am okay with that.

Do I suspect that 100 disinterested economists over three months could come up with a better bill? Yes. Unfortunately, we are stuck with 535 members of Congress. As a result, whether drafted by Republicans or Democrats or both, the bill will be less than it could be.

 

[ReillyT]

This bill is theft, pure and simple...

.12cents on the dollar are dedicated to something which will be spent this year and which could be arguably said to represent something 'stimulus' oriented... the rest is little more than a socialist pork orgy, a poorly disguised tranfer of wealth.

As I said many times... all the cocauphnous rage spewed by the democrats (the left) referencing 'fiscal discipline' or other such crying regarding 'spending' by the Bush administration was NEVER about 'sending per se... IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY WAS BEING SPENT.

They didn't like it that so much money was being spent on national defense... AGAIN! They were NOT pissed that it was being spent, JUST THAT IT WASN'T BEING SPENT ON THE FOOLISHNESS INHERENT IN LEFTIST POLICY FAILURES.

Fiscal discipline involves not only spending but taxing. I would guess that to some extent you are right. Democrats didn't feel that the money was being spent on things that were in the national interest and stimulated sufficient return. However, they also didn't like that in a time of relative prosperity, this money was being spent at the same time that large tax cuts were being put in place.

Today, the situation is quite different. It is hardly a time of relative prosperity and priorities have necessarily changed.

 

[DiamondDave]

If impact is less in one possible area than another, but that area is in the core responsibility of government.. I support that over something with more impact but involving expanded government... there are many MORE things that could theoretically provide even more 'impact' on the economy... but if government was not mean to be in that area, government still should not get it's hands into that area...

Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD do it... government has the power to do much more than what it was intended to do... and IMHO, and the opinions of many others in this country, that is a bad thing

What areas the government is mean to be involved in is essentially a political decision (and a legal question at the margins). The politicians in Washington will ultimately make that decision.

There is little in the stimulus bill that I see that represents an overhaul of the populaces relationship with government in the way that the New Deal was. It seems relatively modest in that respect (no universal healthcare for instance). Beyond that, if the emphasis is on bang for the buck, whether it be honeybee farms or ATV tracks, I think I am okay with that.

Do I suspect that 100 disinterested economists over three months could come up with a better bill? Yes. Unfortunately, we are stuck with 535 members of Congress. As a result, whether drafted by Republicans or Democrats or both, the bill will be less than it could be.

No.. I am not ok with it being a 'political' decision.. I would be OK if it were a Constitutional decision.. when it is political, it is about power and winning elections... it is about pandering... and this bill, plain and simple, is pandering to the political interests.. it is pork...

Government used to be the cute chubby kid... now it's the grossly obese, bed ridden POS that has to was himself with a rag on a stick... at least the chubby youngster could still be productive and somewhat self sufficient.. the government only wants to consume more for it's own interest

 

[ReillyT]

No.. I am not ok with it being a 'political' decision.. I would be OK if it were a Constitutional decision.. when it is political, it is about power and winning elections... it is about pandering... and this bill, plain and simple, is pandering to the political interests.. it is pork...

Government used to be the cute chubby kid... now it's the grossly obese, bed ridden POS that has to was himself with a rag on a stick... at least the chubby youngster could still be productive and somewhat self sufficient.. the government only wants to consume more for it's own interest

"Political" isn't always a bad thing. The decision to put into place social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, etc. were all political decisions reflecting beliefs about the proper role of government. The Constitution neither requires such actions, nor does it forbid them. It leaves it to the peoples' representatives to make these decisions.

This economic climate has nothing to do with government being too large. Governments with larger domestic expenditures per person and those with smaller are likewise in a mess. The government today is not much larger than the government under Reagan and Clinton - periods when we had years of job creation, growth and prosperity.

 

[007]

This quote is appropriate here...

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to socialism." --Karl Marx, 1867

 

[auditor0007]

If impact is less in one possible area than another, but that area is in the core responsibility of government.. I support that over something with more impact but involving expanded government... there are many MORE things that could theoretically provide even more 'impact' on the economy... but if government was not mean to be in that area, government still should not get it's hands into that area...

Just because we CAN do something does not mean we SHOULD do it... government has the power to do much more than what it was intended to do... and IMHO, and the opinions of many others in this country, that is a bad thing

What areas the government is mean to be involved in is essentially a political decision (and a legal question at the margins). The politicians in Washington will ultimately make that decision.

There is little in the stimulus bill that I see that represents an overhaul of the populaces relationship with government in the way that the New Deal was. It seems relatively modest in that respect (no universal healthcare for instance). Beyond that, if the emphasis is on bang for the buck, whether it be honeybee farms or ATV tracks, I think I am okay with that.

Do I suspect that 100 disinterested economists over three months could come up with a better bill? Yes. Unfortunately, we are stuck with 535 members of Congress. As a result, whether drafted by Republicans or Democrats or both, the bill will be less than it could be.

This bill is a joke. I support infrastructure spending. While slow, it will help economically and we actually get something in return. 95% of this stimulus bill has nothing to do with infrastructure spending. I hope to God this fucking bill is axed permanently.

For all of you who rant and rave about Bush stealing $350 billion on his way out the door, you better take a good look at what is happening now. Obama and the Dems are stealing over $800 billion and we haven't even made it through the first month.

 

[Ravi]

Republicans are voting against it because it contains a few spending items that they disagree with. What they disagree with adds up to less than half of 1% of the entire package.

 

[Tech_Esq]

No.. I am not ok with it being a 'political' decision.. I would be OK if it were a Constitutional decision.. when it is political, it is about power and winning elections... it is about pandering... and this bill, plain and simple, is pandering to the political interests.. it is pork...

Government used to be the cute chubby kid... now it's the grossly obese, bed ridden POS that has to was himself with a rag on a stick... at least the chubby youngster could still be productive and somewhat self sufficient.. the government only wants to consume more for it's own interest

"Political" isn't always a bad thing. The decision to put into place social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, etc. were all political decisions reflecting beliefs about the proper role of government. The Constitution neither requires such actions, nor does it forbid them. It leaves it to the peoples' representatives to make these decisions.

This economic climate has nothing to do with government being too large. Governments with larger domestic expenditures per person and those with smaller are likewise in a mess. The government today is not much larger than the government under Reagan and Clinton - periods when we had years of job creation, growth and prosperity.

Actually, support for this statement comes from U.S. v. Darby Lumber, S.ct. (1941). This case overturn a very long line of cases ending with Hammer v. Dagenhart which said the government could not do these types of things. If the Supreme Court retains this delusional thought pattern, there will be absolutely nothing the national government cannot do. And, if it does something, the states are precluded from acting via the Supremacy clause. All of this would act to make the 10th Amendment a lie instead of a truism.

The idea of limited government which the founders brought forth with the Constitution would, at that point, be completely and totally confounded.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Republicans are voting against it because it contains a few spending items that they disagree with. What they disagree with adds up to less than half of 1% of the entire package.

Who knows why they are voting against it. But, you know what Senator Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon, you're talking real money!"

Let's see less than 1%. In this package, that's 9 Billion dollars. Some people might consider that real money. But, in the vast scheme of things, I hope they are opposing it because they know that we are going to have 20% inflation in 2 years if they spend it.

 

[Ravi]

Republicans are voting against it because it contains a few spending items that they disagree with. What they disagree with adds up to less than half of 1% of the entire package.

Who knows why they are voting against it. But, you know what Senator Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon, you're talking real money!"

Let's see less than 1%. In this package, that's 9 Billion dollars. Some people might consider that real money. But, in the vast scheme of things, I hope they are opposing it because they know that we are going to have 20% inflation in 2 years if they spend it.

That isn't what they are saying. They've nit picked out the two items the guy complains about in the linked article and three or four more. And yes, money is money, but it makes no sense to totally oppose something based on less than one-half of one percent.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Republicans are voting against it because it contains a few spending items that they disagree with. What they disagree with adds up to less than half of 1% of the entire package.

Who knows why they are voting against it. But, you know what Senator Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon, you're talking real money!"

Let's see less than 1%. In this package, that's 9 Billion dollars. Some people might consider that real money. But, in the vast scheme of things, I hope they are opposing it because they know that we are going to have 20% inflation in 2 years if they spend it.

That isn't what they are saying. They've nit picked out the two items the guy complains about in the linked article and three or four more. And yes, money is money, but it makes no sense to totally oppose something based on less than one-half of one percent.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE): Spending In Stimulus Bill "Don't Really Seem To Be Truly Stimulus, But They Would Constitute Spending." "But other elements of the bill such as $1.1 billion allotted for medical research are troublesome, said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat. 'They don't really seem to be truly stimulus, but they would constitute spending,' said Nelson, who said he wanted to see more jobs created." (Anna Jo Bratton, "Neb. Senators Not Sure On Support Of Stimulus Plan," The Associated Press, 1/29/09)

I think they are saying this too. This would be from Ben Nelson, but I got it off Eric Cantor's web site (Republican Whip).