I'm really not trying to argue against the stimulus as such, nor am I arguing against these government programs as such. (Mostly because I don't know much about Keynesian economics, and I don't know much about the proposed government programs.) What I am arguing is that the sort of 'stimulus' bill that's going through Congress is an unnecessary conflation of two completely separate policy proposals:
1) The government should stimulate the economy by borrowing money and distributing it through the economy. 2) The government should start up all of these separate programs.
when these proposals are completely unrelated. You can do (1) without (2) by handing out money to people you think are going to stimulate the economy most with that money, either through lower taxes or direct cash payments. And you can do (2) without (1) by starting up all the new programs and raising taxes to cover the costs.
What I'm irked about is not that there's a stimulus bill, it's that I think unscrupulous politicians are conflating these two proposals to try and borrow the wide economic support for a stimulus in general to get funding for their dumbass programs that couldn't get funded if they had to defend the programs on their own merits.
As I've pointed out above, government spending on productive work results in a higher net gain to the economy than tax cuts or unproductive work. In other words, a plan of raising taxes $400B to pay for new spending and then cutting taxes $800B will be far more effective at stimulating the economy than simply cutting taxes $400B and not doing any new spending.
So because both $800B in tax cuts and the $400B in new spending stimulate the economy, they're both included in the economic stimulus bill, as a net $400B tax cut and $400B in spending.
I don't know much about the proposed government programs.
What I'm irked about is not that there's a stimulus bill, it's that I think unscrupulous politicians are conflating these two proposals... to get funding for their dumbass programs ....
You're making a judgment that the programs are dumbass, even when you admit that you don't know much about the proposed programs themselves. If the programs contain productive work, they will stimulate the economy more than tax cuts or unproductive work.
I think that the Republicans could really eliminate a lot of the waste in the bill - make it a more productive bill - if they'd actually take some time to read it and use their floor time to make the Democrats explain, item by item, how each provision they (R's) think is wasteful will stimulate the economy. If the Dems can't provide a good explanation of why the work in question is productive, it should be struck from the bill.
Instead, we get lectures about how much a trillion dollars is - the ideological implication being that the Democrats are bad because spending is bad. We get broad objections to the philosophy behind the stimulus, even though the Republicans know that they can't actually stop it, and even though they aren't really opposed to 95% of the bill. All they're doing is making sure their voices are heard so that if the stimulus fails, politically they come out on top. And that irks me. The Republicans could be helping make the bill better with their time, but more than that, they're wasting the Democrats' time with their pointless posturing.
You're making a judgment that the programs are dumbass, even when you admit that you don't know much about the proposed programs themselves.
Yes, I have a prejudice against government programs. I assume that they're dumbass unless I am given evidence to the contrary. And the text of the bill does not give me any confidence in how the money is going to be spent.
An example randomly chosen from the house bill: For an additional amount for "Periodic Censuses and Programs", $1,000,000,000: Provided, that Section 1106 of this Act shall not apply to funds provided under this heading.
Section 1006 says: Unless other provision is made in this Act (or in other applicable law) for such expenses, up to 0.5 percent of each amount appropriated in this Act may be used for the expenses of management and oversight of the programs, grants, and activities funded by such appropriation, and may be transferred by the head of the Federal department or agency involved to any other appropriate account within the department or agency for that purpose. Funds set aside under this section shall remain available for obligation until September 30, 2012.
So here we've got $1 billion allocated for "Periodic Censuses and Programs." Oh. No other information in the bill about what precisely we're going to spend that money on. Now hey, maybe we could get a really good census for that much money. Or maybe not. I'd kinda like a little bit more information about how we're going to spend it before I OK it.
That money is pretty much for the 2010 census, which people have been estimating will run overbudget by about $1B. I'm frankly not sure how that stimulates the economy (though it may, somehow), and I'd be willing to say that that's something that could be debated at a separate time.
I assume that they're dumbass unless I am given evidence to the contrary.
But the reality is that the Democrats are going to do what they want to do unless they are convinced otherwise. Since they are in power, they have no obligation to you to provide evidence (ie, they don't need Republican support to pass it). The onus is on the minority party to ask for evidence on specific programs. They aren't going to be convinced by images of $1T, nor by you calling them dumbasses.
And see, by bringing up a specific item, you got a Democrat to strip $1B from the bill! How easy was that?
Actually, I didn't since you're not a congresscritter. :)
I'm not trying to defend the Republicans here, I'm just saying that there should be a debate over the worth of the programs rather than just the worth of the stimulus.
Actually, I didn't since you're not a congresscritter.
Okay, fine, you got a Democrat to agree that $1B should be stripped from the bill. :-)
I'm just saying that there should be a debate over the worth of the programs rather than just the worth of the stimulus.
I agree, but I think it's a waste of time to try to argue that it should be separate bills. That just isn't going to happen, so you and the Republicans would be better served by actually having the debate over the worth of the programs now, rather than using the time to say that because we need time to debate, we need to scrap all spending in the stimulus.
1) The government should stimulate the economy by borrowing money and distributing it through the economy.
2) The government should start up all of these separate programs.
when these proposals are completely unrelated. You can do (1) without (2) by handing out money to people you think are going to stimulate the economy most with that money, either through lower taxes or direct cash payments. And you can do (2) without (1) by starting up all the new programs and raising taxes to cover the costs.
What I'm irked about is not that there's a stimulus bill, it's that I think unscrupulous politicians are conflating these two proposals to try and borrow the wide economic support for a stimulus in general to get funding for their dumbass programs that couldn't get funded if they had to defend the programs on their own merits.
Reply
So because both $800B in tax cuts and the $400B in new spending stimulate the economy, they're both included in the economic stimulus bill, as a net $400B tax cut and $400B in spending.
I don't know much about the proposed government programs.
What I'm irked about is not that there's a stimulus bill, it's that I think unscrupulous politicians are conflating these two proposals... to get funding for their dumbass programs ....
You're making a judgment that the programs are dumbass, even when you admit that you don't know much about the proposed programs themselves. If the programs contain productive work, they will stimulate the economy more than tax cuts or unproductive work.
I think that the Republicans could really eliminate a lot of the waste in the bill - make it a more productive bill - if they'd actually take some time to read it and use their floor time to make the Democrats explain, item by item, how each provision they (R's) think is wasteful will stimulate the economy. If the Dems can't provide a good explanation of why the work in question is productive, it should be struck from the bill.
Instead, we get lectures about how much a trillion dollars is - the ideological implication being that the Democrats are bad because spending is bad. We get broad objections to the philosophy behind the stimulus, even though the Republicans know that they can't actually stop it, and even though they aren't really opposed to 95% of the bill. All they're doing is making sure their voices are heard so that if the stimulus fails, politically they come out on top. And that irks me. The Republicans could be helping make the bill better with their time, but more than that, they're wasting the Democrats' time with their pointless posturing.
Reply
Yes, I have a prejudice against government programs. I assume that they're dumbass unless I am given evidence to the contrary. And the text of the bill does not give me any confidence in how the money is going to be spent.
An example randomly chosen from the house bill:
For an additional amount for "Periodic Censuses and Programs", $1,000,000,000: Provided, that Section 1106 of this Act shall not apply to funds provided under this heading.
Section 1006 says:
Unless other provision is made in this Act (or in other applicable law) for such expenses, up to 0.5 percent of each amount appropriated in this Act may be used for the expenses of management and oversight of the programs, grants, and activities funded by such appropriation, and may be transferred by the head of the Federal department or agency involved to any other appropriate account within the department or agency for that purpose. Funds set aside under this section shall remain available for obligation until September 30, 2012.
So here we've got $1 billion allocated for "Periodic Censuses and Programs." Oh. No other information in the bill about what precisely we're going to spend that money on. Now hey, maybe we could get a really good census for that much money. Or maybe not. I'd kinda like a little bit more information about how we're going to spend it before I OK it.
Reply
I assume that they're dumbass unless I am given evidence to the contrary.
But the reality is that the Democrats are going to do what they want to do unless they are convinced otherwise. Since they are in power, they have no obligation to you to provide evidence (ie, they don't need Republican support to pass it). The onus is on the minority party to ask for evidence on specific programs. They aren't going to be convinced by images of $1T, nor by you calling them dumbasses.
And see, by bringing up a specific item, you got a Democrat to strip $1B from the bill! How easy was that?
Reply
Actually, I didn't since you're not a congresscritter. :)
I'm not trying to defend the Republicans here, I'm just saying that there should be a debate over the worth of the programs rather than just the worth of the stimulus.
Reply
Okay, fine, you got a Democrat to agree that $1B should be stripped from the bill. :-)
I'm just saying that there should be a debate over the worth of the programs rather than just the worth of the stimulus.
I agree, but I think it's a waste of time to try to argue that it should be separate bills. That just isn't going to happen, so you and the Republicans would be better served by actually having the debate over the worth of the programs now, rather than using the time to say that because we need time to debate, we need to scrap all spending in the stimulus.
Reply
But I like arguing in theoretical worlds!
Reply
So nice to hear those words in reference to Republican power. ;-)
Reply
Leave a comment