House Stimulus vs. Senate Stimulus At A Glance

Propublica has a fantastic side-by-side comparison of the original House stimulus bill and the abortion produced by the Senate "compromise."

Short version: to give big corporate welfare "tax cut" handouts to Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Pharma, Big Banks, Wall Street and all the other rich people who have been fucking over the middle class for the last thirty years, the Cowardly Democrats in the Senate agreed to make huge cuts in anything and everything that creates jobs by helping working families, including:

aid to states, health care, education grants, repairing and building schools, repairing and building roads, public transportation, renewable energy research, unemployment insurance, repairing the electric grid, improving water and sewer lines, affordable housing, mortgage relief, expanding broadband access, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

If you're not so rich that a global economic meltdown won't affect you, then you need to email or call your Congressional representatives right now and tell them to support restoring the House stimulus bill.

Click here for a quick way to send an email to your representatives, even if all you know is your zip code.

All that's at stake is your job, your house, your kids' future, and, you know, the world.

There's more: "House Stimulus vs. Senate Stimulus At A Glance" >>

New GOP Rules for Discussing the President

We're still trying to get used to the idea of Democratic nominee Barack Obama actually being President of the United States.

To help us get acclimated, the wingnut freakazoids have kindly provided criticism that follows the new GOP Rules for Discussing the President. Steve Benen explains.

DEPT. OF POTS AND KETTLES.... Either the president's conservative critics have very short memories, or they assume we do.

SNIP

The irony is almost overwhelming. A loyal Bushie, who heard his boss spend years engaging in shameless demagoguery (see "clouds, mushroom" and "uranium, from Africa") based on nothing but neocon fantasies, believes presidents have to keep their rhetoric in check and never forget to be "truthful." Sure, Blakeman, tell us another one.

Keep in mind, Obama's dire warnings about the economy are well grounded in reality. It's not "insane" to fear an economic collapse given the situation we're in. The president has a choice -- pretend the news isn't scary, or give honest assessments while vowing to act. Bush preferred the prior approach; Obama prefers the latter.

What's more, have you noticed the bizarre double-standards we've seen emerge in recent weeks?

When Bush uses over-the-top language to convince Americans about perceived security threat, he's being "presidential." When Obama issues dire warnings about the economy, he's being "pessimistic."

When Bush ignores the congressional minority, he's being "principled." When Obama engages the congressional minority but declines to give them what they want, he's being "partisan."

When Bush trashes constitutional norms, it's evidence of "seriousness." When Obama is in the Oval Office without a jacket, he's being "disrespectful to the presidency."

When liberals criticize Bush during a crisis, they're traitors who are aiding and abetting the enemy. When conservatives criticize Obama during a crisis, they are doing their patriotic duty.

Good to know.

There's more: "New GOP Rules for Discussing the President" >>

"It's Not A Game!"

As Josh says, this is "Exactly the case he needs to be making on TV and in some events around the country."



Here's the full speech.

Here's the transcript.

There's more: ""It's Not A Game!"" >>

"Are These Folks Serious?"

From the Huffington Post, "President Barack Obama says the time for talk on an economic recovery package is over and "the time for action is now." "

Speaking at the Energy Department, Obama made a fresh plea for the stimulus plan that the Senate is debating. He cited the latest bad economic news of jobless claims as another reason for quick action.

He said: "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now."

He also launched a shot at critics while talking about energy, questioning, "are these folks serious?"

Now, I read the other day that critics of this plan ridiculed our notion that we should use part of the money to modernize the entire fleet of federal vehicles to take advantage of state of the art fuel efficiency. This is what they call pork. You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create manufacturing jobs for folks who are making these cars, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself -- are these folks serious? Is it any wonder that we haven't had a real energy policy in this country?

For the last few years, I've talked about these issues with Americans from one end of this country to another. And Washington may not be ready to get serious about energy independence, but I am. And so are you. And so are the American people.

During his speech Obama also issued a strong critique of the GOP's economic policies, even though he didn't utter the party's name. He told the audience that:

In the last few days, we've seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read but you'd be very familiar with because you've been hearing them for the last 10 years, maybe longer. They're rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems; that government doesn't have a role to play; that half-measures and tinkering are somehow enough; that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges -- the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They've taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over a trillion dollars, and they've brought our economy to a halt. And that's precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment. And now is the time to move forward, not back. Now is the time for action.

There's more: ""Are These Folks Serious?"" >>

Why the Senate Must Pass the Stimulus Bill

First, check out USAToday's interactive map of how President Obama's stimulus bill will help your state.

Then, watch TPM's interview with an expert who explodes the repug lies about the bill containing too much spending.

There is so much fog and uncertainty -- much of it intentionally injected into the debate -- about the different moving parts of the Stimulus Bill. But some of the broad outlines are arresting and straightforward.

We're hearing all this talk about the staggering size of the bill. And it is a staggering amount of money. But according to Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the amount of demand that the financial crisis is pulling out the economy is likely to be between $1.1 and $1.2 trillion this year (and that is not a controversial estimate). The Stimulus Bill (which, remember, is $800+ billion over two years) would try to compensate for that drop off with about $400 billion of spending and tax cuts. How efficiently the money is spent, how quickly and so forth -- all very good questions. But judged in these terms you start to see how the real question is whether any bill of that size is enough.
David Kurtz and Baker discuss the issue in today's episode of TPMtv.

And finally, read Bob Herbert on the danger of not putting enough money into infrastructure projects immediately.

We have infrastructure spending in the Democrats' proposed stimulus package that, while admirable, is far too meager to have much of an impact on the nation's overall infrastructure requirements or the demand for the creation of jobs.

SNIP

The big danger is that some variation of the currently proposed stimulus package will pass, another enormous bailout for the bankers will be authorized, and then the trillion-dollar-plus budget deficits will make their appearance, looming like unholy monsters over everything else, and Washington will suddenly lose its nerve.

The mantra (I can hear it now) will be that we can't afford to spend any more money on the infrastructure, or on a big health care initiative, or any of the nation's other crying needs. Suddenly fiscal discipline will be the order of the day and the people who are suffering now will suffer more, and the nation's long-term prospects will be further damaged as its long-term needs continue to be neglected.

We no longer seem to learn much from history. Time and again an economic boom has followed a period of sustained infrastructure investment. Think of the building of the Erie Canal, which connected the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. Think of the rural electrification program, the interstate highway system, the creation of the Internet.

We're suffering now from both a failure of will and of imagination. I remember the financier Felix Rohatyn telling me, "A modern economy needs a modern platform, and that's the infrastructure."

History tells us the same thing.

And if you're still not persuaded, consider this: Mitch McConnell would give his left nut to kill the stimulus. What more reason do you need to support it?

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Why the Senate Must Pass the Stimulus Bill" >>

Progressive Progress in the Economic Stimulus

As the Senate girds for battle over the repug-sabotaged economic stimulus, Talking Points Memo brings us a reminder of the progressive priorities that made it into the House bill and deserve saving in the Senate.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus just released a memo that offers a worthy counterpoint to our discussions today about the Republicans' baldly misleading message on the stimulus.

The Progressives have rounded up elements of their proposed $1 trillion stimulus that ended up making it into the Democratic leaders' final bill, in part or in whole. It's a list that's worth remembering while tax cuts seemingly dominate the airwaves.

The highlights of the memo are after the jump:

• Unemployment benefits (UI) extension. Cost = at least $12.7 billion

• Anti-hunger provisions

* SNAP - 20% temporary increase in maximum food stamp level above the FY2009 level for two years. Cost = approximately $24 billion and increase in funds for state food stamp administrative costs Cost= $250 million;

* WIC - increase funding to make up for shortfall not covered in the current Continuing Resolution. Cost = $450 million and increases for management information system and related infrastructure improvements. Cost = $50 million;

* School meals - provide a 15% increase in funding for breakfast and school lunch programs. Cost = $1 billion;

• Medicaid payments to states (FMAP). Cost = at least $15 billion

• LIHEAP assistance to provide low-income Americans relief from higher energy costs. Cost = at least $5 billion

• Job creation via down payment on rebuilding America's infrastructure and schools, starting with massive investment in commercialization of green technologies and related job training that promote environmental protection and energy independence. Cost = at least $100 billion

** In general:

• No funds for Iraq or Afghanistan wars and no funds for defense procurement.

• Prevailing wage to be paid for jobs created and upholding of Davis-Bacon Act

These are, of course, just a downpayment on the long list of repairs to the New Deal and Great Society needed after three decades of repug destruction.

But if these provisions remain in the final bill and President Obama signs it by Darwin Day, then I'd say we're well on our way to recovery.

There's more: "Progressive Progress in the Economic Stimulus" >>

First KY Stimulus Project: Bury Power Lines

There are 500,000 people - 1/8 the entire population - without electricity in Kentucky this morning. Temperature is 25 degrees, dropping into the teens by Friday night.

They are without power - the light switch kind and the political kind - for one reason, and it's NOT the weather.

They are without power because 90 percent of the electric lines in this state are swinging naked 20 feet in the air, taunting giant tree branches that take every opportunity to rip those smart-ass suckers right out of the grid.

I've lived in this state more than 40 years, and every year it's the same refrain: Bury the power lines! It's too expensive! All you silly people who expect the lights to go on in return for the outrageous utility bills you pay: FUCK YOU!

Ice storm, heavy snow, tornado, hurricane remnants, suicide squirrels - overhead power lines are begging for catastrophe, and catastrophe is what we've got.

No, I don't think the taxpayers should cover the cost of something Kentucky Utilities, Louisville Gas and Electric, and all the rural cooperatives should have paid to do decades ago.

I think Kentucky should get stimulus money to bury all the lines, do it ourselves, then force the companies to reimburse us.

Every dime. Plus 10 percent interest per year for the 60 years they've been putting off burying the lines themselves.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "First KY Stimulus Project: Bury Power Lines" >>

Why Obama Can Never Please the Repugs

Because, as the Rude Pundit explains so clearly, the repugs are motherfuckers, and it's ridiculous to expect them to do any other than fuck their mothers.

We don't know what Barack Obama actually said to Republican members of Congress in his closed-door meetings with them yesterday regarding his stimulus plan. But we do know one thing for sure: it accomplished nothing. This is the way it's gonna go, and if you've paid attention at all, you know the steps: Obama will concede shit and Republicans will ask for more (even though they already got more tax cuts than anyone fucking needs), Obama will concede more shit and Republicans will ask for more (even though they're gonna get the family planning funding taken out), Obama will concede more shit and Republicans will ask for more, and then when the vote comes, Republicans will vote against it, saying that no one listened to them and fuck that Obama for lying about bipartisanship. Yet the legislation will have passed in a watered down form from the deep infrastructure and other spending so desperately needed to, you know, create jobs, which will, you know, create taxable income, which will, you know, help actually pay for shit some day.

Obama better know a simple fact: they fucking hate him. Right now, Obama represents the fact that everything they believed was a complete failure. For making that clear to the American people, they fucking despise him. They hate his majority, they hate his coattails, they hate that all over the country people are supporting his ideas. Republicans have nothing right now, which means they have nothing to lose by trying to drag Obama into their pit of shit. They'll smile and say it was a good conversation, but they're waiting in the back halls of the Capitol to fuckin' shiv Obama and laugh while he bleeds. And try to force Americans back into their crooked arms.

That's the thing about motherfuckers. You can tell them, "Okay, you can fuck your mothers, but only for an hour a day." They might agree, but sure as you're reading this, the second they walk away, they will...well, by now, you know.

Obama's damn near the smartest sumbitch in the country right now, and a hell of a poker player. So I still hold out hope that Obama does know this, and that he is giving the repugs rope so that at the last minute, after they reject even his most generous overtures, he can whip the real stimulus legislation out, get it passed by the dems, sign it and tell the repugs to fuck off and die.

There's more: "Why Obama Can Never Please the Repugs" >>

What Henry Ford Knew

"An underpaid man is a customer reduced in purchasing power. He cannot buy. Business depression is caused by weakened purchasing power. Purchasing power is weakened by uncertainty or insufficiency of income. The cure of business depression is through purchasing power, and the source of puchasing power is wages." - Corporate Titan Henry Ford, 1926.

As Congress begins the dirty job of negotiating a stimulus plan to save the economy, the Hightower Lowdown reminds us of the barbed-dildo reaming Congress just gave American workers.

But the ongoing bailout battle is no longer about economics. It's about class in America.

Republican lawmakers, backed by a raucous chorus of right-wing pundits and corporate lobbyists, have turned Motor City's economic woes into an excuse for launching a mendacious and pernicious assault on America's hard-working, highly skilled, unionized working families--and on the middle-class ideals that they embody.

SNIP

... while Congress squawked about the blue-collar crowd's relatively paltry request, it had totally caved in to the banking elite, who did not request money but demanded it. Lawmakers meekly rushed out $700 billion for them, a taxpayer gimmie nearly 30 times larger than the one Detroit was seeking. What plan did the bankers present? What explanation did they give of how they'd spend our money?


None. They simply dispatched their designated consigliere, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (formerly the reigning prince of Goldman Sachs), to hand Congress a three-page ultimatum. It contained not a single specific or promise of results. It was, in effect, a hold-up note.

But that $700 billion was just for openers. It has not been widely reported, but the total Wall Street bailout--counting government loans, stock purchases, debt guarantees, and backdoor handouts by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve--is nearly $8 trillion. That's eight followed by 12 zeroes!

What have we gotten for this gargantuan giveaway? Zip.

SNIP

This is a flagrant usurpation of Congress's constitutional power and a kleptocratic transfer of public wealth by executive fiat. Yet it was met with barely a meow from lawmakers.

Roar of the kitties
Oh, but what tigers some of the congressional kittens became when Detroit showed up!

Right-wing senators from the South and West were suddenly baring claws and hissing furiously that to get aid these supplicants had to restructure their businesses in accordance with government dictates. These congressional onetime free-market holy rollers made a demand that was specific and blunt: Whack your unions.

SNIP

In fact, it's not wages that burden the auto companies--it's the skyrocketing cost of health care in America. Japanese, Korean, European, and other carmakers don't pay this cost because their countries have national health care for all, financed by taxpayers. Curiously, none of the senators who now profess to be outraged by American labor costs have stepped forward to support universal health care in our country, which would drastically improve the global competitiveness of all of our industries.

There's one more number that union-busting senators don't mention: 10%. That's the share of a made-in-Detroit car's price tag that goes to cover all labor costs, including health care, pensions, etc. That's it. Ten percent. In short, labor is nowhere near the financial burden it's portrayed as being. To the contrary, unionized workers bring award-winning productivity to the industry. They are assets, not liabilities. Meanwhile, 90% of what we consumers pay for cars goes to bankers, bondholders, investors, executives, suppliers, dealers, and a myriad of others who are part and parcel of every vehicle we drive. The senators could force UAW members to work for free, but that would not begin to solve the industry's financial problems.

SNIP

Speaking of pay, am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous to hear senators chastise working families over earnings? Come on-Corker, DeMint, Kyl, and the others who're throwing hissy fits about UAW wage levels are drawing nearly three times as much from us taxpayers in base pay, plus getting platinum-level health care, golden pensions, and all sorts of senatorial perks. And, unlike autoworkers, senators don't have to have any real skill, do any heavy lifting, or produce any products.

Yes, these union workers make a good living--but what exactly is wrong with that? Indeed, they're a tremendous American success story. UAW members define our country's middle-class ideal. They can afford to buy homes (and cars), send kids to college, take vacations--and pay taxes, including those that cover salaries and benefits for U.S. senators.

Sustaining, expanding, and extending such a vibrant, productive middle class ought to be the top goal of economic policy makers. Yet, too many Washington officials keep pushing in the opposite direction, constantly pursuing a cheap-labor America that enriches the few at the expense of our nation's true economic strength. They are doing the bidding of a corporate elite whose only industrial idea of the past 30 years has been to kick labor in the shorts.

SNIP

(What Henry Ford said 82 years ago) remains true today. Middle-class wages are the lifeblood of the American automobile industry... and of the American economy.

(I've been a Lowdown subscriber for the entire 10 years it has existed, and a Jim Hightower fan for years before that, so I hope Jim will forgive me for excerpting such a huge chunk of his January 2009 subscriber-only issue. As for the rest of you, a yearly subscription to the Lowdown is only $15, and a bargain at twice the price. Subscribe today.)

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "What Henry Ford Knew" >>

Stimulus: Too Much is Nowhere Near Enough

We've had a good time lately reciting the nearly endless list of conservative republican failures. Is there anything these chumps can't fuck up? Is there anything they've ever been right about?

No, of course not. But in the current discussion of the economic stimulus we see the results of the repug's singluar post-Reagan success:

They've convinced the nation and the world that government spending is bad.

Even when government spending is patently necessary, obviously the only way to avoid utter disaster, the discussion is not "on what" and "how soon" but "how little can we get away with."

How about a five-year moratoriam on the word "deficit?" Because all those times that repugs were mendaciously proclaiming "deficits don't matter," they were accidentally telling the truth.

As James Galbraith explains in his new book, the economy-destroying policies of the last thirty years have actually proven that cutting taxes and spending almost always causes inflation and/or recession, and raising taxes and spending almost always causes economic growth without inflation.

And the worst thing any government can do is spend public resources propping up capital markets (Wall Street) at the expense of workers in the real economy.

Sound familiar?

By letting concern about deficits shrink his stimulus plan while the U.S. economy is literally disintegrating for lack of public spending, President-elect Obama is ensuring the stimulus - and thus his presidency - will fail.

Paul Krugman, Concience of the Economy:

"I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years."

So declared President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday, explaining why the nation needs an extremely aggressive government response to the economic downturn. He's right. This is the most dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it could all too easily turn into a prolonged slump.

But Mr. Obama's prescription doesn't live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he's offering isn't as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what's needed.

SNIP

The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.
Why isn't Mr. Obama trying to do more?

SNIP

Whatever the explanation, the Obama plan just doesn't look adequate to the economy's need. To be sure, a third of a loaf is better than none. But right now we seem to be facing two major economic gaps: the gap between the economy's potential and its likely performance, and the gap between Mr. Obama's stern economic rhetoric and his somewhat disappointing economic plan.

Krugman explains that the economy is currently falling about $2 trillion short of what it should be producing. Obama's $775 billion plan, with its $300 billion in counter-productive tax cuts, offers about 20 percent of what's needed.

John Judis at The New Republic pleads for a World-War-II-sized stimulus.

I am not suggesting that the United States start a world war in order to solve the world's economic problem. But I am suggesting a strategy that could be called the fiscal equivalent of war.

It would consist not merely of updating or repairing the nation's infrastructure, but in undertaking massive new investments that would expand the scope of American industry, and address other urgent problems in the process: global warming, over-reliance on petroleum, and the need to revive America's domestic manufacturing capabilities--not just to provide jobs, but also to provide tradeable goods that can reduce the country's current account deficit.

... Are we not at some point going to have to go beyond repairing roads and bridges in our conception of public spending and public works, and contemplate the kind of ambitious industrial expenditures that the country made on war production in 1941?

I still believe that Obama is playing a long and deep game, several steps ahead of Senate repugs. But I'm with Jane Hamsher who explains why Obama inspires confidence but the stimulus plan doesn't.

Go to change.gov and tell Obama that $2 trillion on real, job-creating stimulus is the bare minimum required.

And if he still insists on throwing a bone to irrelevant and undeserving repugs, he can say "You were right: deficits really don't matter."

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "Stimulus: Too Much is Nowhere Near Enough" >>

At the end of the day

Clinton & Obama -- The Democratic debate in CA liveblogged at FDL here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and the final thread here.

The Democratic debate transcript from CNN.

Fact check of the GOP debate from CA: "Romney commits multiple distortions in the last scheduled GOP debate. Others stumble, too."

Barack attack -- "Republican researchers are poring over the Illinois Democrat’s three-year Senate voting record, looking for fresh fodder to be used should Obama become the Democratic Party’s nominee." Via The Hill.

Caning McCain -- "Poor Hugh Hewitt and the rest of right wing talk radio. They are very upset by McCain and are trying to torpedo his candidacy." John Amato

"No Answers, No Deputy" -- "Senate Democrats plan to delay a floor vote on President Bush’s nominee [Mark Filip] for the No. 2 post at the Justice Department until the department responds to several Judiciary Committee oversight letters."

Senate Democrats held up on the economic stimulus package until next week awaiting the return of Clinton and Obama. At the NYT, Herszenhorn wrote that Senate Repubs "blocked a $157 billion economic stimulus package championed by Senate Democrats, who said they would have no choice but to quickly adopt a cheaper, more streamlined plan approved earlier this week by the House." And about that "surrender flag" you mentioned in your article, Mr. Herszenhorn. Maybe you can deliver it to Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., for hiring Bill Kristol.

Al Qaeda leader killed -- Yet another No. 3? How many are there? Read Steve Benen.

A new GAO report on veterans with TBI -- traumatic brain injury -- was posted by Pale Rider at Blue Girl's place. Intel Dump offered a TBI-PTSD study of Iraqi vets from the New England Journal of Medicine.

"U.S. casualties rise in Iraq after falling for 4 months."

Iraq -- "Terrorists aren't Mosul's only problem. The city's Sunni and Shiite Muslim Arabs detest each other, and the Arabs distrust the city's Kurdish, Christian and Turkmen minorities. Although 60 percent of Mosul's population of 1.8 million is Sunni, three-quarters of the provincial government is Kurdish, and the Arabs suspect the Kurds of wanting to take over the city."

Po' paranoid conservatives -- They see enemies everywhere! Yikes! Oh! Eeeeeek! Wouldn't it be smarter to put them on meds rather than putting their kind in office?

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>