MOAP II?

[Lord Jim]

Now in full campaign mode, Obama has been running around the country touting what a great "success" last year's "stimulus" package has been...

He's been claiming that without it, the economy would have been worse, (even going so far at one campaign stop as to say that without it, unemployment could be 15%)

Laying aside the fact that when this plan was being sold the claim was that it would prevent unemployment from rising above 8%, in a very limited sense, Obama does have a point. Yes, without it the situation, (at least in the short term) would have been "worse". It's a virtual impossibility to pump 787 billion dollars into the economy and do absolutely no good at all, no matter how you spend it.

But of course, the choice never was the false one that Obama is now presenting; between this stinker and doing "nothing."

In terms of "bang for the buck" The Mother Of All Pork "stimulus" bill has been an absolute disaster. It's added hugely to the deficit while producing the most meager of results.

The two main components of MOAP were:

1.The most poorly designed tax cut in modern history. (This is not surprising; having Democrats design a tax cut is like asking Republicans to design a welfare program; they so despise the very concept that it's pretty much impossible for them to do it well. I sort of suspect that this tax cut may have been deliberately designed to fail so that when they were pressured again to embrace some sort of tax relief, the Dems could say,"Look, we tried tax cuts...they didn't work".) The "Two Pizza A Month" tax cut, which cost over 300 billion dollars and put the princely sum of 30$ per month into the pockets of the average American, surprise surprise has done next to nothing to drive consumer spending. (For about the same amount that was squandered on this, they could have given every taxpayer in this country a three month "tax holiday"... now that would have spurred the economy.)

2.The Public Sector Employees Full Employment Act. In a shameless payoff to the public sector employee's unions, the Dems spent billions to provide states with the means to keep a couple of hundred thousand public sector employees employed. (At the same time the package included a parsimonious 6 billion dollars...the same amount dedicated to sprucing up federal buildings around the country...in small business incentives.)

MOAP also included a modest sum for infrastructure. Something that was supposed to have been the centerpiece of the strategy, but got lost when Obama made the critical mistake of turning the creation of the package over to Pelosi and Co, who opted instead for a massive payoff to the public sector unions. (I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if Obama winds up being a one term President, the reason will be easily traced back to that early blunder.)

So now, (again surprise surprise) the money that kept those public sector employees employed, (and also allowed many states the ability to avoid tough decisions that needed to be made) is running out, and the Dems want to issue yet another multi billion dollar pay-off...

This would not of course be necessary had the original stimulus package been designed the way it should have been; with the vast bulk of the cost aimed at providing incentives, tax breaks, low interest loans, etc. to small and medium sized businesses. Had that been done, having another bailout for the public sector unions would be a moot issue, because growth would now be much more robust, millions more people would be back at work, and state tax revenue coffers would have risen accordingly.

This was extremely short sighted of Pelosi and the rest of the Demo congressional political leadership. The decision to create a hugely expensive stimulus package that has done so little for the economy that we now face the posibility of a "double dip" recession is the number one reason that she now faces the very real prospect of losing the Speaker's gavel this fall.

And it was extremely foolish and completely unnecessary for Obama to let her get away with this. Back in the winter of 2009, Obama enjoyed huge support and goodwill across the political spectrum. He could have used this popularity to go over the heads of the Congressional leadership and reach out directly to the American people (just as Mr. Reagan so skillfully did) and thus create the political pressure to have muscled through a much better program. Instead, the decision to give in to Pelosi on this has not only resulted in economic conditions that are very little improved, but also began the process of completely wiping out any support from Republicans, and caused a spectacular hemorrhage in his support among Independents, that continues unabated.

[Gob]

Ok, now then, don't be an Edi and just tell us what's wrong.,

Tell us
a) How it should have been done.

b) What should be done now to fix it.

c) Why Steve isn't a gibbering moron.

[Lord Jim]

Tell us
a) How it should have been done.

I did that Strop; I made some major suggestions.

b) What should be done now to fix it.

We need a package of of tax breaks, hiring incentives, and low interest rate loans for small and midsized businesses, that do the lion share of hiring for long term jobs, and have been responsible for pulling us out of every recession since WW II. (one proposal that's been made that I think makes a lot of sense, is to take the 200 billion that has been paid back from the TARP program and use that as a pool of money for small business loans. The money would be made available to community banks that would use their expertise to assess loan risk, rather than being loaned out by the government directly, eliminating the need for a new bureaucracy to administer the program.)

c) Why Steve isn't a gibbering moron.

Hey, I'm good, but I'm not a miracle worker...

[Crackpot]

Jim
While I agree with alot of what you said we did and still do need a shitload of infrastructure investment. Much of what was built post WWII is either crumbling and/or massively out of date. Unfortunately these jobs have to be doled out by the Govt which needs to learn how to do business outside the norms of lowest bidder/who greases the palms the best.

Then again that would require Government working for the people not themselves.

[Lord Jim]

we did and still do need a shitload of infrastructure investment

I agree with you on that CP...

Obama ran on that, but it's not what wound up happening....

Remember all that talk about, "shovel ready" projects?

I don't have a problem with investment in infrastructure; better roads and bridges are a big plus for the economy beyond the temporary jobs they create. (Just as the creation of the original interstate highway system was)

But I don't think that can really be called "stimulus"...if it's done properly there's fairly long time line involved, and "stimulus" is designed to help boost the economy in a more immediate way....

But I would have no problem supporting a large, intelligently crafted infrastructure bill...

So long as we don't wind up with a whole bunch of porky project "bridges to nowhere"....

[Crackpot]

There's hardly an interstate or state highway not being worked on here (nor on the way to SC as far as I can tell) including one that would have never got done without the stimulus. (funding would have had to come from a county for a bridge between two counties that do not work and play well together)

Though I'd love to see an interstate high-speed rail program.