Posts
What's The Point
I thought winning an election meant the victors have some political capital to expend on shaping policy. Now it looks as if President Obama's first major policy achievement is being derailed in the name of appeasing a few moderates in the Senate. As the Senate version of the plan has taken shape it's lost the edge and won't have the intended impact unless the current formulation is changed.
A group of three moderate GOP Senators (five of you include Sens. Nelson and Konrad) somehow managed to get their hands on the controls and rework the thing. The resulting makeover has transformed the Senate version of the spending bill into neutered shell of the original. A crowning achievement of Centrism. The ability to boost employment and cover the gap in GDP will be hamstrung but, three GOP Senators now support the bill. What's the point?
I don't even see how this can be considered centrism. Wouldn't the even-keeled approach to pare down the bill taken into account both sides of the equation? If the goal was to reduce the size by $100 billion then a true centrist approach would be to look at both spending and tax cuts.
The compromise that came out of the Senate on Friday only cut spending. Even though tax cuts are a form of spending and are not nearly as stimulative as direct spending the tax cuts won out. The goal was to make the bill leaner than before yet as effective in stimulating the economy but this new version is almost half tax cuts.
The failure of this bipartisan folly is evident in largest of the reductions taken in the compromise. I of course am referring to the $40 billion in direct aid to State governments. Economists supporting some kind of stimulus approach agree that this form of spending is one the most effective ways to impact the economy. Mark Zandi's work at Moody's Economy.com has the multipliers for these spending increase ranging from 1.36 to 1.64. Seems to me you would leave this stuff in and go after less targeted spending. That is if you were truly working in good faith and not trying to make political treatments.
That $40 billion would be used by States like (let me think) Ohio. Governor Strickland's was counting on using over $3 billion of that money to plug a budget deficit. Without that money in hand the administration will almost assuredly have to cut much deeper to achieve an balanced budget. The only way that can happen now is through layoffs and possibly tax increases.
So the posturing by our moderate friends will have had the reverse effect of what the stated goal of the stimulus bill is. States cut jobs unemployment goes up but, the tax cuts will still be there as a life line.
Is it time for a group of progressive senators to scuttle this centrist monstrosity before it gets approved? Should the compromised bill be held hostage until the aid to States gets put back in? Surely some of the tax cuts could be removed to offset that addition as to not grow the cost and ruffle feathers. Calling all governors (except Mark Sanford) get up and say something or the future is not going to look too good.
I don't even see how this can be considered centrism. Wouldn't the even-keeled approach to pare down the bill taken into account both sides of the equation? If the goal was to reduce the size by $100 billion then a true centrist approach would be to look at both spending and tax cuts.
The compromise that came out of the Senate on Friday only cut spending. Even though tax cuts are a form of spending and are not nearly as stimulative as direct spending the tax cuts won out. The goal was to make the bill leaner than before yet as effective in stimulating the economy but this new version is almost half tax cuts.
The failure of this bipartisan folly is evident in largest of the reductions taken in the compromise. I of course am referring to the $40 billion in direct aid to State governments. Economists supporting some kind of stimulus approach agree that this form of spending is one the most effective ways to impact the economy. Mark Zandi's work at Moody's Economy.com has the multipliers for these spending increase ranging from 1.36 to 1.64. Seems to me you would leave this stuff in and go after less targeted spending. That is if you were truly working in good faith and not trying to make political treatments.
That $40 billion would be used by States like (let me think) Ohio. Governor Strickland's was counting on using over $3 billion of that money to plug a budget deficit. Without that money in hand the administration will almost assuredly have to cut much deeper to achieve an balanced budget. The only way that can happen now is through layoffs and possibly tax increases.
So the posturing by our moderate friends will have had the reverse effect of what the stated goal of the stimulus bill is. States cut jobs unemployment goes up but, the tax cuts will still be there as a life line.
Is it time for a group of progressive senators to scuttle this centrist monstrosity before it gets approved? Should the compromised bill be held hostage until the aid to States gets put back in? Surely some of the tax cuts could be removed to offset that addition as to not grow the cost and ruffle feathers. Calling all governors (except Mark Sanford) get up and say something or the future is not going to look too good.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment