Please Note:

This blog simply desires to share the truth, (and not just politically) and the truth is out there for those who seek it, we just blog about it, hence, Revelations of Truth!

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Stimulus bill explained



Here it is. You can skip the narratives, if you want, and go directly to
the bullet point summaries under each heading. It is quite a beast of a
SPENDING bill with little or no public debate. As I've said before, the
Republicans in congress were irresponsible when they had their majority
under Bush, but this monstrosity, being sold with fear mongering, makes the
Republicans look like amateurs.

50 De-Stimulating Facts
Chapter and verse on a bad bill.

By Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson
Senate Democrats acknowledged Wednesday that they do not have the votes to
pass the stimulus bill in its current form. This is unexpected good news.
The House passed the stimulus package with zero Republican votes (and even a
few Democratic defections), but few expected Senate Republicans (of whom
there are only 41) to present a unified front. A few moderate Democrats have
reportedly joined them.

The idea that the government can spend the economy out of a recession is
highly questionable, and even with Senate moderates pushing for changes, the
current package is unlikely to see much improvement. Nevertheless, this
presents an opportunity to remove some of the most egregious spending, to
shrink some programs, and to add guidelines where the initial bill called
for a blank check. Here are 50 of the most outrageous items in the stimulus

The easiest targets in the stimulus bill are the ones that were clearly
thrown in as a sop to one liberal cause or another, even though the proposed
spending would have little to no stimulative effect. The National Endowment
for the Arts, for example, is in line for $50 million, increasing its total
budget by a third. The unemployed can fill their days attending
abstract-film festivals and sitar concerts.

Then there are the usual welfare-expansion programs that sound nice but
repeatedly fail cost-benefit analyses. The bill provides $380 million to set
up a rainy-day fund for a nutrition program that serves low-income women and
children, and $300 million for grants to combat violence against women.
Laudable goals, perhaps, but where's the economic stimulus? And the bill
would double the amount spent on federal child-care subsidies. Brian Riedl,
a budget expert with the Heritage Foundation, quips, "Maybe it's to help
future Obama cabinet secretaries, so that they don't have to pay taxes on
their nannies."

Perhaps spending $6 billion on university building projects will put some
unemployed construction workers to work, but how does a $15 billion
expansion of the Pell Grant program meet the standard of "temporary, timely,
and targeted"? Another provision would allocate an extra $1.2 billion to a
"youth" summer-jobs program-and increase the age-eligibility limit from 21
to 24. Federal job-training programs-despite a long track record of
failure-come in for $4 billion total in additional funding through the

Of course, it wouldn't be a liberal wish list if it didn't include something
for ACORN, and sure enough, there is $5.2 billion for community-development
block grants and "neighborhood stabilization activities," which ACORN is
eligible to apply for. Finally, the bill allocates $650 million for
activities related to the switch from analog to digital TV, including $90
million to educate "vulnerable populations" that they need to go out and get
their converter boxes or lose their TV signals. Obviously, this is
stimulative stuff: Any economist will tell you that you can't get higher
productivity and economic growth without access to reruns of Family Feud.


$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program

$300 million for grants to combat violence against women

$2 billion for federal child-care block grants

$6 billion for university building projects

$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships

$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for "youths" up
to the age of 24

$1 billion for community-development block grants

$4.2 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities"

$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate "vulnerable

The stimulus package's tax provisions are poorly designed and should be
replaced with something closer to what the Republican Study Committee in the
House has proposed. Obama would extend some of the business tax credits
included in the stimulus bill Congress passed about a year ago, and this is
good as far as it goes. The RSC plan, however, also calls for a cut in the
corporate-tax rate that could be expected to boost wages, lower prices, and
increase profits, stimulating economic activity across the board.

The RSC plan also calls for a 5 percent across-the-board income-tax cut,
which would increase productivity by providing additional incentives to
save, work, and invest. An across-the-board payroll-tax cut might make even
more sense, especially for low- to middle-income workers who don't make
enough to pay income taxes. Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit is aimed at
helping these workers, but it uses a rebate check instead of a rate cut.
Rebate checks are not effective stimulus, as we discovered last spring: They
might boost consumption, a little, but that's all they do.
Finally, the RSC proposal provides direct tax relief to strapped families by
expanding the child tax credit, reducing taxes on parents' investment in the
next generation of taxpayers. Obama's expansion of the child tax credit is
not nearly as ambitious. Overall, his plan adds up to a lot of forgone
revenue without much stimulus to show for it. Senators should push for the
tax relief to be better designed.


$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs

$145 billion for "Making Work Pay" tax credits

$83 billion for the earned income credit

Even as their budgets were growing robustly during the Bush administration,
many federal agencies couldn't find the money to keep up with repairs-at
least that's the conclusion one is forced to draw from looking at the
stimulus bill. Apparently the entire capital is a shambles. Congress has
already removed $200 million to fix up the National Mall after word of that
provision leaked out and attracted scorn. But one fixture of the mall-the
Smithsonian-dodged the ax: It's slated to receive $150 million for

The stimulus package is packed with approximately $7 billion worth of
federal building projects, including $34 million to fix up the Commerce
Department, $500 million for improvements to National Institutes of Health
facilities, and $44 million for repairs at the Department of Agriculture.
The Agriculture Department would also get $350 million for new computers-the
better to calculate all the new farm subsidies in the bill (see "Pure pork"

One theme in this bill is superfluous spending items coated with green sugar
to make them more palatable. Both NASA and NOAA come in for appropriations
that properly belong in the regular budget, but this spending apparently
qualifies for the stimulus bill because part of the money from each
allocation is reserved for climate-change research. For instance, the bill
grants NASA $450 million, but it states that the agency must spend at least
$200 million on "climate-research missions," which raises the question: Is
there global warming in space?

The bottom line is that there is a way to fund government agencies, and that
is the federal budget, not an "emergency" stimulus package. As Riedl puts
it, "Amount allocated to the Census Bureau? $1 billion. Jobs created? None."


$150 million for the Smithsonian

$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters

$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health

$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters

$350 million for Agriculture Department computers

$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building

$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department

$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids

$450 million for NASA (carve-out for "climate-research missions")

$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for "climate modeling")

$1 billion for the Census Bureau

A big chunk of the stimulus package is designed not to create wealth but to
spread it around. It contains $89 billion in Medicaid extensions and $36
billion in expanded unemployment benefits-and this is in addition to the
state-budget bailout (see "Rewarding state irresponsibility" below).

The Medicaid extension is structured as a temporary increase in the federal
match, but make no mistake: Like many spending increases in the stimulus
package, this one has a good chance of becoming permanent. As for extending
unemployment benefits through the downturn, it might be a good idea for
other reasons, but it wouldn't stimulate economic growth: It would provide
an incentive for job-seekers to delay reentry into the workforce.


$89 billion for Medicaid

$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension

$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits

$20 billion for food stamps

The problem with trying to spend $1 trillion quickly is that you end up
wasting a lot of it. Take, for instance, the proposed $4.5 billion addition
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget. Not only does this effectively
double the Corps' budget overnight, but it adds to the Corps' $3.2 billion
unobligated balance-money that has been appropriated, but that the Corps has
not yet figured out how to spend. Keep in mind, this is an agency that is
often criticized for wasting taxpayers' money. "They cannot spend that money
wisely," says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "I don't even think
they can spend that much money unwisely."

Speaking of spending money unwisely, the stimulus bill adds another $850
million for Amtrak, the railroad that can't turn a profit. There's also $1.7
billion for "critical deferred maintenance needs" in the National Park
System, and $55 million for the preservation of historic landmarks. Also,
the U.S. Coast Guard needs $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship-maybe
global warming isn't working fast enough.

It should come as no surprise that rural communities-those parts of the
nation that were hardest hit by rampant real-estate speculation and the
collapse of the investment-banking industry-are in dire need of an
additional $7.6 billion for "advancement programs." Congress passed a $300
billion farm bill last year, but apparently that wasn't enough. This bill
provides additional subsidies for farmers, including $150 million for
producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish.


$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

$850 million for Amtrak

$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship

$1.7 billion for the National Park System

$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund

$7.6 billion for "rural community advancement programs"

$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases

$150 million for "producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish"

Open up the section of the stimulus devoted to renewable energy and what you
find is anti-stimulus: billions of dollars allocated to money-losing
technologies that have not proven cost-efficient despite decades of
government support. "Green energy" is not a new idea, Riedl points out. The
government has poured billions into loan-guarantees and subsidies and has
even mandated the use of ethanol in gasoline, to no avail. "It is the
triumph of hope over experience," he says, "to think that the next $20
billion will magically transform the economy."

Many of the renewable-energy projects in the stimulus bill are duplicative.
It sets aside $3.5 billion for energy efficiency and conservation block
grants, and $3.4 billion for the State Energy Program. What's the
difference? Well, energy efficiency and conservation block grants "assist
eligible entities in implementing energy efficiency and conservation
strategies," while the State Energy Program "provides funding to states to
design and carry out their own energy efficiency and renewable energy

While some programs would spend lavishly on technologies that are proven
failures, others would spend too little to make a difference. The stimulus
would spend $4.5 billion to modernize the nation's electricity grid. But as
Robert Samuelson has pointed out, "An industry study in 2004-surely
outdated-put the price tag of modernizing the grid at $165 billion." Most
important, the stimulus bill is not the place to make these changes. There
is a regular authorization process for energy spending; Obama is just trying
to take a shortcut around it.


$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming

$2 billion for a "clean coal" power plant in Illinois

$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program

$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants

$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program

$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects

$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs

$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments

$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries

$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees

$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

$4.5 billion for electricity grid

One of the ugliest aspects of the stimulus package is a bailout for
spendthrift state legislatures. Remember the old fable about the ant and the
grasshopper? In Aesop's version, the happy-go-lucky grasshopper realizes the
error of his ways when winter comes and he goes hungry while the industrious
ant lives on his stores. In Obama's version, the federal government levies a
tax on the ant and redistributes his wealth to the party-hearty grasshopper,
who just happens to belong to a government-employees' union. This happens
through something called the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund," by which
taxpayers in the states that have exercised financial discipline are raided
to subsidize Democratic-leaning Electoral College powerhouses-e.g.,
California-that have spent their way into big trouble.

The state-bailout fund has a built-in provision to channel the money to the
Democrats' most reliable group of campaign donors: the teachers' unions. The
current bill requires that a fixed percentage of the bailout money go toward
ensuring that school budgets are not reduced below 2006 levels. Given that
the fastest-growing segment of public-school expense is administrators'
salaries-not teachers' pay, not direct spending on classroom learning-this
is a requirement that has almost nothing to do with ensuring high-quality
education and everything to do with ensuring that the school bureaucracy
continues to be a cash cow for Democrats.

Setting aside this obvious sop to Democratic constituencies, the State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund is problematic in that it creates a moral hazard
by punishing the thrifty to subsidize the extravagant. California, which has
suffered the fiscal one-two punch of a liberal, populist Republican governor
and a spendthrift Democratic legislature, is in the worst shape, but even
this fiduciary felon would have only to scale back spending to Gray
Davis-era levels to eliminate its looming deficit. (The Davis years are not
remembered as being especially austere.) Pennsylvania is looking to offload
much of its bloated corrections-system budget onto Uncle Sam in order to
shunt funds to Gov. Ed Rendell's allies at the county-government level, who
will use that largesse to put off making hard budgetary calls and necessary
reforms. Alaska is looking for a billion bucks, including $630 million for
transportation projects-not a great sign for the state that brought us the
"Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco.

Other features leap out: Of the $4 billion set aside for the Community
Oriented Policing Services-COPS-program, half is allocated for communities
of fewer than 150,000 people. That's $2 billion to fight nonexistent crime
waves in places like Frog Suck, Wyo., and Hoople, N.D.

The great French economist Frédéric Bastiat called politics "the great
fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of
everybody else." But who pays for the state bailout? Savers will pay to bail
out spenders, and future generations will pay to bail out the undisciplined

In sum, this is an $80 billion boondoggle that is going to reward the
irresponsible and help state governments evade a needed reordering of their
financial priorities. And the money has to come from somewhere: At best,
we're just shifting money around from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, robbing
a relatively prudent Cheyenne to pay an incontinent Albany. If we want more
ants and fewer grasshoppers, let the prodigal governors get a little hungry.


$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are welcome! After you hit submit, don't leave or your comment will not get posted! After you hit submit--the page will refresh and a simple "word verification" will pop-up and then your comment will post!