Roads Plan Was Oversold In Stimulus Package

A top congressional Democrat now says that the White House oversold the "roads-and-bridges" component of the historic Porkulus/Spendulus/Stimulus package earlier this year. 

That's the way the news media are spinning the story, anyway (minus my litte dig using "porkulus" and "spendulus.") To phrase it the way some of us outside of the DC belt might say it ... "Obama lied about the stimulus package."

Surprised?  I hope not.

An Associated Press analysis of the first $19 billion in transportation spending showed that communities most in need of jobs are least likely to benefit from the program. (The report said nothing regarding communities most in need of roads and bridges, which is what it should have addressed.) 

A spokesman for Minnesota Representative James Oberstar (Democrat), who leads the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, said that the White House shouldn't have advertised the money designated for roads, bridges and infrastructure as the signature component of the bill, or as a surefire way to boost needy communities.

Do you suppose Mr. Oberstar will remember this when it comes time to vote for another big bill ... say the big government takeover of the nations' health care system that appears to be coming down the pike? I wouldn't count on it.

Read more...

What's Another Two Billion Dollars

It's only money, right?

Apparently that's the attitude of Obama, his administration and his tele-prompter.  This week, we, the American taxpayer, loaned another 2 billion dollars to General Motors.

This, coming mere days after the administration told GM to prepare to file bankruptcy this summer.

The Treasury Department said today that it lent the additional money to the troubled automaker to provide working capital. The loan pushes the amount of GM's government aid to over 15 billion dollars.  

Furthermore, a government report revealed earlier this week that the Treasury was planning to provide GM another 5 billion dollars in bailout money.  In addition to all of this, the automaker's financial unit, GMAC, has received $5 billion in government (taxpayer) money, plus GM received a $1 billion loan to buy more equity in GMAC.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Read more...

GM Headed for Bankruptcy

The Treasury Department is directing General Motors to prepare for a bankruptcy filing by June 1, despite GM's assertion that it could still reorganize without such a filing, The New York Times reported unnamed sources as saying on Monday.

Members of President Obama's automotive task force are said to have been in discussion with GM officials and its advisers in Detroit and Washington last week and are expected to continue this week.

The White House-appointed autos task force has given GM 60 days to come up with a restructuring plan and it is trying to determine whether the automaker can be a viable company.

Quoting sources who had been briefed on the GM plans, the Times said the goal was to prepare for a fast "surgical" bankruptcy.

Most of the conservative blogs that I read have pushed for bankruptcy from the beginning.  Liberal blogs that I've watched have pushed for the bailout money.  I hate to say "I told you so," but ....

No big deal, I guess.  It's only 30 or 40 some billion dollars down the drain. It's taxpayer money, so the liberals don't really care.

Read more...

Remember When?

Remember when the Big 3 automakers were "too big to fail"?  Remember when they needed the bailouts, and the bailout mania that followed? 

Do you remember that the idea of bailing out anything "too big to fail" meant stepping away from the authority granted Congress for bankruptcy to other powers never granted to Congress or the federal government? 

Some of us (me included) insisted that companies that were "too big to fail" needed to fail and go through re-organization and get its act together.

Remember that?

Remember the politicians telling us that tens of billions, hundreds of billions and now trillions of dollars going to bailouts, handouts, bonuses and rewards to political brown-nosers and supports were necessary?

Remember the serial lies told about AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the faux outrage by politicians and regulators?  Remember Bawney Fwank chastising the Bush administration and McCain for suggesting we could be headed for a mortgage crisis.

Gee, I must be getting old.  

I remember all of that.

Read more...

The Treasury Department Made Me Do It...

From the "Congressmen acting like 3 year olds" department...

In a "dramatic reversal" (aka: I got caught in a lie) Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., confessed to adding language to the stimulus bill last month that exempted all bonuses that bailed-out companies had promised to employees before Feb. 11, 2009. 

Dodd told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change.

"As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications to it," he said. "They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous."

But the provision has become a flash point for criticism amid the controversy over $165 million in bonuses given out by AIG after securing more than $170 billion in federal aid. The language in the stimulus bill wasn't specific to AIG, but some have expressed outrage that it appears to have created a loophole.

Dodd said the argument put forward by Treasury was that a "flood of lawsuits" would come forward if the change was not made.

Dodd said he was unaware of the AIG bonuses at the time the bill was being written back in early February. He also said he has no reason to believe Treasury officials making the argument knew about the AIG bonuses.

When asked how administration officials have this kind of leverage over members of Congress, Dodd said, "The administration has veto power. ... No one suggested a veto to me, I don't want to imply that to you. But certainly that's not an insignificant tool."

On Tuesday, Dodd told FOX News that he didn't add the exemption.

As long as we're acting like 3 year olds.... "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire..."

Read more...

Geithner to Unveil Bailout Plan for Financial Sector

A Treasury Department official says Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will unveil the Obama administration's new plan to rescue the financial sector on Tuesday.

Geithner had been scheduled to announce the plan Monday.

Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said Sunday that the administration wants to spend Monday focused on the Senate's effort to pass an economic recovery package.

The financial plan that Geithner is expected to detail Tuesday will spell out how the administration intends to fund further bailouts for failing financial institutions.  The plan is expected to include the following details:

* Democratic politicians and other party leaders will be forced to pay all back taxes, generating an estimated $175 Billion.

* Banks and other Financial institutions will use a special version of TurboTax called "Bailout TurboTax", which will save them an estimated $83 billion in taxes.

Other details to come.

Read more...

Uni-Partisan Agreement Reached On Stimulus Package

To the surprise of no one, the Democrats in congress have reached an agreement with themselves (mostly) that will allow them to pass the "Porkulus" spending package that they've wanted in order to make it look like they are doing something to help the economy.  

They've convinced two Republicans to go along with them; just enough to allow Obama to proclaim it a "Bi-Partisan" effort.  Senators Arlen Specter and Susan Collins, both regarded as "moderate to liberal Northeastern Republicans", are joining with the majority of Democrats in congress to see that "something" gets done. This, in spite of the fact that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that the package will do more harm to the economy than good. Specter and Collins are the best opposition that money can buy.

The agreement apparently cuts $110 Billion from the bill, making it a mere $880 Billion dollar package. The cost of the package will still manage to top a trillion dollars when interest is taken into account.  (Some even suggest as high as two trillion dollars).

President Obama, however, not being able to "stand the heat" headed off to Virginia for a retreat (read: "vacation"). Apparently, Obama wants to confirm Republican accusations of lack of leadership from the White House during the past few weeks.  There's nothing like taking a vacation two weeks after starting a job.  I'm sure most of us do that. Of course, Obama spent most of the week whining and complaining about Congress not getting his bill passed before he left.  

One reason Obama and the Democrats want a bill pass as soon as possible is because they are watching the polls and seeing that support by the American public for the package is slipping away by the hour. Every day the bill doesn't pass, they are losing somewhere between five and ten percent in the polls.  

As an aside, Sen. John Kerry took to the Senate floor today to pace, rant, and raise his voice in a monotone simulation of human passion as he spoke up for the massive spending bill the Democrats want to pass today under the guise of "stimulus." His argument against tax cuts for Americans during these hard economic times was illuminating:

"I've supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted. If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there is no guarantee that they're going to invest that or invest it in America. They're free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest."

This, of course, is the fear of every good liberal. How dare Americans keep more of the money that they've earned and spend it like they want. It might not go to Planned Parenthood or ACORN. It might not be used to give condoms to kids or to teach homosexual tolerance. The American people might not want to spend their money supporting moms with seven kids living on welfare. They might even given some of it to (gasp) a religious organization or (even bigger gasp) a conservative cause or politician! We can't have that, can we, Senator Kerry. 

So, Congressmen like Senator Kerry place their own ideological desires over the rights and preferences of the American people. 

To make matters worse, Kerry showed a frightening indifference to the waste of taxpayer money by saying, "So frankly, you know, the difference between $50 billion on this bill or $100 billion -- let's get it moving. That is not going to make the difference in the economy."

I know that a $50 Billion difference isn't much to Senator Kerry, and I know that Speaker Pelosi doesn't know the difference between $50 Billion and a dollar and ninety five cents. Pelosi thinks $50 Billion is only a dollar or two for every working American, anyway. But to the rest of us average Americans, $50 Billion is getting close to being a lot of money.  

Kerry's priority is to get the stimulus package passed, not quibbling over a few hundred billion dollars here and a few hundred billion dollars there. Yet, if that's the case, you have to wonder why Kerry and his pals in congress couldn't bring themselves to support even one of the Republican amendments to the bill. For that matter, until today, it seems the Democrats in congress haven't even spoken to any of the Republicans about what it might take to make the bill more ... well ... bi-partisan.

For the Democrats in congress, the only time $50 billion to $100 Billion in tax dollars is worth worrying about is when taxpayers might have the dangerous freedom to spend it as they wish. When THEY are spending it, well, just don't worry your pretty little heads about it. 

Read more...

Quote of the Day

Today's quote is from the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.   Most of you that pay attention to news from "alternative sources" already know what today's quote is.  Of course, you are not likely to see this in the MainStream Media anywhere.

Here is the quote:

"Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs."

- Nancy Pelosi, February 4, 2009

I strongly suspect that Speaker Pelosi might be exaggerating with this claim, designed to fast track the economic stimulus package that is rapidly loosing favor with the American Public.  Why would I be suspicious that this number is exaggerated?  Well, for one thing, there are only 300 million Americans in the US.  And of those, only about half of them have a full time job.  

So, according to Speaker Pelosi, every month 500 million of the 150 million working Americans lose their job.

I wonder how that happens.  Are there more Illegal aliens working here than we all believed?  Could she be counting them?  Perhaps every American is going to lose his or her job 3 times every month until the stimulus package is passed.  If that's the case, at least 300 million new jobs are being created.

No, Nancy just isn't smarter than a fifth grader.  In fact, Nancy isn't much smarter than a bar of soap.

For all the whining and complaining from the left about Bush's intelligence over the last 8 years, the Dems sure don't seem to be any smarter.  But, do you suppose you'll see this quote all over the evening news this evening?  Hmmmm.... I doubt it.

What really concerns me is that this is the leader of the fray pushing the economic stimulus package.  She doesn't know the difference between billions, millions, or thousands.  Why then should we support a stimulus package when the authors of the package can't do simple math?  Perhaps this is why the numbers in the package are so staggering.  These people simply don't have a clue as to how much the pork they're passing around is going to cost the American taxpayer.  

....  All 800 trillion of us.

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 6)

A Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors either from their own money or from the money of future investors rather than from any profit seen by the investment itself.  A Ponzi scheme will often offer (or promise) very high short term returns in order to entice investors.  The scheme, however, is destined to eventually collapse because any earnings from the scheme (if any) will be less than the amount of the investments.  Very often these schemes are interrupted by legal authorities before the scheme collapses because often the promotors are selling unregistered securities.  As more investors become involved, the attention of authorities increases.

Let's take a hypothetical example...

Suppose there is this guy, let's call him "Obamy", and he wants to use a trillion dollars to go to a variety of personal pet projects that will make him powerful and popular.  But this "investment" has no real hope of actually accomplishing what it is purported to do.  How might he pull this off?  

Let's say he promises each "investor" a $1,200 or $600 return up front (depending on their investment).  In fact some of these "investors" don't even have to invest their own money ... they'll just ride out the scheme using other people's money.   "Obamy" never talks about what the scheme will cost in the long run, who will pay for it or how it will be paid for.  He only mentions the return.  He only mentions that within a few months or a few years at most, this scheme will pay back the investors multiple trillions of dollars.  Of course, no one who is "in on it" really believes that will happen, but that's what the investors will be told.

How long do you suppose it would be before the government shuts down this scheme designed to clean out its investors for the benefit of the few? 

... don't hold your breath.

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 4)

What if Obama and congress simply agreed to take the 1.25 trillion dollars and distribute it out to the 105 million households in America? Well, each household would receive a check for about $12,000.

I wonder out loud how many people (if given the choice) would prefer to give the $12K back to the government rather than keep it for themselves. I ask this not just from the selfish standpoint of having the money in your pocket, but rather from a standpoint of knowing what this sort of money could do for Americans who are struggling and what it could do for the overall economy. Do we "really" believe that this stimulus package will help the economy in such a manner that it would be hypothetically worth $12,000 per household or $7,000 per taxpayer? Because that is what these stimulus packages are costing us.

The reality is that very few people believe that the 1.25 trillion dollars will bring instant relief for anyone. In fact, Obama and the member of congress promoting this bill are not much more optimistic about what it will do than those in congress (and talk radio) who oppose it. They want the 1.25 trillion, but they promise very little in terms of actual stimulus. In fact they warn that it may make very little "immediate impact". What it means is that they want the 1.25 trillion, but really don't want the responsibily that goes with it.

The reality is that we have the least experienced President in our lifetime who has now been handed over power with a wide margin in the house and an almost fillibuster proof Senate. On top of this, he was given $350 billion dollars to work with "before" he became President and now is asking for another $800-900 billion more within days of being sworn in.

That's an awful lot of faith to put into this President and this particular congress. We didn't give this sort of power to Bush, Clinton, or Reagan. All of them took office during rough economic times, and all of them pulled us out of it without requiring 1.25 trillion dollars to do so.

When I hear Nancy Pelosi make a fool of herself trying to explain why the pet project of providing federal aid to purchase birth control is stimulus I cringe to think that she represents one third of the leadership that will make the decisions on this money. When you strip down this bill it seems to include every pet project that the Democrats "wanted" to get through over the past eight years, but couldn't. Clearly, they want this 1.25 trillion for political reasons more than they want it for the reason everyone believes it is needed. Winning an election does not undo the fact that you lost previous elections. You certainly cannot govern like it did.

And let's put this into real perspective. This is the sort of money that not only can, but probably "will" tie our hands for the forseeable future. It will effect us today. It will effect our children when they grow up. It may even effect our children's children. Is an untested President, and two bitter congressional leaders really the right people to bank our entire future on? Do we really even trust that their intentions are what they claim? Would you trust them enough to hand over $12,000 of your family's money if it came down to it?

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 3)

Here is part 3 of my series on Obama's Porkulus package. 

I suppose I should insert an aside here:  The package as it exists at this point is really the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi Porkulus package.  They are the real originators of what is being debated and talked about.  However, we all know that Obama could walk into their offices today and essentially dictate what he wants changed, if anything.  He has the power, the popularity and the "bully pulpit".  I think we can all assume that whatever the Dems end up passing in congress will essentially have Obama's blessing, and any changes made will be made for political gain after seeing what the media and the blogs are saying.  (Not the conservative blogs, though.)

In this installment, I want to focus on some of the more ridiculous pork in the package; those items that really do little or nothing to actually stimulate the economy, but really represent pet projects either of the Democratic party as a whole, or of individual Democratic congressmen.  The plan is filled with a staggering amount of waste. We will be adding billions to our national deficit so we can fund such fine programs as:

• $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.  (Payback?)

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Will reducing lead-based paint stimulate our economy? Will inspecting canals in our urban areas create jobs?

Support for the stimulus plan appears to be fading fast. As we reported here, many believe that the stimulus plan won’t reach American taxpayers until it’s too late to create any real jobs. Meanwhile, our federal employees will have some nice Priuses to drive around in.

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 2)

According the Glenn Beck's Website, here is the breakdown of the "Porkulus" package:

• $825 billion total (as of 1/15/09) 
• $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in. 
• $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions) 
• $ 90 billion for infrastructure 
• $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states 
• $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks 
• $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources 
• $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology) 
• $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments." 
• $ 16 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas) 
• $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500 
• $ 6 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization."

[Source: Committee on Appropriations: January 15, 2009] 

Here is a further breakdown of the package: 

NOTE: The following are highlights of the package; for the full 13-page summary from the Appropriations Committee, click here: 

(as of 1/15/09) 

Energy 
$32 billion: Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste 
$16 billion: Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit 
$6 billion: Funding to weatherize modest-income homes 

Science and Technology 
$10 billion: Science facilities 
$6 billion: High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas 

Infrastructure 
$30 billion: Transportation projects 
$31 billion: Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure 
$19 billion: Water projects 
$10 billion: Rail and mass transit projects 

Education 
$41 billion: Grants to local school districts 
$79 billion: State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid 
$21 billion: School modernization ($15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500; $6 billion for higher education modernization) 

Health Care 
$39 billion: Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid 
$87 billion: Help to states with Medicaid 
$20 billion: Modernization of health-information technology systems 
$4.1 billion: Preventative care 

Jobless Benefits 
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training. 
$39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid. 
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs. 

Taxes 

Individuals: 

*$500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion. 
*Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor. 
*Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children 
*A $2,500 college tuition tax credit. 
*Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time. 

Businesses: 

*An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two. 
*Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment 
*Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases. 
*Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans

[Sources: Associated Press: Highlights of Senate economic stimulus plan; January 23, 2009; WSJ: Stimulus Package Unveiled; January 16, 2009; Committee on Appropriations: January 15, 2009] 

When is the money being is going to be spent, and on what? 

The government wouldn't be able to spend at least one-fourth of a proposed $825 billion economic stimulus plan until after 2010, according to a preliminary report by the Congressional Business Office that suggests it may take longer than expected to boost the economy. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said. About $103 billion would be spent in 2011, while $53 billion would be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019. 

• Less than $5 billion of the $30 billion set aside for highway spending would be spent within the next two years, the CBO said. 

• Only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent. 

• Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half. 

• About $907 million of a $6 billion plan to expand broadband access in rural and other underserved areas would be spent by 2011, CBO said. 

• Just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year. 

• $275 billion worth of tax cuts to 95 percent of filers and a huge infusion of help for state governments is to be distributed into the economy more quickly. 

[Note: The CBO's analysis applied only to 40 percent of the overall stimulus bill, and doesn't cover tax cuts or efforts; a CBO report outlining all of its costs is expected in the next week or so.] 

• The Obama administration said $3 of every $4 in the package should be spent within 18 months to have maximum impact on jobs and taxpayers; if House or Senate versions of the bill do not spend the money as quickly, the White House will work with lawmakers to achieve the goal of spending 75% of the overall package over the next year and a half. 

[Source: AP: Three-quarters of stimulus to go in 18 months; January 22, 2009; Bloomberg News: Much of Stimulus Wont Be Spent Before 2011, CBO Says; January 20, 2009; link] 

Who will be spending the money? Will the states be receiving any money to spend, community organizations? Churches? 

The economic stimulus plan now moving through Congress would shower billions of federal dollars on state and local governments desperate for cash: 

• The House stimulus bill includes an extra $87 billion in federal aid to state Medicaid programs. 

• It allots some $120 billion to boost state and city education programs. 

• There's $4 billion for state and local anticrime initiatives in the legislation, not to mention $30-plus billion for highways and other infrastructure projects. 

• $6.9 billion to help state and local governments make investments that make them more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions. 

• $87 billion to states, increasing through the end of FY 2010 the share of Medicaid costs the Federal government reimburses all states by 4.8 percent, with extra relief tied to rates of unemployment. 

• $120 billion to states and school districts to stabilize budgets and prevent tax increases and deep cuts to critical education programs. 

Overall, about one-quarter of the entire $825 billion recovery package would be devoted to activities crucial to governors, mayors, and local school boards - making them among the plans biggest beneficiaries. 

Read more...

Today's Quote

"If you owe the government $100 that's your problem. If you owe the government $100 Billion, that's the government's problem."

- Paraphrase of a quote from J. Paul Getty

One word:  Accountability.

Read more...