It was billed as a "coming out party" for one of the GOP's most promising young stars. But after nearly universal criticism was heaped on Gov. Bobby Jindal's high-profile response to President Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night, the Louisiana Republican may be wishing he had stayed home.
CNN
The delivery was too reminiscent of a Saturday morning PSA. He seemed like he was auditioning to do books on tape, or to be the voice over on a History Channel programs on geographical phenomenon. Some if the substance of his speech was on point, but the overly corney delivery took away from his argument and soured his national debut.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama's First Address to Congress
I have very mixed feelings regarding Obama's first address to a joint session of Congress last night. However, when you factor in the realities we face with his political rhetoric, I am left with no real positive outlook on his Presidency. While I, like most of those present at the speech, agreed with certain priorities that the President listed, I am afraid we do not see eye to eye on how to get there.
A few points that the President brought up that I agree with in principle: lowering the deficit, cutting wasteful government spending, tax cuts, and education, health care, and energy reform. Above all else, the federal government's top priority should be paying down the national debt. The Republicans showed a complete lack of fiscal restraint when they held the majority. As the supposed party of "change," the Democrats should reign in government spending, and work at bringing down the national debt. If President Obama can pull that off without raising taxes, then I can almost promise that he will get my vote in 2012.
One way to help bring down spending is to eliminate inefficient, wasteful government programs. The President has appointed a federal official to oversee the investigation into program effectiveness. I wish her the greatest possible success. However, President Bush tried for 8 consecutive years to cut dozens of wasteful programs. His proposals would have increased federal funding for programs that were proven successes, without raising the overall bottom line, by redirecting funds from inefficient and unsuccessful programs. He could not get the Republican Congress to agree to eliminate these programs, and he could not get the Democratic Congress on board either. Hopefully, Obama can trade on his currently un-earned popularity and maybe get Congress to fall in line.
Finally, Obama mentioned a strong deisre to reform our nation's education, health care, and energy systems. I am all for reform, I just don;t believe the President and I agree on what kind of reform is necessary. I believe the only government involvement in these areas is to deregulate. That's right, I said the very unpopular phrase "deregulate." I think local educators have a much better idea of what their students need than a bureaucrat in Washington. I think that companies should be encouraged (though tax breaks) to provide health care plans for employees that are affordable and effective. I believe that the government should promote new research and production of alternative fuel sources, mainly through R&D grants and additional tax incentives. The key to success is getting government out of the way, not giving them more chains to tie down those in the field.
On other issues, such as pulling troops out of Iraq, I still have mixed feelings. Americans have been fighting and dying in an area of the country that seems less and less to appreciate what we have done. The cost of the ongoing conflict has brought out deficit up to unbelievable levels. The cost, both fiscal and human, is too high. However, we are over there, we have been involved, and therefore, we cannot just bailout and leave the region in a war-torn mess. We have to find a way to transfer authority gradually, helping to give the ungrateful bastards the best chance at a lasting peace.
In regards to taxes, I applaud an effort to give 95% of American tax breaks. However, that number is based on some very "fuzzy" math. The fact is, the so called wealthiest 1% of Americans are the ones paying the majority of our taxes. They are already shouldering the largest portion of taxes, and should not be subject to additional burden. Rather than taking more money from those who have it, lets focus on more efficient ways to spend the money they are already giving us. Besides, any increased costs are almost always passed down to the average consumer. that mean taxes on corporation eventually gets passed on to those consumers, who end up paying higher prices.
Speaking of corporate taxes, the President mentioned ending tax breaks for businesses that "ship jobs overseas." I agree, in general, with the premise that companies that outsource jobs should not be rewarded for doing so. however, increased taxes means those companies are more likely to ship all of their operations overseas. Rather than focusing on how to punish those companies, we need to work on ways to encourage domestic businesses to keep jobs in the country, as well as ways to entice foreign companies to bring their operations into the U.S.
In the end, I believe his speech was well written and delivered very well. however, it lacked in substance, and it points in a direction that will only further complicate things. We need reform, and we need change, but it needs to be the right kind of change. Instead of "Change We Can Believe In," how about "Change We Can Depend On," or "Change We Can Follow to Prosperity." I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the President does turn around the country. I am simply not convinces. My advice to the President and his supporters is to be very careful in how you chose to proceed, because the fate of the nation depends on the choices you make now.
A few points that the President brought up that I agree with in principle: lowering the deficit, cutting wasteful government spending, tax cuts, and education, health care, and energy reform. Above all else, the federal government's top priority should be paying down the national debt. The Republicans showed a complete lack of fiscal restraint when they held the majority. As the supposed party of "change," the Democrats should reign in government spending, and work at bringing down the national debt. If President Obama can pull that off without raising taxes, then I can almost promise that he will get my vote in 2012.
One way to help bring down spending is to eliminate inefficient, wasteful government programs. The President has appointed a federal official to oversee the investigation into program effectiveness. I wish her the greatest possible success. However, President Bush tried for 8 consecutive years to cut dozens of wasteful programs. His proposals would have increased federal funding for programs that were proven successes, without raising the overall bottom line, by redirecting funds from inefficient and unsuccessful programs. He could not get the Republican Congress to agree to eliminate these programs, and he could not get the Democratic Congress on board either. Hopefully, Obama can trade on his currently un-earned popularity and maybe get Congress to fall in line.
Finally, Obama mentioned a strong deisre to reform our nation's education, health care, and energy systems. I am all for reform, I just don;t believe the President and I agree on what kind of reform is necessary. I believe the only government involvement in these areas is to deregulate. That's right, I said the very unpopular phrase "deregulate." I think local educators have a much better idea of what their students need than a bureaucrat in Washington. I think that companies should be encouraged (though tax breaks) to provide health care plans for employees that are affordable and effective. I believe that the government should promote new research and production of alternative fuel sources, mainly through R&D grants and additional tax incentives. The key to success is getting government out of the way, not giving them more chains to tie down those in the field.
On other issues, such as pulling troops out of Iraq, I still have mixed feelings. Americans have been fighting and dying in an area of the country that seems less and less to appreciate what we have done. The cost of the ongoing conflict has brought out deficit up to unbelievable levels. The cost, both fiscal and human, is too high. However, we are over there, we have been involved, and therefore, we cannot just bailout and leave the region in a war-torn mess. We have to find a way to transfer authority gradually, helping to give the ungrateful bastards the best chance at a lasting peace.
In regards to taxes, I applaud an effort to give 95% of American tax breaks. However, that number is based on some very "fuzzy" math. The fact is, the so called wealthiest 1% of Americans are the ones paying the majority of our taxes. They are already shouldering the largest portion of taxes, and should not be subject to additional burden. Rather than taking more money from those who have it, lets focus on more efficient ways to spend the money they are already giving us. Besides, any increased costs are almost always passed down to the average consumer. that mean taxes on corporation eventually gets passed on to those consumers, who end up paying higher prices.
Speaking of corporate taxes, the President mentioned ending tax breaks for businesses that "ship jobs overseas." I agree, in general, with the premise that companies that outsource jobs should not be rewarded for doing so. however, increased taxes means those companies are more likely to ship all of their operations overseas. Rather than focusing on how to punish those companies, we need to work on ways to encourage domestic businesses to keep jobs in the country, as well as ways to entice foreign companies to bring their operations into the U.S.
In the end, I believe his speech was well written and delivered very well. however, it lacked in substance, and it points in a direction that will only further complicate things. We need reform, and we need change, but it needs to be the right kind of change. Instead of "Change We Can Believe In," how about "Change We Can Depend On," or "Change We Can Follow to Prosperity." I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the President does turn around the country. I am simply not convinces. My advice to the President and his supporters is to be very careful in how you chose to proceed, because the fate of the nation depends on the choices you make now.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Ulterior Motive
Jindal's party is putting him on a national platform, awarding the once little-known congressman the political plum of delivering the Republican's televised response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress on February 24.
CNN
I can't help but wonder if there is an ulterior motive here. I believe Jindal is qualified to give the response, and he is a very intelligent man. However, I can't help but feel that the GOP only picked him to deliver a response to Obama's speech because he is a minority member of the party. Moves like this are always a risk. It may have the desired effect of portraying the party as a new agent for change, or it can backfire if the normally oblivious voters recognize the move as a cheap attempt at picking up a few minority voters. Interesting move.
CNN
I can't help but wonder if there is an ulterior motive here. I believe Jindal is qualified to give the response, and he is a very intelligent man. However, I can't help but feel that the GOP only picked him to deliver a response to Obama's speech because he is a minority member of the party. Moves like this are always a risk. It may have the desired effect of portraying the party as a new agent for change, or it can backfire if the normally oblivious voters recognize the move as a cheap attempt at picking up a few minority voters. Interesting move.
Why Reward Failure?
Reading the news that General Motors and Chrysler are now lining up for another $20 billion or so in government aid — on top of the billions they’ve already received or requested — leaves me with the sick feeling that we are subsidizing the losers and for only one reason: because they claim that their funerals would cost more than keeping them on life support. Sorry, friends, but this is not the American way. Bailing out the losers is not how we got rich as a country, and it is not how we’ll get out of this crisis.
NYT Article
While I am not in 100% agreement with the rest of his analysis, Friedman makes a very good point. If you absolutely have to use taxpayer money to try and jump start the economy, which I am not sure you do, then why waste it on propping up failed companies? Rather than throwing away money on those who have already showed their propensity for failure, lets give new industries, with fresh new ideas, a chance to shine. If I HAVE to give my hard-earned money away, I would rather use it give an upcoming business a shot at making it, than hand it over to someone who has already flushed millions down the economic toilet. Just a thought.
NYT Article
While I am not in 100% agreement with the rest of his analysis, Friedman makes a very good point. If you absolutely have to use taxpayer money to try and jump start the economy, which I am not sure you do, then why waste it on propping up failed companies? Rather than throwing away money on those who have already showed their propensity for failure, lets give new industries, with fresh new ideas, a chance to shine. If I HAVE to give my hard-earned money away, I would rather use it give an upcoming business a shot at making it, than hand it over to someone who has already flushed millions down the economic toilet. Just a thought.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama Pledges More Troops to Afghanistan
President Barack Obama has approved a significant troop increase for Afghanistan, Pentagon officials told CNN Tuesday.
Aside from a few of his cabinet picks, this is the first decision that Obama has made that I agree with. While I might have a few concerns regarding the troop withdrawal from Iraq, I have said many times that I would support troop reduction in Iraq if it is done properly. I will withhold judgment until I see more details to this plan.
Aside from a few of his cabinet picks, this is the first decision that Obama has made that I agree with. While I might have a few concerns regarding the troop withdrawal from Iraq, I have said many times that I would support troop reduction in Iraq if it is done properly. I will withhold judgment until I see more details to this plan.
Still a Manufacturing Competitor
Manufacturing in the United States isn't dead or even dying. It's moving upscale, following the biggest profits, and becoming more efficient, just like Henry Ford did when he created the assembly line to make the Model T. The U.S. by far remains the world's leading manufacturer by value of goods produced. It hit a record $1.6 trillion in 2007 — nearly double the $811 billion in 1987. For every $1 of value produced in China's factories, America generates $2.50.
MSN
Despite some pretty alarming drops in manufacturing, we still are doing well, depending on how you look at it. We are producing more in areas in which we excel, while other industries are losing to foreign competitors. Its all about specialization. Good for some, not so good for others. That's the market for you.
MSN
Despite some pretty alarming drops in manufacturing, we still are doing well, depending on how you look at it. We are producing more in areas in which we excel, while other industries are losing to foreign competitors. Its all about specialization. Good for some, not so good for others. That's the market for you.
Wall Street Crystal Ball
The stock market doesn't have much to hang its hat on. With the stream of corporate earnings reports waning and President Barack Obama preparing to sign the $787 billion stimulus package, investors this week will be looking for fresh clues about the economy. Wall Street has been busy focusing on companies' quarterly numbers and the developments in Washington. Now, investors are faced with finding less obvious answers to the question "What's next?"
MSN
Put simply: no one knows what to expect, so prepare for a bumpy road.
MSN
Put simply: no one knows what to expect, so prepare for a bumpy road.
Is There a Correct Mix?
Does the stimulus bill include the right combination of spending cuts and tax increases? The answer is actually very simple:
Stan wrote another interesting post last week, dealing with the gap between economic theory and political reality. However, Stan's entire argument depends on the assumption that a stimulus bill is necessary. I personally believe the right combination is tax cuts along with spending cuts, not increases. However, I am not in Congress, though even I understand cutting spending in the middle of a recession, regardless of the economic benefits, has too many political consequences. It is important to always remember every elected officials first job: to get reelected.
- There is no generally agreed-upon formula for combining tax cuts and spending increases in a stimulus bill.
- Economic policymaking is at least as much an art as it is a science.
- The right ratio of tax cuts to spending increases is whatever it takes to get the bill enacted.
- It looks like this bill is going to be enacted.
- Therefore, by definition, the mix in this bill is correct.
Stan wrote another interesting post last week, dealing with the gap between economic theory and political reality. However, Stan's entire argument depends on the assumption that a stimulus bill is necessary. I personally believe the right combination is tax cuts along with spending cuts, not increases. However, I am not in Congress, though even I understand cutting spending in the middle of a recession, regardless of the economic benefits, has too many political consequences. It is important to always remember every elected officials first job: to get reelected.
Only When it is Convenient
In the federal court suit filed last week, student Jonathan Lopez said that midway through his speech, when he quoted a dictionary definition of marriage and recited a pair of Bible verses, professor John Matteson cut him off and would not allow him to finish. He said Matteson also called him a "fascist bastard." A student evaluation form included with the lawsuit lacks a score for Lopez's speech, and reads "ask God what your grade is."
MSN Article
MSN Article
I am always amazed at how people claim to subscribe to certain ideologies and beliefs, and yet turn against their own tenets when it become less convenient. So called "liberal" academics claim to be all for diversity and open-mindedness, but as soon as someone expresses an opinion contrary to their own, that person no longer has the right to express anything. Now, I know that this is an extreme case, not necessarily representative of all liberal academics, but it just goes to show that no social, political, religious, or academic group is immune to hypocrisy. People need to learn that principles only mean something when you stand by them at all times, especially when it is inconvenient.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Gregg Withdraws His Nomination
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, the third Cabinet-level pick scuttled. The move left President Barack Obama without a full team to lead the government. He cited "irresolvable conflicts" with Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.
This is definitely a big loss for the Obama Administration. Gregg is long time budget hawk and would have brought a voice of fiscal responsibility to the White House. The President is not doing too well with his cabinet picks.
MSNB Article.
This is definitely a big loss for the Obama Administration. Gregg is long time budget hawk and would have brought a voice of fiscal responsibility to the White House. The President is not doing too well with his cabinet picks.
MSNB Article.
Hypocritical Nature on Capitol Hill
During yesterday's conference on H.R. 1, I was forced to sit and listen to conferees from both parties spew out more hypocritical rhetoric than I could handle. Rep. Camp (R-MI), Rep. Lewis (R-CA) and Sen. Grassley (R-IA) all complained about not having the opportunity to participate in the "real" negotiations on the stimulus conference report. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) responded by claiming to be much more open to bipartisan participation that the Republican majority.
I know that I chose to enter into a field dealing with Congressional politics, but sometimes all the double-talk and finger-pointing gets to me. The fact is, the Republicans never cared about giving the minority a voice in negotiations on important pieces of legislation. And the Democrats are currently carrying on that proud tradition of excluding the lesser party. Of the more than 200 Republicans in Congress, only three have been involved in negotiations, because Democratic leaders know those three will vote with them. This "bipartisan" culture is nothing but a sham. The majority always controls the conversation (As it should be). But neither side will admit it publicly, because it is more important to them to simply bash the other side. It can be very aggravating at times.
I know that I chose to enter into a field dealing with Congressional politics, but sometimes all the double-talk and finger-pointing gets to me. The fact is, the Republicans never cared about giving the minority a voice in negotiations on important pieces of legislation. And the Democrats are currently carrying on that proud tradition of excluding the lesser party. Of the more than 200 Republicans in Congress, only three have been involved in negotiations, because Democratic leaders know those three will vote with them. This "bipartisan" culture is nothing but a sham. The majority always controls the conversation (As it should be). But neither side will admit it publicly, because it is more important to them to simply bash the other side. It can be very aggravating at times.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
This Ball Will Keep Rolling
Stan Collender, a federal budget guru and blogger, recently wrote an article for Roll Call in which he tries to point out that the economy needs steady recovery, not an ER style infusion. While I tend to agree with his assessment, I do not condone his acquiescence to the fact that Congress will (and seeming should, according to his tone in the article) pass additional "stimulus" measures. I cannot get on board with this point of view.
Congress already approved a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector. In effect, they approved an unreal amount of money to give to companies that drove themselves into ruin. Rather than allowing the market to weed out the unsuccessful, irresponsible market navigators, the government is giving money to companies that proved they don;t know how to properly use it. Now, Congress is in the final stages of approving an $800 billion "stimulus" bill, aimed at helping so-called "main street" recover. Despite the fact that CBO estimates do not show these "stimulus" programs as actually helping the economy in the immediate future (as Congress claims), Congress is already considering moving on with additional legislative measures.
Rather than waiting to see if their course of action is the correct one, and if their programs will have the desired effect, they go full speed ahead to the next disaster. Democrats went on and on during their time in the minority regarding wasteful spending, and sticking future generations with the bill for our mistakes. Now that they have control of he government, they are continuing the failed policies of the Republican majority. Rather than waiting to see if the $1.5 trillion that was approved over a 5 month period actually helps, they are setting to dig even deeper into the debt to thrown more money away. Unbelievable.
Congress already approved a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector. In effect, they approved an unreal amount of money to give to companies that drove themselves into ruin. Rather than allowing the market to weed out the unsuccessful, irresponsible market navigators, the government is giving money to companies that proved they don;t know how to properly use it. Now, Congress is in the final stages of approving an $800 billion "stimulus" bill, aimed at helping so-called "main street" recover. Despite the fact that CBO estimates do not show these "stimulus" programs as actually helping the economy in the immediate future (as Congress claims), Congress is already considering moving on with additional legislative measures.
Rather than waiting to see if their course of action is the correct one, and if their programs will have the desired effect, they go full speed ahead to the next disaster. Democrats went on and on during their time in the minority regarding wasteful spending, and sticking future generations with the bill for our mistakes. Now that they have control of he government, they are continuing the failed policies of the Republican majority. Rather than waiting to see if the $1.5 trillion that was approved over a 5 month period actually helps, they are setting to dig even deeper into the debt to thrown more money away. Unbelievable.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Administration Can't Stop Market Plunge
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner failed Tuesday to persuade Wall Street that he will succeed where his predecessor Henry Paulson failed. Geithner outlined the administration's plan to restart frozen credit markets and bolster the health of troubled banks. He said the economy will recover from its swoon only with the help of healthy financial institutions.
I agree that the economy will only recover with the felp of healthy financial institutions. I just don't believe there is anything Geithner, or anyone else in Washington, can (or should) do to speed up the recovery of those institutions.
Not Prepared for the Long Haul
Senators prepared for a vote Tuesday on the huge White House-backed economic stimulus bill, following a prime-time appeal from President Barack Obama Monday night to quickly approve the legislation and bolster the suffering U.S. economy.
What happens when the economy does not immediately bounce back in the miraculous manner that the President and Congressional Leaders claim it will? It took more than a year for us to realize how bad it would get, it will take just as long, if not longer, to realize that things are getting better. For those who are expecting a quick turn around, you should begin preparing yourself for disappointment.
What happens when the economy does not immediately bounce back in the miraculous manner that the President and Congressional Leaders claim it will? It took more than a year for us to realize how bad it would get, it will take just as long, if not longer, to realize that things are getting better. For those who are expecting a quick turn around, you should begin preparing yourself for disappointment.
To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate?
I am continually amazed at the way the federal government, the press, and the American public react to economic issues in this country. The entire cycle perpetuates itself. The press paints drastic pictures, designed to scare the public and keep the tuned in to the news networks. As the people get more worried, the polls show that they want action, which spurs Congress into action. But rather than put serious through into a measured response, lawmakers throw together over $800 billion dollars in unnecessary spending, just so they can be seen on TV as trying to solve the problem. The constant debating and bickering in Congress gives the media more to discuss, and more opportunity to spin the truth in a way that keeps the public scared...and the cycle continues.
It should come as no surprise that am firmly in the camp that believes the government does not NEED to do anything to pull the economy out of a recession. The market moves in cycles, and will eventually correct itself. Impatience and panic won't allow the more reasonable minds to prevail, and so Congress is working furiously to pass an "economic stimulus" package, aimed at helping speed up the recovery time. Despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report that shows that most of the discretionary spending offered in Congress will not have the desired effect until 2011 (when many economists believe the recession would end naturally anyway), Congress is pushing on with a bill of a base cost of $838 billion (according to CBO estimates). Once you factor in estimated interest costs, the package comes in at over $1 trillion, despite the fact that the U.S. has debts totaling over $11 trillion.
If Congress absolutely has to get involved, they should limit themselves to creating tax incentives for businesses and individuals, the only proven way to truly stimulate the economy. Less taxes means more money in the market, which can lead to greater revenue, more jobs, and higher salaries and benefits. Now, both the House and Senate proposals include a number of tax incentives, but they are buried under billions in discretionary spending. This does not even include the billions that will go out through the annual appropriations process when Congress finishes work on fiscal year 2009 (FY09) spending. Much of this spending may not have the desired effect, which President Obama admitted in a public address yesterday, but it will continue to drag the country farther down into debt.
During their time spent in the minority, the Democratic party went on and on about how deep the President and his Republican majority was going into debt. I agreed fully with their assessment. The Republican Congress abandoned their conservative ideologies and let their spending get out of control. However, now that the Democrats have regained control of both Congress and the White House, they seem content to continue this culture of irresponsibility. As a result, we will go deeper into debt (a debt that is owned by China and other foreign powers) and the economy is not likely to recover any quicker than if it had been left to the natural forces of the market.
To give the Senate some credit, they were able to cut about $110 billion out of the proposal, cutting much of the funding that is not directly related to stimulating the economy. However, that is like ordering the triple cheeseburger, with extra grease, but taking off the mayo. It might be a little less unhealthy, but will still clog your arteries. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will vote with the majority, giving them the votes needed to pass this farce. They claim a victory because they pushed through the cuts. All they did was trim some of the fat, ignoring the real problems associated with the bill.
Resources:
CBO Stimulus Reports
Stan Collender Coverage
It should come as no surprise that am firmly in the camp that believes the government does not NEED to do anything to pull the economy out of a recession. The market moves in cycles, and will eventually correct itself. Impatience and panic won't allow the more reasonable minds to prevail, and so Congress is working furiously to pass an "economic stimulus" package, aimed at helping speed up the recovery time. Despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a report that shows that most of the discretionary spending offered in Congress will not have the desired effect until 2011 (when many economists believe the recession would end naturally anyway), Congress is pushing on with a bill of a base cost of $838 billion (according to CBO estimates). Once you factor in estimated interest costs, the package comes in at over $1 trillion, despite the fact that the U.S. has debts totaling over $11 trillion.
If Congress absolutely has to get involved, they should limit themselves to creating tax incentives for businesses and individuals, the only proven way to truly stimulate the economy. Less taxes means more money in the market, which can lead to greater revenue, more jobs, and higher salaries and benefits. Now, both the House and Senate proposals include a number of tax incentives, but they are buried under billions in discretionary spending. This does not even include the billions that will go out through the annual appropriations process when Congress finishes work on fiscal year 2009 (FY09) spending. Much of this spending may not have the desired effect, which President Obama admitted in a public address yesterday, but it will continue to drag the country farther down into debt.
During their time spent in the minority, the Democratic party went on and on about how deep the President and his Republican majority was going into debt. I agreed fully with their assessment. The Republican Congress abandoned their conservative ideologies and let their spending get out of control. However, now that the Democrats have regained control of both Congress and the White House, they seem content to continue this culture of irresponsibility. As a result, we will go deeper into debt (a debt that is owned by China and other foreign powers) and the economy is not likely to recover any quicker than if it had been left to the natural forces of the market.
To give the Senate some credit, they were able to cut about $110 billion out of the proposal, cutting much of the funding that is not directly related to stimulating the economy. However, that is like ordering the triple cheeseburger, with extra grease, but taking off the mayo. It might be a little less unhealthy, but will still clog your arteries. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will vote with the majority, giving them the votes needed to pass this farce. They claim a victory because they pushed through the cuts. All they did was trim some of the fat, ignoring the real problems associated with the bill.
Resources:
CBO Stimulus Reports
Stan Collender Coverage
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
