House stimulus bill: A Democratic wish list?

[C7CACorncas12]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

When the Wall Street Journal expresses amazement at this "economic package", if I may call it that, then it's probably shocking. The details are in the article, from the $1 billion for Amtrak to the $400 million for global warming research to the $20 billion for food stamps. Apparently, it was even enough to make House Republican leader John Boehner go, "Oh. My. God.", when he looked at the thing.:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/15/boehner-on-the-stimulus-oh-my-god/

Personally, I will opine that if even half of these reports are accurate, then that "stimulus" bill is one huge mess, but maybe that's just me. What does this legislation mean? Thoughts are welcome here.

 

[Zeta]

Amtrak is moronic, the rest sound good.

 

[evkl]

We need mass transit infrastructure improvements.

I think this bill is slightly mis-targeted, but in many ways I don't think it's ambitious enough. There's some pathological fear Republicans have against giving people money, unless it's in some form of tax cut, and there's an even bigger fear about letting the government, you know, actually do things. FDR put hundreds of thousands of people to work in months with a federally-controlled civic works agency. Since we have to go through private contractors to get federal wishes fulfilled, the money that actually goes to citizens is diluted, and there are more potential ethical issues (contracts, etc.)

The bill is a bad bill, but I'd say because it's not ambitious enough--and it lacks a unifying philosophy. If you're going to be Keynesian, just do it.

 

[Zeta]

We need mass transit infrastructure improvements.

Yeah, but trains are pretty much never used in America anymore. The prices are exhorbant. I once tried to price a train ticket from North Carolina to Arkansas, and it was 500 bucks one way. A round trip on an airplane costs 250 dollars. Either the train industry needs a COMPLETE overhaul or it needs to be killed for transportation permanently.

 

[evkl]

Yeah, but trains are pretty much never used in America anymore. The prices are exhorbant. I once tried to price a train ticket from North Carolina to Arkansas, and it was 500 bucks one way. A round trip on an airplane costs 250 dollars. Either the train industry needs a COMPLETE overhaul or it needs to be killed for transportation permanently.

Part of the reason trains are so expensive is because they suck. There's an AMTRAK line that runs from Chicago to New York, through Buffalo and central New York (Syracuse) all the way down to New York City. I use it to get to NYC sometimes from where I go to school. It's slow, always late, and expensive...there's no cross-Pennsylvania fast rail, either.

If we're going to commit to infrastructure improvement as a cornerstone of this economic recovery package, we might as well put in major funding for better rail systems. More important than commuter rail, even, is freight rail--if we could more easily ship things from, say, New York to Cleveland, without having to use I-80, we'd save a ton of money on fuel. That doesn't completely cut the ultimate need for an 18-wheeler, to take product from a train yard to a store or factory, but it sure as hell beats paying a driver and the gas over 300+ miles.

 

[JB88]

Amtrak's Acela is a joke. Coming into this recession, why have a system that is pathetic compared to European standards of a national/intercontinental high-speed train? And the prices are ridiculous, who can actually afford that? And I'm not talking about the upper elite businesspeople.

 

[Rayne]

Yeah, but trains are pretty much never used in America anymore.

That's dependent on your location and destination. Regional rail use is on the rise in and around metropolitan areas. National rail, I agree could use a vast improvement through high speed rail systems like those found in Europe and Japan.

The stimulus package should probably be more direct in targeting specific infrastructure goals that way certain needs such as more efficient travel are met.

Either the train industry needs a COMPLETE overhaul or it needs to be killed for transportation permanently.

Let's not be so hasty here. Trains are still important for industrial purposes as Evkl mentioned and near essential for inner city rapid transit and city living (where they already exist).

Without metro trains running into Washington DC inauguration day, our city would have been unable to handle the shear volume of commuters had they all arrived by car or even buses. Metro single handily took on 4 times it's normal weekday ridership (about 500,000) and still opperated reltively smoothly. Cars were near obsolete within the city since half of all approaches in were closed. On top of that there's simply no capacity in an urban area to support a vehicle per person.

Trains of all forms need investment now just as much as alternative energy needs to be invested in. These low gas prices won't last forever, and frankly, petroleum in general won't last.

We need alternatives in place before our gas-centered economy collapses. The ideal case would be to have gas as a supplement to alternative fuels in some working phase as petroleum begins to dwindle.

If we're going to commit to infrastructure improvement as a cornerstone of this economic recovery package, we might as well put in major funding for better rail systems.

Agreed, though I'd say metropolitian rail systems would more than benefit from the stimulus package. Cities are becomming clogged and roads are aging faster than they can be patched. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that a feat to fix all the aging infrastructure in the US would take approximately $2 Trillion. Selective implementation is the best way to tackle this as obviously not every locale will get all the money they want for their projects through the stimulus. There's already a federal system in place that calculates how efficient a transportation system is before it receives federal funding. I'm not sure if this stimulus package will bypass that or not, but I feel those projects receiving stimulus should adhere to a similar structure.

[Of course there are a few things I have against the efficiency formula that don't take into account local patterns and its needs that and its a bit superficial on the details. However, in most cases it still works to cut down superfluous spending.]

More important than commuter rail, even, is freight rail--if we could more easily ship things from, say, New York to Cleveland, without having to use I-80, we'd save a ton of money on fuel. That doesn't completely cut the ultimate need for an 18-wheeler, to take product from a train yard to a store or factory, but it sure as hell beats paying a driver and the gas over 300+ miles.

I highly agree.

 

[Nando]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/15/boehner-on-the-stimulus-oh-my-god/

John Boehner, a man with a steady job he doesn't have to worry about and more money than the likes of you or me will ever witness in our lifetimes. What a great authority on how people struggling to get by and make things work think.

This is one reason why I've lost almost all my faith in American government; not one person involved in it actually understands or even gives a flip about the situation of the common man.

 

[Misty]

This is not a stimulus bill, it's just a bunch of Democratic priorities that are being framed as "stimulative". I don't oppose a lot of these things individually - I just think it's a brazen attempt to railroad Republicans with fearmongering on the economy. I'm impressed that none of them fell for it.

 

[birdboy2000]

Keep in mind that the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News, and their articles should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. If this were coming from the New York Times or even, say, ABC, NBC, or CBS, I'd be taking it much more seriously.

That said, I don't doubt that there's plenty of pork and such in there, but from what little I understand of economics, spending money, not necessarily spending it wisely, is what stimulates the economy, though large-scale public infrastructure projects are obviously better for other reasons than throwing money down the drain.

And personally, I'm more worried about the tax cut proposals than anything. (I don't know if they're in the house bill as voted on, but I recall there was talk of as much of 40% of the bill being in tax cuts.) A dollar spent by government is a dollar spent, but a dollar saved as a result of tax cuts is often simply a dollar saved, especially during these uncertain economic times - it looks like an ineffective sop to Republican interests.

 

[Jeff]

If this were coming from the New York Times or even, say, ABC, NBC, or CBS, I'd be taking it much more seriously.

Just pointing out the irony.

So this is Obama's idea of "bipartisanship", bully the other side until they agree with you?

 

[birdboy2000]

Just pointing out the irony.

So this is Obama's idea of "bipartisanship", bully the other side until they agree with you?

1) The "liberal media" is largely right-wing propaganda used to create a false left-right dichotomy in the media. The New York Times led the cheer for the Iraq War, and despite getting overzealous on an apparent scandal, CBS has a long history of middle-of-the-road journalistic integrity.

The left-wing equivalent of Fox News is not the mainstream media. The left-wing equivalent of Fox News is Political Affairs, which was once known as the Daily Worker.

2) Even if it was coming from a left-wing propaganda outlet, if a LEFT-wing propaganda outlet is criticizing the democrats' stimulus package as a huge list of democratic priorities, it should be taken seriously, as left-wing propaganda outlets (except the really far-left ones) tend to cheerlead for the Dems. OTOH, right-wing propaganda outlets, such as Fox News and the WSJ, should be taken with a grain of salt when analyzing Democrats. (If they're criticizing Republicans for going too far, OTOH, you KNOW they've gone too far.)


3) No, it's the House Democrats idea of bipartisanship. (If the bill *is* as bad as it appears, the Senate will have to pass a more moderate version; unless they want to delay things until the Norm Coleman court case is resolved, the Dems need absolute party discipline and two Republicans to break a filibuster.)

 

[C7CACorncas12]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/28/house-vote-on-stimulus-imminent/
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/wef/article5607474.ece

Well, guys, it looks like the vote is out: the final tally from the House of Representatives, according to the Washington Post, was 244-188 -- with every Republican voting no. As if that weren't enough, none other than Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticized this "stimulus package", citing the Soviet Union as an example of what might happen if the government ends up with absolute intervention into the economy. Given how big I'm sensing this issue is, the mushroom cloud picture for that blog entry at Hot Air might be appropriate.

 

[Jeff]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the media in general is biased towards the left, but don't tell me you don't think media bias goes both ways. MSNBC, for example, is probably the worst offender when it comes to left-wing bias in the media. I would consider that to be the left-wing equivalent to Fox News.

Also, when I said this is Obama's idea of bipartisanship, I was referring to his "Rush Limbaugh" comment. He was basically saying to Republicans, "stop listening to someone who shares your opinion, and just vote for this bill whether you agree with it or not."

 

[birdboy2000]

I can't say I've watched MSNBC - I use print and online sources to get my info. But I *have* read the wikipedia article on criticisms of Fox News - all very well-backed up. Honestly, I think talk radio (which I have listened to, if not of my own volition) and Fox News are right-wing propaganda outlets masquerading as news, while the mainstream media has bits of bias from time to time which skew both ways.

And wasn't Limbaugh openly saying "I hope this administration fails miserably so my party can get back into power? (even though it means lots of people losing their jobs and such)" That's a pretty nasty sentiment and Obama's right to criticize it, IMO.

EDIT: And wiki-ing more, other TV media looks more left-wing than I thought. I stand by my criticisms of calling the Times left-wing, however - they employed freaking Bill Kristol. Also, I can't back up my earlier "equivalent of political affairs" position at all, looking closer - one's openly marxist, although its criticisms are often pointed and damning, and the other does a lot more regular news-type coverage and even masquerades as "Fair and Balanced." It's still propaganda, and the "fair and balanced" shtick makes it some of the most effective propaganda of our time.

 

[Nando]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like we're cooked no matter what we do. No government intervention, you get the politicians and their most immediate benefactors being the only ones excluded from what eventually becomes a massive sub-class of citizens who can't get by. Intervention like what the last president did only puts more money in the hands of the Wall Street fat cats while everyone else suffers. Things like this bill only serve to cause more problems and probably won't work anyway.

Is there even a way out anymore?

 

[evkl]

Is there even a way out anymore?

Yes. Massive government infrastructure spending.

This would make the conservatives apoplectic, and they'd rather see a prolonged economic slump than try the Keynesian approach. There's a good reason for this--if we can prove that the Keynesian approach works, their goose is permanently cooked. On the other hand, if they continue watering down the bills with a bunch of supply-side ideas, they can say that the Democrats' ideas failed (even though their ideas are entangled.)

 

[C7CACorncas12]

This would make the conservatives apoplectic, and they'd rather see a prolonged economic slump than try the Keynesian approach. There's a good reason for this--if we can prove that the Keynesian approach works, their goose is permanently cooked. On the other hand, if they continue watering down the bills with a bunch of supply-side ideas, they can say that the Democrats' ideas failed (even though their ideas are entangled.)

We might be a little late for that: quite a few House Democrats voted with the Republicans against the bill. As for the "Keynesian approach", it turns out that America may have tried that approach twice already, under Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. One was a Democrat, the other was a Republican. Fortunately, it took Milton Friedman to challenge the assumption of massive government spending and argue that the markets really can correct themselves, but unfortunately, my real reason for worrying about this economic crisis might have just resurfaced in my mind. If President Barack Obama is Franklin Roosevelt to George Walker Bush's Herbert Hoover, and the economy across the planet is spiraling downward, then all we need for history to repeat itself is a world leader who's building up his country for a war with practically everybody else -- and concocting a plan to exterminate the Jews. I have a feeling that I already know who this new Adolf Hitler will be...

 

[Lethal Carnivine]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like we're cooked no matter what we do. No government intervention, you get the politicians and their most immediate benefactors being the only ones excluded from what eventually becomes a massive sub-class of citizens who can't get by. Intervention like what the last president did only puts more money in the hands of the Wall Street fat cats while everyone else suffers. Things like this bill only serve to cause more problems and probably won't work anyway.

Is there even a way out anymore?

Yes, all you have to do is balance the intervention. The governmewnt just needs to learn when and when not to intervene.

...no need to be so pessimistic.

 

[Misty]

government is very, very bad at making those kinds of decisions