American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: What Would You Do to the Bill?

[pop daddy]

This is the Obama stimulus package as it stands before congress. There should be no doubt in anyone's minds that something must be done to fix the US economy, but is this the way to go about reform? What changes would you implement if you could? Why?

* Tax cuts ($275 billion):
o Payroll tax cuts ($500 for each individual, $1000 for couples)
o $2500 tax credit for higher education
o $7500 non-repayable tax credit for first-time home buyers (for houses bought until July 1)

* Education investments ($141.6 billion):
o $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services, including $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities distributed through existing state and federal formulas, $15 billion to states as bonus grants as a reward for meeting key performance measures, and $25 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education
o $41 billion to local school districts through Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), a new School Modernization and Repair Program ($14 billion), and the Education Technology program ($1 billion)
o $15.6 billion to increase the Pell Grant by $500
o $6 billion for higher education modernization

* Health care investments ($112.1 billion):
o $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate for the states
o $20 billion for health information technology, including electronic medical records to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies
o $4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments.

* Welfare/unemployment ($102 billion):
o $43 billion for unemployment benefits and job training
o $39 billion for short-term Medicaid insurance and Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) subsidy
o $20 billion for the Food Stamp Program

* Infrastructure investments ($90 billion):
o $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long-term energy cost savings
o $30 billion for highway construction
o $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments
o $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption

* Energy investments ($58 billion):
o $32 billion funding for an electric smart grid
o $20 billion for renewable energy tax cuts
o $6 billion for weatherizing modest-income homes

 

[amadeus]

I'd use it for toilet paper. Also, I'd add a few extra lanes on all the highways around Minneapolis.

 

[pop daddy]

Also, I'd add a few extra lanes on all the highways around Minneapolis.

Amen.

Although, a few more light rail stops around the Cities, most notably in the 'burbs, might be a better idea.

 

[Mark1031]

Well I would throw in some science funding and make it about 50% bigger across the board. Otherwise I don't see any problems with it. What do Repubs want to cut?

 

[Bill3000]

Well I would through in some science funding and make it about 50% bigger across the board. Otherwise I don't see any problems with it. What do Repubs want to cut?

Everything but the tax cuts.

 

[Patroklos]

If it is not a tax cut or physically building something, cut it (or rather reprogram that money to something that does).

 

[pop daddy]

Well I would through in some science funding and make it about 50% bigger across the board. Otherwise I don't see any problems with it. What do Repubs want to cut?

They want to shift the emphasis of the bill. As it stands, about 1/3 of it is tax cuts. They simply want to make it 2/3 tax cuts, 1/3 other spending.

Although the cynical liberal in me wants to say they want to cut anything that works while simultaneously helping people. But, hey, bicameral government, right?

It will be interesting to see what the Senate does to the bill, after the the House passed it like an uncooked McDonald's burger.

 

[Mark1031]

Everything but the tax cuts.

Why? Even conservative economists admit we need this spending. It is so stupid on their part. They seem to take pride in ignorance.

 

[bhsup]

I would abolish all of it and start from scratch. Only spend the money on actual PROJECTS. TVA scale stuff. Oh, built that damned canal between Brownsville, TX and San Diego, CA.

 

[Mark1031]

If it is not a tax cut or physically building something, cut it (or rather reprogram that money to something that does).

How do you justify that? Physically building something fine, but there is only so much you can put into that at any time and only 1 sector of the economy that helps, construction. Giving money to the states gets spent across the board to prevent firings of state employes like teachers; medicaid supports the health care sector etc.. Unemployment and food stamps extensions soften the blow for people who lose their job and put $$ that will be spent into the economy across all sectors.

 

[Bill3000]

How do you justify that? Physically building something fine, but there is only so much you can put into that at any time and only 1 sector of the economy that helps, construction.

Building roads helps more than merely construction...

 

[pop daddy]

How do you justify that? Physically building something fine, but there is only so much you can put into that at any time and only 1 sector of the economy that helps, construction. Giving money to the states gets spent across the board to prevent firings of state employes like teachers; medicaid supports the health care sector etc.. Unemployment and food stamps extensions soften the blow for people who lose their job and put $$ that will be spent into the economy across all sectors.

I agree. Part of the issue with our economy, past and present, is that we left so much of its development up to special interests by authorizing things from a federal level, all while good, skilled individuals got cut or left in the dust.

What I really think needs to be in this bill are measures for accountability and supervision of how our money is spent. While states are closer to the people the money is meant to help, we cannot sacrifice oversight.

Also, and this is a perspective I read this morning, we need to make sure that this is not the first trillion dollars spent. Much of the criticism leveled at FDR in the 30's and the Japanese government of the 90's is that their recovery programs were not sustained and they did not stick with any lasting solution. Fortunately, interviews with Timmy G. indicate that the Obama administration recognizes this and is planning massive and sustained stimulus programs throughout his first term and further into the future.

We are in need of a massive overhaul of the system. I think the question, though, is if we can maintain an American solution, one that does not sacrifice many of our ideals and values that have made our economy so powerful in the past.

Building roads helps more than merely construction...

See above.

 

[Patroklos]

They want to shift the emphasis of the bill. As it stands, about 1/3 of it is tax cuts. They simply want to make it 2/3 tax cuts, 1/3 other spending.

Not really, most of the critisism revolves around the Dems inserting program funding that has no stimulus effect and are comprised of things they have wanted for years.

How do you justify that?

1.) Tax cuts encourage buisness and provide some real realief to everyone.

2.) Constuction is prefered for three reasons. One is that it employs a lot of people. Secondly it does not have legacy program costs associated with it besides relatively slight maintenance and upkeep. Remember this is supposed to be a one time deal, after the economy recovers it is time to slash government spending in an effort to get back to a balanced budget. And third, facilities once built provide a perpetual benefit without perpetual costs.

 

[mrt144]

Use it to light a cigar.

 

[pop daddy]

Remember this is supposed to be a one time deal, after the economy recovers it is time to slash government spending in an effort to get back to a balanced budget. And third, facilities once built provide a perpetual benefit without perpetual costs.

This is partially true.

While it's supposed to be a one-time deal, it's also supposed to be sustained. We don't want this to end up like another New Deal where the initial programs started to bear fruit and then were scratched in favor of different initiatives. I don't like comparing this to the Great Depression, but there are lessons to be learned from the ways the FDR administration dealt with it.

The way I understand it, we should expect to see another large package to back up the new economic, social, and physical infrastructure that is going to laid with this one. I think it's important to remember that there is a lot about our current economy that needs to be overhauled or, at least, reformed, education, health care, and social security, to name a few, but probably most important is Wall Street.

 

[bhsup]

You know, on second thought how about we not spend anymore danged money on this 'recovery'. Let the chips fall where they may and we'll scratch and claw our way back to prosperity over time.

 

[Sidhe]

The only thing I don't agree with is giving banks loans because they wont lend to anyone. The ultimate in hypocrisy. Whichever way you look at it it's socialism, but the government don't even get a share in the Bank. Capitalism my arse, that's straight out of the socialist handbook.

 

[mrt144]

The only thing I don't agree with is giving banks loans because they wont lend to anyone. The ultimate in hypocrisy. Whichever way you look at it it's socialism, but the government don't even get a share in the Bank. Capitalism my arse, that's straight out of the socialist handbook.

What is the motivation to lend right now though? Shoring up capital for requirements is far more important for the banks right now.

 

[pop daddy]

What is the motivation to lend right now though? Shoring up capital for requirements is far more important for the banks right now.

I wonder how different this conversation would be if bank execs weren't hording the cash for themselves.

With that said, I feel like the stimulus bill must require CEO's to not see a $ anywhere... maybe send them to financial rehab.

 

[Sidhe]

What is the motivation to lend right now though? Shoring up capital for requirements is far more important for the banks right now.

How do you know? For all you know doing nothing and letting them fall on each other like ravening dogs might be the best solution, no ones ever tried it AFAIK.

Consider all the businesses that have gone bust for want of a loan, and as soon as the banks with their self inflicted greed and stupidity mess up, we bail them out. It's just patently arse. Live by the sword die by it. You can't become socialist on a whim or whenever you feel like it. I'm with the libertarians on this, screw 'em.