Some of you may have seen me post this on facebook already, but if not, go to Doomkopf.com to check out the Top 5 unusually heavy episodes of 1980s cartoons.
To get you started, here’s #5.
Ben Nelson versus the stimulus, continued
In a follow-up from the update in yesterday’s post, it turns out the Ben Nelson gang wants to cut state aid after all, only it’s to the tune of $40 billion, not $25 billion. How direct aid to states with budget problems doesn’t qualify as stimulus to these people is beyond me. Out of one corner of their mouths, they say everything in the bill has to create jobs, yet then they turn around and support the home buying amendment, dishonestly billed at $19 billion when its actual price will be $75 billion to $375 billion.
The mock outrage exhibited by Republicans is pathetic, and good for Boxer for calling them out.
Moments later, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, interrupted Mr. Graham saying she wanted to ask a question, but in fact she wanted to chastise him for waving around a copy of the bill. “Theatrical,” she exclaimed. “Did you do that when George Bush was president and he sent down a bill twice as big as that? Did you ever do that? You can do that. That’s theatrics. You can do that.”
The answer, of course, is no. Deficit spending and rapidly expanding debt is apparently totally fine for Republicans and Ben Nelsons as long as there’s no reason for it.
There’s a growing momentum against the stimulus among conservative pundits who argue that there’s no evidence the stimulus will work. This, of course, ignores the evidence (Republicans were all about touting the CBO report when it wasn’t real, but now that it is real, it suddenly doesn’t exist to them). I have no problem with someone saying the evidence doesn’t convince them that spending will work. That leads to discussion and so on. What does make me question their motivations and their openness to being convinced, is when they turn around and say we need to eliminate spending and alternatively implement hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich. Evidence of success is apparently not required for that tactic.
Johanns for the rich at everyone else’s expense
Not that anyone would be surprised, but Mike Johanns voted for Sen. Jim DeMint’s “stimulus” bill, summarized here by David Weigel at the Washington Independent:
• Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
• Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
• Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
• Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
• Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
• Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
• Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
• Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
• Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.
What goes unstated here is that when you “simplify” the tax code to include fewer brackets, you’re going to end up increasing taxes on poor and middle class people who are moved into a larger bracket. So this is not only a tax break for the rich, it’s a tax increase for many poor and middle class families.
I would really like someone to explain to me how you can depend on supply side economics to fix a recession caused by a $2.7 trillion demand deficit. Critics of the stimulus argue that we really don’t have a similar historical model on which to judge how government spending would help fix this situation. Let’s, for a second, assume that to be true. If the alternate proposal is to rely on trickle-down economics, which it is, we actually have a pretty recent example in which $2 trillion in tax cuts, largely for the rich, not only failed to stimulate the economy, but led to an economic downturn: that would be right now.
UPDATE: Here is a PDF released by the White House that lists a state-by-state breakdown of funding. On the topic of state benefits from the stimulus package, it should be noted that Ben Nelson has been attached to an effort to strip nearly $25 billion in state stabilization funds from the package, although now he appears to be backing off.
The ten-year project – Feb 4, 2009
from the Lincoln Journal Star
Wow
As if the politics-before-policy games weren’t transparent enough with House Republicans, they’ve now invited Joe the Plumber, a.k.a. Sam the not-plumber, to advise them on economic policy.
Wurzelbacher, who became a household name during the presidential election, will be focusing his talk on the proposed stimulus package. He’s apparently not a fan of the economic rescue package, according to members of the group.
You’d think there’d be a better way to hide the fact you can’t get any real economists to support you. As Steve Benen said, “Once in a while, I get the sense Republicans on Capitol Hill want to be made fun of… The line between Republicans’ approach to governing and satirical performance art blurs just a little more.”
h/t: Brian Beutler @ Thinkprogress
Fighting for Nebraska – Feb 1, 2009
from the Lincoln Journal Star
It’s been fun watching Republicans justify their total opposition to the stimulus package. The “Deficits are bad, therefore we should have new permanent tax cuts” one was fun … the “Hopefully the economy will tank and then we can say ‘I told you so!’ and all the voters will suddenly love us for it” rationale was great … but my new favorite is “Rahm Emmanuel hurt our feelings.”