Quote of the Day
Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.
Reid Jobs Bill Survives Cloture 62-30
The three New England liberal GOP senators (Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), and Brown (MA)) joined with two retiring senators (Bond (MO) and Voinovich (OH)) to help pass Reid's stripped-down jobs bill, which basically tries to bribe employers to hire workers unemployed for at least 2 months with a limited-term employer payroll tax holiday plus a bonus tax credit if the employee stays at least a year. Moreover, additional funds are dedicated to a subsidized Build America Bonds program (introduced during last year's stimulus bill which Obama wants to expand to non-profit hospitals and other ideologically/politically favored groups).
[It should be noted that the House passed a supersized "jobs" bill ("Stimulus III") which has multiple times the funding of this bill, so the question is what the reconciled bill after Thursday's scheduled vote looks like, but given my objections to both versions, the real question is whether the 5 senators will also vote for an upsized ineffectual bill adding even more to the national debt.]
[It should be noted that the House passed a supersized "jobs" bill ("Stimulus III") which has multiple times the funding of this bill, so the question is what the reconciled bill after Thursday's scheduled vote looks like, but given my objections to both versions, the real question is whether the 5 senators will also vote for an upsized ineffectual bill adding even more to the national debt.]
I already announced in a prior post that I opposed this version of the Senate bill. First of all, the job market is always changing; I have dealt with a number of recruiters during my work history, and I can't think of a single opportunity where being long-term unemployed would have been considered a positive thing. Companies are constantly hiring, during good times and bad; for example, a spouse gets transferred to another location and his or her spouse, also holding a job, moves. Why are you giving a tax credit to a business already hiring for their replacements (or whatever vacancy emerges)? It's pushing on a string.
I can honestly say, at least within the field of information technology, a gimmick tax cut wouldn't make a difference. However, I have been in situations where a government vendor had a rate range. A broad-based payroll tax cut would enable the vendor to raise the W-2 rate cap for a given position.
The problem with Reid's progressive bill is the same old same old I've discussed before--these nuanced, thread-the-needle qualifications are being designed by people whom don't have a clue of how employment works in the real world--never mind a basic foundation in the rule of law: simplicity and economy of the law. If you are a job creator, you don't have time to try to parse needlessly obscure legalese in making a hiring decision. OCKHAM'S RAZOR, people! I bet they never teach Ockham's razor in law school; Obama has probably never heard of it. Most graduate students (if not undergraduates) are probably familiar with Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the salient concept of a paradigm shift. At the risk of oversimplification, an existing paradigm (e.g., "the world is flat") becomes progressively more difficult to reconcile with cumulative scientific observations to the point a new paradigm emerges, which more intuitively and simply fits the evidence in question. In a similar way, the Democrats keep adding levels of complexity to this already convoluted "house of cards" tax system. (It may be the only true jobs the Democrats create are openings for tax attorneys, CPA tax practices, and, of course, within the IRS itself!)
James Carville, during the initial Clinton campaign was well-known for promoting the slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid". It's too bad he never taught Democratic lawmakers a well-known design principle as well: KISS ("Keep it Simple [and] Stupid!")
I understand but disagree with Senator Scott Brown and the other Republicans whom decided that the nuanced employer tax breaks constitute a glass half-filled (versus half-empty). Beyond the obvious deficiencies of the bill from a conservative standpoint (it's not just giving away tax breaks for hiring decisions motivated by other consideration, but the questionable outcome and scalability), I'm not sure, from a standpoint of political tactics, that it was a good idea to set a precedent that Senator Reid can take a bipartisan bill, strip Democratic concessions to Republicans, and get rewarded with Republican support. I would have sustained a filibuster to require Reid to reinstate the original compromise.
Schwarzenegger and the Dems A
ccuse GOP of Spending Hypocrisy
ccuse GOP of Spending Hypocrisy
If there's one thing you can count on, it's the fact that Democrats will attempt to blame accuse the Republicans as "hypocrites" on spending, in particular, last year's $787B stimulus if and when Republicans who voted against the stimulus seem to promote a project which is funded in part or whole by stimulus bill money.
I was very disappointed in Governor Schwarzenegger's repeating Democratic partisan talking points in reference to the stimulus on ABC's This Week. In fact, I strongly supported his earlier reform measures, which, unfortunately, went down to defeat, especially due to opposition from unions, and, unlike media conservatives, I have been strongly supportive of a big tent philosophy, including the Maine senators, Brown, Crist, Ridge, Giuliani, Powell and himself (among others).
To a certain extent, I did expect Schwarzenegger to be defensive since he supported the stimulus and accepted state money for it. I have no doubt that negotiating spending cuts with the Democratic-majority legislature (which had a vested interest in the supersized budget) is difficult. However, Schwarzenegger's simplistic "all-or-nothing" approach regarding the stimulus bill is unreasonable and intellectually dishonest. You could support part of the bill, say, infrastructure, while opposing, say, giving morally hazardous handouts to cover to bail out fiscally irresponsible state legislatures which didn't establish rainy day funds.
A prominent example of alleged hypocrisy is one of the key young GOP leaders in the House, Eric Cantor (VA), whom is promoting the application of stimulus money for an infrastructure project of a high-speed rail between DC and Richmond, VA. Now let me say, first of all, just as I panned the idea of a high-speed rail project between Orlando and Tampa several posts ago, I similarly question whether this project is another potentially money-losing operation like most Amtrak routes. I haven't studied the status quo of traffic between DC and Richmond.
But let me take on whether the "hypocrisy" charge is relevant. First of all, Eric Cantor has been pursuing this project for years, and money is fungible. Whether or not it's part of the stimulus or other dedicated federal project expenditures really isn't a case of consistency or hypocrisy.
Second, excluding regions of the country from eligibility for federal stimulus proceeds simply because their Congressman or Senator voted against the stimulus bill is unconscionable; after all, these are taxpayers, and they should not be forced to subsidize projects in other areas at their own expense. A stimulus bill, by definition, is supposed to support the broad extent of the American economy, not just constituents of free-spending progressives. In fact, you wonder about the cynical nature of progressives raising the issue, given the fact they supported the Orlando-Tampa project.
Third, most of us conservatives were willing to support a stimulus bill--but one that was significantly smaller, did not consist of bumped-up funding for repackaged Democratic operational spending priorities, which are not inherently "stimulative" in effect (any more than, say, a comparable job in the private sector), and which included tax incentives for job creators and the business side of the economy. We pro-business conservatives especially are committed to infrastructure spending--but the right type of infrastructure spending (not political white elephants, like the Bridge to Nowhere).
Fourth, I am not surprised that politicians would want to take credit for federal funds being spent in their district or state, and I don't think I've ever heard a politician promote a government project without mentioning it will bring more jobs to the area. No doubt Rep. Cantor would be promoting, e.g., tourist dollars from DC area visitors in shops, restaurants, taxis or rental cars, hotels, etc., meaning more business and jobs going along with it.
Yes, of course, I don't think it's politically wise for a Republican conservative to be attacking Democratic hyper-spending, question an ineffectual spending bill resulting in few real jobs and then apply for stimulus funding for a local project, noting the jobs that will result. I would focus more on the business case for the infrastructure; for example, significant numbers of metro DC area workers commute from Richmond area and interim points or can help alleviate some congested DC area traffic, existing railways are running at or over capacity and/or have increasingly high operational and maintenance costs. When we have a $12T debt, we need to have better reasons than it's faster than driving from Richmond to DC.
As for Governor Schwarzenegger: after having to deal with the fact you have to live within your state's budget, how can you allow yourself to be used by the current Obama Administration as their token Republican shill, mere window-dressing of "bipartisan" support for a supersized boondoggle that your future grandchildren will have to pay off one day? Why haven't you pulled a Chris Christie budget freeze as governor instead of begging for scraps from Santa Obama's table in a shameless quid pro quo? When Eric Cantor criticizes the Democrats in Washington for the same sort of things you've been criticizing in the context of California, why are you picking fights with fellow conservatives trying to put speed bumps on Democratic overspending?
Now as to the hypocritical progressive Democrats, pointing at the Bush deficits: name one thing (beyond cutting and running from Iraq--and even then, the Democrats controlled spending during 2007-2008) where Democrats were more fiscally conservative than Bush? The Democrats constantly screamed that the Republicans weren't spending enough--not enough dollars in education (despite a healthy budgetary upgrade), SCHIP, etc. In particular, when Bush argued for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Democrats largely opposed him--not because they disagreed with the program in concept, but because Bush wasn't spending enough. Does anyone really believe that a GOP Congress and President in 2009 would have run up a $1.42T deficit? Whereas I agree with the criticism that Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative and proposed record fiscal budgets, criticisms from the left (implying that that the spending/deficit numbers are comparable) have no basis, even when we are using White House estimates:
Courtesy of Heritage.org, 3/24/09
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel shows that the progressive Congress and President are driving a Government Motors program vehicle (financed by foreign investors and fueled by imported energy supplies (i.e., higher trade deficit))... The Big Government bubble is heading for a crash....
Musical Interlude: Christian Artist Pop Singles
Bob Carlisle, "Butterfly Kisses"
Bob Carlisle, "Butterfly Kisses"
Michael W. Smith, "Place in This World"
Sixpence None the Richer, "Kiss Me"
