Quite aside from the problem of new taxes on business, what bothers me here is that Obama's old and extremely expensive "stimulus" package — back in '09 — was presented as a transformation of the "infrastructure" — with lots of talk of roads and bridges — but where are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?
Posts
65 comments:
We're fucked.
This isn't going to happen, so Obama is protected from reality here.
He pretty much let me know his economic platform with Cash For Clunkers. Not much has changed.
Agree with Althouse @8:44. I don't see Congress okaying this. Obama can only do so much via Executive fiat, and he really doesn't have the Power of the Purse.
Shovel Ready!!
This guy is a lunatic.
The definition of a louse, in the 70s, was a guy who stole your $500 stereo and sells it for $10.
Washington works the same way. The point is any huge flow of funds, of which a small percentage is taken for themselves, that small percentage motivating the entire enormous loss to everybody else.
Except for a possible bipartisan overture (like a free trade law or something) I don't see anything coming from the Obama White House as so much a proposal for action but instead as a political talking point for the Democrats to run on in 2016 (in which case, Obama has truly abdicated from his role as president and is a disgrace. If he wants to be DNC chair instead, step down! This country could use an actual president).
So then we have to ask--what poltiical point does this serve? I'd look less on what he wants to spend the money on because stimulus projects sound nice but I don't think the public buys into it like they used to. Instead, this is about taxing entities that are popular to tax--the rich, and those making money overseas.
Haven't overseas profits funded a tremendous overseas building spree? What we lack is cheap labor.
Wait a minute. I thought this was going to be a very "pragmatic" president. What happened?
So now we know what Obama does not want. It's easy to figure out. Whatever he says he is for is what he is making sure never happens.
Agreed not going to happen. Its just more trolling the right in order to keep the unions and the rest of the base in line.
I had the same reaction as Althouse. This is an old and now thoroughly busted idea. The only thing interesting will be who defends this program and how they defend it. I predict one line of argument will be we need this because Republican governors and local polititians thwarted the original stimulus.
Note. Don't jump down my throat. It's a prediction not an endorsement.
I can't better Ann's comment about being gulled. Purely political, will never go anywhere and is so revealing of the incredible mindset of the idiots in the White House. If I were a serious Democrat with serious concerns, and half a brain, I would be too embarrassed to show my face after this.
I guess Obama is trying to change the conversation, but I think that the Republican leadership has a plan and they will stick with it. If Reagan's budget was "dead on arrival" I am not sure how you describe this one.
Obama's old and extremely expensive "stimulus" package — back in '09 — was presented as a transformation of the "infrastructure" — with lots of talk of roads and bridges — but where are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?
Now you're starting to ask the right questions. You may become cruelly neutral yet.
Meanwhile, I have a problem with the notion of taxing overseas earnings. That money was earned overseas, by definition, and was taxed where it was earned. Now we want to double tax it? Wouldn't that make American corporations less competitive internationally? And wouldn't that be bad for our economy and overall employment?
In some ones pocket, that's where it is. Just ask Slow Joe.
chrisnavin.com said...
He pretty much let me know his economic platform with Cash For Clunkers. Not much has changed.
Media fact checkers showed what they were about too, and not much has changed there either.
@cwj I am not sure that these proposals are really defensible. I think many will quietly go the way of the plan to tax 529 plans. It seems to me that you have to be a confirmed loony leftist to think that increasing the taxes on international corporations is going to help bring jobs back to the US. It's quite clear that even the most half-baked of Democratic economists were not consulted on this budget proposal. (Remember that's all it is; a proposal. Just like I propose to buy a new 4Runner every few days - but it never happens!)
Note that he wants to spend more of your money on 'high speed rail" (a shout out to Gov Moonbeam :) and other 'public' infrastructure with your tax dollars, but won't let private money build the Keystone infrastructure...
There is a theory that the spurt in hiring is due to those extended unemployment benefits finally running their course...
Obama's bullshit is always shovel ready.
"Meanwhile, I have a problem with the notion of taxing overseas earnings. That money was earned overseas, by definition, and was taxed where it was earned. Now we want to double tax it? Wouldn't that make American corporations less competitive internationally? And wouldn't that be bad for our economy and overall employment?"
Corporations who keep money overseas are evil, don't you know?
Public works are so choked with bureaucratic process that the lead times are in decades. The regulatory state has regulated even itself into inutility, at least as far as physical things go.
Moving money around is the easiest thing, that's why the stimulus was largely about disbursing money to governments.
Why didn't Obama do this in 2009? It would have passed.
Theater.
Obama's old and extremely expensive "stimulus" package — back in '09 — was presented as a transformation of the "infrastructure" — with lots of talk of roads and bridges — but where are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?
His talk of using the so-called stimulus package to fix infrastructure in 2009 was rhetoric for the rubes. First, the feminists complained that too much money was going to men. A lot of the "stimulus" package went to states to keep their padded payroll of public employees they could no longer afford, sure in the knowledge that their union dues would end up in Democrat campaign coffers. It was a massive vote buying and money-laundering scheme. After the money was spent, Obama then admitted there was no such thing as "shovel-ready jobs." The further trick was that with the Democrats refusing to pass a budget, that "stimulus" for years, became part of the budget baseline.
Gee, we could get a stimulus from building Keystone XL and not even spend tax dollars for it and secure a source of oil for the future and apply downward pressure on oil prices into the future all at one go!
Naaah!
"Quite aside from the problem of new taxes on business, what bothers me here is that Obama's old and extremely expensive "stimulus" package — back in '09 — was presented as a transformation of the "infrastructure" — with lots of talk of roads and bridges — but where are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?"
Are you kidding me? It's what Democrats always do. Tax and spend and tax and spent. To no results. They have been doing it your whole adult life. You have to truly be a moron not to realize that...and we get your stupid "where McCain lost me." You had to know that a Dem POTUS with a DEM Congress would be a fiscal nightmare. And you voted for Owebama. What bothers you...christ.
Keystone is symbolic.
Its not that big a project in itself.
It does stand in, as a symbol, for a great deal more industrial infrastructure that is blocked or precluded even in the conceptual stages by regulation and perceptions of political risk.
Even winning approval of Keystone will help very little because the cost of the battle will be taken into consideration in the conception stage of hundreds of other projects. The bureaucratic paralyzers cannot lose.
His goal is to score political points by making the Republicans look bad.
Obama and his crew have no idea how either things or people work, so any Federal program for "improving our infrastructure" is always going to end with a massive stream of tax dollars running out into the sands and disappearing with no discernable effect in actual construction projects.
1) The tax won't pass.
2) If it did pass, it would not collect the revenue because the companies would leave the country.
3) If the revenue was collected it would not be spent on the most needed projects but on the projects that would buy the most needed votes.
But other than that, great plan.
Something else bothers me. One the one hand this administration and the news media are proclaiming that we're (finally?) in the midst of a great recovery and booming economy. On the other hand, Obama is asking for a second stimulus package.
Hmmmm.
You want to know where the infrastructure stimulus spending went? Federally funded Bike lanes. We have bike lanes in towns and cities all over this country now where nobody has ever rode bikes and still don't. Not only does no one use them, but they inconvenience locals who lost on-street parking in front of their homes, businesses, and churches.
I hope they go the way of the 55 MPH (88.5 KPH) speed limit.
Weren't the infrastructure thing, the shovel-ready constructions, taken care of with that $800+ billion "Stimulus" money?
There were $800+ TARP to take care of the big banks, Goldman Sachs and such, and GM. $800+ billion Stimulus for shovel-ready projects, mega-bundler Kaiser's Solyndra, mega-supporter Buffett's A123 Battery...
Oops, no money left for those infrastructure thing. My bad.
Note that he wants to spend more of your money on 'high speed rail" (a shout out to Gov Moonbeam :) and other 'public' infrastructure with your tax dollars, but won't let private money build the Keystone infrastructure...
Which is, of course, there almost entirely for the skimming, starting with the husband of on the state's Senators, whose company is apparently the prime contractor on the bullet train to nowhere.
What must be remembered here is likely enough money collected at the gas pump to adequately maintain our roads. The problem, which has gotten worse under Obama, is that so much of it is siphoned off for other things, including mass transit. High speed rail is idiotic, and esp. that project - why should anyone take that train, when you can fly it on SouthWest for far less in maybe an hour, when the high speed rail would take 4-6 hours and cost a lot more (unless heavily subsidized, presumably by gas taxes)?
Ann Althouse wrote;
Quite aside from the problem of new taxes on business, what bothers me here is that Obama's old and extremely expensive "stimulus" package — back in '09 — was presented as a transformation of the "infrastructure" — with lots of talk of roads and bridges — but where are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?
Ok, this is spooky. When I read your headline, I was asking myself this very question.
And lo and behold, a few moments later, I'm reading what I'm thinking!
Suppose for a minute you are an "economic interventionist" style leftist--that is, your goal isn't to punish the rich so much as to help the poor or the country at large through government action in the economy (entitlements, public works projects) so the only real purpose for taxes is to raise revenue for these projects. You don't want the tax code to regulate behavior or right societal wrongs--you just want it to bring in revenue.
If that's the idea, then you'd reduce the reliance the Feds have on the income tax, and replace as much of it as possible with a VAT or sales tax or federal property tax. The income tax is volatile, and the more complex it is the more it encourages behavior to change--taxing overseas profits? Well, I'm sure anyone rich enough to own a corporation that pays taxes will find a way to reduce the tax bill. High marginal rates? Same deal--the effective tax rates are often much lower than nominal rates. And of course if recession hits, and government needs a lot more revenue for stimulus or unemployment benefits, that's when income tax receipts drop anyway.
So clearly the Democrats aren't simply economic interventionists--this isn't about helping the poor, or the country at large. It is about punishing those who have means, because the "inequality" is the problem. Unless you buy indulgences (erp, I mean, support leftist causes) you don't deserve to have so much money, and they'll get it from you one way or another.
Making things even worse for Obama and the Dems here, the Republicans apparently are changing the CBO ground rules to require dynamic analysis. The Dems could get away with the "Stimulus", Obamacare, etc. because they were using static analysis, which made an increase in spending look like an increase in GDP. Which is why Pelosi could claim essentially that it didn't matter where the money was spent, but rather, just that it was - which is why they could justify skimming so much off for their cronies and families. Dynamic analysis recognizes that historically, tax cuts have resulted in an increase, not a decrease in GDP, and that an increase in much of government spending does just the opposite. Which, of course, is why the Dems could double the national debt, trying to buy our way out of the Obama Recession, and fail so miserably. Under dynamic scoring, the President's plan is going to look exactly like what it is - a big drag on economic recovery.
Repeal Davis-Bacon first or GTFO.
Brando - VAT is off the table for Dems, since their primary constituency, those who are on some sort of welfare, would be hardest hit. Why? Because our income tax is somewhat progressive, and a VAT tax is somewhat regressive. If fairness is defined as passing the wealth around more, a VAT tax is much less fair. Which, of course, would increase the dreaded income inequality (i.e. the difference between what those who work make and those who don't).
Repeal Davis-Bacon first or GTFO.
That is, of course, off the table, at least until the Republicans can win some more Senate seat, and get a President elected with some cajones. This is the sort of thing that a President Walker might sign, but definitely not a President Obama or Hillary! And, indeed, suspending it (as has been done in the past) would have been one of the fastest ways to get the infrastructure spending in Obama's Stimulus Plan moving, and doing so effectively. And, of course, he didn't do it.
"VAT is off the table for Dems, since their primary constituency, those who are on some sort of welfare, would be hardest hit. Why? Because our income tax is somewhat progressive, and a VAT tax is somewhat regressive. If fairness is defined as passing the wealth around more, a VAT tax is much less fair."
That's sort of my point--for the Left it's not so much about taxes being a necessary evil to fund the good (government programs). Rather, the taxes themselves are good because they redistribute wealth.
Which frankly is a very inefficient way to distribute wealth--even if you eliminated deducations and credits, there are still ways to defer and reallocate income (or even leave the country if it got severe enough, e.g. Venezuelans are demonstrating now) for those with enough to lose.
But if in the sense this isn't about accomplishing anything but winning the votes of the envious and ill-informed, then this is actually a terrific strategy.
"Gee, we could get a stimulus from building Keystone XL and not even spend tax dollars for it and secure a source of oil for the future and apply downward pressure on oil prices into the future all at one go!"
Obama says he wants to compromise (which is bullshit, of course). Offer to match one-for-one federal dollars for roads or whatever against private monies spent on Keystone.
YOU were "gulled" - a lot us sawy through his BS from the start.
Where did all the federal gas tax money end up after all these years? The general fund?
Bruce Hayden said...
High speed rail is idiotic, and esp. that project -
That project and the way they are doing it is completely idiotic.
HSR is almost certainly a poor investment. To the extent that it isn't "in the US", those Blue state guys need to sign up for bulldozing a new high speed right of way through Connecticut and Westchester to connect Boston to NYC. That proven, spend more from NYC to DC. Dont spend a dime more on HSR until then.
Same way on Jerry Brown's fantasy. If it is a good idea, economically and politically workable. start by bulldozing the right of way down the SF Peninsula from SFO Airport. When you fail to breach the Menlo Park city limits, you at least can extend BART.
David Hampton said...
Where did all the federal gas tax money end up after all these years? The general fund?
Light Rail, bike lanes and million dollar bus shelters...
Repeal Davis-Bacon first or GTFO.
That is, of course, off the table, at least until the Republicans can win some more Senate seat, and get a President elected with some cajones.
Won't ever happen - it's a sloppy wet kiss to the unions - from both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan didn't do it, Newt Gingrich didn't, either.
I administered some projects subject to the Act from 1982-2002.
Any attempts to modify the threshold to a reasonable amount were always met with push-back from the unions and Republicans always caved - in the "big" picture, the money saved wasn't worth the political cost. And most Federal agencies were for more reasonable regulations - it was a pain in the ass for them too.
Consider this - the Act was passed in 1931 - (84 years ago). The threshold was $2,000. To date, that is still the amount when the Act kicks in - revising the amount based on inflation was never embedded in the law. Back in 1931, $2000 was a substantial project. In 2014, that is equivalent to $30,000+. Technically a HUD funded project could not replace the transmission on it's snowplow truck (i.e, $2500) without applying the Act.
"[W]here are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?"
Why are you asking that question now, Ann?
Why didn't you ask that question in 2008, before you voted for the guy? I mean, c'mon, you couldn't see it coming? Seriously?
So clearly the Democrats aren't simply economic interventionists--this isn't about helping the poor, or the country at large. It is about punishing those who have means, because the "inequality" is the problem.
I don't even think it's that. The richest of the rich voted for this administration. I think it's more about control.
Take the comment above about bike lanes, or Al Gore's vision for redoing all of the world's cities (at the cost of $90 trillion). The statist types want us all pliable and tied down, NOT free and mobile.
All proposed spending may be proposed a certain way, but it would be redirected accordingly.
All of this is moot, since it has no chance in hell of ever being passed, at least during the next two years.
No better way to boondoggle and black hole than to have "sources and uses of funds" totally divorced from one another.
Liberals also believe lotto fever is an excellent way to fund eduction, and sin taxes are an excellent way to fund children's health programs.
I think it's more about control.
It's about who's left squatting atop the rubble after Obama's "Fundamental Transformation" runs its course.
Althouse: "[W]here are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?"
A.What do you mean "we", Obama voter?
B.They're baked into the budget baseline, since Harry Reid's blockade of a Senate Budget forced the Federal Gov't to run on CR's for longer than the Seige of Leningrad.
C.Thank you for voting.
Maybe he could invest in health care. It seems like a waste to raise revenue without addressing affordability and availability of health care products and services.
Speaking of waste, do they still teach human biology and health in grade school, or have they been replaced with politically lucrative alternatives?
"The definition of a louse, in the 70s, was a guy who stole your $500 stereo and sells it for $10.
Washington works the same way. The point is any huge flow of funds, of which a small percentage is taken for themselves, that small percentage motivating the entire enormous loss to everybody else."
I swear DC is just a city-size version of the tiki restaurant from Goodfellas.
"Also, Paulie could do anything. Especially run up bills on the joint's credit. And why not? Nobody's gonna pay for it anyway. And as soon as the deliveries are made in the front door, you move the stuff out the back and sell it at a discount. You take a two hundred dollar case of booze and you sell it for a hundred. It doesn't matter. It's all profit. And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You light a match."
Franklin above has the basic workings of all the alternative energy and building for the future, etc. projects down cold.
This is indeed what actually happens.
"where are all those improvements we were gulled into thinking we were getting for our money?"
What's all this we, White Man?
Any private contractor who deals with the government understood that this money wasn't going to produce anything tangible. Merely selecting the providers for anything big would have taken years, far longer than the short term this stimulus was supposed to be for.
The only people who thought this was a good idea were the ones who'd never actually tried to be a government *provider*, as opposed to a government *customer* (or a passive receiver of government benefits).
Which, um, describes Barack Obama pretty well.
Obama's budget is a disingenuous political stunt. Both sides do this, cram a bill full of items that are guaranteed non-starters, see which ones get the most media traction, and then use them as a club to beat the opposing party about the head.
The Golden Gate Bridge was dedicated in 1937 and the final cost was $35 million or about $600 million in current cost. It is also estimated that to replicate the Golden Gate Bridge today would double that amount due to environmental and other factors. If the 2009 Stimulus Bill is estimated to cost $840 million you could have built between 700 to 1,400 Golden Gate Bridges. Quintilius Varus, where are my Bridges?
Lamont,
Great semiobscure reference. And thanks for coming up with a metric to really illustrate what a boondoggle the first stimulus was. But somehow we didn't notice it because ... borrowed money.
This program continues to grate my nerves...
Each and every year since that money has been spent again - of course, after also being automatically increased just like every other program in DC.
What has happened to all THAT money????
We are so screwed.
I thought we already had a gigantic stimulus package with a bunch of shovel ready infrastructure type jobs.
Why do totalitarians and megalomaniacal narcissists always start grandiose construction projects?
Man, I wish I had my shovel ready for this one, it's getting mighty deep.
apparently he didn't learn the lessons from the first time around. Or maybe he did and just doesn't care.
Obama's proposal mandates taxing foreign earnings. I seriously doubt his cronies at places like GE are on board with this, unless they are first in line at the pig's trough.
The money should be allowed to repatriate at very small or zero taxation. Money that is invested by the private sector fuels growth, but money spent by the government crowds out productive uses of capital.
Post a Comment