The Non-Stimulus Stimulus Porkfest

Where to begin with the mess that Congress and President Obama are about to ram through.

Let's start with the overt racism, sexism, and abject stupidity of how the money will be spread around.



That's Robert Reich, Obamas economic advisor, who's busy calling for a limitation on where the money goes. Forget people who are actually experienced and qualified for the jobs. They want to spread it to those who don't.

That's also Charlie Rangel, he of the massive tax evasion and ethics entanglements, who's busy talking of how the money will be spread around - wealth redistribution and socialism.

Then you have Rep. David Camp (R-MI) getting the Thomas A. Barthold, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Joint Tax Committee (a nonpartisan committee established by the House and Senate) to agree that there is absolutely no statistical evidence that the stimulus package they're discussing will create a single job or grow the economy by one iota.

No one wants to address the fact that for a stimulus package that is supposed to provide immediate assistance, so much of the package is postdated for 2010 and 2011, when most economists agree the recession will have already passed.

No one wants to address the fact that the underlying causes of the fiscal mess was the result of the mortgage meltdown spurred by Congressional and overtly political demands that affordable housing go to those who could not actually afford to repay those homes, especially when the market sagged and/or interest rates reset.

For President Obama, who claims that rebuilding and improving infrastructure is absolutely necessary for economic growth and to kickstart the economy, why then is only $40 billion of the $825 billion going to infrastructure projects?

Of the $825 billion bill, only $40 billion - less than 5 percent and less than $1 billion per state - is earmarked for transportation and transit.

But it would take more than $70 billion a year in new spending to even begin to do the asset upgrades that the Department of Transportation says the nation needs.

Worse, the bill pretends that run-of-the-mill work such as paving and surfacing is a radical investment in the future. With much of the meager $800 million a state going for that, the bill would barely let us keep up with current neglect, never mind make real improvements.

Then there's the bill's emphasis on "shovel-ready" projects, directing states to "initiate" the spending of roughly half the infrastructure money in the first four months or lose it. Problem is the best projects to support the private-sector economy might not be the easiest, quickest and cheapest.

Another issue: The bill's muddled definition of "infrastructure." Its $15 billion worth of spending on public and "affordable" housing, for example, is actually social spending.

Since when is social spending actually infrastructure spending, unless you're redefining the terms so that they are meaningless.

Reich's outtakes above also go to how Obama wants to insure that infrastructure spending takes into account the social costs. That stands cost-benefit analysis on its head, and shows that the Democrats are looking to use the stimulus porkfest to redistribute tax money - and money that the government doesn't even have - to satisfy their constituencies without regard to the fiscal responsibility they have to the nation and all taxpayers. It is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Mark Levin takes apart the porkfest and the socialists pushing this stimulus package despite the abject lack of evidence that it will do anything to stimulate the economy.

UPDATE:
President Obama is pushing for swift action on the porkfest, arguing that it is absolutely necessary to jump start the economy. I don't see any case being made that this particular piece of legislation will do anything to improve the economy one bit.

UPDATE:
There's also nothing Republicans can do in all this. They simply don't have the numbers in Congress to make a difference. They could vote against the porkfest and it still wouldn't matter as it would still pass handily. Of course, that would enable them to claim fiscal responsibility from the tax and spend Democrats, but I doubt they'll manage that. They could also vote present on this and other fiscally irresponsible measures, but again, I doubt that the GOP has the discipline to see that through.

It's also important to note that will all the talk of bipartisanship, it's all unidirectional. GOPers must cross the line to see the Democrat position, or else no deal. If you suggest otherwise, you're told to shove off.