Transportation Earmarks Need a Reboot

USA Today highlights the problem of rogue earmarks - earmarks (pork) that have become orphans because of technical errors or other issues that have prevented the funds from being spent all while counting against states' shares of federal transportation dollars.

The problem is so pervasive that almost 1 in 3 highway dollars earmarked since 1991 — about $13 billion — remains unspent, federal data show. "We call them orphan earmarks," says Michael Covington of the South Carolina Department of Transportation. "They don't have a home."

The federal government treats an unspent earmark like an undated check that could be cashed at any time. It affects the federal budget only if it's cashed. Nevertheless, because lawmakers inserted some of the earmarks into particular sections of transportation bills, many of the orphan earmarks also count against a state's share of federal highway funds and have taken billions of dollars away from state transportation departments across the nation.

During the past 20 years, orphan earmarks reduced the amount of money that states would have received in federal highway funding by about $7.5 billion, USA TODAY found. That's $7.5 billion that states could have used to replace obsolete bridges, repair aging roads and bring jobs to rural areas.

Pennsylvania, already coping with a transportation funding crisis, lost out on $392 million. New York, struggling with the worst budget deficit in its history, lost $607 million. California, forced to consider a bailout from the federal government, could have had $568 million more for transportation had it not been for orphan earmarks.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, says that money would go a long way toward plugging his state's shortage of transportation funding. "It shows you what's wrong with the earmark system," he says.

These orphan earmarks are treated as an uncashed check. It only counts against the budget if the project goes forward. But since the earmark is treated as having been committed to a particular state, it counts against that state's share of federal transportation dollars, reducing the overall amount the state gets.

President Obama's proposed 2011 budget would eliminate those orphan earmarks that are 20 years or older with a savings of $263 million.

I don't think that goes far enough. Anything older than 10 years should be history, and those that are 5 years and older should be on the chopping block and vetted. The process should be regularized so that the projects are reviewed annually and the statute of limitations on earmarks should be brought down to 5 years with a review beginning on projects three years or older.

A process should be instituted so that only those projects that a state department of transportation has committed to undertaking can be funded. Projects that are funded from other sources should be earmarked so as to free up the state funds to rebuild other critical infrastructure.

"Critical infrastructure" should be defined so that projects that are prioritized according to need and not merely to spend money on a given project merely because a politician wants to bring the bacon home. While rebuilding critical infrastructure is necessary, maintenance of infrastructure should be prioritized so as to keep such structures from becoming deficient in the first place. Regular maintenance, including cleaning out drainage, painting, and fixing problems before they manifest into more serious issues can save more money, but doesn't get nearly the attention as a ribbon cutting on a new bridge or tunnel.

New York City Tax Dollars At Work

Even though New York City is facing a massive deficit and the proposed budget includes thousands of teacher layoffs and other measures to close the budget, idiocy still abounds throughout the City's vast bureaucracy.

On Staten Island, that translated into the Department of Transportation painting reflective line markers on a pothole and rutted stretch of highway that was slated to get milled and paved... starting next week.

Fresh off the pointless labor of putting lines on a Dongan Hills street, the city Department of Transportation was painting the town again yesterday, this time laying reflective white stripes down the center of the West Shore Expressway.

Only problem is, the new paint was dropped right down the pothole-riddled center of the crumbling highway, which is itself slated for milling and repaving starting Monday night.

Many of the new hashmarks were actually painted inside the potholes, which had the comical effect of accentuating their depth and craggy edges.

The state DOT, which runs the road, entrusts the city with its maintenance.

The two agencies typically coordinate their projects, to make sure both are on the same page, said state DOT spokesman Adam Levine.

The impending milling and repaving of the northbound right lane of the West Shore has been in the works for awhile, and an article about the project has appeared in the Advance. It was expected to be completed in late April.

But the work was delayed a few weeks when the contractor, InterCounty Paving Associates, was backlogged with other projects after the hard winter, and the city may not have been aware that the paving was since expedited to start on Monday.

How much money and time was wasted on that nonsense? New York City taxpayers have a right to know what this nonsense cost them, and why no one is going to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Did no one on that paint crew notice that they were simply painting into the potholes? They didn't question why they were not first fixing the potholes before painting?

I suspect that they were merely going through the motions to collect a paycheck, and didn't want to expend the effort to find out that their services should be directed elsewhere.

More Jobs Saved Or Created Nonsense

On top of the bogus metric "jobs saved or created" reports from all over the country are finding that money has gone to congressional districts that don't even exist. According to the Recovery.gov website, which is supposed to track these things (and you would think knows how many districts there are in the House (435)). Yet, the website claims for Kansas 10 jobs created and saved in the 9th Congressional district, 9 jobs in the 8th District and 3 in the 6th district and 2 in the 14th. Kansas has four Congressional districts.

The same problems are reported in Arizona, where the 15th District was invented out of whole cloth. Arizona has only eight districts.

The list of questionable or nonexistent jobs keeps growing.

All the while, unemployment rates continue creeping up around the country and those states with the highest unemployment like Michigan have gotten little in the way of relief from the stimulus funds. There's been little to no private sector job creation:

The Free Press examination of more than 1,800 government reports of those who have received or expect to receive stimulus money found the biggest impact was spurring or protecting public-sector or summer jobs — not private-sector jobs. Michigan has the nation’s worst unemployment rate.

The spokesmen for the Recovery.gov effort claim that it was human error to make such mistakes. No kidding.

The fundamental problem with the website is that we're discussing a bogus metric that is impossible to define, and implausible on its face. Any job that hasn't been eliminated can be construed as a job saved according to the Obama Administration, and all too many jobs being claimed under the Obama Administration headline as the stimulus working its magic are jobs that would never be cut, jobs that don't even exist, or jobs who are getting raises. One estimate suggests that there were 75,000 phantom jobs included in the Administration press releases touting the stimulus.

(HT: NJDhockeyfan)

How else do you think the government is able to build those arks we saw in the trailers for the movie 2012? You don't think it really costs $400 for a toilet seat do you? This is government waste writ large. If the government can't keep track of its payments and outlays, how can we trust it to keep track of monies for health care or any other operation?

Moreover, the stimulus was a way for states to avoid having to make tough decisions to reduce spending because of the downturn in the economy. It enabled states to continue profligate spending and not face voter wrath for spending money that the states don't have. It enabled governors, like NJ Gov. Jon Corzine to avoid making serious cuts to the state workforce at a time when he needed to get all the votes he could in his failed reelection campaign. The money glosses over the real problems around the country with state spending that doesn't come close to matching revenues.

The stimulus is a way to deny responsibility and ignore fiscal responsibility. Future generations of Americans will be saddled with the crushing debt incurred to fund this mess.

UPDATE:
New Jersey apparently suffers from the same problems as many other states. Money is listed as going to districts that simply don't exist. The state has 13 districts, and yet the 40th district gets $2 million? The 00 district gets $7 million?

Who does the fact checking for the Recovery.gov website when they're doing data entry to insure that the figures reflect Congressional districts? Where is this money being spent?

Rangel Brings Home Bacon To CCNY

Imagine a politician managing to get $3 million in grant money for a program that the Pentagon doesn't even want. Now, imagine the uproar over such wasteful spending.

Where's the outrage when this politician happens to be none other than Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), who happened to steer the $3 million grant to the City College of New York (CCNY), where he's already directed millions of dollars to his namesake program:

Two years after creating a center in his own name at City College, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel has come through with a $3 million defense grant for the school -- for a project the Pentagon doesn't even want, The Post has learned.

The $3 million cash infusion is going to an existing academic department, rather than to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at CCNY, a $30 million project that will immortalize Rangel's name and house his papers when he retires. Rangel had previously arranged $2 million in taxpayer funds for the center.

The latest piece of congressional pork is to fund research into new composite materials that could be used to protect Army trucks from attack. The grant is tucked into the massive Defense Appropriations Bill moving through Congress.

Word of the funding comes as the House is set to vote today on a Republican-backed resolution to strip Rangel of his Ways and Means Committee chair pending an ethics investigation, after revelations that he didn't disclose income on multiple properties, as well as failure to pay taxes and other issues.

The Pentagon doesn't want the research money, but Rangel got the funding anyway by getting the Appropriations Committee to direct the cash to CCNY.

A Long Island company hired a lobbyist to push for this spending, and Rangel obliged, even though the Pentagon wasn't interested.

How exactly is that fiscally responsible?

UPDATE:
House Republicans again attempted to get rid of Rangel as chairman of the Ways and Means committee, but fell short in their latest effort.

Despite the expected defeat Wednesday, the GOP did keep the spotlight on the New York Democrat's ethical problems, although the matter will be turned over to the House ethics committee for a long-term investigation. The House voted 246-153 to refer the resolution to remove him to that panel in a partisan vote that had no meaning except to revisit Rangel's problems.

This whole mess has been in the hands of the ethics committee for months now. They've dragged their feet on the matter, and Pelosi has demurred in taking action.

House Democrats are protecting a corrupt fellow Democrat; they'd much prefer swimming in the corruption instead of draining the swamp.

Porkfest Porn

Ah, the joys of reading through the stimulating pages of the porkfest and attempting to follow where all the money went.

In this case, the NEA used a portion of its ARRA of 2009 (aka the Porkfest "stimulus" package) allotment of $80 million to fund the viewing of porn.

The NEA was given $80 million of the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide …

[I]ncluding a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, “the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla.” …

[T]he weekly production of “Perverts Put Out” at San Francisco’s CounterPULSE, whose “long-running pansexual performance series” invites guests to “join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun.” …

[A]n additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant [will go to] “The Symmetry Project,” …

The show depicts “the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience[.]”

In the flesh — and there’s a lot of it — it amounts to two people writhing naked on the floor, a government-funded tango in the altogether.

Is this really the kind of stimulus that the nation needs?

The Cost of Stimulus

The Drudge Report is touting the high price of pork purchased as part of the ARRA of 2009 (aka porkfest; aka stimulus).

The Recovery.gov website has tons of projects listed, and prices are attached to many, but the descriptions are so cryptic so as to be useless. Trying to figure out what exactly is being paid for is up to individuals curious enough to figure out where the money is going.

Take, for example, the curious case of the two pound sliced ham. $2,531,600 for 'Ham, water added, cooked, frozen, sliced, 2lb.
$1,191,200 for 2 pound frozen ham sliced. $351,807 to replace and upgrade the dumbwaiter. Or, $1,444,100 for repairing door for Building 5112.

Let's take that last one, since I think it's instructive. Building 5112 is located at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. Repairing a door sounds like it would cost far less than $1.4 million, but this isn't any ordinary door. I should know, since I'm in the process of replacing the front door on my home, and while it's a special order door, it's not costing anywhere near $1.4 million.

Since Recovery.gov doesn't have the details, it was left to someone else to figure out the door costs, and Liberty Pundit did the hard work. It turns out that they're hangar doors at the base where B-1 and C-130s are housed.

If that were all, this is a nonissue, but the problem is that the Defense Department documents that call for the hangar door work show only $246,000, while the Recovery.gov site shows costs being far higher - $1.4 million, which suggests added items are involved and there's no sign of such information on the recovery.gov website.

The problem is that the Defense Department cost for the door repair is $246,000, not $1.4 million. What is the reason for the discrepancy? That's not mentioned in the Recovery.gov information.

The biggest problem with figuring out where the money is going is incomplete explanations on costs. That is the single biggest failing, and without appropriate explanations, you get what we're seeing today, courtesy of Drudge.

Indeed, that's the problem throughout. It's a lack of necessary and critical information that tells you exactly how all this money is being spent. Cryptic descriptions make the information virtually useless and opens the possibility that widespread corruption, graft, and padding of contracts is occurring with money that the nation simply doesn't have and can't afford.

Why is the recovery.gov website set up without these basics? If a contract is to provide quantities of ham, why not state as much, instead of giving the impression that it is to provide two pounds of ham for $1 million or more. It's asinine, but it's the way this Administration rolls.

Don Surber notes the aforementioned pork figures, and wonders why the government feels the need to make so many food purchases as part of the stimulus package at all. It's a good question, since this doesn't exactly create or save new jobs.

UPDATE:
Indeed there are discrepancies even with the pork purchases as claimed. The USDA responded to the kerfuffle over the multimillion dollar cost for pork purchases, clarifying that it was the purchase of hundreds of thousands of pounds at $1.50 per pound. Jim Hoft points out that the price per pound as per the contract is nearly twice what you would find at his local supermarket. (HT: Carl in Jerusalem)

I'll point out that the cost at my local Shop Rite is closer to $7 a pound, which suggests that instead of stimulating the economy, it's going to severely shortchange the food provider. That's not exactly going to result in stimulating the economy either.

Reason 3.5 Million Why No One Trusts the MTA

At a time when the MTA is crying poverty, the MTA is busy doling out $3.5 million more in raises to headquarters employees.

Between March 2008 and March 2009, 140 directors, managers and other employees who work in the MTA's main Madison Avenue offices received raises, according to a Post analysis of agency records. Of these bump-ups, 79 came without title changes.

In the same period, the Midtown HQ's headcount surged by 43 staffers to 695, records show.

The new hires included a $75,000-a-year photographer, a $117,000-per-year director of police support and a $134,204-a-year director of workforce development. Also, for $172,000 a year, it brought on a "chief diversity officer" who is supposed to help give contracts to minority-owned businesses. All were newly created positions.

Overall, payroll at headquarters rose 6.7 percent to $55.5 million.

The MTA succeeded in getting a significant raise and a cash infusion from the state, which includes higher tolls and fare hikes and a massive increase in payroll taxes in NYC metro area counties.

Meanwhile, various capital projects are severely overbudget and wont be finished for years after their originally scheduled completion dates, including the Fulton Street Transit Hub. Other projects are getting strung out, further increasing the overall cost while reducing the annual costs slightly.

This is a microcosm of what has happened across the nation as governments engage in out of control spending and rely on taxpayers and the private sector for ever more funding (via taxes, fees, fares, and tolls) while the private sector declines during the recession.

Who Is Cheering For Big Government?

USA Today has a misleading headline story claiming that people are cheering the return of big government (for now).

Most Americans say they're glad Big Government is back to help through hard times. But they aren't sure they want it to stay.

The Obama administration, trying to reverse the economy's meltdown and prevent it from happening again, is redefining the role of the federal government in the economy — spending trillions of dollars, building new regulatory systems for financial institutions and effectively taking over a major part of the automobile industry.

Although an expansive federal government hasn't had a defender in the White House for nearly a half-century — since Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society program — most Americans in a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll approve of President Obama and the government's latest assertiveness. However, some of the steps he has ordered have made them wary.

By 3-to-1, those surveyed say government's expansion should be cut back when the economic crisis is over.

"They should do whatever is necessary, especially for the automobile business," says Lee Heffner, 78, of Temple, Pa., who was among those polled. For 50 years, he ran the Ford dealership his father founded during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Even so, he worries, "it seems we're on the trend of nationalization for a lot of things. Once the government gets into something, it's very seldom they back out of it."

Obama on Tuesday defended his economic proposals and the results they've gotten so far, calling it "a new foundation" for sustainable economic growth through this century. "We have been called to govern in extraordinary times," he said in the speech at Georgetown University, cautioning that 2009 "will continue to be a difficult year."

The White House, experimenting with Washington's role in the economy, is taking unprecedented steps: helping some homeowners who can't handle their mortgage payments, underwriting the warranties for GM and Chrysler cars and organizing a huge public-private rescue plan to buy up banks' most troubled assets. The Treasury Department on Friday pegged the budget deficit for this year at $1.75 trillion, nearly quadruple last year's record shortfall.

The moves have raised questions about how far government should go in directing the market — and whether, in some sectors, it could wind up deciding which businesses survive and which ones fail. An opening sketch this month on NBC's Saturday Night Live showed a faux Obama delivering edicts on the survival of everything from fast-food chains to makers of jeans. ("Levi's, yes," the Obama impersonator deadpanned. "Wrangler, no.")

Where to begin with this mess? How about with the polling figures that show that most Americans think that Congress and the Administration have spent too much money on the stimulus package (aka porkfest). 55% think that they spent too much. I'd say that's a repudiation of the idea of big government right there. It also is why the Tea Party protests have picked up steam around the country.

The breakdown of whether government has taken too much power is close - 46% the Administration has the right amount of power, while 40% think they got too much. I'd say that as more people realize the extent to which the Administration has grabbed power at the expenses of citizens, the states, and businesses, those numbers will turn around.

Strangely, the percentage of people who think that government is doing too much is 50% compares with 42% who think that government should be doing more.

Taken together, it suggests that the Administration is heading for a backlash.

Has anyone actually polled to find out whether we won that War on Poverty? Big government programs have been mostly a disaster, destroying inner cities with such ideas as urban renewal (destroying tenements and building densely packed housing projects that destroyed the social fabric of communities and allowed the rise of crime and decay through urban areas across the country). Other big government projects resulted in massive spending with no care for the consequences of paying for the programs down the road - think Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Also ignored by USA Today is the rise of the Tea Party protests, which started as a grassroots protest against out of control government spending. The protests have spread across the country and show that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the exorbitant spending beyond our national means. Throwing hundreds of billions at failed companies and then hundreds of billions more at pork barrel programs that may not even get started for several years as a stimulus to the economy now is an insult to our collective intelligence.

The economy has been showing signs of recovery even before the porkfest projects get underway. The government, had it chosen to not spend one penny on new programs in the porkfest, would have saved more than $1 trillion. Instead, we'll be paying off that massive spending for generations to come. Our grandkids will be paying for this costly choice.

It's not simply anti-spending that is fueling the Tea Party protests, but the out-of-control spending that threatens to undermine confidence in the US government and the financial markets. The Obama Administration is not letting the crisis pass without taking full advantage of the situation by pushing through an agenda that massively expands government programs and projects. It's the priorities of the Administration that are at issue as well; the Administration doesn't seem to find the money to pay for improving and expanding the US military at a time when the kinds of threats to the nation are growing.

UPDATE:
For those interested in attending NJ Tea Parties, the Record has a list of locations, including the Bergen County Courthouse in Hackensack and the offices of US Senator Bob Menendez and Sen. Frank Lautenberg in Newark.

UPDATE:
Twitter has running updates of various Tea Parties going on around the country, including photos and blog posts. (HT: Instapundit)

Poison Pill Provisions In Porkfest Unconstitutional

It shouldn't surprise anyone that few people, let alone those members of Congress or the President of the US, actually read the entire porkfest stimulus spending bill. Fewer still took an interest in the poison pill provisions that related to unfunded mandates imposed on states.

Even fewer had a clue what Congress sought to do as an end run around state law.

What is truly sad is that the constitutional law experts are finally getting around to writing about this. Ronald Rotunda, who is one of the foremost constitutional law experts in the nation (and edits one of the key hornbooks on the subject), points out the poison pill provision.

Rotunda writes:

The aphorism, he who pays the piper calls the tune, is one that Congress understands quite well. If the state accepts funds, it also accepts a host of restrictions. For example, the plan increases, temporarily, the money it sends to states to fund various welfare programs. To receive that money, states have to add thousands of new people to the welfare rolls. In two years, the federal largesse stops, but the new welfare recipients are still there.

Consequently, several governors have said that they might simply refuse the money. Most are Republican, but recently the Democratic governor of Tennessee has joined the chorus. The stimulus bill, for example, gives $7 billion to the states to add to their unemployment trust funds, but to receive this "gift," a state has to change its formula so that it makes more people eligible for benefits, which leaves a long-term obligation on the system.

Because some governors might not accept the money, Congress added a unique provision, in subsection 1607(b): "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State."

If state law does not give the state legislature the right to bypass the governor, how can Congress just change that law? Where does Congress get the power to change a state constitution?

It might appear quaint to note that the U.S. Constitution does not create a central government of unlimited powers. Congress only has those powers that the Constitution gives it either expressly or by implication. That's a lot of power, to be sure, but it's not unlimited.

Where does Congress get the power to bypass state law indeed. The federal government derives its legitimacy from the several states - not the other way around. This is an unbridled power grab by the federal government to coerce the states and to circumvent state governors who might refuse to impose massive unfunded mandates on their states at a time when state revenues are uncertain at best, and many are seeing a reduction in revenues.

This law throws federalism on its head and yet Congress and President Obama (who fancied himself a constitutional law expert) saw fit to include this provision in the bill. To what end did they see fit to do this? Did someone in Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi's office contemplate a situation where a GOP governor might refuse to take federal aid but thought that the state legislature of that state might overrule the governor? If that's the case, then someone ought to be asking Reid's or Pelosi's office what they were thinking overruling decades of jurisprudence on constitutional law and the principles of federalism.

UPDATE:
Powerline also writes on the subject, and asked Prof. Rotunda whether the bill contained a severability clause. Apparently, it does not. For those who are unfamiliar with a severability clause, it essentially states that if any single provision of the bill is found to be unconstitutional, only that individual provision is rendered moot; the rest of the bill's provisions are still in force.

Senator Kennedy Gets A Consolation Prize

Sen. Ted Kennedy never achieved the brass ring of winning the Presidency as his brother John did. Yet, he's served 50 years in the US Senate, so he's getting a consolation prize of having the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate.

It will be located next to his brother's Presidential Library in Dorchester.

Jules Crittenden takes this whole situation to task, considering the overall cost for the project and what that money could better be spent on in the great state of Massachusetts. He also notes that John Kerry has pushed for a $22 million earmark for expanding the JFK Presidential library because of cramped space for Kennedy's papers.

UPDATE:
Instapundit notes that one of every five dollars of the federal pork allocated to Massachusetts in the $410 budget package is going to preserve the Kennedy legacy. It's not like the common man needs their legacies preserved - let alone their current pocketbook.

Pres. Obama to Address the Nation on Budget Issues

Barreling ahead on a mammoth agenda, Barack Obama is ready to offer a detailed sketch of the first year of his presidency, casting the nation's bleeding economy as a tangle of tough, neglected problems.

In a prime-time speech from the House of Representatives, Obama will make his case Tuesday that much more has to be done to turn around the economy — a message he knows he must explain.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that Obama will provide more details about his financial stability plan and measures to help the economy while delivering "a sober assessment about where we are and the challenges we face."

"He'll say we're on the right path to meeting these challenges, and there are better days ahead," Gibbs said.

Already, the nation is nearly dizzy keeping up with what's emerged from Washington during Obama's first weeks as president, from a staggering $787 billion stimulus plan to a revamped bailout for the financial sector to a rescue plan for struggling homeowners.

The president has also said reforming health care, including burgeoning entitlement programs, is a huge priority.

Although Obama is too new in office to be delivering a State of the Union address, his speech will have all the same trappings. It comes two days before he delivers a budget blueprint to Congress. Unlike that detail-driven document, his address will be broad, spelling out what he wants and how he will do it.

The economy, in its worst tailspin in decades, will dominate. Obama will touch on foreign policy, but that will largely be left for other upcoming speeches. This will not be a rollout of one policy initiative after another.

Obama will make clear that the trillion-dollar-plus deficit is one he "inherited." In other words, he wants to remind people that President George W. Bush and the previous Congress left him a big hole, forcing him to pursue the costly stimulus package.

The president will push for movement on ensuring health coverage for all Americans. He will seek to expand educational opportunities, and diversify the country's energy sources, and contain sacred entitlements like Social Security, and halve the soaring budget deficit in four years.

Interesting that only a Democrat would feel that if you inherit a trillion dollar deficit that the way to get out of it is to spend almost a trillion dollars more -- a trillion dollars that will actually cost taxpayers more than 1.5 trillion, and which the non-partisan congressional budget office says will NOT stimulate the economy and WILL hurt the economy in the long run.

So what is in Pres. Obama's new plan?

A $410 billion spending bill unveiled yesterday will fund the US government for the rest of the fiscal year - and kick in $2.2 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in upstate New York.

The measure comes just days after the $787 billion economic-stimulus package was signed; it'll be voted on by the House later this week.

But it's not all nuts and bolts - there's plenty of pork, like the millions for the grape center in Geneva, NY, thanks to Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Reps. Maurice Hinchey and Michael Arcuri.

Other New York earmarks include: $143,000 for Manhattan's American Ballet Theatre "for educational activities"; $214,000 for Stony Brook University "to teach scientists how to effectively communicate with the public and the press"; and $950,000 for a Poughkeepsie pedestrian bridge.

The measure also includes $500,000 for a Senate "pilot program" to defray the cost of mass-mail postcards notifying constituents of town-hall meetings.

Its a shame. The democrats cannot help themselves in loading up on pet projects and pork. There is no fiscal responsibility in Washington. While the President held a "fiscal responsibility summit" yesterday, Michelle Malkinpoints out, the President has been anything but:

President Obama just finished up his opening remarks at a “fiscal responsibility” summit to address skyrocketing budget deficits.

How about paying your own damn bills first, Mr. President?

There’s yet another new report of Obama campaign/DNC unpaid bills — this one from Springfield, Illinois. Obama owes the city at least $65,000 for overtime and other costs.

That’s in addition to the nearly $2 million Obama still owes the city of Chicago.

And the $24,000 Obama owes the city of Philadelphia.

Deadbeatonomics for He, but not for thee.

Change -- all that is left in my pockets after an Obama Administration -- that you can believe in.

The Next Obama Economic Failure Awaits: Homeowner Assistance

Government actions to distort markets helped get us into the current mess, and new government action isn't going to improve matters. It will just prolong the agony even longer.

President Obama is unveiling his latest plan, a $75 billion plan to "assist" homeowners, including those who are upside down on their mortgages.

Now, one has to wonder why this wasn't included in the porkfest just passed since it is a "stimulus" for the economy since it is alleged to provide assistance to homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages and would allegedly assist banks who have these delinquent accounts on their books.

This too follows last year's homeowner assistance program which turned out to be a stunning failure because 60% of those who had mortgage terms renegotiated found themselves right back in default within six months.

So, where does the $75 billion come from? $50 billion will come from unused TARP 1 funds, with the rest to be funded by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Freddie and Fannie are also culpable for the real estate market collapse through their awful accounting practices and demands on lenders to increase lending to those who had little, no or bad credit.

Throwing millions of people into a marketplace with bad credit meant taking bad risks and when the real estate bubble burst, these people were in the worst shape of all.

That doesn't mean that they should get assistance because their mortgages are underwater or upside down (they owe more than the property is worth). If these people have the capacity to repay, it shouldn't matter that the property value has declined. Real estate isn't a short term investment, and shouldn't be seen as such.

If you've bought a home, it should be a long term investment, and over that longer time frame, the market will start to come back and prices will once again rise (as they are in some areas of the country).

Flipping is extremely risky proposition despite what the home improvement shows typically televise.

Flippers and speculators should not receive a single dollar from the government for making bad business decisions, although that concept has gone out the window as government looks to plow billions into the failed auto companies and other industries and businesses that would fail but for government action to prop them up and avoid the consequences of being in a market governed by supply and demand.

There are only a few times that this causes trouble is when the person has to sell the home (to relocate for another job, illness, or death of a homeowner). If they are underwater, that means the person has to come up with more money to sell to meet the mortgage obligation in order to buy the next property or cash out. Refinancing homes could be more difficult because the loan to value of the property might require purchase mortgage insurance (PMI) or force higher interest rates to cover the higher risk to the bank. Having recently refinanced my home, I worried about the valuation of my home, but we still were able to refinance based on the new appraisal but others may not be so lucky in hard hit real estate markets like Las Vegas or South Florida or parts of California.

If you don't have to sell, being underwater will not affect your economic situation unless you're looking to use a line of equity or want to leverage your home to take out loans for other items. It actually forces the homeowner to prioritize their expenses.

The flip side to the drop in home prices is that they have become tremendously more affordable to those who are in the market to buy a home. If you are coming from a rental and looking to buy a home, this is a great opportunity in many markets to get into a home after the massive runup for the past decade.

Yet, Obama's economic plan would attempt to stabilize the home prices in many areas still well above what the market prices would dictate. That means that those homes will remain unaffordable directly as a result of government meddling in the marketplace.

Speaking of the markets, they didn't take too kindly to this latest government 'plan.'

You Don't Say: Obama Tempers Expectations Over Porkfest Fixing Economy

So, now that President Obama is set to sign the multi-trillion dollar porkfest into law on Tuesday, he's already attempting to manage expectations that the porkfest will not turn around the economy right away.

He's already laying the groundwork for another porkfest package just in case the economy doesn't improve even modestly under the weight of the current porkfest.

That's the Democrats' solution to all problems. Throw massive amounts of money at the problem and pray that something sticks. Oh, and just hours after saying that this bill needed to be passed by Congress to save the economy, President Obama will now not sign it until Tuesday? I guess he realizes he needs to get the press coverage that a weekday brings, not simply signing it into law on a holiday weekend when fewer people are paying attention. It was a hurry up and pass the bill without reading the damned thing so it can sit until such time that the press coverage will be maximized. Since it wasn't going to be signed until Tuesday at the earliest, Congressional Democrats - Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi rammed through this bill with a minimum of debate that would have exposed the extent of this fiscally irresponsible and foolish legislation.

Even the New York Times was forced to admit yesterday that the tax cuts in the bill hold out the only hope for a modest boost in the immediate future; the rest of the porkfest may generate jobs years into the future.

The $787 billion plan — a combination of fast-acting tax cuts and longer-term government spending on public works projects, education, health care, energy and technology — was smaller than Democrats first proposed.

Yet, Obama and the Democrats cut the level of tax cuts to trim the massive bloated porkfest down below $800 billion initial outlay, to amounts that Democrats like Michelle Obama had previously derided as being insufficient to stimulate the economy when President Bush offered them up last year.

Meanwhile, the economic illiterates in Congress are now looking to take over the banking industry and the carmakers are now claiming they need yet another multi-billion dollar bailout because they can't make ends meet and agree with the unions on a modification of contracts that would save jobs. Providing the bailout to the automakers was the height of folly, and Congress will again bail out Chrysler and General Motors in a futile attempt to curry favor with automakers and unions that cannot and will not adapt to current economic realities. Ford has thus far avoided taking any federal monies, and if I were in the market for a car, I would seriously consider them on that basis.

Without Reading, Congressional Democrats Ram Through Porkfest

There's no other way you can describe this mess. The Democrats own this porkfest that will cost trillions of dollars going forward, not the $789 billion price tag that Democrats and the media are spinning. These are commitments to spend that amount and don't include the interest and inflationary pressures that this massive porkfest will bring.

It undermines market determinations of salary, which is a populist move by Congress and one that many Democrats think didn't go far enough in limiting executive compensation (Rep. Barney Frank D-economic illiterate, I'm talking to you). It is a socialist move to limit compensation and one where the government dictates how much you can make.

For all the talk about how this mess provides tax relief to millions of taxpayers, the sad truth is that states and localities have already spoken for the $400-$800 and more through tax hikes. In New York and New Jersey, reductions or eliminations of property tax relief mean that taxpayers are going to see government demand hundreds or thousands more than the pittance Obama provides. It is a shell game.

Things were close in the Senate where the White House had to fly in Sen. Sherrod Brown from his mother's wake to cast the deciding vote.

The Senate finally adopted the bill at 10:47 p.m. after what appeared to be the longest Congressional vote in history. The peculiar 5-hour 17-minute process was required because Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, had to return to Washington from his home state after attending a funeral home visitation for his mother, who died Feb. 2.

Under a procedural deal between the parties, the bill needed 60 votes to pass. The vote began at 5:30 p.m., but from 7:07 p.m., when Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, cast his “aye,” the tally hung at 59 to 38, until Mr. Brown arrived.

Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill on Monday.

Among the senators voting against it was Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, who withdrew this week as the president’s nominee for commerce secretary.

Despite the bill’s promise of increased unemployment benefits and new health care subsidies, as well as more than $100 billion in aid for states, House Republicans did not break rank. Even those from states hit hardest by the recession opposed the bill, in a rebuke of the new president.

During the debate, the Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, angrily dropped the 1,073-page bill text to the floor with a thump, as he accused Democrats of failing to read the legislation.

It is curious though that the New York Times admits that the tax cuts are fast acting, while the overwhelming majority of the bill is going to take far longer to have an effect on the economy:

The $787 billion plan — a combination of fast-acting tax cuts and longer-term government spending on public works projects, education, health care, energy and technology — was smaller than Democrats first proposed.

The reason this bill ended up smaller was because the Democrats cut more from the tax relief than they did from the pork portion of the bill.

That's right folks, the one area that the Times admits would cause immediate benefit was cut by the Democrats to get the price of this mess down. The Democrats are economic illiterates and even the Times is forced to notice.

And no one who voted on this mess actually read it. They voted like lemmings to show that they are doing something about the recession (which has happened before and will happen again as a natural cycle of economic growth and contraction) but have gone on to produce the most expensive piece of legislation in world history - outspending even the Manhattan Project and the New Deal. The 111th Congress shall live in infamy, not that they care since all of their pork dreams have been realized, including Harry Reid's billions for a high speed rail project between California and Las Vegas.

Of course, the media will call this a major victory for Obama, even though claims of bipartisanship went out the window and has provided the GOP with the means to reclaim seats in 2010 because of the fiscally irresponsible pork-laced "stimulus". Obama too shall live in infamy for his economic disaster foisted upon the nation.

Economy Rebounding Without Stimulus Package In Place?

New employment and retail sales figures suggest that the worst may have passed and that the economy is starting to work its way out of the recession without any government action - and that includes the $790 billion porkfest (1,434 pages in total!)

That's right.

Retail sales were up in January and unemployment claims dropped in January, both defying expectations.

Of course, none of this matters to the Obama Administration and Democrats, who are pushing for still more packages that will redistribute still more wealth beyond the very troubling porkfest "stimulus" package. Never mind that the stimulus package - the most expensive piece of legislation ever considered by Congress - may be instituted after the worst of the recession is over, but we'll be paying for the costs of those programs for generations to come.

It's also not stopping the Democrats from pushing still more profligate spending. Their latest plan calls for buying up distressed mortgages and reselling them to the borrowers who were unable to pay them.

Under the proposal, the government would draw on $50 billion in funds already approved for the financial bailout to buy up millions of mortgages at a discount. A $300,000 mortgage on a house now worth $200,000, for example, might be bought at a 30 percent discount.

The homeowner then would be able to refinance the smaller mortgage with lower monthly payments. The government could then sell the loan back to investors, freeing money to buy more loans.

The new approach could eliminate one of the biggest roadblocks that has stymied the government efforts to buy up so-called “toxic assets” that are clogging the financial system. Trading in these securities — backed by thousands of loans — has all but shut down because banks, investors and potential buyers are unable to predict their future value. But individual loans are much easier to value, making government purchases more practical, according to the plan’s proponents.

We've been down this road before, and 60% of those borrowers who had their terms renegotiated under the last homeowner bailout found themselves right back in the same situation just months later.

Lower home values make the properties more attractive and affordable to qualified buyers. That's the key term - qualified buyers. Far too many homeowners are not qualified buyers because they simply do not have the income to support such loans and borrowing. That's how we got into this mess in the first place. In the desire to chase after higher homeownership, lending standards were relaxed and lawsuits pressuring lenders to provide terms to those who didn't have qualifications to borrow forced banks to make bad judgments. Throw in some predatory lending for those folks who didn't understand what they were getting themselves into, and it was a recipe for disaster the moment the housing market bubble burst and prices starting dropping.

Still, the amount of pork in the stimulus package is astounding, but so is the blatant spending by none other than Harry Reid, who got billions inserted into the package to pay for a high speed rail connection between Las Vegas and California. Reid is the US Senator from Nevada. Never mind that he continues to block the opening of the nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain, which would enable nuclear power plants to safely store nuclear waste in a secure facility and provide a jump start to the nuclear industry to build a new generation of power plants that do not require fossil fuels and the emissions that go along with them. He's all about the pork and what he can bring home to his constituents, little of which will actually result in spending during the current fiscal year when it is most needed.

Has anyone in Congress actually read this monstrosity, let alone knows what it contains? The summaries of bills this size can be books unto themselves, and yet Congress is going to probably vote within hours.

This is government spending to grow government at the expense of the private sector. So much for doing things right and being responsible with my money.

It pays to be irresponsible.

Perks of Power

The New York Times has a nice report about how the NYS State Senate Republicans larded up the pork for their friends and cohorts, reveling in their position.

Democrats took control of the State Senate last month after more than four decades of Republican rule, then set out to determine how the Senate’s own budget of nearly $100 million and its attendant perks were being distributed.

They are still trying to figure it out.

They recently realized there are some 75 employees working at the Senate’s own printing plant, a plain brick building on the outskirts of Albany. On Long Island, they found a small television studio, which had been set up — all with public money, with two press aides on hand to help operate it — for the exclusive use of Republican senators to record cable TV shows.

Democrats also came across what they are calling the “Brunomobile,” a $50,000 specially outfitted GMC van, with six leather captain’s chairs (some swiveling), a navigation system, rearview camera and meeting table. Joseph L. Bruno, the former Senate majority leader who was recently indicted on corruption charges, traveled in the van after his use of state helicopters sparked a feud with the Spitzer administration.

Then there are the parking spots, always at a premium near the Capitol. Democrats had been given roughly one spot per senator — there were 30 Democrats last year — and guessed there were perhaps double or even triple that controlled by the majority. Instead, they have learned, there are more than 800.

And Democratic leaders must determine what to do about 45 workers toiling away in a building close to the Capitol who appear to have been engaged in quasi-political research for the Republicans.

It's true.

They did spend quite a bit on pork and the perks of being the party in power for decades. That's taxpayer dollars wasted on pork barrel projects and programs designed to maintain the political status quo.

Here's my problem.

Why didn't the New York Times do anything to uncover any of this use and abuse of our taxpayer dollars before the Senate changed hands from the GOP to Democrat control this year? These are longstanding issues - some going back decades, and yet only now the Times is getting its story?

One has to wonder what the Times could uncover if it bothered to check out what the Assembly Democrats have concocted for decades, given that they have held on to that chamber for as long as the Senate Republicans held on to that chamber.

Albany is an equal opportunity porkfest and given how until this year the legislature was split between Democrat Assembly and Republican Senate, both legislative leaders (Speaker Shelly Silver and until last year Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno) were signing off on the spending for both chambers and the larded up porkfest that are called member items.

The press covering Albany has been lackluster in showing just how the state spends our money and wastes our money on such perks of power.

Porkfest Heads To Conference Committee as Markets Tank; UPDATE: Done Deal

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the stock markets tanked after President Obama's speech gave little hope that the porkfest passing its way through Congress will work and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's press conference yesterday only solidified the fact that the Obama Administration doesn't have a clue what to do and that they're simply using the shotgun approach to "save" the economy. It shouldn't surprise anyone that stocks around the world also dropped after hearing about the Obama and Geithner plans and defenses of massive government spending.

They are continuing to use fear and intimidation to get passage of a stimulus package that economists believe will do little, if anything, to stimulate the economy during the current fiscal year, but which will saddle generations of Americans to come with huge debt.

Geithner's latest TARP proposals didn't win any converts either, as the markets reacted negatively.


As for the porkfest, it now heads to conference committee and good way to keep track of what the key differences are between the House and Senate versions. My expectation is that the solution to the differences will not be to take the item that costs lower, but to include the higher amounts. This bloated grabtastic porkfest will cost future generations billions in carrying costs that they can ill afford, and no one expects this porkfest to actually stimulate anything other than an increase in government spending and size.

Obama deserves quite a bit of the blame for this mess, as he didn't demand a structured and coherent bill from Congress. Instead, Congressional Democrats rammed through a highly partisan and incoherent wish list of pet projects and program spending that is wholly unrelated to actually stimulating anything other than government growth and power at the expense of the private sector and individual liberties.

President Obama's communication skills need a vast improvement if he was attempting to sell this pork to the public. The markets started tanking yesterday even before Geithner spoke, which relates to how the markets responded to Obama's speech the night before. Geithner's plan was skewered by the experts on Wall Street, who found it to be incoherent despite the fact that all the players involved know what the issues are and have been confronting them for weeks. Geithner's solution is to throw still more money at the problem and hope it works. Some reports suggest that the Geithner plan may run as high as $3 trillion.

That's the whole solution proffered by the Democrats - throw money at the problem and demand that the government solve things, when all it does is stifle the private sector and the private sector responds by cutting investment and spending as it entrenches to ride out the storm.

Some see this latest plan as nothing less than the nationalization of banks and shareholders don't want to be left holding a worthless bag, so they were dumping stock left and right yesterday. There's a reason that banks have tightened lending standards - they don't want to repeat the same mistakes made that got everyone into this mess in the first place - lax lending standards pushed onto the industry by Congress who wanted affordable housing and easy credit for everyone, including those who were not credit worthy.

The new Treasury plan continues to put most of the emphasis on pushing banks to make more loans to over-indebted consumers, homeowners and firms. Unlike last year, however, Geithner now believes, "Our policies must be designed to mobilize and leverage private capital, not to supplant or discourage private capital. When government investment is necessary, it should be replaced with private capital as soon as possible."

That's a laudable goal - but contradictory. In reality, government capital replaces ("crowds out") private capital, leaving taxpayers holding a bigger and bigger bag. Call that nationalization by default.

Under the new and old TARP schemes, the mere threat of incremental nationalization of banks and insurance companies will always "supplant and discourage private capital." You could watch it happening while Geithner spoke - as investors rudely pushed bank stocks down sharply. (An "ultra short" exchange-trade fund that bets heavily against financial stocks (SKF) was up 15 percent by the end of his talk and 18 percent at closing.)

Now, these same banks that were burnt by the toxic paper crisis are looking to avoid the situation, but Geithner's plan wants the banks to open the spigots once again on lending. It wants to support and expand the very kinds of lending that led us to this very costly solution to solve the affordable housing issue.

Obama's solution is to assure that affordable housing and easy credit remains available. People who sought and received mortgage modifications under last year's bailouts are now back in line demanding more assistance and bailouts.

These are people who should have never been extended the credit to buy in the first place, but are now facing a situation that requires either the banks to eat the losses or the foreclosure of properties. Never mind that the foreclosed properties provide a good opportunity for those who have good credit and can afford the now truly affordable housing now that the housing bubble has burst in many parts of the country.

Here's a memo to Geithner and the Obama Administration. Even if the banks were to open up lending to everyone, they can't do so in a timely fashion because everyone cut staff as the real estate market crashed and the toxic paper crisis hit the mortgage industry hard. There aren't enough staff on hand to process all the mortgages and refinancing in the pipeline as it is. I had to wait nearly a month longer than anticipated before closing on a refinancing because the bank wasn't able to process it any faster.

Easy credit got us into this mess, and easier credit isn't going to get us out of this mess. Restraint on government spending (certainly not evidenced by the porkfest stimulus package) - targeted government spending can help, but assuring the private sector that the government will get out of the way will free up more capital for use in investment, growth, and jobs. Why should any business throw its own money into creating jobs when they're expecting that the government will do it for them?

The Obama Administration continues to take the wrong lessons from past recessions and doubled down on government spending, which will have disastrous consequences for all Americans for years to come.

UPDATE:
That was quick. The Conference Committee has managed to reconcile the two versions, and the plan is now supposedly below $800 billion. They didn't cut the spending, but instead limited quite a few of tax cuts offered, including one put forth by Obama. Nice.

As far as bipartisanship is concerned, only three GOPers are involved in the process in any way, shape, or form - Sen. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snows, and Susan Collins. This is a Democratic show, and it's a farce. They've spent a few hours coming up with this mess, and it's going to cost Americans dearly.

Fear Is the Mind Killer

It's quite instructive to see how President Obama is using fear to demand passage of the porkfest "stimulus" package that will not deliver stimulus in a timely fashion. It isn't even a focused effort. Obama is using a shotgun approach and hoping that something hits that he can hang his hat on to show that this mess has done something to stimulate the economy, even though it is a government stimulus package.

This is so fundamentally different than what FDR did during the Great Depression, when Roosevelt realistically portrayed the economy and focused on the positives to induce spending and growth and economic development. Roosevelt sought to avoid panic, while Obama is describing the situation as catastrophic when it is not the case.

Obama is going in the completely opposite direction by warning of far more catastrophic damage to the economy if the stimulus and TARP 2, the wrath of TARP, doesn't come to pass.

Failing to act may lead to a catastrophe. So, what will acting in a grossly irresponsible and fiscally harmful manner do?

It will make it worse. That's what the CBO says.

Yet, we're supposed to believe that the recession will get worse unless we not only go through with porkfest 2009, but TARP 2, the wrath of TARP, and a player to be named later.

That's at least $2 trillion in spending that Obama wants to unleash without one care what it does to the economy. His only support for such massive spending is the fear of doing nothing, even though experts believe that this recession will end later this year even without any stimulus package.

We have examples of what massive government spending and irresponsible policy have wrought. It's called Japan from the 1980s onwards. They've had a crummy economy for years on end because the government stuck its piehole where it didn't belong, and the private sector suffered horribly for it. Of course, Obama claims that the Japanese government failed in its stimulus package because it didn't sufficiently spend enough money. By that reasoning, even the amounts Obama is talking about aren't going to be enough, and he will demand more.

That's why we're hearing Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner talk about the need for yet another TARP bailout package, which may cost another $1 trillion.

We're going to repeat that same mistake, except Obama hopes that his presence will change things. I've reported on such nonsense before - it's what socialists and Marxists say every time they get their hands on the engines of economy. They will change things and make them right, and all they succeed in doing is destroying economies and causing untold misery.

It's what happened in Zimbabwe. It's what is happening in Venezuela and a whole laundry list of countries around the world who suffered under the socialist delusions that this time - with the right people in charge - socialism will prevail.

Obama's politics and those of the Democrats are expanding government like never before and it undermines the market system and your liberty and freedoms. It puts the federal government in greater control over the economy in ways never before envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and in ways that even FDR would never have contemplated.

UPDATE:
And the Senate Democrats, plus Republicans Collins, Snowe, and Specter, have now gone and thrown its lot in with the trillion dollar porkfest. The final vote was 61-37 approving this nonsense. It's no wonder that the markets are tanking.

Not only did Tim Geithner's little talk about TARP 2 sound the wrong message, but the markets reacted in a bad way.

The markets had been looking for an outcome because they want certainty. They've gotten it. The markets will certainly continue trending down because the porkfest will suck the life out of the private sector.

UPDATE:
Fear is the economy killer. At no time in the past 60 years has the government solution to a recession been a multitrillion dollar plan that is unaffordable and pork-laden. Yet, the Democrats continue pushing the meme that this is the worst crisis in history, and can top the Great Depression unless immediate action is taken.

The statistics tell a different tale.

Porktastic! Compromise Reached On Pork Stimulus Package

Even Jimmy Dean would be offended by the offal Congress is ramming through without so much consideration and deliberation as one should expect on a bill that is expected to cost over $1 trillion when all is said and done.

The fact is that no one even knows what the final tally is for the bill. The House version was passed with $819 billion. The Senate version claims to spend $780 billion. The media reports that a "bipartisan group" managed to "cut" more than $100 billion in add-ons to the bill that Senators added, but that group was mostly Republicans who wanted to cut the amount by hundreds of billions below the House level; they failed miserably given that there is so much pork and so little stimulus in this bill.

In fact, all the money being peeled off the bill now will likely be reinserted in the conference version once the Senate passes its version of the porkfest. In other words, the bill will grow from the House version.

Make no doubt, the Democrats have the votes to pass this without the need for a single Republican. They want Republican cover so they can claim bipartisanship, but the 60 votes they claim necessary is only to avoid a filibuster on a vote of cloture to bring the bill up for a vote on the floor. That's the only weapon the GOP has left to stem the tide on this mess, and I don't see them doing it, even though it would be prudent of them to do so if only to go line by line and delete hundreds of billions of pork and unwarranted add-ons that should rightfully belong in standard appropriations bills.

Yet, that cloture vote is so close that they need to get Ted Kennedy off his sickbed to cast what could be the deciding ballot.

The Congressional Budget Office figures that this bill is a porkfest that will lead to much woe down the road, but it is a stimulus package. It's a government stimulus package, since government will grow by leaps and bounds while the private sector continues to shrink under the weight the government.

Porkfest 2008: Democrats Need GOP To Provide Cover

The porkfest that the media continues to call a stimulus package, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the money in the sprawling $825 billion ($1.1 trillion when all costs are factored in) applies most of the money in the years following when most experts believe the recession to end.

In fact, most experts believe that the recession will end by the end of this year, without any need for further stimulus. Throwing down hundreds of billions of dollars in money that the nation doesn't have will not solve the problem, but the Democrats keep urging the GOP to sign on board with this nonsense.

Democrats can own the porkfest all on their lonesome. They don't need GOP votes to make it happen. They do need GOP votes to get cover when things don't work out as planned. The GOP shouldn't oblige them as they did on the original TARP legislation, that ended up passing because the Democrats larded up that mess with pork. That's the solution to the mess to secure votes; pork it up.

Here's my advice to the GOP. You want to show that you're fiscally responsible? Here's how to do it.

Demand that the stimulus bill drop all spending that doesn't come within the fiscal year that ends in October. If the spending occurs in 2010, 2011, or 2012 or beyond, it gets dropped. If it isn't directly on infrastructure improvements, it gets dropped.

You want to see how quickly the $825 billion ($1.1 trillion once interest and added costs are figured in) drops to something in the range of $80 billion?

That's how to do it. The GOP should introduce their own legislation that takes only those items that actually result in infrastructure and stimulus to the economy within the next nine months. Everything else gets dropped. Show the public just what a fiscally responsible bill looks like. Shame the Democrats (I know, that's pretty well impossible to do, but most Americans will start to realize the mess the Democrats are about to make).

The Democrats got their wish list out and they're demanding that the GOP go along with it. Why? Out of bipartisanship? Hardly. There's nothing bipartisan about it. It is a laundry list of out of control government spending that will not assist in economic recovery, and it's not even likely that that spending occuring during the current year will bring about the end of the recession; lowering taxes and providing incentives for businesses to grow will spur the economy into a recovery. Government spending will retard and delay the recovery. History has shown this to be the case, and yet the Democrats want to use the opportunity to expand government into areas that it has repeatedly shown itself to be wanting - health care in particular.

Enough is enough.

UPDATE:
The fecklessness of the Democrats knows no bounds. On top of the porkfest, the Obama Administration is calling for 10% cut in defense spending. Amazing. He's going to undermine the nation's national security to ensure that billions get spent on programs that have been abject failures for decades.