Republicans Filibuster Stimulus Plan

The Senate Democrats have crafted a stimulus package of their own, ignoring for the moment the bill passed by the House. Their bill, which passed out of committee yesterday, has an additional $30 Billion in spending over 2 years. The Senate Republicans reacted in the only way they know how. They filibustered it.

According to the New York Times:

Senate Democratic leaders said on Thursday that they were short of the 60 votes needed to advance a $161 billion economic stimulus package toward approval in the Senate.

Why do they need 60 votes?

Sixty votes are needed under Senate rules to shut off debate on a measure and move to consideration of the measure itself, a step known as cloture. Without cloture, opponents of a Senate bill would be able to prolong the debate indefinitely.

So the Republicans have decided that they don't want to vote on the bill, probably because they know it would pass, and they can't have that. How would it look for the Democrats to be able to gloat that they were able to pass a bill to help Americans in this time of crisis? (I'm not arguing that it would help, that's just what the Dems would claim.) And in an election year, at that.

Plus, the Republicans see this as an opportunity to gain ground in a completely unrelated fight --Bush's illegal wiretapping.

They also said that they had yet to reach agreement on extending the Bush administration’s terrorism surveillance program, which Republican leaders have set as a condition for allowing the stimulus bill to move ahead.

Why won't the Republicans stop with the partisan politics long enough to work with the Democrats in giving the economy a much-needed boost? Why must they constantly put party concerns above all else? Why won't they allow the stimulus bill to receive an up-or-down vote, like they were crying about over and over the one time the Dems blocked a judicial appoinment (or maybe it was two times)?

State Of The Onion

This thing is like an onion: the more layers you peel, the more it stinks! (George Costanza)

I didn't watch President George's final State Of The Union address. I can handle only so much bullshit at one time, and Bush's SOTU typically exceeds my threshold in a minute and a half. However, since I like to stay informed, I try to read the transcript. Here's how last night's address began:

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum. In that time, our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined. We faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens. These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it's fair to say we've answered the call.

Look at that, not even a minute in and already I'm past my limit in BS.

They've answered the call for vigorous debate. That's the claim he made. Hmm... Maybe I'm just not remembering things the same way he is.

Cheney's energy task force: met in secret with industry insiders, stonewalled attempts to gain access to the notes, defied orders from federal judges to release the notes, and finally the Supreme Court refused to rule on the matter (big shock there) and sent it back to the appeals court, which decided that Cheney's secrets can remain in the closet, for now.

Iraq War: There's so much on this topic, I'm only going to point out one. George Bush said this in July of '03,

We gave him (Saddam Hussein) a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.

Which is funny, because according to Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspection team, the opposite was true. On January 27, 2003 (before the war started,) Hans said this in a report to the UN:

For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the secretary-general and Arab states and pressure by the United States and other member states that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.

And this:

The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] (sic) problems.

That example is typical of the "debate" that was had during the lead up to the Iraq invasion. All evidence that contradicted the plan was ignored and the machine marched forward undaunted.

You may argue that those things are ancient history, that Bush is all about open dialog now. In fact, George made a statement about that in the SOTU:

Let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time.

He seems to have glossed over the part where the Republicans in the Senate have set the record for the most filibusters in a single session. And that they set that record in the first year, where every previous record took two.

Is that the kind of vigorous debate he's talking about, the kind where you knee-jerk block every move by your opponent rather than discussing things and voting on them? Where you decide what you're going to do and then ignore any input that doesn't toe the line? Where the absolute worst thing you could possibly do is change your course of action, no matter how obvious it becomes that you're driving toward a cliff?

Maybe somebody needs to whisper into W's ear-piece just what the word "debate" actually means.

See? This is why I don't watch the SOTU.

This One Should Be In The Bag

This is a chart of the responses to one of the exit/entrance poll questions asked at each primary/caucus. The question is "what is the most important issue?" I don't have the exact wording of the question, but all of the data was taken from the CNN election site. (Click on image to see full-size.)



In every state, with the exception of Iowa's Republicans, the main issue has been the economy. The Iraq war has been pushed down to second or even third place (except for the Iowa Democrats.) Typically, this would mean one thing: A Democrat in the White House in January of 2009. All they have to do is ask the right question, namely "are you better off financially after 8 years of a Republican president than you were after 8 years of a Democratic president?"

For the vast majority of Americans, the answer to that question is "no."

After 7+ years of Bushonomics, the election almost wins itself for the Democrats. Even Bush's bribe, I mean "stimulus package," shouldn't be enough to save his party. However, having observed the Democratic party screw up one thing after another over the past 8 years, coupled with the "voting irregularities" that always seem to benefit the Republicans, the coming election is anything but decided.

Which is unfortunate, because if we get stuck with another puppet whose strings are pulled by an America-hating ideologue like Cheney, then this country is truly up shit creek. It's going to take a long time to undo all of the damage that the Bush regime has done, and we need to start on January 20, 2009. I only hope that the Democrats can figure out how to effectively use the one issue that should guarantee them (and us) a victory in November.

I Must Have A Different Definition Of "Stimulus"

As I mentioned in my previous post, Bush's economic stimulus package of 2001 had no noticeable effect on the economy. The $300 "rebates" sent to individuals didn't get spent, the tax incentives for business didn't spur investment. Now, word has come down that there is a tentative agreement over this year's stimulus package.

It will be comprised of a $300-$1200 "rebate" for people, and tax incentives for business.

Wow. I can only imagine how the conversation in Congress went.

Republicans: "Hey, remember that thing we tried seven years ago that didn't do squat to help the economy? Let's do that again!"

Democrats: "Nah. Let's try new stuff like expanding unemployment benefits and boosting food stamp programs."

Republicans: "Old ideas are better than new ideas."

Democrats: "But old ideas failed. New ideas might succeed."

Republicans: "We're afraid of new things."

Democrats: "You're right. Let's try the old crappy ideas that didn't do any good last time, because we're a bunch of spineless turds who don't like to cause any trouble for the bullies who might be the minority party but are still calling the shots."

And thus we have another plan from Congress that allows Bush to claim victory but won't actually do anything useful.

Bravo.

Bush Can Keep His Freaking $800

In 2001, The Commander Guy decided that the economy needed a jump-start in order to avoid a recession. His plan was to offer a so-called tax rebate of $300 to $600 per household, with the stated reason being that people would spend the money and thus make everything rosy once more.

There was one problem: Bush was wrong.

Surprising as it is, the 2001 "rebate" had only a minor effect on economic stimulus, according to this from Christopher L. House, Matthew D. Shapiro and Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan’s economics department:

Direct evidence on consumption and investment spending in response to the tax changes suggests that these policies provided only modest stimulus.

...

Official statistics reflect ... that most of the rebate was saved. Specifically, personal saving jumped in 2001 by precisely the amount suggested by the survey results. Since they were mainly saved, the 2001 advanced payments provided little stimulus.

They go on to say that the portion of the 2001 stimulus package that gave business owners tax breaks on certain investments were of little help, as well:

Because the policy was narrowly targeted, because equipment investment is only about 8% of the economy, and because investment incentives squeeze out consumption spending, the aggregate effects of bonus depreciation were modest.

Bush's 2001 "rebate" was coupled with his tax cuts. Reagan believed that giving tax cuts to the richest Americans would cause them to spend more on business investments, thus creating a "trickle-down" effect of more jobs for the middle class. George H.W. Bush referred to this as "voodoo economics." Our current President, however, has sided with Reagan in this debate. Of his tax cuts, House, Shapiro and Slemrod say:

Most of the tax cuts went to high-income taxpayers, who tend to bank additional income rather than spend it. The most promising element was a tax rebate of up to $600 sent to almost all taxpayers even before they had filed tax returns. But a study by Shapiro and Slemrod found that only about one-quarter of rebate recipients actually spent the money. Most was saved or used to pay down debt and thus did little to boost demand. And taxpayers faced a lot of confusion in reconciling the advance payments with their actual taxes due when they filed tax returns.

The one thing that irked me the most about Bush's "rebate" was that it wasn't a rebate at all. It was an advance on expected tax refunds. By coincidence, 2001 was the first year that I actually owed money on my return. Also a coincidence, I owed just over $300. So if President George wants to send me an $800 advance on next year's return, I say he can keep it.

Huckabee Admits He Hates America

One of the principle tenets of the United States is that we do not have an official religion. The right to freedom of religion (and by extension, freedom from religion) is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Mike Huckabee doesn't like that. Doesn't like that at all. He feels that what America needs to be, rather than a democratic republic, is a theocracy. Specifically, a Christian theocracy. He wants to change the Constitution, which doesn't mention God anywhere, "so it's in God's standards." (See Raw Story article here.)

So Huckabee has finally admitted what I think we've all known for a while. He is hostile to the Constitution and wants to override it to conform to his religious views. Hopefully enough of the American public understands what a threat he is to our liberties that his candidacy fades away shortly after Super Tuesday.

This Isn't The Change I Was Looking For

The health care system in America needs to be fixed. Ask any of the leading candidates for president and they will tell you the same. Their approach to fixing the problem, though, is considerably different, depending on their party affiliation. It almost goes without saying that the Democrats have a better plan. However, what they don't have is a liberal plan.

Each of the three Democratic front-runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) have the same plan. They want to issue tax credits to help us pay for our private insurance. They want to offer us the same menu of plans to choose from that Congress has. (That must have fared well with the focus groups, because all of a sudden, they're all saying it.) The problem with this, of course, is that throwing tax dollars at a broken system isn't going to fix it. It's simply going to transfer more money from the middle class into the pockets of the insurance industry.

Sound familiar? It's the same plan that Governor Schwarzenegger has for California, which I ranted about back in December. What we're seeing is the Democratic party shifting further to the right. Is it a coincidence that no matter which of the likely candidates gets the nomination, we're going to have a Democrat who wants to help the insurance industry get paid?

As for the Republicans, there's a little more variety, but it all pretty much boils down to a few standard conservative principles. Reduce regulation, reduce the burden on industry, leave the consumers to fend for themselves.

A few intersting notes: On McCain's site, under the header "John McCain Believes in Personal Responsibility" he says:

Public health initiatives must be undertaken with all our citizens to stem the growing epidemic of obesity and diabetes, and to deter smoking.

Personal responsibility in the form of the Nanny State?

I'd comment on Huckabee's plan, but he doesn't have any details on his site, only vague platitudes about lower costs, more control, and blah blah blah.

Mitt Romney doesn't get into any specifics, either. He does offer something the other Repubs do not, a gross misrepresentation of the Democratic plans.

Democrats believe that the solution to these problems is a one-size-fits-all, government-run, socialized health care system — a course that threatens medical progress and restricts free markets. They think that government can do a better job of choosing a doctor and making better health care decisions than individual Americans can.

As I point out, none of the Democratic front-runners is offering "socialized" health care. And when has any Democrat ever said that the government should be picking people's doctors or making their health care decisions? Romney is either ignorant of the shift of the Dems toward the center, or he is a big fat liar who is counting on his potential supporters being ignorant.

The irritating part is that none of the likely nominees from either party has any real interest in fixing the system. The Democrats want to give tax credits for insurance premiums over a certain amount (percent of income, for example.) They want to give people a choice of private insurance plans to choose from. What they don't want to do is actually address the real problem, which is that the private insurance industry was designed to benefit one group: the private insurance industry.

And of course, the Republicans only want to help big business at the expense of the middle class and the poor. No real shock there.

Unfortunately, that leaves the majority of Americans on the short end of the stick. In Europe and elsewhere, health care is seen as a basic right. In America, it's seen as a profit center for major campaign contributors and lobbyists. Until that changes, we're stuck every four years voting for the "lesser of two evils," instead of someone who can make a real difference.

The Not-So-Fair Tax

When Mike Huckabee won the Republican Caucus in Iowa last week, a cheer went up from one particular fringe group: the Americans For Fair Taxation. They proclaimed that "The Fair Tax Wins In Iowa!" I've heard Huckabee mention the "Fair" Tax before, so I decided to investigate.

The "Fair" Tax would eliminate the payroll taxes that most Americans have deducted from their checks. Personal income tax and social security taxes would no longer be withheld. More interestingly, the "Fair" Tax would eliminate taxes such as the estate tax, gift tax, capital gains tax and all commercial real-estate transaction taxes. My assumption going in was that the "Fair" Tax was a scheme to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and poor, and it appears that the primary goal is to create a system where wealthy people can accumulate wealth without paying taxes on it, and then pass it along to their heirs without them having to pay taxes on it.

I wanted to do a thorough evaluation of the "Fair" Tax, but there is so much to it that I'd have to dedicate all of my time to deciphering the reports that the Americans For Fair Taxation have paid to have produced. Instead, I chose one claim that struck me as particularly dubious and decided to look into it.

One of the things mentioned over and over in the literature is that the "Fair" Tax is progressive. They claim that they have worked in a way to make it less of a burden on poor people, as opposed to a standard flat tax, which would disproportionately target the lower income brackets. The way they fix it is to send everyone a check once a month, equal to the 1/12th of the "Fair" Tax payments on purchases up to the poverty level. A single person, for example, would get a check for about $196 per month. That way, nobody is paying taxes on life's necessities, or so they claim.

I wondered how it could be that a sales tax that would produce a 30% increase in the cost of all goods and services that people buy (excluding "used" items) could possibly be a larger burden on the wealthy. So I checked out one of the reports that the "Fair" Tax people paid for, titled "A Distributional Analysis of Adopting the FairTax." What I found was not very surprising at all.

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of people know that." -Homer Simpson

From page 4 of the report:

We argue that current expenditure is a better measure of an individual’s well-being than current income. This is because current expenditure is more closely related to lifetime income than is current income and is less subject to temporary shocks. Current expenditure is also a better measure of wealth, since people may live off their savings while undergoing a temporary drop in income. Therefore, we conclude that the FairTax, with the prebate, is more progressive than the current tax law.

There, in a nutshell, is how the "Fair" Tax crowd can claim their plan is progressive. If you spend more money, your "well being" is greater than if you spend less money. (Would anyone other than the rich come up with that?) By their logic, if you take two people who each earn $50,000 per year, the one whose expenditures are $70,000 per year is twice as well off as the one whose expenditures are $35,000 per year. Magical conservathink. Spend yourself into debt to be better off.

On page 19 of the report, in section IV. Distribution on a per Capita Basis, there is an interesting finding:

As noted before, even people in the poorest income per capita deciles have relatively high levels of expenditure per capita. The introduction of the FairTax would not favor these people; they would gain little from the abolition of taxes on income (because their incomes are low), but would pay the FairTax (because their expenditures are substantial), as shown in column (M). This effect is attenuated when the dynamic expenditure-expanding effects of the FairTax are taken into account, but the poorest half of the population (as measured by income per capita) would be worse off due to the FairTax. A similar conclusion emerges from an examination of the pattern of income per capita, shown in columns (Q) through (V) in Table 9. [Emphasis Added.]

So the group's own report states flat out that when you look at the numbers on the basis of income rather than expenditures, the "Fair" Tax actually hurts the poorest half of the population. How is that progressive, again?

And then, to perhaps water down the bitter taste from the report's conclusion, they add:

Note the very low average income of those in the poorest income per capita decile – just $1,243 in 2001 – which is surely a poor measure of the well-being of this group of the population.

Because really, how could you judge someone's well-being by the fact that they live in abject poverty? As long as they're spending lots, then they're A-OK.

If A Caucus Voter Fell In The Woods...

What if you threw a party and nobody showed up?

Wyoming, in an effort to become relevant, decided to move their Republican caucus up ahead of everyone else (thus becoming the new Iowa, perhaps.) Unfortunately, they didn't count on Iowa's determination to remain Iowa, or New Hampshire's determination to remain New Hampshire. Both of those states moved their primaries up to compensate, leaving Wyoming sandwiched in between.

So what happens when you're a nobody who tries to sneak a seat at the popular kids' table? You tend to get ignored.

According to an AP story, "Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul have passed through [Wyoming] since September. Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have not."

It's a bad sign when only one of the viable candidates passes through your state. In fact, the candidates seem to have headed to New Hampshire after last night's results were known and speeches were made. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that Wyoming simply isn't ready for Prime Time, no matter how early their caucus is held.