DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - The decline of USA: Is Obama up to the challenge?

**FloareTraurne** · 01-28-2009, 05:35 PM

Obama should reconsider bloated stimulus package
More targeted spending could benefit U.S. economy
By U.S. REP. KEVIN BRADY
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

President Barack Obama met with House Republicans Tuesday. We urged him to seriously rethink the bloated $816 billion economic stimulus bill that is being rushed through the House this week as lobbyists swarm the Capitol to secure their piece of the ever-growing stimulus pie.

As much as we hope a stimulus bill will work, the economic reality is that they rarely do. Since World War II, Congress has enacted at least eight economic stimulus measures. The economic impact, what little could be directly attributed to them, typically came well after the recessions were effectively over. However well-intended the latest attempt is, economists are sounding the alarm it will miss the mark as well. In fact, it may do more harm than good as middle class families and small businesses ultimately shoulder the higher taxes needed to pay for this spending spree.

Not only does this bill fail to meet the president’s goal of “temporary, targeted and timely,” much of it sets permanently higher spending levels for federal and state governments. It gets worse. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates a mere one-fifth will be spent this year, when the economy needs it the most. How timely is that?

There is a lot of frivolous spending in this bill. I can’t find an economist anywhere who will admit that contraceptives, zoo exhibits and repairs to the Jefferson Memorial are serious economic boosts.

While stimulus measures tend to be more of a political than economic benefit, this one puts more money into buying new art than tax incentives to help small businesses invest in new computers, equipment and machines. Even the much touted investment in roads and highway infrastructure is a mere 3.5 percent of the total bill. School construction is also being touted as a major benefit, but only $14 billion of the $100 billion in education spending is for building new elementary and secondary schools —___ which is a state and local responsibility anyway.

Workers, meanwhile, get to keep on average a meager $1.35 more a day of their money, which won’t send families rushing to the mall. Yet their government spends in this bill, with interest, an amount almost equal to all the personal income taxes paid by Americans annually. In other words, paying for this stimulus would require nearly doubling all income taxes for one year — not just on “the wealthy,” but on all taxpayers.

Our country’s deficit this year will be the highest in peacetime since 1930. As horrible as we Republicans were about controlling spending, in just two years congressional Democrats will have generated deficits greater than the first six years of the Bush administration. When the stimulus is added in, America will be left to beg the rest of the world for nearly $3 trillion in Treasury notes over the next year just as finance experts are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the international view of the dollar.

If the political winds insist “we do something,” there is a better idea. A smaller, more targeted stimulus could replace the minuscule $1.35 a day work credit with a real reduction in the two lowest tax brackets. That way a two-earner working family could keep up to $3,200 a year of its hard-earned money. If we give small businesses with less than 500 workers a 20 percent income tax deduction, they can keep good employees on the payroll and make much needed investments in equipment. Without the pork and state bailouts, we can create a $7,500 housing tax credit for new and existing homes to help stabilize that critical market.

Since there is no such thing as free money, someone is eventually going to have to pay for all of this. I am urging the president to assure the American people that taxes will not have to be raised to pay for all this new spending. Instead, Congress should be directed to seek an end to wasteful spending in Washington, to sunset obsolete agencies, eliminate duplicate programs and stop abuses in contracts and earmarks. That’s a better way to achieve President Obama’s inauguration call for a new era of responsibility.

One way Congress can help restore confidence in Wall Street and in our financial institutions is by getting America’s own finances in order. The president is right to focus on the economy. Members of both parties should set aside partisanship and work toward the common goal of a stronger American economy.

Brady, a Republican, represents Texas’ 8th U.S. Congressional District.

01-28-2009, 05:35 PM	#15
FloareTraurne Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 553 Senior Member	Obama should reconsider bloated stimulus package More targeted spending could benefit U.S. economy By U.S. REP. KEVIN BRADY Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle President Barack Obama met with House Republicans Tuesday. We urged him to seriously rethink the bloated $816 billion economic stimulus bill that is being rushed through the House this week as lobbyists swarm the Capitol to secure their piece of the ever-growing stimulus pie. As much as we hope a stimulus bill will work, the economic reality is that they rarely do. Since World War II, Congress has enacted at least eight economic stimulus measures. The economic impact, what little could be directly attributed to them, typically came well after the recessions were effectively over. However well-intended the latest attempt is, economists are sounding the alarm it will miss the mark as well. In fact, it may do more harm than good as middle class families and small businesses ultimately shoulder the higher taxes needed to pay for this spending spree. Not only does this bill fail to meet the president’s goal of “temporary, targeted and timely,” much of it sets permanently higher spending levels for federal and state governments. It gets worse. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates a mere one-fifth will be spent this year, when the economy needs it the most. How timely is that? There is a lot of frivolous spending in this bill. I can’t find an economist anywhere who will admit that contraceptives, zoo exhibits and repairs to the Jefferson Memorial are serious economic boosts. While stimulus measures tend to be more of a political than economic benefit, this one puts more money into buying new art than tax incentives to help small businesses invest in new computers, equipment and machines. Even the much touted investment in roads and highway infrastructure is a mere 3.5 percent of the total bill. School construction is also being touted as a major benefit, but only $14 billion of the $100 billion in education spending is for building new elementary and secondary schools —___ which is a state and local responsibility anyway. Workers, meanwhile, get to keep on average a meager $1.35 more a day of their money, which won’t send families rushing to the mall. Yet their government spends in this bill, with interest, an amount almost equal to all the personal income taxes paid by Americans annually. In other words, paying for this stimulus would require nearly doubling all income taxes for one year — not just on “the wealthy,” but on all taxpayers. Our country’s deficit this year will be the highest in peacetime since 1930. As horrible as we Republicans were about controlling spending, in just two years congressional Democrats will have generated deficits greater than the first six years of the Bush administration. When the stimulus is added in, America will be left to beg the rest of the world for nearly $3 trillion in Treasury notes over the next year just as finance experts are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the international view of the dollar. If the political winds insist “we do something,” there is a better idea. A smaller, more targeted stimulus could replace the minuscule $1.35 a day work credit with a real reduction in the two lowest tax brackets. That way a two-earner working family could keep up to $3,200 a year of its hard-earned money. If we give small businesses with less than 500 workers a 20 percent income tax deduction, they can keep good employees on the payroll and make much needed investments in equipment. Without the pork and state bailouts, we can create a $7,500 housing tax credit for new and existing homes to help stabilize that critical market. Since there is no such thing as free money, someone is eventually going to have to pay for all of this. I am urging the president to assure the American people that taxes will not have to be raised to pay for all this new spending. Instead, Congress should be directed to seek an end to wasteful spending in Washington, to sunset obsolete agencies, eliminate duplicate programs and stop abuses in contracts and earmarks. That’s a better way to achieve President Obama’s inauguration call for a new era of responsibility. One way Congress can help restore confidence in Wall Street and in our financial institutions is by getting America’s own finances in order. The president is right to focus on the economy. Members of both parties should set aside partisanship and work toward the common goal of a stronger American economy. Brady, a Republican, represents Texas’ 8th U.S. Congressional District.
	Quote