Where's the Pork?

[The Bear's Key]

A co-worker of mine mentioned today something about the bill containing a provision to increase payments to Vietnam vets who are right now living in Indonesia. He mentioned that it was a huge amount, like $500M.

 

Can anyone substantiate this, or direct me to the truth that created his (likely skewed) perception?

 

I can't find it anywhere.....

Bill O' Reilley

Rush Limbaugh

hmmmm, lemme see...Karl Rove

There are either no sources as magnificent, trustworthy, and reliable, or I'm drawing a blank -- sorry.

 

 

(Why not ask your co-worker about the source?)

[iNow]

Oh... it was Fox... I know that. He wouldn't remember which show, though. I'm looking for the kernel of truth out there that caused the idea to come up in our conversation today so I can research for myself the true issue.

 

He mentioned something about them fighting for the US, but not being american soldiers a little bit later. In was in the context of, "It's correct that we pay them, but it should not be part of a stimulus."

 

I didn't figure anyone here would know, but thought I'd put it out there to see about addressing the actual topic of this thread.

[SH3RL0CK]

Just had a thought. Maybe that "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska will get built after all. (At one time this $150M project seemed like a lot of money, but the entire Iraq war costs are now peanuts compared to the spending in the last few months )

 

Wouldn't that be ironic should the harshest critics of this bridge (democrats) eagerly pass legislation that causes it to be built?

[bascule]

i know that's the consensus, but i'm talking about reality here. In reality, though, consumer demand couldn't support the housing market during the bubble, because it was being supported on personal debt and subprime mortgages. Now the gov't. wants to return to the bubble conditions sponsored by public debt rather than private debt.

 

I think the government is trying to keep the economy from collapsing, as opposed to a "return to bubble conditions." This is damage control, not a move by the government to reinflate the bubble. Housing prices are still going to go down, they're just not going to hit rock bottom.

[jackson33]

iNow; You might want to check out 'Stimulus Watch.Org', adding to your extensive reference files, though things are changing by the hour. Did run a search on VN Vets and came up blank...

 

The only connection, I know of between Fox, the Stimulus and Vets, would have an opposite view. From Hannity, the Health Care Provisions, based on Tom Dashiles Book, thought to have been added last Saturday Night, would make all VETS vulnerable to less Medical Service as they age. The direct quote from his book; "Seniors should be more accepting to the conditions, that come from aging". The lady that first brought this to National attention has appeared on other Fox shows and mentioned on Limbaugh Monday.

 

To thread; Swansont, trying to distinguish between pork and legitimate job creation, which is in theory the purpose of this bill, is the cost of each job produced. I'll give you an example in the 17.5 Billion lined up to go to Puerto Rico. It involves many programs, along the energy line for this territory and actually the bill claims will provide 1628 jobs. This amounts to 10,749,885.75 per job, in a territory that has paid no more than 4B in Taxes in any one year and in five years not the 17.5 being offered.

 

Today, Cities around the US are requesting any money authorized by any bill enacted go directly to the project, or at least NOT the State. They know and most everyone in politics, any appropriation bill (that is all this is) is distributed to State Government, with few restrictions on final spending. The Cities are claiming that States will balance their budget, create no jobs or spend the money on ANYTHING constructive to the economy in general...

[ParanoiA]

Why don't we just blow money on every pet project that every congressman and senator wants? All of them will employ someone and all we have to do is wait for someone to complain and then say "how does that not help the economy"? Seems to have worked brilliantly so far.

[SH3RL0CK]

I heard on the radio the other day that the total dollar amount of the bailouts would be sufficient to pay off 90% of ALL mortgages (both statistics for the US only). Not sure if this is true as I can't source the radio (I may try to look it up if I get some time). So why are the banks still in trouble? And why not simply give the taxpayers this money (I am sure it would be better spent)? I would love it if my mortgage were 90% paid off!

 

Truely we are living in historic times, spending this awesome amount of money so quickly cannot be a good thing.

[ParanoiA]

I don't understand. How does that not help the economy?

[SH3RL0CK]

LOL.

 

I suppose everything helps the economy in some way. Just maybe not in the most efficient, or just, manner.

[ParanoiA]

I suppose everything helps the economy in some way. Just maybe not in the most efficient, or just, manner.

 

Hmm..it's almost as if you're implying we can't justify spending on everything that helps the economy. That's just silly. If it helps the economy, then why throw such an ideological partition in there? You're a republican aren't you?

[Mr Skeptic]

It seems to me that any pork in the bill will help the economy. The question is, to what extent? Which parts of the bill are likely to be most helpful to the economy (cash cow) and which are going to be helpful to the economy but not very much (partly pork)? Instead of dealing with absolutes, we can talk about their degree of usefulness.

[Pangloss]

A compromise was reached on the stimulus package about an hour ago (around 6pm Eastern). I've looked at a couple of articles but I haven't heard yet whether it includes NSF and/or NASA funding. The articles floating around on that subject at the moment are based on the Senate's version of the bill (passed late Tuesday), which is different from what they just agreed on.

 

I believe it'll have to be voted on in both houses (presumably a formality) and then go to the President.

[padren]

You're putting the cart before the horse. The correct question is on what analysis does Congress find NSF/NASA funding to give optimal economic returns. The answer to that question is none, because the funding was not included for the purpose of optimal economic returns.

Says who? If this can be substantiated I'm open to hearing it - but so far all I've heard is correlation - no causation. Of course the people who come up with NSF/NASA centric spending plans are going to be pro those agencies - otherwise they probably wouldn't know them well enough inside and out to figure out how to use them to stimulate the economy.

 

 

This plan was put together with many spending items, each designed to stimulate the economy. If we want to be critical as to the merit of some of those plans - and we should be - we need to investigate them, not assume the worst and dismiss them simply because they overlap with some programs the democrats would want anyway.

 

Then you would approve if Republicans were in charge and included Terri Schiavo's life support, and criticize anybody opposed because they have no analysis indicating that it doesn't help the economy. Got it.

 

As I already said, a resounding yes. They can fund bibles in motels if they want - if the numbers come out that it's an ideal economic stimulus plan than so be it. My only reservation about Schiavo is ethical - if we believe the moral thing to do is not interfere and we do because it can help the economy, then that's a moral objection to the stimulus plan. Not political, as it doesn't matter if it hurts lefties or righties ideologically but if it hurts her and her family then that is a moral objection, completely separate from ideological objections, and efficiency objections.

 

 

I think it's fair to raise moral objections, and especially efficiency objections - but the ideological objections are what bother me. Especially when they are dressed up as efficiency objections when they are not.

 

If we start to think the way you suggest, that this is all about funding the right programs and paying for good things, when in fact this spending has no basis in collected or even projected revenue, it will mean the complete and utter end of what tiny vestage of fiscally responsible governance remains in this country.

 

It's amazing to me that people have forgotten the purpose of this bill just because their favorite program suddenly gets an increase. What's going to happen next year when these programs have gone and spent all this money and suddenly have to deal with a massive spending shortfall? Pay them again? And again? And again?

 

That's why I think everything considered in the stimulus plan needs to be picked apart line by line to test their credibility. We can't afford to mess this up. The concerns about next year are also valid - all stimulus plans need to deal with that. That would also be one of the reasons I don't consider "long term benefits" (such as education or future results from research) worthy attributes in evaluating any given program. We need the economy to turn around soon enough that it creates (or re-creates) every job this spending bill is supporting.

 

We are in an economic "valley" and the bill is supposed to be a "bridge" to keep job numbers even until we get across to their natural resurgence. The programs themselves need to also shorten the gap as we can't run this bridge out into nowhere or it will collapse along the way.

[jackson33]

A compromise was reached on the stimulus package about an hour ago (around 6pm Eastern). I've looked at a couple of articles but I haven't heard yet whether it includes NSF and/or NASA funding. The articles floating around on that subject at the moment are based on the Senate's version of the bill (passed late Tuesday), which is different from what they just agreed on.

 

I believe it'll have to be voted on in both houses (presumably a formality) and then go to the President.

 

The Senate version, DOES maintain 1.3 Billion for NASA, additional funding over a five years period. The House version -0- or no mention. Keep in mind, not related to the Stimulus Package, the Pentagon Budget, which has been asked to cut spending 10-11%, through R&D or specific projects, has always added to NASA budgets. This would hurt NASA...

 

 

More than a formality;

The problem, at least so far, is the Joint House/Senate Conference Committee, is working behind closed doors to work out differences. Any decisions made will have a very short time period for viewing (if at all) between the time of decision and/or the votes, again in both chambers. Obama, had addressed this issue during the campaign, saying he would not sign any bill, with out a five day period to address problems. He has not done this to date and not expected to on this Bill...

[npts2020]

A co-worker of mine mentioned today something about the bill containing a provision to increase payments to Vietnam vets who are right now living in Indonesia. He mentioned that it was a huge amount, like $500M.

 

Can anyone substantiate this, or direct me to the truth that created his (likely skewed) perception?

 

I can't find it anywhere, but if it's true, that's a huge piece of pork that I have a very hard time justifying as part of our stimulus efforts.

 

I read the entire bill and would be hard pressed to give the exact portion of the bill this is in but IIRC the money was for non-citizen veterans like Filipinos or Mexicans (not specifically Viet Nam vets) who served in and are now retired from U.S. Armed Forces. I would not say if the amount was correct or not.

[iNow]

I read the entire bill and would be hard pressed to give the exact portion of the bill this is in but IIRC the money was for non-citizen veterans like Filipinos or Mexicans (not specifically Viet Nam vets) who served in and are now retired from U.S. Armed Forces. I would not say if the amount was correct or not.

 

That's exactly it. The amount couldn't possibly be that high, but I see that as something that is non-stimulating... that is, however, on the condition that he also stated they were living overseas... if that was not part of the bill and they live here in the US, then of course it's stimulating (much like unemployment helps). Thanks, npts.

[Pangloss]

Anendberg FactCheck has some interesting points about the stimulus bill:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/stimulus_bill_bravado.html

 

# Obama repeatedly said the plan "will save or create up to 4 million jobs." Obama downgraded that estimate to 3.5 million once the House and Senate agreed on a less-expensive compromise bill. The projections come from at least three economists, but all say there is great uncertainty in their estimates.

 

# Republican House members claimed their substitute legislation tops that, creating "6.2 million jobs." But their calculation is even more fraught with uncertainty and is not backed up by independent economists.

 

# Obama said the bill doesn't contain "a single earmark." But whether one calls them "earmarks" or not, the Senate certainly added items that will benefit particular states. For example: $50 million for programs under the California-Bay Delta Act and $500 million for National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Md.

 

# Obama claims that funds in the bill will result in "every American" having health records computerized "within five years." But experts doubt it can be done that quickly.

 

# The president also says electronic health records will save billions of dollars. But the Congressional Budget Office says that even a decade of expected savings are unlikely to pay back the government what the government will spend on health IT.

 

# The president said the bill will modernize the nation's electricity grid, reducing consumption by 2 percent to 4 percent. That's optimistic. Industry reports say that a new grid could reduce energy consumption by up to 4 percent, but not until 2030 and at a cost much greater than the stimulus bill would cover.

 

The article goes on to talk about how many of these projects could indeed create jobs, but there's been a lot of regrettable inaccuracy and misleading of the American people in many of these statements.

[jackson33]

According to *Economist View*, it takes from 110k jobs(FED) per month to 150k (Greg lp WSJ) to maintain full employment or current levels in the first place. Thats about 1.44 million to 1.80 million per year in the US. Mr. Obama's statements are for a two year period stating at different times 3-4 million, which for all practical purposes would solve nothing. If you explain to me exactly what preventing a job loss means, I could only exaggerate the double talk of either he or his advisor's, for what under normal circumstances would be ONLY natural growth.

 

A good many of specific items are going to be permanent Federal Government programs. There are no expiration dates or in effect where private industry takes over. So long as artificial bottoms are set by government (housing), assistance to buyers themselves (welfare), nothing can be stabilized.

 

Since the 'BILL' will be law Monday, there is no longer reason to argue the point, however I would predict, nothing will happen beneficially until the Administration starts to talk up and issue statistics showing results, which will have positive effects to whatever the real statistics show. In short, we have entered a Government controlled economy and that has never worked...IMO.

[Pangloss]

What's going to happen next year when these programs have gone and spent all this money and suddenly have to deal with a massive spending shortfall? Pay them again? And again? And again?

 

I don't wish to beat a dead horse, but now that the stimulus has passed there is already a lot of talk about how budgets for various bureaucratic agencies have been expanded by the stimulus bill. Not "one-time spending". "Budgets." Here's an example from today's New York Times:

 

But even lobbyists are stunned by the coup Mr. Specter pulled off this week. In return for providing one of only three Republican votes in the Senate for the Obama administration’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, he was able to secure a 34 percent increase in the health agency’s budget — to $39 billion from $29 billion.

 

... he said, future budget discussions for N.I.H. will begin at $40 billion, not $30 billion...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/health/policy/14specter.html?ref=science

 

 

On a more positive note, at least Arlen Specter hasn't suddenly joined his colleagues in becoming the Little Republicans Who Cried Wolf About Government Spending:

 

And if the Republicans win back control of the Senate, he promised that that number would go considerably higher.

 

(sigh)

 

This will add a whole new opportunity for political spin. This fall we'll have politicians talking about how they're cutting budget spending for half of the programs in the federal government, when what they really mean is that they are only increasing their budgets by less than what they attained as a result of the "one time" stimulus package. And those programs that they want to receive increases will be lamented as under attack from opponents who want to cut a useful and productive program, when in fact those trying to 'cut' those programs may actually be trying to increase them!

 

Ain't politics fun?

Edited February 14, 2009 by Pangloss