My first attempt to come up with an accurate name for the currently misnamed “Stimulus Plan.” The Republicans can’t allow this false euphemism to continue if they want to lead the charge against it. Another one: “Pay-Off-Democrat-Constituencies Plan.”
[Tuesday afternoon update]
Michelle Malkin has the best name yet. She calls it the Generational Theft Act.
[Bumped]
[Update a few minutes later]
Jim Manzi has another accurate moniker for it: The European Socialist Welfare State Bill.
I agree. Fiscal conservative legislatures can’t allow the misnomer to continue and have any hope of stopping it. I thought, “The Redistribution Plan” would be a good title. After all, its taking money from taxpayers and giving it to CEOs.
“Cash Furnace”
It’s a cold economy out there, so let’s get that cash a’ burning.
Pay-Off-Democrat-Constituencies Plan
That’s not a bad title. If you take a squint at the spreadsheet, the largest single categories of spending are:
direct payment to state governmens: $80 billion
highway spending: $30 billion
school buliding: $20 billion
financial aid: $16 billion
“special” education of one form or another: $31 billion
That’s about a fourth of the total bill right there.
The first (paying the states) means the states which hugely ramped up their hiring and expenditures during the recent tax boom (California, hello!) will get to keep all those SIEU employees, instead of having to fire them.
The second — well, building roads and bridges is always a union job. Plus, this is money that would otherwise have to be spent by — aha! — the states. Relieved of the necessity to spend their own tax money for things like roads and bridges, the states can continue to fund more important things like state diversity officers and whatnot. In essence, both 1 and 2 are a $110 billion bailout of the most spendthrift states.
The third and fourth are similar, but this time focussing on teachers and professors. By paying for buildings, the Feds relieve the states, universities and school districts from having to pay for them, which frees up their own money for the important thing — which is salaries, yay!
Schools do this all the time. They spend all their dough on salaries, let the buildings crumble and the textbooks fall apart, then cry about how we are shortchanging the children, knowing that the taxpaying sheep will always pay up. Works like a charm.
Financial aid has the lovely effect of allowing schools to crank up tuition faster than the market will bear — i.e. by more than the education is worth — because the student and family only see the subsidized price, with the difference paid by the taxpayers.
So, yeah, all in all, a whopping huge chunk of cash shoveled from people working in, say, aviation or banking or engineering design or pharmaceuticals or medicine or some other useless occupation to those working for government or in education (if that isn’t largely redundant).
The amazing thing about this is that it’s being sold as a “response” to the layoffs and downturns in the very industries that are going to be taxed to shovel huge chunks of cash at industries that are already doing well.
I mean — we’ve read about massive layoffs at manufacturing companies, banks, et cetera. But these folks are going to get nothing, and instead be giving a lot, by virtue of their workers being taxed much more. Have we read about massive layoffs and contractions in government? In education? Of course not. Those occupations are “counter-cyclical,” in the sense that they are better when the general economy is crappy. When the private 401k’s tank, it’s better to be a government employee with a government pension. Similarly, schools do well in economic downturns, because people go to school when they can’t get jobs.
That the American voters will support a plan that takes from those actually in economic trouble and gives to those who are not, is a testament to the magnificent gullibility of the human spirit.
Carl, great comments as usual.
The government is incapable of infrastructures that would benifit the people, even with the high costs. An example would be a third way around southern Chicago – presently we have I90 (Chicago Skyway – toll) and I80/94 (Illiniois Tollway) which are always in contruction. If I80 would route south of Joliet Il, below Merrillville IN, and come east of Valparaso to tie into I94 (to Detroit), then the many trucks could avoid the chokepoints above.
However, Illinois (and maybe Indiana) would probably make it a Tollway, and charge trucks and cars too much, so it wouldn’t significantly impact the traffic. Then they would blame the drivers and raise the rates again. We’ve paid for the tollways multiple times over, yet (unlike the Dallas/Fort Worth Turnpike) they never are paid off.
Another minor example of how the game is played.
“The Emperor Nero Violin Concerto Plan.”
Carl:
State government spending on social services is not counter-cyclical; to the contrary, demand for social spending surges in recessions, just as tax revenues fall. Because states can not run deficits, federal aid (like that in the proposed stimulus plan) averts painful cutbacks. At the same time such aid is an efficient stimulus, since the recipients of state aid are likely to put that money into the economy rather than save it.
So, what would an effective stimulus bill have in it? Being interested in space myself (like a lot of readers here), I’m especially wondering what an effective stimulus would be for commercial space and/or NASA, even if it’s just a small part of the bill. I’d be even more interested in ideas that the current Administration and Congress would consider, since anything else is wishful thinking at the moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwJduPtCvSM
Wrong President, but still funny.
Jim, you’re not paying attention. I said working for the state is a counter-cyclical career. That is, when the general economy is crappy, it sucks to be working in construction, finance, engineering, et cetera — but it’s great to be working for the government.
So, this stimulus is about taking money from those working in construction, finance, engineering, et cetera, and giving it to those working for the state, those in education, et cetera. Taking from those whose jobs and life savings are at increased risk, and giving to those whose jobs and pensions are looking better all the time.
Does that sound fair? Does it even sound sane?
Of course, I’m not a government lawyer or Senator, and I don’t even work for the government. No doubt that colors my attitude. But, hmm, that could change. I can easily turn my talents to the public sector instead of the private. Perhaps I shall. Like I said elsewhere, if the rest of you idiots vote into power a regime that impoverishes most of you for the advantage of a select few — why, I intend to be among the few. Good luck, suckers.
Taking from those whose jobs and life savings are at increased risk, and giving to those whose jobs and pensions are looking better all the time.
I have to add that government pension plans at all levels are notoriously underfunded, so the taxpayers are about to be hit again to make up the shortfall. Governments used to claim that good pensions made up for lower wages but that isn’t the case. Side by side comparisons of salaries and benefits for employees in the private verses public sector routinely show that government employees (I can hardly call them “workers”) are ahead.
Government spending just about everywhere seems to work on a rachet effect in that it can only increase, never seriously decrease. It appears we’re experiencing a “government bubble” (especially in places like California). When it bursts, there will be hell to pay. And pay. And pay.
Carl:
Yes, working for the state is counter-cyclical. But where’s your evidence that aid to states will be spent on hiring more government employees, as opposed to social services for the sick, unemployed, etc.?
To put it another way, every state faces a budget crunch in a recession. They will deal with that by cutting back services and laying off employees. Federal funds will make it possible for them to do less of each, which will preserve jobs, and put money into the hands of people who need it most (and are most likely to spend it).
When programs expand, so do payrolls. Jeez.
The “Borrow-Our-Way-Out-of-Debt Plan.” It’s a lot of words, but it’s on-target, absurd, and not explicitly tagged as partisan, so it could catch on.
Glenn notes the Heritage name for the pork bill: “Pelosi-Obama-Reid Debt Plan“.
I say it is too long, and not quite right. It is not their debt, they’ll never pay for it. We will.
Perhaps the “Debt Stimulus Plan”, because the debt will be stimulated to new heights.
GTA 2009
Yep, works!
The “Pay of your Amex bill with your Mastercard Plan”
I prefer the “Borrow-Our-Way-Out-of-Debt Plan” moniker as well. Making the term more inflammatory is more amusing but plays only to the already convinced while turning off those on the fence. This sort of thing is important if you care about convincing people and doing something about the horrible stimulus plan.
“Generational Theft” is too generic. It describes all forms of government debt. It’s also inflammatory and not persuasive to anyone sitting on the sidelines on this issue (which is true of pretty much everything Michelle Malkin writes).
I prefer the more closely tailored “Democratic Constituency Payday Act” or “Rewarding Stupid Financial Decisions Act.”
> At the same time such aid is an efficient stimulus, since the recipients of state aid are likely to put that money into the economy rather than save it.
Saving is actually “investment in things that someone is betting her own money will be productive”. Why is reducing savings a good idea?
But where’s your evidence that aid to states will be spent on hiring more government employees, as opposed to social services for the sick, unemployed, etc.?
Well, first of all, they’re not going to hire more employees, Jim, they’re just not going to have to fire the employees they hired over the last five years, when tax revenues were high. That’s why the states are in crisis, you know. It’s not because they’ve got all these people lined up for “services” and they can’t find the dough. That wouldn’t affect their budgets, because they haven’t budgeted for those costs. No legislature sat down last year and said Boy, there’s sure to be a recession next year, so we better add a line item expense of $20 billion for ‘services’ to the sick and poor. Damn! Looks like the budget won’t balance now!
No, what happened is that they hired a whole bunch of people over the past five years, counting on tax revenue to keep booming along, and now tax revenue has plummeted — because private income has dropped — and suddenly all their budgets won’t balance. They can’t pay the salaries of their existing employees and budget commitments, and that’s why they’re in crisis, and that’s where the money will go.
If you really wanted this ‘stimulus’ money to go to people who suddenly need help, then why screw with going through the states? What’s the point? Just send checks to the people you think are hurting. It’s not like the Federal government doesn’t know each of our addresses, you know. It’s not like the Feds couldn’t say to each person who lost a job in the past year, hey, here’s $10,000 to cushion the blow. Let’s see, with 8% of 110 million workers unemployed, that would be 9 million people times $10,000 each equals $90 billion dollars.
Isn’t that amazing, jim? The Federal government could simply write a $10,000 check to each and every person who lost a job this year and it would cost one tenth as much as this grand Democratic porkfest boondoggle “stimulus” bill. And which do you think would do more good?
Unless you think government must simply take over people’s lives entirely, treat them like antebellum black slaves or pets, to be kept and protected all their lives, then you think people who are unlucky this year — lost their job, have some medical crisis, et cetera — need, at most, a simple spot of help for a short time.
So, write them a damn check. Do it now, get it over with, and let them take a breath and then get on with their lives. $90 billion, a relatively trivial sum, buys them all a $10,000 check. $180 billion, still a pretty smallish number these days, buys them $20,000.
Even Congressmen can do simple math like that. So if, as they say, they’re all about helping out the unfortunate in this current crisis, if it’s really not all about creating vast new government bureaucracies to insert their tentacles into every orifice y’all have — why aren’t they taking the simple solution? Why all this complicated Processes Too Complicated To Explain in a ‘stimulus’ package instead of just writing people checks?
Hopefully even you smell the tiniest bit of a rat here.
The “Change, You Can Believe In” plan.
Generational Theft Act. Hmm…
Big GTA, you’re really lookin’ fine
Nine hundred trillion and up, and some of it’s mine
Watch it ratchet up now, conservatives why-ee-eye-ine
C’mon and bring it on, print it up, dish it out GTA
How about the “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Pork” plan.
Carl wrote: “hey, here’s $10,000 to cushion the blow. Let’s see, with 8% of 110 million workers unemployed, that would be 9 million people times $10,000 each equals $90 billion dollars.”
I could go for that. Although, I’d just as well take another few billion to cover the expense of creating and maintaining individual accounts for each of those recipients. Then, provide debit cards that they can use to purchase essentials. Even put monthly caps on how much can be deducted per month. Otherwise, in the first month you’d see a huge spike in trips to Vegas.
Not a perfect plan by any stretch. One thing about the Katrina victims who received government debit cards is their propensity to sell them for cold cash. Just right across the street from the convention centers that housed the victims there were people with huge wads of cash buying the government debit cards for like $.30-.40 on the dollar.
Based on this, perhaps it should be called the “Slippery Slope to Universal Health Care Plan”.
Now we know why leftist pushed the “Bush lied people died” mantra, even though the 16 words were found to be very accurate. Now, when Conservatives and Libertarians note how much a lie the stimulus bill is and what it really amounts to; we’ll hear, “It wasn’t as bad as Bush’s lie”.
Of course, “pay as you go” is no longer a rule apparently. Otherwise, before this GTA bill is passed, we would have to see the spending cuts, err… the tax increase bill first. Once everyone learned their part of the stimulus package was $10,000 this year, and more next year; they’d never allow the tax increase or the additional spending.
red – I have a simple idea along those lines, and it isn’t original with me.
5 billion dollar prize for 50MW of power delivered from orbit with 99% uptime, for a period of three months.
That’s it. Of course, my numbers may be off – but the principle is sound. In particular, 50MW is enough to require significant hardware in space. And 5 billion may be enough to get someone to take the gamble on developing the hardware to get that prize.
Of course, that won’t happen. Administering such a prize fund would provide government jobs for maybe 10 people, not 100,000.
I could go for that.
I wouldn’t, Josh. It’s actually quite important that being unemployed remain a miserable scary experience. It’s what keeps people highly motivated to keep their jobs and do well at them.
There are people who subscribe to the warm ‘n’ fuzzy notion that people in general work for the pure internal satisfaction of contributing, and that the fact that they’re paid for it, and avoid the misery of being poor, is just kind of a secondary effect. Therefore, if we construct the ideal socialist world, where “to each according to his needs,” and you need not ever fear unemployment like you fear death and disease — why, everything will be fine. People will still work hard, but there won’t be this ugliness around us, of people out of work having to make painful choices (electricity this month or food? car payment or medical bill?).
Unfortunately, this notion, original to Marx, is wrong. It turns out the way people are constructed the principal reason they work is pure naked fear of what unemployment is like. The positive motives of self-satisfaction and self-respect are no doubt relevant, and in some people dominant, but for most people they aren’t enough to call forth their best efforts.