Stimulus Ramblings

Tax cuts aren't stimulative. That isn't to say they don't help and that our tax levels are fine, they simply need lowering, but we must stop this ridiculous end around that lowering taxes is the best or only real way to stimulate an economy. Spending stimulates. Spending in the large picture with tax cuts for the majority of citizens that need the money to spend on services and merchandise helps stimulate or at the very least level off downturns because that helps increase or maintain revenue for companies. Tax cuts for companies helps grow jobs but not nearly as much as increased revenue. Tax cuts for big corporations also takes years to take hold because your major employer companies have spending plans based on projections years ahead. You don't give a man needing viagra a workout program and tell him he'll eventually get "going" again when he needs the magic blue pill for a date that night or two nights from now.

This isn't roughly $780 Million in pork either. The latest report on the newest compromise is saying that $350 Billion of the stimulative bill is tax cuts. So in spending, we're talking roughly $430 Billion. We should all be upset that only $30 Billion is going to highway infrastructure and there are plenty of infrastructure projects that could use the $355 million being spent on HIV/AIDS and other STD prevention. That sort of thing should be part of the fiscal budget if it is considered that important (which I feel it is, especially considering how much money we spend on aid to Africa for the very same thing). Or the 20 and 25 million dollars respectively, that I can't find a comprehensive reason why we're spending on the removal of small to medium sized fish and to rehabilitate off-roading trails. While we're at it, no, the stimulus bill doesn't have money in it to payoff ACORN.

Reading over Lou Dobbs transcripts, I came across this:

FERRE: House Minority Leader John Boehner, for example, has attacked a provision that helps states expand family planning services, other spending receiving scrutiny, $50 million for the national endowment for the arts to help arts groups and $140 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for climate data modeling, $6 billion to construct, renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings, and $200 million to renovate the National Mall. Most of the money is geared towards government agencies who in turn will use it to create jobs, but taxpayer groups say the bill lacks specifics to ensure that lasting jobs are created.

Now why is $6 Billion in improving energy efficiency of federal buildings wrong? These jobs would of course not be long-term but they would be stimulutive with the idea being that as these jobs finish, not only are you saving energy which in turns saves money, you're hoping that the financial system has finally responded to the defibilator panels that have been on it for months now and is on its way up. Although this would be public money, the jobs would be in the private sector as they'd be contracted out and not a long-term budget risk. You'd in fact save money from the federal budget of operating said buildings. However, don't tell me you can't put the $190 million being marked for Arts and Climate Data modeling in the regular fiscal budget or another spending bill -even then I'd like a respectable reason why we should spend tax payer money on such things. The $200 million on the National Mall can be looked at both ways but unlike the Arts/Climate Data at least you can see the argument that it'd create construction jobs that would be contracted out to private companies.