Stimulus Package Debate

It was a true "reality show" last week as the stimulus package debate unfolded in the US Senate, and the same old tired politics played itself out. But this was not a meaningless television show. Americans continue to lose jobs in the 100's of thousands by the month. Since the downturn began, the economy has shed more jobs than the entire population of Chicago.

Meanwhile, despite the unanimous consensus by economists that massive government spending is a necessary component of the economic recovery bill, the Republicans again chose to put politics over country, attempting to re-cast the bill as "a spending bill, not a recovery bill." Could they possibly be more disingenuous?

The Senate’s proposed cuts took aim at an array of popular spending programs that critics said should not be part of a fiscal recovery bill, even if they represent laudable policy goals, because they would not deliver a quick enough jolt to the economy.

That's a quote from the NY Times, and became tactic #2: paint necessary items and services as "not quick enough." This, despite the fact, that the stimulus requires moderate to long range elements as well as immediate stimulus, as Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman recently pointed out.

But it's more instructive to look at the specific sections of the bill they objected to and where Obama felt compelled to make concessions. It's telling, consider (continuing from the NY Times):

Even Mr. Obama’s signature tax cut for middle-class Americans was scaled back as part of the deal. Under the new plan, tax credits of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples would begin to phase out at lower income levels than first proposed, saving the government $2billion.

That's phase out "at lower income levels" .... in other words, those among us who need it the most ... the article continues on:

The biggest cut, roughly $40 billion in aid to states, was likely to spur a fierce fight in negotiations with the House over the final bill. Many states, hit hard by the recession, face wrenching cuts in services and layoffs of public employees as they struggle to comply with laws requiring them to balance their budgets.

Question: why do Republican governors overwhelmingly favor the stimulus plan that Obama put forth? Answer: because it gives them the money and the means to continue to provide services to their people! A tax cut doesn't keep Police on the street. A tax cut cannot rebuild a decrepit bridge. A tax cut cannot pay employees to keep a court house functioning -- these critical services require direct funds -- otherwise known as government spending.

Eight years of irresponsible fiscal policy, to include $10 billion per week funneled out of our country and into Iraq, has left the states literally -- in a state of emergency. Here in our own state of Florida, parents who took comfort in knowing their children were in a top flight special arm of the public school system known as "the magnet program" ... are now organizing in protest to that program's cancellation. And that's but one tiny example.

In addition to the large cut in state aid, the Senate agreement would cut nearly $20 billion proposed for school construction; $8 billion to refurbish federal buildings and make them more energy efficient; $1 billion for the early childhood program Head Start; and $2 billion from a plan to expand broadband data networks in rural and underserved areas.

"Underserved areas" ... tax cuts for "middle class Americans" ... "school construction ... energy efficiency ... early childhood programs" long proven to work ... these are the things Republicans want to cut -- benefits for the most needy among us.

Denying the most needy among us, placing politics ahead of country -- this has become the modus operandi of this morally bankrupt organization. All Hail their new Prince, Vicodin junkie Rush Limbaugh.

Let history judge them accordingly.