of course the Democratic plan is "chock-full of government programs and projects." That the point.

They're gonna call every project "pork." After setting Bob Beamon-like records for earmarks.

Now that Boehner has come forward with a "plan" he needs to demonstrate its successful track record and set of background givens so we can get a better idea of how his philosophy will play itself out in real time America as we work our way through the worst economic conditions we've faced since 1933.

The more I hear current Republican leaders and try to match their utterances to Krugman's and other economists' writings, the more I sense the Republicans are becoming transparent as economic stooges running static and flak for entrenched vested interests.

It's that, or Boehner and his fellow travelers have not a clue how economic reality operates. Do they not have to buy their own groceries? -Kevo

I'm consistently amazed at how often Republicans rail against borrowing money to increase spending, and act as if only the government uses debt in this way. We have this thing called The Bonds Market which is specifically devoted to the buying and selling of business debt that companies issue in order to expand their businesses. As long as the borrowed money isn't used foolishly (for example, tossing it down the Iraq drain), it can be a very sensible option.

While many businesses take on too much debt that cripples their ability to function, the entire purpose of issuing bonds is to borrow and spend their way back to prosperity. This is a very well established practice and the idea of seeing all debt as evil is entirely stupid. Debt is only as bad as the purpose that it's being used for.

from the Volokh Conspiracy: Obama won by, among other things, promising a net decrease in federal spending. Here he is during the third debate: "what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

And, as he noted yesterday, he won with that promise. If he had promised an additional $825B expansion of the federal deficit, as McCain accused him of in the debate [though not mentioning that particular figure], would he have still won?

The only thing that I can figure is that the majority of people in Boner's district are suffering from the effects of inbreeding.

Nothing new here. For generations republicans have only seen 2 legitimate reasons for government to borrow money: Welfare for the wealthy, and blowing people up.

job creation is strong

According to Alan Greenspan ("The Age of Turbulence", pp 169-170), about 1 million people leave jobs each week (600,000 by choice, 400,000 laid off), and about 1 million take new jobs (those who changed, or those who are hired back after layoff.) Right now, new hires are lagging behind new fires by about 40,000 per week, or by about 4% of average weekly turnover.

It could be that the job creation shortfall is greater in the Democratic districts than in the Republican districts, and that the Republican districts do not want the Obama/Congress borrowing plans to hurt the job creation in their districts. The government has to borrow the money first and spend it later, so the first effects of the borrowing will be to reduce the rates of economic growth in the congressional districts are are relatively (compared to the U.S. average) well-capitalized. Only later will their losses be balanced out by any federal-spending-induced job creation in other districts.

Republicans lack credibility because of the Bush deficits, but that isn't much justification for making the projected deficits even larger.

Herbert Hoover had a lot of the same thinking as you, MRM.

"Our plan is rooted in the philosophy that we cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity..."

So it's only ok to borrow and spend through prosperity?

More likely only ok to borrow and spend when the Republic Party controls the WH.

Government projects that will employee private enterprises. Its not as if the US govt is getting into the road paving\bridge building business. That money goes to contractors and then to their workers. Those workers then go out and buy things, which stimulates the economy.
What don't they get?

And, as he noted yesterday, he won with that promise. If he had promised an additional $825B expansion of the federal deficit, as McCain accused him of in the debate [though not mentioning that particular figure], would he have still won?

Just checking -- so when the financial crisis hit, Obama was supposed to "stay the course" and do the same thing he would have done if the economy was healthy?

Yeah, that's worked out well the past 8 years, hasn't it? First tax cuts were the solution to the surplus. Then they were the solution to the recession. Then tax cuts were going to fund the Iraq war. Now they're the solution to the financial crisis.

When your answer to everything is "tax cuts," you're clearly not operating from a rational basis where you're actually looking at the problem and figuring out what the best solution is. You're operating on faith that the Magical Tax Cut solves all and cures all, no matter what the evidence is. If it doesn't work the first dozen times, cut more!

(Oh, and please don't try to tell us that Reagan cut taxes and "proved" that trickle-down works. Reagan did the largest tax increase in history when he hiked payroll taxes and still left us with a massive deficit.)

Remember, this is the party whose most recent leader said, "And this frightens some in Washington. Because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program."

I have read to page thirty eight on a condensed version of this bill. As it stands there is uncontroled spending that will leave generations in no control of their future. I am against this bill.

I'm really tired of listening to the Repugs - they're the ones who blew it with "EVERYTHING", they're the ones who let the "terrorists" out of Gitmo that we now have to contend with, and then it's all the Democrats fault for wanting to close it? Give me a break!

Obama really needs to say it and MEAN it that the American people have given him the mandate to do what is RIGHT and JUST for the country and citizens. I heard about all the Tax cuts in this stimulus bill and am very ANNOYED. We (Obama's team) can win without so much bending over - let the Repugs and apparently the MSM whine, they have no power - do what needs to be done with the INTELLIGENT people running the country.

We really need HOPE over FEAR!!!

The Turing test is easy. The Bush test is NP hard

Very nice post Mr. Benen.

Re Dr. Biobrain:

I'm consistently amazed at how often Republicans rail against borrowing money to increase spending, and act as if only the government uses debt in this way. We have this thing called The Bonds Market which is specifically devoted to the buying and selling of business debt...

Verily. The observation is even sweeter when one remembers that republicans love to argue that our government should be run like a business. As your comment and Steve's post illustrate, the republican brain is a remarkable organic entity. Somehow, it balances contradictory ideas and false facts, and still plows forward with sublime confidence. Its certainty at having lassoed the truth knows no bounds...

Along these lines, George W. Bush really is the ultimate manifestation of the modern republican brain in action. Ironically, he was also, their CEO president.

One can imagine human beings someday programming a computer to consciousness and having those machines glibly pass the Turing Test.

Much much harder is programming a machine to think like a modern republican. The Bush test will keep programmers and neuroscientists busy for centuries...

The GOP is the party of Rule or Ruin (or Rule and Ruin, as some will have it). With the exception of a handful of their own blue dogs- who should be cultivated and rewarded- they must be dismissed as fanatics, and suppressed by congressional democrats until such time as they rejoin the ranks of patriotic Americans who place the interests of the country first.

and that the Republican districts do not want the Obama/Congress borrowing plans to hurt the job creation in their districts. - MatthewRMarler

Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony? Maybe we would start spending money in proportion to the revenue that comes from each district. That would be a real bitch for rural areas.

For republicans to keep looking back at Reagan as proof that tax cuts worked; is rather hypocritical, but that is nothing new for them.

When tax rates are in the 70%+ range (which they were during his reign), it is rather easy to cut them significantly without too much harm. With the highest tax rate currently at 35% there isn't all that much more to cut. It's like nibbling at the edges without any real benefit.

However what has pretty much been proven is that trickle down economics was a pure myth. It has not happened. The middle class is not better off. The difference between the 1% haves compared to 80%+ of the people living in America has been getting larger.

Enough said.

PS: Pretty funny where Marler thinks that Republican congressional districts are doing better when it comes to jobs than democratic districts. Must be why the Red States tend to be amongst the least educated and the lowest average income States.

You're wasting your time on Marler -- you can't refute a theology.

And Boehner sounds like nothing so much as the GOP version of Refrigerator Poetry Magnets™...

It could be that the job creation shortfall is greater in the Democratic districts than in the Republican districts, and that the Republican districts do not want the Obama/Congress borrowing plans to hurt the job creation in their districts.

It could be, sure. Is it? I mean, it's easy to imagine stuff that could be.

The minority leader ... noting a Congressional Budget Office report that projected less than half of the $355 billion... is likely to be used before the end of fiscal 2010.

First, the CBO report Boehner is so fond of doesn't really exist.

There appear to be conflicting claims between this article, the one this morning, and the Yglesias/Huffpo links from this morning. 1) If Boehner's claim is based on the portion of the Economic Stimulus Package that went through the Appropriations committee, that would be 358 billion, close to the number he used in the radio address. 2) The Yglesias link quotes a press release from OMB director Orszag, which says, The Congressional Budget Office recently released an analysis of a component of the economic recovery proposal; that analysis, however, did not assess the overall package.. 3) Orszag does not dispute the analysis of that portion of the package that was assessed. Nor does he claim that the analysis was of an older version (as the Huffpo article does). He does quibble with the CBO timeline, but Boehner appears to have changed his claim to agree with Orszag.

I do think Dems need to further explain this portion.

No TWiG today???

Bummer, dude....

Oh yeah, let's go ahead and listen to the Representative from Medieval Times (OH)! This guy knows what he's doing, he's really taken care of bus(h)iness during his tenure! Yesiree!

If he had promised an additional $825B expansion of the federal deficit, as McCain accused him of in the debate [though not mentioning that particular figure], would he have still won?

9/15 changed everything.

Excellent summary Steve. I just listened to a national radio news broadcast which featured Boehner's comments and not a word...not a mention about the CBO report he alludes to being non existent. Is the media unaware of that fact or are they just ignoring it?

Just making stuff up out of the air is a republican trademark but I guess Boehner just wasn't drunk enough yet to start bawling about it. How stupid to point out that the plan is chock full of government programs and projects...DUH! That alone should make most thinking people scratch their heads. He might as well just come out and say "I'm against it because democrats came up with it", because that's what his comments amount to.

not a mention about the CBO report he alludes to being non existent - joey

I just finished reading the UPDATE link at this morning's story on this CBO/OMB thing. The argument that there is no "report" is entirely based on the fact that the CBO uses the word to refer to a specific type of document. They did issue a document with the these claims. But it wasn't what they call an official "report".

There is only one prime mission Boehner and his cohorts are out to accomplish...protect the holdings of the ultra rich and the business of multinational corporations. It is all the rest of us who will suffer, who stand to lose everything from our current economic collapse which they caused. They will attempt to block everything that interferes with that mission. The tax cuts served to prevent the government from having money for social programs and the bailout money is used to protect their holdings (Merrill-Lynch gave out billions...billions in bonuses before going for the bailout money). Other than that motivation, Boehners comments are non-sensical. Children hell..."democracy" will have no future if we don't heavily invest in this stimulus package now.

I believe the holdings of wall street CEOs and those who heavily profiteered at tax payer expense be seized, confiscated and returned to the treasury or those receiving our economy's blackmail money be jailed. Failing companies who give billions in bonuses to their managers are just stealing company funds.

btw...can you even possibly imagine what would be happening right now if McCain/Palin had won. Yikes...makes it easier to understand why Obama won in a landslide huh?

""Our plan is rooted in the philosophy that we cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity..."

Because that's how we destroyed the economy in the first place. Mission accomplished, sort of, except that our plan was to destroy the government, not capitalism. Instead of drowning the government in the bathtub, we drowned the financial system. Oops. Our bad.

But tax cuts, mind you, ARE the answer to every question. Especially business tax cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy.

"Maybe we would start spending money in proportion to the revenue that comes from each district. That would be a real bitch for rural areas."

I'd be happy if we did that by states. We blue states have subsidized the red ones for waaay too long. Thanks, no doubt, to the fact that both California and Wyoming have the same representation in the Senate.

Matthew,

"According to Alan Greenspan ('The Age of Turbulence', pp 169-170), about 1 million people leave jobs each week (600,000 by choice, 400,000 laid off), and about 1 million take new jobs (those who changed, or those who are hired back after layoff.) Right now, new hires are lagging behind new fires by about 40,000 per week, or by about 4% of average weekly turnover."

Further evidence of Greenie's cluelessness.

For the first time in recorded history, in every year of the past eight years, there were fewer workers in the national workforce than there were in 2000:

Civilian Employment/Population Ratio

Mnemosyne,

"(Oh, and please don't try to tell us that Reagan cut taxes and 'proved' that trickle-down works. Reagan did the largest tax increase in history when he hiked payroll taxes and still left us with a massive deficit.)"

That wasn't even the half of it:

* In 1982 alone, Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

* In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

* In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase with the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP.

* The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

bruno,

"For republicans to keep looking back at Reagan as proof that tax cuts worked; is rather hypocritical, but that is nothing new for them. When tax rates are in the 70%+ range (which they were during his reign), it is rather easy to cut them significantly without too much harm."

Actually not.

After Reagan's tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate were enacted in 1981:

* GDP was a net negative 9% over the six subsequent quarters.

* As David Stockman (Director of the OMB 1981-1985) stated, federal income tax revenues plunged to 1940's levels, resulting in massive federal deficits and debt.

To Joe Friday

Thanks for clarifying that part, and having the facts to back it up.

Boehner has a "Futurama" brain slug attached to his brain.

I hadn't realized, though, that the "Futurama" brain slug also sucks dry someone's soul, with Boehner being a perfect example.

mnemosyne:Just checking -- so when the financial crisis hit, Obama was supposed to "stay the course" and do the same thing he would have done if the economy was healthy?

He knew what the economy was like at the time that he said it.

I do not know whether the Reagan spending increases/tax cuts "worked" or not. Republicans deplore Democratic borrowing and Democrats deplore Republican borrowing. Supposedly the Obama/Democrat borrowing and spending will be a lot more effective than the Bush/Republican borrowing and spending, though very little of the proposed extra $850 billion in the Obama/Democrat plan goes to investments with long term value. Most of the spending is just the usual earmarks and increases in ongoing programs.

bruno: Pretty funny where Marler thinks that Republican congressional districts are doing better when it comes to jobs than democratic districts. Must be why the Red States tend to be amongst the least educated and the lowest average income States.

It was a guess, or maybe even a hypothesis. I don't know about blue states and red states in general, but California is definitely worse off than Texas.

Marler said:

It was a guess, or maybe even a hypothesis. I don't know about blue states and red states in general, but California is definitely worse off than Texas.

You are correct that Texas is currently better off than California. However, if you look into it, California is in trouble because Republican congressmen in their state pushed for a constitutional amendment that makes it 'almost' impossible to pass legislation that raises taxes to take care of State business.

Now that they need to raise taxes, some of the conservative die-hards stand in the way to pass legislation to address the issue with taxes. Granted not ALL taxes are good, but there are times that this necessary evil is required.

Now they're all looking at Obama and hoping that enough off it falls off the wagon for them as well. That's called hypocrisy.

You are correct that quite a bit of the stuff in Obama's package should be reworked to be more efficient. Never mind what conservatives or liberals think it should be. It should work for America as a country; not for what people think it should be according to their own narrow view of what is best for them.

Joe Friday on January 24, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Thanks for the link.

You add an interesting complication. Population growth exceeded job growth, so that the percent of the population that was employed declined, even as total numbers of both mostly increased. So job creation is only 96% of "strong" instead of "strong".

It would help to study population flows more closely. CA has net population growth and net job loss; more people emigrate annually than immigrate annually, but the difference is more than made up by annual births. The emigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial and highly skilled than the immigrants. Transferring money from Texas to CA (the stimulus) probably will not help, as the recipients would probably just take the cash infusion and invest it in other states, as they do now with their profits and borrowings.

bruno: You are correct that Texas is currently better off than California. However, if you look into it, California is in trouble because Republican congressmen in their state pushed for a constitutional amendment that makes it 'almost' impossible to pass legislation that raises taxes to take care of State business.

The company that I worked for (in Orange and Los Angeles counties) cut its workforces here and invested in other states. That's not an isolated instance -- there's sort of an epidemic of that, especially since the start of Gray Davis' term. High tax rates are not the only problem, there is also the regulatory spiderweb that sucks the enthusiasm out of entrepreneurs. We have reached the point where raising tax rates will stifle job creation, and might result in reduced tax revenues (Laffer curve and all that -- I saw it in another locale, but I do not know whether raising rates would necessarily have that effect in CA now.)

Matthew,

"Population growth exceeded job growth..."

That would be inaccurate, since every year between when they started keeping records and 2000, job growth exceeded population growth. You need about 185,000 jobs a month just to stay even with the population growth. Therefore, it is accurate to say that job growth was NEGATIVE over the past eight years.

"so that the percent of the population that was employed declined, even as total numbers of both mostly increased."

No.

The 'Unemployment Rate' is depicted as a percentage, but it is actually a fraction:

Employed Workers/Total National Labor Pool = Percent Employed

Subtract the percent employed from 100% and the result is the Unemployment Rate.

Normally, the Unemployment Rate declines as more jobless workers return to work, and the numerator (top number of the fraction) declines. But the Unemployment Rate can also decline, when the denominator (bottom number of the fraction) declines.

So any period when the Unemployment Rate was declining during the last eight years, unemployment was in reality increasing, as the national labor force was shrinking.

"So job creation is only 96% of 'strong' instead of 'strong'."

No.

There have been MILLIONS more jobless workers than there were in 2000 for years.

"We have reached the point where raising tax rates will stifle job creation, and might result in reduced tax revenues"

Neither has ever happened.

All other parameters being equal, when you raise tax rates, revenue increases, and when you cut tax rates, revenue decreases.

This is the case of the drunk teenager who slams the car into a tree, then complains that the repair bill is too big.

I look around at employees who have held jobs 20 years and are being fired, and hear the drivel of little people like Boehner who are responsible for the catastrophe we are in, and they continue to obstruct all attempts at recovery. It is infuriating!

Iraq and Gitmo. Obama wants to shut down some government projects and the GOP is furious....

So it's all a matter of WHICH government projects you like, isn't it, Senator?

There's one little problem with your plan.

Obama won.

"I do not know whether the Reagan speding increases/tax cuts "worked" or not."

Then why are you commenting on a subject about which you are so clearly ignorant? Free clue: they didn't. Joe has already taken care of your other errors. Might I suggest you actually do your homework before you opine again?

I would love for one of the bad cop democrats to sit Boehner down and re-explain to him, in very clear terms, how many R seats were lost in the last election, and that the people at DC last week were not there to see him. And, in a few weeks, it will be 59/41 in the senate. Then, remind him that given the republican record of the last 8 years, he should be thankful that his sorry a-- was even at the table last week; and, if he doesn't like this bill, then David Obey and friends will craft an even more partisan bill, and he can shove his R votes. Then explain to him that in the last few moderate R districts in the country, the D's will find strong candidates for each and every one, and they can count on fundraising to start, say yesterday. An, oh, yeah. Obama can show up and say what a great person candidate Demo in the 6th district of whositsville is; Then his few moderate R's can start explaining to the voters why exactly they didn't vote for the bill, when every pork laden, besotted piece of crap the R's came up with in the last 8 years was ok.