Anything in there about the Fresno City council metering waste pickup?

Still waiting for the reason that progressives are kicking environmentalists in the teeth on this issue. It is mainly the environmentalists who are bitching, it is the progressives who demand wasteful use of resources in downturns.

Why isn't it a good idea to cut back in lean times? Lord knows governments never cut back in times of plenty.

So: times are good, increase spending, times are bad, increase spending.

Sounds just as nutty as the Republican's argument: times are good, cut taxes, times are bad, cut taxes.

I see no evidence that the repuglican caucus, in masse, is not insane.
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/week-steele-complains-stimulus-bill-c

Ensign is in for a nasty predictable surprise.

All the true waste in local budgets exists because it has a sponsor somewhere. Most waste survives. It gets cut some, but the smaller cuts made in USEFUL services hurts so much the public generally revolts. It's what brought the Republicans to their knees in Virginia. They did such a good job shorting the government of funds that the infrastructure buckled to the breaking point.

I'm not saying it SHOULD be this way...

Why isn't it a good idea to cut back in lean times?

Lord knows governments never cut back in times of plenty.

Well, the Dems or the unions should run ads in his state highlighting his stance, and exactly what it will mean in terms of jobs.

Haven't state budgets increased very substantially in the last 8 years? (c.f. California)

I am interested to hear someone make the case that these states really don't have anything to cut. When people start talking about cutting state budgets, Democrats predictably start talking about firefighters, nurses, and teachers instead of the useless committees, bureaucrats, and stem cell research centers.

Is there a principled argument for why state employees should get pay and benefits far better than private sector employees, even during recession?

Barney Frank is a genius and he has now given the framing that should go forward on all the talking head shows by all Democrats.

The Republicans want teachers firefighters and cops to lose their jobs

Seriously we should be screaming this from the hills. And the thing about it is the more they say its just fearmongering, the more the media will have to investigate FINALLY and see how the recession is affecting cops and teachers and firefighters. Barney Franks is filled with win.

We need to find away to keep him on the Tee Vee. If he wasn't so good in the Congress I would almost say he should be promoted somewhere in the administration because he for damn sure has better media skills than a lot of them!

toowearyforoutrage-

Yeah during the Clinton years we did slow down the growth of government relative to the increase in tax receipts, causing a small surplus. It still grew.

I think everyone would agree those were very good times, what with the commercialization of the internet and all that, and even then we were only able to create a small surplus (and remember the congress was republican after 94).

Err that last message went to larry birnbaum, not the weary dude.

Ensign clearly is a disciple of Grover Norquist.

When he said he wanted to starve government until it was small enough to drown in a bathtub. surely you didn't think he meant only the federal government did you?

No, Grover and his kleptocrat friends want the sum of all government at all levels to be small enough to drown in a bathtub. Public security? The rich can hire Blackwater. Those who can't afford private security? Who needs 'em, anyway, other than a few to be servants.

I wonder if Nevada has a procedure for recalling/impeaching a senator. In an earlier era Nevadans would be rounding up a supply of tar and feathers, be looking for a rail. . .

They're idiots, what do you expect.

I think they think that a chance to further cripple the public school system is worth the other pain.

Because they are that evil.

So, where are the voters of Nevada? Are they pressuring Mr. Ensign? Are they pressuring Harry Reid? Is the Govenor letting the voters know that one of their senators thinks it is a good idea to get rid of all the bloat in the schools and police / fire departments? Or do the voters think the bloat is all related to illegal immigrants getting services that they "do not pay for"? I suspect those who are paying attention do not see that the cuts will hurt everyone - not just those that they hope it will hurt.

Mr. Ensign's indifference to what cutting the bloat out of Nevada's budget will do to / for Nevada - a state whose main attractions depend upon disposable income which depends upon people being employed first and foremost - seems to me like an exercise of him cutting of his constituents noses to spite their faces. But, if people want to continue to sleep walk their way through their citizenship, I do not know what can be done.

The idea of cutting out so much of the state aid -- I have to think that's an argument Democrats can take head-on and win. Hell, Republican state governors were clamoring for aid. Isn't the state aid a means for state-level politicians to suit things to local needs? Wouldn't a state run by Republicans _prefer_ state aid, on principle, to federally directed or micromanaged aid? What happened to the cherished idea of "states rights" and "block grants"? What am I missing. As far as I can tell, it makes no freakin' sense for that category to bear the brunt of cuts.

It is now beyond the obvious that these filthy little vermin---these "Republicans"---are, with their "let-them-eat-cake moments" in front of their shillified media machine, seeking no less than to goad the People into an act of war against their notion of "legitimate governance", hoping that their side can easily put down an armed insurrection. I doubt seriously that a laid-off firefighter will help to extinguish the blazing pile of rubble that once was their fiscally-conservative abode, or that the unemployed police officer will volunteer to protect that abode from its eventual incineration. Those who doubt that such unbridled violence could, indeed, occur should take note that the cultural insurrection now being fomented by the GOP and its rumor-mill in the right-wing media---expressible as a "royal coup by the conservatives" against the modifications of political change---is quite similar to the series of cultural, economic, and catastrophic events that took place 220 years ago in France....

IT AIN'T FEARMONGERING IF IT'S TRUE

That's the way some feel about the threat of terrorist attacks and the imposition of "fairness".

But, as you know, even the truth can be misused to create panic and stampede the people in a mistaken action, or a risky strategy that has no track record of success.

As an aside, just because Bush's budget deficit is bad (frequently claimed), doesn't imply that the solution is an even bigger budget deficit. If the Bush deficit were shown (and widely agreed) to have had a small beneficial effect, then a larger deficit might be expected to have a larger beneficial effect. That lacking, it looks like the Obama policy is to throw more good money after bad. "Doubling down", so to speak.

Much to my surprise, Barney missed an opportunity here. He should have made a bet with Ensign that three months from now thousands of teachers in Nevada would be laid off. And he should have challenged Ensign to appear on the same show three months from now to make good on that bet. Obviously, Barney Frank is sharp witted enough that he doesn't need gimmicks like that, but that would have been a great gimmick. I'd like to see a more aggressive Barney Frank. But, in the end, I'll always love him. I remember watching the Clinton impeachment hearings with a Tibetan refugee friend of mine. My friend said: "Who's this Barney Frank guy? He's really smart." All I could respond with was: "Yeah, he's really smart, and there aren't many like him." Barney deserves our praise.

The good news, I think, is that the Republicans are obviously deeply frightened of Obama. (They're also underestimating him, but they should cc: Hillary on that.) They're also deeply frightened of a new New Deal - these are the descendants of folks who voted Social Security & Medicare down, after all. And look how that did.

Much as I loathe the Republican Party, and for that matter all elected officials whose jobs are secure (they get health care & pension, we don't, and we pay for them), I think this naked partisanship is good for our side. It exposes them for what they are, and how indifferent they are to the well-being of the average American.

As for Ensign, let's remind Nevada voters just how little he cares about them. The rest is up to them.

With Senate Democrats continuing to allow the 60 vote rule to control debate, the fate of every state in the nation rests on the whims of a few moderate Senators from states like Maine and Nebraska, who insisted that 40 billion dollars worth of state stabilization funds for struggling states be excised from the stimulus package, along with education funding that would have benefited small states.

For California, this wouldn't come anywhere close to solving the budget crisis, but would help prevent the massive lay-offs and suspended capital projects.

Instead a cabal of small state moderates have substituted more tax cuts that are absurdly expensive, won't address the problems they are designed to ameliorate, and have far less immediate impact and less bang for the buck.

The total population of Maine's five largest cities would create a municipality equivalent to California's 26th largest city, right between Santa Clarita and Rancho Cucomonga.Portland, the largest city in Maine, has a population that would place it between Lodi and Manteca, well outside the list of the 100 largest cities in the state.

The two Senators from Maine probably stripped more California jobs from the stimulus package than there are people in the eight largest cities in Maine.

With the disproportionate weight that Senators from small states already carry, why does the Senate continue to allow a few small state Senators to determine policy for everyone in the country?

just because Bush's budget deficit is bad (frequently claimed), doesn't imply that the solution is an even bigger budget deficit. MatthewRMarler

That's true. And if your car doesn't run, it doesn't help to buy a gun. Is that your point? Or merely the depth of your analysis?

Damn it Steve, this is a success for them. The republicans have already admitted they want Obama to fail...even at the cost of losing our economy. The more his program is gutted the more chance that it will fail and we will have a complete depression then Ensign will say "See. I tole dyou Obama's plans wouldn't work. We just need more tax cuts and a republican majority"..while they plan to demolish our democracy and replace it with a corporatocracy of the very wealthy and the working poor and a police state to protect their holdings.

Fuck what is politically correct...if we don't start shooting these bastards they will continue to destroy our nation till our democracy and our constitution is unrecognizable. We must face being rid of them as they are no longer capable of governing beyond their self interests. They want to destroy good government and have spent 30yrs getting it done, especially the last 8 yrs. Time to start bringing back the guillotines because there are 36 senators who are blocking and obstructing the progress of an entire nation.

Will,

Why do you want states to cut spending now? What do you think that the effect will be on the economy? People are telling you that the effect would be disastrous (I should probably change the verb tense to "will be disastrous", since states will cut spending. If you think they are wrong, then give a counter-argument.

You write:

Yeah during the Clinton years we did slow down the growth of government relative to the increase in tax receipts, causing a small surplus.

So why isn't that good enough? Why do you want for total government spending to decrease (as opposed to government spending as a fraction of GDP)?

Ensign is up for reelection in 2012. No pressure on him now.

He was a successful Veterinarian in Las Vegas, which makes him a good technician and a good detail man running a business. He is also a hardrock conservative, probably for those exact reasons.

Vet schools do not turn out people who have any understanding of economics at all. He gets his big picture ideas from ideology instead of from what works.

I wonder how this all would play out sans the T.V. cameras and 24 hr. news cycle.

I don't think these assholes would do so much nit-picking and grandstanding.

The visibility availed them certainly changes things. To what degree, who knows?

But that's what we have, so we better learn to work with it.

I can see both sides in this argument. For the record, I do NOT agree with any of the republican talking points at all.

But..

It is a form of fear-mongering to talk about cops, firefighters and teachers loosing their jobs.

Considering that it costs local governments (around here) about $85,000-$100,000+ to have a firefighter on duty, I'd say that is excessive. Most of the time they're killing time, and not fighting fires. Maybe their pay structure should be re-configured to reflect pay for performance. hazard pay when actually needed, and 'regular' pay when doing menial jobs. (Getting a cat out of a tree shouldn't be done by someone who takes home $100K a year - Someone making $20K can do that too.)

The same goes for cops, who cost the community about the same amount, and I personally think that being a 'traffic cop' writing parking tickets and such can be accomplished by someone at a lower cost. Leave the high pay for the ones who are detectives and actually solve crimes and put themselves into dangerous situations.

When it comes to teachers, when cuts are talked about, it is not in the number of teachers, but in the number of days cut off the school year. Each teacher makes a little bit less, but the students are the ones getting 'less' education.

In all 3 mentioned cases: unions are the ones driving the irresponsible demands for compensation. Government employee unions are far more dangerous than regular unions, because they use the fear techniques of what would happen to so called 'needed' services if their contracts don't get approved.

Of course idiots like Ensign think that the government is bloated and that significant amounts of money can be saved by making new rules such as:
banning the use of two-ply toilet paper,
mowing the lawn every other week instead of weekly,
disbanding government agency car pools,
halving the number of times a bus runs in a single route,
using regular gas instead of premium,
etc...

The biggest cost of government is labor. If you cut funds for the local road department it does not automatically result in people losing their jobs. It does result in potholes not being fixed, and lines on roads fading away instead. Only then are jobs at risk, and usually not through lay-offs, but through attrition and retirements. In other words, fewer employees remain, doing the work of the ones not replaced.

So: Yes government is bloated and needs to be streamlined. A light needs to be brightly shining on how government unions contracts are negotiated.

and Yes their needs to be a stimulus packet to help States through this recession.

Now is not the time for republicans to insist on fiscal conservative principles, especially since they didn't insist on them the last 16 years.

McCain tells the University of Arizona to go "cheney" itself

The president of the U of A sends out this email to all concerned. The "money" paragraph:

Let us first note that when we began this fiscal year in July 2008, we were already anticipating a mid-year cut (though certainly not of this magnitude). In the fall, we implemented what we believe were prudent, measured, and fiscally necessary steps to reduce costs at the University. These efforts included a funds sweep and a very strict hiring freeze, which we continue to enforce. Combined with a 5% reduction in operating budgets across the University, the steps that were initiated 6 months ago have positioned us to approach the current significant cut in a coherent fashion. These actions will result in fewer class offerings, larger class sizes in the future and increased time to degree for our students.

McCain doesn't give a shit.
Nor will the media hold his old balls to the fire...

This would be the same John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, that was endorsed for reelection last year by the Democratic majority leader Harry Reid.

The numbers in the Senate say that Democrats have a majority, but half of them are really Republicans. Shame on all of them for their duplicity and betrayal.

The thing they don't get is that this bad economy WILL ultimately get to many Republicans and Centrists too. We truly are all in this together.

As Obama said:
"I don't care if you're driving a SUV or a Hybrid--if you're heading for a cliff, you're going to fall off" (paraphrasing).

Maybe if Nevada initiated a state income tax, things would be a little different.

Daryl McCullough,

You wrote: "Why do you want states to cut spending now? What do you think that the effect will be on the economy? People are telling you that the effect would be disastrous (I should probably change the verb tense to "will be disastrous", since states will cut spending. If you think they are wrong, then give a counter-argument."

One counter argument is that they were irresponsibly profligate up until now and so bailing them out will signal to state governments that they don't need to be careful with their budgets. Another is that since there is surely wasteful and inefficient spending going on at all levels of government, we should take this opportunity to try to lessen it (if not now, when?).

The point of my post was simply to point out the parallels between the democrats and republicans economic arguments. Democrats want to make government bigger, no matter the situation, and republicans want to make it smaller, no matter the situation. Surely the answer neither of these options?

to koreyel

Thanks for the link to that article. I wonder how much money the University President cut off his salary? It wouldn't surprise me that it will be more than what President Obama makes.

I'm not saying that the Republicans did the right thing with obstructing the stimulus bill. I'm saying that a lot of times the cuts are not in 'excessive' compensation, but in programs.

Not that much different from what the financial execs did: Loose a few 100 billion but still pay yourself a few billion in bonuses - because your expertise demands it.

It's time for America to re-evaluate what is important. Is the constant need to consume the best way?

Why does Starbucks need to open x-number of new stores each year in order to be seen as 'successful'? Starbucks stops expanding, and actually closing some stores that are literally across the street from each other, and all of a sudden the stock tanks.

What is wrong with running a successful company without the need to get bigger every year?

btw...the population is increasing and demanding energy, food and housing and all that goes with it. If government shrinks when the population explodes...someone is getting screwed out of basic services. These republican senators should be dragged from their perches (I get Graham or because I'm in MO do I have to settle for "Kitty" Bond?) as they are so far removed from the people and reality that their millionaire eyes never look down, and handed over to the unemployment lines with the thousands they have already put on the streets.

Sorry Ensign, in cutting back funding we can't afford to pay for 2 senators and guess what....You're unemployed...and no you don't get to take your ins. policy with you and we just ran out of unemployment benefits (but that's something that would never affect you huh...you've already made a pretty penny off those you now are so ready to send to the unemployment lines).

Bruno,

Most of the time they're killing time, and not fighting fires.

Yeah, firemen don't need frequent training or to maintain their equipment. Nor do they need to scope out the area they protect to determine what special fire hazards they face. All they are hired to do is fight fires. So what if a few die becaue they don't know how to properly suppress the results the wreck of some strange truck that drove through on the highway. Or how to handle an overturned chlorine truck. Or how to deal with the fire in a chemical plant or from a railroad that goes through or ... you get the idea, don't you?

In most areas firemen and policemen are very highly trained professionals who need to be updated in their training frequently. Fire suppression equipment is unusual and frequently updated or changed, and maintaining that is a massive job all by itself. Police have to know how to handle different social problems and not exacerbate them. Cities can't function without that kind of expertise. There's a reason why they take a year or more to vet and hire a police officer, and why he isn't let out on the streets on his own for years after that. I'm sure the requirements for firemen are similar.

$60,000 to $100,000 a year, depending on location? They are rare and they work cheap.

I suggest that President Obama offer to debate any elected official the Republicans choose on the economic recovery plan, in prime time, next week before the House-Senate conference report is voted on. The debate could be moderated by Jim Lehrer. If Senator McCain still fancies himself as the leader/spokesman for Republican economic policies, then he should agree to represent the party's views; plus, his status as the previous candidate would avoid the perception of lowering Presidential prestige by engaging in debate. Personally, I think the American people had this debate and the Republicans lost it on November 4, but apparently they don't recall that, it being so long ago. So let's reset the debate.

It's time to force both sides of this argument to explain themselves in a serious format, where their pseudo-facts can be held up for examination.

Bruce K

Will,

"Yeah during the Clinton years we did slow down the growth of government relative to the increase in tax receipts, causing a small surplus."

Converting massive federal deficits as far as the eye could see (and the debt was rising faster than the GDP), to federal surpluses as far as the eye could see, is not a "small surplus".

"I think everyone would agree those were very good times, what with the commercialization of the internet and all that, and even then we were only able to create a small surplus"

The World Wide Web didn't exist until 1989, the first web browser (Mosaic) wasn't even invented until 1993, and commercial dial-up didn't exist until 1995. The federal budget was in NET surplus in the Summer of 1994.

"(and remember the congress was republican after 94)."

Newtie and the Blowhards did not take office until January of 1995, and there was no significant budget legislation signed by President Clinton until February of 1996, after the Republicans had embarrassed themselves by shutting the federal government down, twice. The economy and stock market were already accelerating briskly as a result of the budget & tax legislation passed by a Democrat Majority Congress and signed by a Democrat President.

Nice to see the word "centrist" in quotes. It should always be that way. These self-important clowns don't represent the center, they are the weasel-right. In this instance their behavior, perhaps partly due to ignorance, is very close to treasonous. Vermin.

"... it looks like the Obama policy is to throw more good money after bad. "Doubling down", so to speak.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on February 8, 2009 at 3:13 PM

That was one of the dumbest things I've read in some time and personality driven. Obama is cleaning up Bush's mess. Republicans and Bush rejected a smaller stimulus package last Sept which would have made this package much smaller. Bush and these current repukes have made it necessary to increase what is necessary to get us out of the disaster they created...not make it worse as your comment suggest as if he's wasting more money or continuing Bush's mess.

Republicans have been unwilling to change anything and have rudely pissed on the mere idea of compromise or bipartisanship doing anything they can to make sure dems fail for purely political reasons.

btw...The MSM and Sunday talk shows will not report on it but I suspect republican governors will be up in arms over slashing federal funds they were counting on to keep their states employees working. Bye-bye Sen. Ensign...you've exposed your pitiful "concern" for the people of your state.

Yeah during the Clinton years we did slow down the growth of government relative to the increase in tax receipts, causing a small surplus. It still grew.

No, it didn't "still grow". Clinton actually cut the size of the federal payroll, the only president to do so since WWII, if I'm not mistaken, or perhaps longer. If fewer people were employed by the government, there's not a real good measure for claiming that it "grew", particularly when deficits were being brought down throughout the period and we had actual surplusses by the time he left office.

I suppose you'll counter by saying "but government revenues grew". Well, duh - they had to to bring the deficit down, because of population growth, etc. But that doesn't indicate a government that's grown larger.

"I am interested to hear someone make the case that these states really don't have anything to cut. When people start talking about cutting state budgets, Democrats predictably start talking about firefighters, nurses, and teachers instead of the useless committees, bureaucrats, and stem cell research centers."

Will should check the data. According to the BEA, 3/4 of state&local budgets go to education, public order&safety (police and fire), or economic affairs (read transportation). Maybe he can tell us which of the other 25% should get huge percentage spending reductions.

Ensign is the one who is bloated here--with his own delusion of self-import.

Along with so many others in our Congress.

"Why do you want states to cut spending now? What do you think that the effect will be on the economy? "

Three words, Bill Clinton and Rubinomics got us out of the recession of the early 1990s and resulted in the longest boom in history.

We are running against Bill Clinton and for lil Bush is we believe Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney.

yeah, why are they willing to allow state's to slash their budgets?

so they can bust the teacher, police and firefighter unions.

the teachers union in rhode island is as good as finished already.

According to this the federal budget was not in surplus until 1998 and that only lasted until 2001.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20Deficit%20Surplus%20and%20National%20Debt

And yeah the commercialization of the internet didn't start in earnest until around 1995, but you also had the beginning of the ubiquity of personal computers and all sorts of rapid technological advances that led to large increases in productivity happening in the late 80s and 90s. The point is it took a perfect storm of great economic conditions for the government to get a surplus that lasted all of three years.

Our system of government does not know how to live within its means, and bailing it out with more borrowing doesn't create the incentives needed to fix it.

"Bill Clinton and Rubinomics got us out of the recession of the early 1990s and resulted in the longest boom in history." - Matt Young trying to argue for fiscal restraint in 2009. But, but, but ... Clinton's policy was to backload the fiscal restraint so as to give the FED's easy money policy time to encourage more investment demand. In 2009, we have very low short-term interest rates so at least traditional monetary policy has lost its punch. This is why we need fiscal stimulus

At 4:18 PM, I suggested to Will that he actually review the BEA data on how state/local governments actually spend funds but now I want him to check the end of his own link from his 4:39 comment (section entitled Are Debts and Deficits Always Bad?)

"During a recession, federal revenues typically fall, since most revenues are based on income. But even though revenues fall, most economists argue that during a recession, the government should spend more. This is called "deficit spending" and it is meant to stimulate economic activity. For example, imagine that the government repaired some schools and constructed some new ones. Construction companies would hire more workers and purchase machinery, tools and materials from other businesses. Those businesses would also hire more workers and purchase materials from other businesses. Construction workers would have employment and would spend their income on household goods, entertainment, and so on. More jobs and more spending are generated. This process is known as the multiplier effect. An increase in government spending leads to more economic activity than the original increase."

Of course, Ensign wants to cut government spending during this recession. Excuse me but Matthew Yglesias has this right - Ensign endorsed Hoover economics.

Will,

"According to this the federal budget was not in surplus until 1998 and that only lasted until 2001"

Because Chimpy Bush and the Congressional Republicans enacted tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate which immediately resulted in a deficit.

"And yeah the commercialization of the internet didn't start in earnest until around 1995, but you also had the beginning of the ubiquity of personal computers and all sorts of rapid technological advances that led to large increases in productivity happening in the late 80s and 90s."

That goal post you are carrying around must be heavy.

"The point is it took a perfect storm of great economic conditions for the government to get a surplus that lasted all of three years."

No it didn't. It took sound economic policies not rooted in the Bizarro World.

And it was FOUR years.

"Our system of government does not know how to live within its means..."

Of course it does. President Clinton accomplished it year after year.

"...and bailing it out with more borrowing doesn't create the incentives needed to fix it."

The national economy is more than 70% consumer spending. Demand has gone over a cliff. Something must substitute for that demand.

Japan spent the 90s doing all the things we've been doing the last couple of years (Zero interest rates, spending programs, public works, you name it). And none of it accomplished anything except to vastly increase their government's debt burden:

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/never-fear-the-feds-are-on-the-case/

"Housing prices in Japan are now back down to where they were in 1975 – nearly 90% below the late-’80s peak. And stocks? The Nikkei index is back down to where it was a quarter century ago. Stocks sell for half their book value – and they’re still considered too expensive for beaten-down, hyper-fearful Japanese investors. The downturn began in 1990. Over the following 19 years, it did more property damage than the Great Tokyo Fire of ’23 and the Enola Gay combined, wiping out wealth equal to three times the country’s GDP. This was despite interest rates at zero…and a heroic effort at Keynesian stimulation."

And read this:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8608.html

A bond market collapse is already under way.

Global investors are already growing skeptical that too many government agencies, corporations, states, counties and cities will be unable to make good on the interest and principal they're promising to pay.

And since December 18, we have already seen a sneak preview of what could lie ahead: A massive plunge in the price of Treasury bonds.

That price decline, however, is just ONE symptom of Washington's coming day of reckoning. Another is the sinking confidence in U.S. investments around the world.

Some prime examples:

* Last Wednesday, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, China's Premier Wen Jiabao laid the responsibility for this global crisis squarely on Washington's doorstep: The financial crisis, he said, is “attributable to inappropriate macroeconomic policies and their unsustainable model of development characterized by prolonged low savings and high consumption; excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit.�

The implication: A major, across-the-board reassessment in China's investments in the U.S.

* Last year, China ended all new investments in a number of U.S. companies.
* Also last year, China dumped $26.1 billion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds — just in the five months ending November.
* Major investors in Japan, Russia, Western Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America — whether politically aligned with the U.S. or not — are also showing signs of slowing down, stepping back, or even pulling out of U.S. investments.

Fast forward to Washington's day of reckoning and you will see how the bailout game could end:

On that day, Washington will have to either pay rates of interest that wound paralyze, and virtually KILL the economy … or it will have to slash and even abandon its bailout efforts.

Ultimately, it will have no choice but to step aside and let failing companies fail … collapsing industries collapse … and sinking markets sink.

We're #1 !!!! We're #1 !!!!!
-------------------------------------------------
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PER-PUPIL REVENUE, 2005-06 (Source: The U.S. Census Bureau's Public Education Finances: 2006):
Revenue total: New York $16,800, RANK #1
New York revenue sourcing: $1,198 State
$7,241 Local, $8,360 Federal.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PER-PUPIL SPENDING, 2005-06 (Ibid.):
Total: New York $14,884, RANK #1
Per-pupil salaries and wages: $8,992.
Per-pupil employee benefits: $3,412.

Doh!!!*@?%+!?! (& Why more Rev/less Spend? Hmmm.):
------------------------------------------------
2006 Graduation Rank (by state): New York - #35

Mean 2008 SAT Score/Graduating HS Seniors Rank:
New York - #45

"...This was despite interest rates at zero…and a heroic effort at Keynesian stimulation."

Uh, no.

The Japanese intervention was both too small and deployed too slowly (over the course of a full decade) to provide the needed stimulus.

As Krugman and far too many others to name have pointed out, repeatedly.

What the Senate Republicans have done to the bill, which was not as big as it needed to be in the first place, is guarantee it will be even less stimulative. What's needed is a boost of 2% GDP. What it's been cut to is a boost of .5% GDP, in an economy that's plummeting downwards even as Republicans continue to ride their tax cut hobbyhorse over the cliff.

Say, that would make a good cartoon...

Jennifer, if we hadn't spent the last 25 years building up debt to astronomical levels in this country, we MIGHT be able to spend our way out of this mess. It won't work now.

What are we trying to stimulate, anyway? Consumers who are up to their necks in debt, losing their jobs, who have spent many years buying everything in sight? Are we trying to get them to go out and buy MORE stuff? The consumer economy is not a sustainable economy.

Let's see a legislator introduce a bill to ELIMINATE pensions for federal lawmakers.

Ensign and his ilk can afford, literally, to say crap like this because they are set for life.

Well, let's pull that stool out from under him ... just as it's being pulled out from under hundreds of thousands of Americans today.

Jennifer, if we hadn't spent the last 25 years building up debt to astronomical levels in this country, we MIGHT be able to spend our way out of this mess. It won't work now.
Posted by: Doomer

We spent our way into this mess, and we'll sure as hell spend our way out of it!

I have to take issue with bruno @3:31.

I live in Iowa and here government unions can't strike. It is against the law. so when times are good and people in the private sector are getting 5-6% increases we see 3-3.5% because our unions ask for 5-6% and the government offers 0-1% so arbitrators split the difference. When time are bad we ask for 3-4% and the government offers 0-1% so the arbitrators split the difference. Now the Elected officials who offer the 0-1% get their raises from a compensation board largely made up of their friends. Guess what they get the 5-6% raises. They have to face voters and be re-elected. For the most part local elected officals hold offices for decades until they retire or really do something to tick off the majority of voters who then vote someone else in.

So in effect, we get raises based on people who win a popularity contest and they get raises from their friends. Our only advantage is that we really have to do something bad to get fired. Our elected officials can do just about anything short of commit a major crime and they stay in office.

So if we have the right to strike and all the services you depend on get shut down for weeks or months, then you'd appreciate how useless we all are.

As it is I'm personally unhappy that cops can't spend time to do something about the minor crimes unless they affect a local business. Parking violations, running red lights, etc aren't even on the radar. There aren't enough cops to keep up with those things that can cause a safety problem for residents.

Imaging how much worse it will get with fewer cops, firefighters and teachers.

We spent our way into this mess, and we'll sure as hell spend our way out of it!

Haven't you ever heard that you need to spend money to make money? My husband's company keeps trying to run their business as a 24/7 business while only keeping an 8-5 staff. Not surprisingly, they end up spending huge amounts of money on overtime because they don't want to hire more full-time people even though the company will make more money if they hired more people. They'd rather struggle to make do with what they have than make the necessary investments to grow their business.

Geez, I thought you guys were supposed to be the ones who understand how business works. Turns out all you know is how to keep the stock price up for just one more quarter so you can cash out and leave the burning wreckage behind you.

"Got that? As the recession worsens, the government spending is needed to prevent more Americans from losing their jobs, a leading Republican senator whose own state is about to get pummeled, believes it's a good idea to "cut back.""

Steve, why do you keep feigning ignorance on this? My only assumption is that from your reality tunnel you can't see that Republicans and their supporters (although some against their own interests)truly believe that it is a good idea to "cut back". I wish that you'd offer up some analysis using their ideology against them instead of just the continued posts of utter exasperation.

My understanding is that most Republicans would be quite pleased if teachers, firefighters and cops because contract labor along the lines of Blackwater etc. Republicans are using this crisis to ram through their agenda of privitization. These jobs aren't coming back once slashed if and when there is a rebound. They'll be jobs given to the private sector contract work.

Can you get it through your head that they want EVERYTHING IN THE UNITED STATES PRIVTIZED!!!

zeitgeist gets it.

Maybe Will, since our government spending is bloated and needs to be cut back, we should cut the flight controllers. We could save a bunch. Not flight controllers on Mondays. Just take your chances. And, by the way, to cut back on electrical charges cities will run traffic lights and streetlights from 7 am til 9pm and not on weekends. Why can't the kids in school teach themselves? We cut send the teachers home at noon and the kids can work on stuff by themselves.

Republicans believe that if you can't pay for it yourself, you have no business receiving the benefits of modern society. If I want street lights and flight controllers I'll pay for them. But, if I'm not flying, taking public transportation, taking medications or eating food, why should I pay for roads, public transportation, safe medication and food. It is sad to see that so many American's still succumb to Republican snake oil.

What I'd like to see is for Ensign (and others like him) to point at *specific* instances of "bloat" that can be cut, easily and without harm to education (teachers) and safety (cops and firefighters), while also making sure that the state economy keeps on humming.

Because -- my memory may be failing me -- but... I seem to remember that there had been, not so long ago, a presidential candidate, who was absolutely certain that we could fix economy and balance the budget at the same time, by the simple expedient of eliminating pork earmarks... And then couldn't name any "earmarks" that he'd eliminate, never mind any "earmarks" that would actually make positive difference.

So when can we issue the pink slips to the rethugs in congress? How much cash did they send to Iraq with no accountability? I hear it was truckloads. How much aid are we giving to Israel - I heard that was $10 million per day!!!! Congress just got a pay raise. McCain needs some more new houses I'm sure.

Bull Puckey...

bruno wrote:

to koreyel
Thanks for the link to that article. I wonder how much money the University President cut off his salary? It wouldn't surprise me that it will be more than what President Obama makes.

Don't thank me, read the link instead:

The UA cuts will force the elimination of approximately 600 positions through attrition, unfilled vacancies and layoffs in this fiscal year, and a mandatory five-day furlough for all UA employees on state and locally allocated funds next fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2009.

Everyone is having to take a mandatory furlough. It is even worse up at ASU. Big duh: Furloughs are forced pay cuts. Less pay means less spending. Snake meet tail. Bullshit meet Rachel Maddow's Bullpuckey.

On a deeper level, a country that allows one of its major universities to wither and wane, undermines its own future in the dumbest sort of way. Truly this is a bone-headed, Easter Island, kind of madness.

Hmmmm. Shall we call it the Kyl-McCain Brain Drain Act of 2009?

Please look into H.R. 25 and S.296 - Fair Tax proposal

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00025:|/bss/111search.html

If we could get these bills out of committee and enacted immediately not in January 2011. I believe that these bills would have an immediate impact on stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and making the tax code equitable for all as

even those on government financial assistance would pay taxes AND ILLEGALS

Very similar to the European VAT

I am trying all avenues to get notice to these bills to get them out of committee and the public made aware of the benefits.

TITLE I–REPEAL OF THE INCOME TAX, PAYROLL TAXES, AND ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES

SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.

Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income taxes and self-employment taxes) is repealed.

SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.

(a) In General- Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to payroll taxes and withholding of income taxes) is repealed.

(b) Funding of Social Security- For funding of the Social Security Trust Funds from general revenue, see section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401).

SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.

I recently moved to Nevada in hopes of getting a job with the Clark County Public Defender. Everyone knows that when states face budget shortfalls, cutting money from public defender offices will cost you exactly 0 votes. I took a big risk moving clear across the country for this amazing opportunity, and if it gets cut because Republicans would rather lower Exxon's non-existent tax burden I'm gonna be pissed. But the bill was bipartisan, so I guess I should stop whining.

We spent a trillion dollars slaughtering Iraqis for the entertainment of scumbags. What did it buy us? A broken military, a mountain of Republican debt, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brown people. But now idiots who cheered for as much spending for wanton murder as was possible are trying to further worsen conditions in the United States by insisting that we not spend money on making life better for anyone.

I guess it works if you are sociopath.

I know there are way too many amendments filed already on this bill, but I would suggest that Mr. Ensign add another one. Perhaps the good Senator and his colleagues would vote for a 38% reduction in their own pay to go along with the cuts that their states will have to make.

Some of you would do better if you realized government was not a profit generating enterprise or a business and accepted the fact that no, private citizens do not know better how to spend their money.

Unless, of course, you're expecting middle class citizens to spontaneously and collectively upgrade infrastructure with their minuscule tax savings.

I'm so sick of reading the nonsensical drivel of overnight 'economists' regurgitating the same tired talking points about tax breaks and balanced budgets. Do us all a favor and have the decency to drive off the nearest cliff.

"government was not a profit generating enterprise "

Governments make profits all the time, look at the Russian or Saudi government, very lucrative tax collection on oil exports, or direct ownership of oil. Consider the lease fees we collect on government land. Some national parks run a profit.

The US government does not tell you about the profits. They do not use a profit and loss accounting system.

The question you should ask is whether our government is deliberately disguising their profits to hide their losses.

I recently moved to Nevada in hopes of getting a job with the Clark County Public Defender.
Posted by: shawn

Ouch. Vegas is in the center of the real estate freefall vortex, having been riding the bubble the highest. My BIL lives in a $700K house (what he paid for it) in a gated community where houses are now selling for $180K, if they sell.

red state mike,

"We spent our way into this mess..."

Actually, we 'tax rate cut' our way into this mess.

The so-called "Fair Tax" is a SCAM.

* The purported 23 percent tax rate is intentionally misleading. They divide the sales tax by the cost of a purchase plus the tax. So if the tax on a $100 purchase is $30, the group prefers to call it a 23 percent "tax inclusive rate" ($30 divided by $130). Nobody calculates a sales tax in such a fraudulent manner. It's a 30% sales tax.

* Even a 30% national sales tax would not even come CLOSE to being revenue neutral. The sales tax would likely have to be 40% or more, which would bankrupt the Middle-class and pummel the Working Poor.

National sales taxes, consumption taxes, flat taxes, are all merely different versions of a scam to cut taxes on the Rich & Corporate and shift even more of the tax burden to working people.

You know, I had an uncle George who inherited a profitable business. He slashed prices, used the operating capital on hookers, booze, building a bomb shelter (this a decade after the end of the Cold War), and lavishing gifts on his children, and apparently on a murder spree a few states away (he got off in spite of his obvious guilt owing to his status). A few years later the business was in shambles.

Eventually my uncle Barry took over the business. He wanted to borrow money to clean up the properties, buy new inventory, and train new people to run the business.

For some reason George's idiot children are complaining that spending more money to build the business is a terrible idea because spending was how the business got to be such a mess.

George's children are total fucking morons.

How come no one has resurrected the "nuclear option"? It seemed pretty much like a great idea to the Senate Republicans when they were in power. Why not be "bipartisan" now and accept their idea?

The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers are on board:

The administration is betting on at least three Republican moderates to help see it through, and the traditionally Republican-leaning business lobby is beginning to exert itself more as well.

In announcing his support Friday night, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) pointedly read from a Chamber of Commerce endorsement. The National Association of Manufacturers has also weighed in, telling Republicans that votes on the bill “including potential procedural motions� may be considered for designation as key votes in NAM’s scoring of their legislative record.

So the auto industry, the trucking industry, manufacturers, the building industry, small businesses, and Wall Street support some kind of a stimulus package, to name a few.

Remember the days when Democrats were alleged to be the enemy of big business? Back when color-coded terrorists alerts conveniently distracted from bad news for the Bushies?

Good times.

It's not enough for congressional Republicans to stand in the way of sound economic policy during a crisis; they also want to discourage everyone from talking about it.

Two of the religious beliefs of our time that are hard to eradicate are:

(1) government borrowing and spending can prevent financial panics from turning into recessions;

(2) government tax-cutting and spending can prefent financial panics from turning into recessions.

The Bush and the Republican Congress gave us tax cutting with increased spending in 2001 and 2003 with at best slight effects; Bush and the Democratic Congress gave us increased spending with increased borrowing in 2008 and 2009 with at best a slight effect. The tax increases by Bush I and Clinton did not stifle economic growth. Under Reagan, the first big tax cut did not stimulate immediate economic growth (an effect claimed for tax cuts), and the subsequent tax increase did not stifle the economic growth once it started to occur.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress are using different religious dogmas to justify an enormous increase in U.S. federal borrowing. All we know for sure is that, based on the record of the last 5 decades, we'll be paying the interest on the new borrowing for at least 5 decades into the future.

The good news is that the annual debt will still be a smaller fraction of annual GDP than most big economies enjoy. Perhaps this is why yields on federal notes are so low.

to koreyel

After re-reading my comment, I realize I could have been clearer in how I formulated it.

I meant to say that it wouldn't surprise me that the President of UA earned more money than President Obama. I suspect that his salary and benefits amount to more than $ 400,000. So... after seeing the article and reading how many cuts had been made to UA employees, I wondered: what will be the cut in the university president's salary?

Probably not all that much in relation to all the 'regular' people who are taking a cut... after all he's like a corporate guy: indispensable and deserving of the higher pay.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

If that is correct, then we are not headed for a catastrophe, and Obama's fear-mongering is inappropriate.

Obviously, all of the CBO's projections did not allow for the loss of 600,000 jobs a month after their report was released. I'd say there will be significant revisions coming along.

Wow, Krugman really lashes into Obama in his latest Op-Ed piece about the damage Centrists have done.

I fear he is onto something.

Re: Tao9, 5:38pm

The SAT comparison is misleading. In some states, such as NY, most high school seniors take the SAT. In other states, very few do, and those that do tend to be high-achieving students with the means to attend selective out-of-state colleges. Not surprisingly, states with higher percentages of HS students taking the SAT look bad because their test-taking population includes large numbers of relatively low-achieving students who probably wouldn't take the test in other states.

red state mike,

"We spent our way into this mess..."

Actually, we 'tax rate cut' our way into this mess.
Posted by: Joe Friday

Overspending and undertaxing are really the same thing: borrow-and-spend liberalism. If I might use a public trough as a metaphor for the federal government, if you receive largesse from the trough as government spending, or don't ante up sufficient taxes in the first place, either has the same effect on the trough--deficit.

I used to consider myself somewhat moderate, maybe even a little bit republican. Now the republican party is dead to me and it will be to my children as well.

John Ensign is a Las Vegas casino trust fund baby (I think his family is big in Boyd Group, but I might be wrong about which group.) He's a big shot in a Prosperity Theory mega-church (If you are rich it means God loves you and if your not it means you pissed God off somehow.) These guys claim to be Christians but totally ignore the book of Matthew, one four Gospels. Is a 3/4 Christian really a Christian?

Ensign walked away from his veterinary practice (I guess dogs don't really need healing if humans need tax cuts more) in order to run for Congress to cut taxes because he and his pals weren't getting enough yet. Hopefully they can succeed in their plans to decimate Nevada's public school system, so that only rich people can get an education, and everyone else will be available to work for less than the minimum wage in the casinos and veterinary clinics.

You know, if state governments stopped handing ridiculous pension plans to state employees, we wouldn't have these problems, and the states wouldn't need bailouts.

I'll take the call for bonus caps for Wall Street bankers a lot more seriously when the politicians at the state level start thinking about capping their pension plans.

How fast was TARP passed?

My memory remembers it passing at almost the speed of light.

Whoosh! Done.

Now we are in a new year, new administration and economical sludge has materialized. Weren't we threatened with fire and brimstone if TARP didn't go through?

I blame the seventeenth amendment.

http://www.nber.org/feldstein/washingtonpost_012909.html

An $800 Billion Mistake
By Martin Feldstein

As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Most of the time they're killing time, and not fighting fires.

How quickly people forget about 9-11. Tell me, Bruno, who deliberately walked into certain death on that day? The image of those Brooklyn firefighters who marched into the north tower after the south tower collapsed is still seered into my brain if it's very obviously not seared into yours. Firefighters put their lives on the line. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

And just think of how worse that day would have been had there been the cutbacks you espouse.

Re: Relentless Patriot's comments. Jon Stewart had his usual brilliant pairing of clips for that, showing Darrell Issa poohpoohing the need to investigate the disappearance of something like $12 billion in cash in Iraq with his now pious remarks about profligate spending.

Which reminds me, the STATE of ARIZONA is busily laying off employees 138 in the Department of Administration last week. So, without FEDERAL aid going to states, they get unemployement (which pays next to nothing in Arizona), go on food stamps, go to emergency rooms, have their houses foreclosed on (or can't pay their rent), their can insurance goes unpaid etc etc.

Thus creating MORE of a burden on taxpayers, than had the state raised taxes or the federal government helped Arizona out.

Which means they buy less groceries "Bashas’ ... lay off 350 full time and part time employees " etc etc etc, and downwards we go.

But this is no time for recriminations.

Nevada is a relatively small state. What with a strong union presence in Clark County, and recent demographic trends that favor the party, Democrats ought to be able to organize popular opinion and ruin Ensign, and hopefully the Nevada GOP with it.

As another out of touch GOP'er said once, "Where is the outrage?" Karma is a bitch, but sometimes it needs help. Ads should be running now on TV--Ensign followed by the numbers.

Will said:

"So: times are good, increase spending, times are bad, increase spending."

Please review Federal Fiscal Policy 1992-2000, with particular attention to two statistics; the percentage of GDP which was due to Federal Government spending, and the gradual shift from deficit to (finally) a surplus of revenue over outlays. What you will find will SHOCK you.

Oh but look! A semen stained blue dress.

Oh, Paul G. -- stop bringing up reality, it only pisses conservatives off.

I wish Will's comment had been the most stupid, ignorant thing I'd seen in the past few days. The sad fact of the matter, it's not even top ten for the past few MINUTES.

Overspending and undertaxing are really the same thing... -Luther

They're not even close to the same thing. Hence the problem trying to discuss and reason with your kind. You have little to no grasp on these matters and absolutely no problem pretending you do.

Luther,

"Overspending and undertaxing are really the same thing: borrow-and-spend liberalism."

Wrong on both counts:

* "Undertaxing" the Rich & Corporate is not "liberalism".

* "Overspending" on the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate Welfare is not "liberalism".

red state mike posted:

"An $800 Billion Mistake By Martin Feldstein
As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake."

Your knee-jerk assumption is countered by Feldstein on the 'Lehrer News Hour':

"A lot of the tax cuts, we know on the basis of what happened with the tax rebate last year, are basically going to be saved. So they're not going to add to spending."

He doesn't like the stimulus bill now for the same reason I don't. There are even more ineffectual tax cuts and not enough spending.