Some Examples of the Unintended Consequences and Inefficiencies of Stimulus Spending
Some recent examples of the unintended consequences and inefficiencies of the $800 billion stimulus plan.
1. Canada plans to close its side of a Saskatchewan-Montana border crossing that sees just five travelers per day — even as the U.S. side is undergoing an $8.5 million stimulus-funded upgrade. Canada’s decision to close the Big Beaver Port of Entry on April 1 underscores the criticism leveled against the U.S. government spending more than $23 million in Recovery Act funding to upgrade that and four other Montana border posts. (HT: Roger Meiners)
2. Carleton Grange Pub in the Milwaukee area is closing on September 6 because of the upcoming traffic and parking disruptions that will be caused by stimulus-funded road construction near the popular English-style pub. (HT: Matt Peer)
3. Stimulus-funded solar panels in Montana will generate "cheap electricity" at a very high cost, according to economist Roger Meiners writing in the Wall Street Journal.
MP: The first problem with stimulus spending is that for the government to "stimulate" one sector of the economy with a government-subsidized project, the government has to "unstimulate" some other sectors of the economy by raising taxes, or by borrowing money that will mean higher taxes later. The second problem is illustrated by the examples above: government stimulus projects are often wasteful and inefficient and impose unintended costs on the economy.
Update: Real or Fake?
17 Comments:
More well spent extorted tax dollars?
Stimulus and homeland security money is often poorly spent, usually least well in rural areas. This reflects the make-u of the US Senate--42 Senators from dinky (in terms of population) farm or rural states. But to pass anything you gotta get 51 votes, and 60 for cloture.
As a result. we have developed a Socialist Rural America, dependent on continuing federal lard tp survive.
A crappy little state like Kentucky receives back $4,000 more per capita in federal spending than it sends in taxes to DC.
Oh, sure, they are against federal spending in Kentucky. Ha-ha. I am sure Republican candidate Rand Paul will put an end to it, when he gets to the US Senate.
The Red Bloc is the biggest cause of federal deficits.
The only solution I see is a federal amendment mandating each state receive back roughly equal what it sends to DC.
Sound fair to me--state's rights!
I assure you,. the scalawags and jackanapes that make up the Republican Party will never allow such a thing to happen.
Thanks for the entertainly dumb comments again pseudo benny...
Your command of the Constitution is right up there with your President of choice...
Once again benji fails to understand the bicameral form of republican government we have, as defined in the Constitution, before he spews nonsense.
Those who happen to read his comment can't help but chuckle with astonishment at his sheer cluelessness.
Benji can't stand a negative comment about his boyfriend's stimulus swindle, so he has to change the subject to rural subsidies yet again.
Hey Benji, your boyfriend's trillion dollar "stimulus" passed without a single Republican vote.
"Benji can't stand a negative comment about his boyfriend's stimulus swindle"...
Well then pseudo benny will just hate Professor Bainbridge's posting: Obama's Anti-Corporate BS
Ron H.-
I take it you have never studied American history, or our national legislature.
If you had, you would know that it takes three-fifths of the Senate to kill a filibuster. That means 40 Senators can hold up legislation--forever.
We have 42 rural/farm state Senators.
Have not you ever wondered, and been incensed, at the rivers of federal lard that flow to an Alaska, Kentucky or Montana?
Rural states have over-representation in the Senate, as there are two Senators from every state, regardless of population. I suspect that is still in the Constitution--let's check with Juandos, since he claims to be an Constitutional expert. I joined know if Juandos has joined a militia yet, as is his right under the Second Amendment.
All that money is siphoned out of the jobs- and wealth-creating private sector.
"Rural states have over-representation in the Senate, as there are two Senators from every state, regardless of population. I suspect that is still in the Constitution-"
And you missed it AGAIN benji.
There are 2 Senators from each state, who in theory represent the interests of the STATE. In fact they were selected by each state legislature until 1913. Since they represent the states and its people as a sovereign entity, each state has equal representation, so there is no over-representation.
As you also know, all spending bills including the ones pouring goodies into rural areas originate in the House of Representatives, which in theory represents the interests of the people. Perhaps you should direct your frustration there.
"If you had, you would know that it takes three-fifths of the Senate to kill a filibuster. That means 40 Senators can hold up legislation--forever."
It takes 41, benji.
Besides, your boyfriend has made both houses pretty much irrelevant by his use of executive orders and his appointment of czars.
I don't understand your frustration only at spending in sparsely populated states. How about ranting against ALL spending? Spending in each state the same number of dollars collected in tax makes no sense. Why send the money on that round trip to DC at all? Just keep it at the state level, or better yet keep it in our pockets.
As to juandos joining a militia, you should know that the 2nd amendment doesn't really address that issue, but only mentions a well trained and orderly militia - of the people - as one example of why the people's individual God given natural right to self defense in the form of keeping and bearing arms cannot be infringed by government.
"I take it you have never studied American history, or our national legislature"...
So how did your foot taste this time pseudo benny?
Remember your wailing about the cost of the war on terror in Iraq pseudo benny?
Well then this article from the American Thinker is just going to make your day worse on that particular idea...
Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not
Here's the money line for me from that article: 'Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more'...
Ron H.--
Your understanding of the Constitution is severely limited.
In fact, the Second Amendment is there precisely to give to the people the right to form militias, as standing armies were detested by most of our Founding Fathers. Some, such as George Mason, wanted an explicit ban on a standing army, embedded in the Constitution--Mason refused to sign the dodument without that ban. (That's George Mason, after which the ultra far-right Mason University is named).
Your novel idea that the scant populations of rural areas are not over-represented in the US Senate is laughable on its face--and proven by the rivers of lard that flow in Alaska, Montana or Kentucky.
In case you have not heard, there is something called a "conference committee."
The House cannot pass bills without Senate consent. They can originate spending bills, almost always following the lead of the President and the OMB. But getting a bill passed--well, you had better get Red State Socialist Utopians on board to do that.
"But getting a bill passed--well, you had better get Red State Socialist Utopians on board to do that."
And again, since this post is about the stimulus, your boyfriend shoved his trillion dollar swill down our throats with zero support from the Republicans.
It's going to be great fun watching you twist and turn when the budget battles begin next year between your socialist boyfriend and the GOP majority.
Paul-
Such "budget battles" will be resolved by spending even more money in Red Bloc states.
"Such "budget battles" will be resolved by spending even more money in Red Bloc states."
The last unified Republican budget produced a deficit of about $162 billion in 2007. Since Pelosi and Reid took over, federal spending has increased by around a trillion dollars per annum.
And you obviously haven't been paying attention the past 2 years while the GOP has been battling to stop your boyfriend's willy nilly mega billion\trillion dollar boondogles every other week.
Very little of what you say bears any semblance to reality.
"Your understanding of the Constitution is severely limited.
In fact, the Second Amendment is there precisely to give to the people the right to form militias..."
ROFLMAO...
I don't know why I'm laughing, as this is really sad. I thought you were a Constitutional scholar. Someone said you were, and I believed it. Were they being sarcastic? I can now see for myself that you aren't. If I had to guess, I'd say your exposure to the subject ended in 8th grade.
If you were truly interested, you could first read the Constitution itself. It's really a short document, and very clear. The writing style may be a little difficult at times, so you might want to then read some of the letters the Founders wrote to each other at the time to get a really good understanding of what they meant in the Constitution itself.
Keep in mind that the Constitution is the product of a mutual agreement among 13 sovereign - as in autonomous - States by which they granted a few very specific and limited powers to a federal (not national) government, created BY them, to use on their behalf and for their mutual benefit.
"...as standing armies were detested by most of our Founding Fathers."
You got that part 100% right. They also detested a strong central government, and took great pains to avoid creating one.
The rights of individuals weren't GRANTED by the Constitution, but were AFFIRMED by it, and government was forbidden to interfere with them.
So, now to the second amendment:
As you know, (snicker, snicker) there was no discussion of whether the right of individuals to keep and bear arms existed, every one knew it did, as it had been part of English common law for centuries. The question was whether to include it at all in the Bill of Rights, as it was so obvious. Sort of like affirming that the people have a right to breath air.
Joining a militia of the people was not only a right of every citizen, but in some states it was a duty. So no, the 2nd Amendment didn't "give to the people the right to form militias" as you put it.
You will recall, in fact, (snicker, snicker - you don't know any of this, do you) that the British regulars were on their way to Concord, MA to confiscate the arms of the Massachusetts militia, when they were met by local militiamen at Lexington. Militias existed long before the Constitution was written.
"The House cannot pass bills without Senate consent."
What!?!
benji I don't have time to correct you on any more of this. There's just too much. Please try harder to get things right.
By the way, , in case it isn't clear to you, the Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights to people, as they already have all those inalienable rights . The Constitution merely acknowledges and confirms them, and forbids government to interfere with them.
The Constitution DOES grant certain limited rights to federal government.
Ron,
"I thought you were a Constitutional scholar."
Yeah, in the same way that he's a True Economic Conservative.
"Yeah, in the same way that he's a True Economic Conservative"...
Along with his firm grasp of what Milton Friedman's writings are all about...:-)
Stimulus spending I wished they had done when I was in college: SUNY Buffalo received $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana
Post a Comment
<< Home