Is bipartisanship worth it if it comes at the price of bad policy?
Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) recently announced bipartisan legislation that they say is intended to "address the current economic conditions." Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) praised the legislation, saying it "demonstrates what can happen when both parties come together in a meaningful way to address the needs of the American people."
Senator Hatch is right about one thing: The draft bill does show us what happens when the two parties come together. And what it shows us isn't pretty.
First, the Baucus-Grassley measure will not meaningfully "address the current economic conditions" -- it will create few, if any, new jobs, and will do nothing to stop massive impending layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other state and local workers.
Most of its 362 pages contain nothing more than extensions of existing tax cuts and special interest giveaways that have little or nothing to do with putting Americans back to work. In fact, $31 billion of the $85 billion bill goes to extending a research and development tax credit that is expected to be extended anyway and would do nothing to address the jobs crisis.
It does include a payroll tax "exemption" which sounds, at first, similar to a jobs tax credit proposal that I support. But a look at the details shows this exemption would be, at best, barely effective and, at worst, downright wasteful. It's really just another business tax cut. Businesses could claim it even if they don't increase their payrolls at all - for example, if they hire a new employee simply to replace an employee who's retiring. I estimate it will, at very most, create 200,000 jobs, at a cost of $13 billion.
Second, the Baucus-Grassley bill is far too small, at $85 billion. Even if we spent that amount in a highly targeted way, it would still leave us a long ways away from solving the unemployment problem.
Now contrast this with what the House of Representatives has done. In December, the House passed a $154 billion job creation bill. This bill also isn't big enough to sufficiently address the enormity of the jobs crisis, but it is a very strong step in the right direction. Both in size and scope, the House bill is far superior to the Senate bill.
The House bill allocates $48 billion to creating jobs on infrastructure projects, including improvements to airports, railways, highways, and mass transit systems. Given the abysmal state of our infrastructure, these types of investments are urgently needed, and they will yield economic benefits for generations to come. They are also highly effective at putting people back to work.
The House bill also spends about $79 billion to help provide jobs for teachers, firefighters, police officers, park rangers, and other public service professionals. The importance of these workers and services in our communities is obvious. And again, this is one of the best ways to target spending if job creation is your goal.
Not only does this $79 billion help public service workers, it helps workers in the private sector, too. Many state services are provided by the private sector, such as the hospitals and nursing homes providing health care. And a teacher or firefighter who has a job also has money for things like restaurant meals. That means more business for restaurants and more jobs for wait staff and cooks, who now in turn also have more money to spend in their communities. This is the "multiplier effect" economists love to talk about.
Lastly, the House bill extends unemployment and health care benefits for the millions of Americans who rely on them while they look for new work. This spending also creates jobs, 900,000 of them in 2010, by putting money into the pockets of people who will spend it in their communities, creating more demand for the goods and services that businesses provide.
Now here's the upshot: The House bill passed on a straight party-line vote. Not a single Republican supported it. So here's your choice: You can have a bipartisan load of baloney, or a partisan bill that could put far more than one million Americans back to work. What would you prefer?
Millions of Americans are out of work, and things aren't going to get much better for a very long time -- unless the government acts boldly. That's why it's a cruel pretense to hold out the Senate "compromise" as offering any real relief to the people who so desperately need it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to his credit, appears to recognize what a cynical ploy it is to promote the Baucus-Grassley hodgepodge as a jobs bill. He has called for passing the bipartisan tax exemption first and following it up later with more "bipartisan" legislation. As we've seen, this would do little to create jobs; it would lower the unemployment rate by just 0.1%. The proposal appropriately reauthorizes the highway transportation bill, thereby preventing some job losses, but without committing to greater infrastructure spending no additional jobs will be generated.
Senator Reid is boxed in by an entrenched opposition that does not seem to be interested in more job creation -- it only cares about its tax pork -- and by Senators who allow deficit fears to trump the need to spend more on job creation. (In fact, we have a huge deficit because we are in a huge recession where tax revenues are down and safety net spending is up. The first step toward deficit reduction is actually generating millions more jobs and creating more taxpayers. This common sense does not seem to be evident in the Senate.)
It should be manifestly clear by now that bipartisanship holds very little promise of actually solving the key economic challenges facing our country.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-jobs-plan-wed-get-if-leading-innovation-scholars-and-growth-economists-werent-bei
The Jobs Plan we'd get would leverage America's advantages to make America the Silicon Valley of the global market for customized education (CE).
Understanding why we'd get this plan starts with knowing that popular online markets for CE can be expected to catalyze the creation of many jobs.
----
To learn about Zero Hedge, see this feature story from the September 27, 2009 issue of New York
magazine:
http://nymag.com/guides/money/2009/59457/
It's all theater.
The conservative Dems want conservative policies and just pretend to care about the citizens.
It's not Dems versus GOP, it's monarchical conservatism versus Enlightenment and Democratic Republics.
"America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy.[8"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Conservatism was founded and continues to be for Destroying the Republic and the Democracy and selling it to the plutocracy.
Conservatism was founded to undo the Enlightenment and the French revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
The Progressive Caucus, Kucinich and the like, are the only Liberals we have.
Immigrants flocked to our shores.
We tried to unite as one.
But this could not be done.
Healthcare for profit is just a scheme.
Healthcare for all is just a dream.
Our country is drowning in greed.
While millions are in desperate need.
Others have succeeded where we have failed.
The melting pot is being assailed.
America is no longer the beacon of light on the hill.
Our congress has become a corporate shill.
I think it's time to fire the entire lot of all of them, and reinsert new people in all of Congress, and all of DC. And if they're not careful, the state governments, too.
Remember this, folks, the electoral college that minimizes the reality of your vote, only applies to the presidency. Not your congressmen, nor governors.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/12/a-bipartisan-meeting-health-reform-invites-are-out
"Although it is impossible to include every House Member or Senator who has played a pivotal role in the health care debate, the President is inviting the most senior House/Senate bipartisan leadership, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the committees that oversee health insurance reform legislation in both chambers. A complete list of this group is attached. The President would like each of you to designate an additional four Members to attend the meeting and be available to participate. It is also important that each of you have one staff member specializing in health care policy in the meeting."
A list of the invitees is located at the bottom of the page (pdf file).
I am assuming that only these four individuals, and not all invitees will be designating the four additional members that will attend. (16 more Members in total)
Right now Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are allowed to keep their doors open and still trade billions of worthless derivatives and credit-default swaps (toxic securities/assets) and pass them through the Fed's TALF window, thus migrating trillions of losses to the American taxpayer to eat.
That mis-allocation of credit is the on-going bail out of Wall Street/City of London is what is choking off the trillions we need to instead invest in rebuilding our economy and infrastructure.
This is why Obama keeps offering chump-change for projects like nuclear power or high speed mag-lev rail or a real man NASA space mission to the moon and mars which would add a wealth and leadership in technology required for the next generation to live beyond the 19th Century.
I left soon after. Taking responsibility for things outside of your control gives you a "feeling" of having some control. I kept thinking I could penetrate that hard shell with reason and love--when the reality was that it is not possible. The party of "NO" is as an addict with the plunger pushing in over and over (aptly named, Rush) they have no will to stop the hunger--and will push that plunger until we are all dead.
Our failure is in thinking they are willing to become compassionate, caring beings when they have no intention of being that.
Its hard to walk away--it broke my heart and did a lot of damage to my family. But it was and is neccessary. "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
People thought Hitler was a clown and nothing to worry about either--Palin and her war mongering "egg suckers" are nothing to laugh at
Time to reboot.
Partisan bickering is just what "they" want. It keeps most distracted from the reality.
Harry Reid is really getting a bad rap and I was one of those that reacted to what was reported as his none support of the bill for those reasons alone. Great article Lawrence!
War is ok, even if there is no end game.
Raising taxes to pay for those wars is unpatriotic.
The War on Drugs is ok, legalization is out of the question.
Raising the tax on gasoline is un-Patriotic (NASCAR Nation baby!)
Big banks, big oil and the country club set are to be admired at all costs (hell, appoint them to the gov!).
Ignoring our southern border is ok, unless Halliburton decideds building a fence would be profitable.
Walmart is the shining example of "the business of America is business".