"Once upon a time, you dressed so fine, threw a bum a dime, didn't you?"--Bob Dylan
A bipartisan jobs bill can be passed, quickly, without any need to talk, plead, cajole or make deals with Republicans or recalcitrant Democrats. That is, if the Democratic leadership had even a scintilla of guile that they have yet to display.
Nearly a year ago James Boyce and I suggested ("Will John Boehner Really Say 'Thanks But No Thanks' To Stimulus Funds?", February 19, 2009) that Republicans in the House who had voted against the stimulus plan be challenged on the House floor to declare whether they wanted any of the money in their districts -- with the Democratic majority willing to support whatever their decision was. It was a way, after the vote, of calling their bluff.
Since that time, as the President pointed out at their conference meeting, the very same people who voted against it, showed up at ribbon cutting ceremonies in their districts basking in the glory of a project and jobs that the stimulus bill had funded.
This time, why wait until after the bill -- bruised, revised and made less effective, begging for votes -- makes it through Congress? Instead, write into the bill that the money for jobs, and the tax credits, everything possible that can be geographically limited, will only be spent in districts whose Members of Congress support it, and only in states where at least one of their Senators voted for it.
Of course there will be wailing and moaning by Members and Senators whose lies and hypocrisy will, finally, be exposed. It will be couched in "buying votes" language.
Really? Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put a hold on all President Obama's appointees unless he gets $45B to projects in his state. Another Republican Senator held up one of the President's nominees until he got money for a building in his state (Kansas). They all put earmarks for their districts and states into bills.
Moreover, the Republicans claim that these jobs bills do not work anyhow. So, one could retort, why the wailing and moaning...according to these people, no jobs are lost since the programs do not work.
With these provisions, the jobs bill can pass quickly -- indeed, the Senate can use reconciliation so there will not even be a filibuster. The wailing and moaning will continue for a week, and then the media will move to another story. In the meantime the jobs bill will pass, and Republicans (and Democrats) who vote against it will have to answer to their states and districts as to why none of the jobs are coming to them.
Or, more likely, "bipartisanship" shall magically flower ahead of the cherry blossoms in Washington D.C.
However, is this a PAYGO bill or is it a deficit bill?
if its deficit bill would all state/persons have to pay down the deficit? Or would states op-out pay nothing?
"I do not like the idea of "punishing" the people in those districts, but they can make it up by voting the hypocrites out of office."
That's the one problem I have with your otherwise excellent (and simple) idea. However, I think in some states / districts, people need to take responsibility for their votes, their blind allegience to the GOP, and to understand the repercussions of their choices.
They are electing people who claim they believe the stimulus plans, public option etc are BAD POLICIES THAT DON'T WORK. If they honestly believe that they should have no problem turning down or being excluded from receiving government funds. Moreover, these elected officials who supposedly represent their local constituents wishes and well-being should NOT have the right to impose their narrow interests and opinions on the rest of us which is what makes Mr. Abrams idea both compelling and fair.
If local constituencies suffer briefly - perhaps they will learn something. In too many districts (and sometimes entire states) local people LOVE and TAKE PRIDE in their most irresponsible and ignorant representatives: they turn them into local heroes because they like the way they supposedly "kick butt." (I understand Dan Burton is a true hero in his own district.) But maybe people would look a little further and deeper, past the macho/rogue behavior and recognize the CONSEQUENCES of electing these kind of socalled "rogue s & mavericks"....
.
IMO we should have contracted by asking all to share the sacrifice equally. Take a 10% pay-cut along with 10% reduction in cost of goods and services, and 10% cut in taxes. White House provided an example when President and his staff took a pay-freeze on assuming office and on their one year anniversary. Unfortunately there were several examples of workers in public and private sectors refusing this option, including a lot of grumbling from senior citizens for their small increase in SS.
Some may argue rightly, that an across-the-board 10% pay cut penalizes the lower wage workers (and low income retirees). I would be in favor of making some adjustments to these groups. Yet without a consensus, low-wage workers, being the lowest on the totem-pole (because they are newly hired) were the first to loose their jobs.
Where is gain of the proposal? Reduction in cost of living, stems job-losses (saves unemployment checks), gives a bigger bang for retirement income, and America is more competitive across the globe.
But what do I know? Smart minds on blogs and in media blame immigrants for the lay-offs.
The problem with this is that it hurts people on fixed incomes and/or kills the deficit because of cost-of-living adjustments.
The alternative is to re-do contracts, e.g., mortgages, so that the principals are reduced and the banks, in exchange, get a percentage of your profit when you sell your home--and, profits becomes possible because the principal was reduced. If owners of commercial real estate also had their principals reduced, then they could reduce the rents for their tenants and fewer businesses would have to close. I made a proposal like this about 16 months ago--at the time, I think, people had the (erroneous) feeling that the situation would turn around more quickly...now, they may be more receptive.
I wish I could remember the full quotebut it puts me in mind of the wistful thought that it would be a far better world "if only the good could be clever and if the clever would only be good"..... or as an even older injunction would have it..."be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove".....Like how you think, my friend.....I do indeed
In any and all cases: FANNED!
The number 1 obstacle is not the GOP, but the talk radio and fox news big business lobbyists like Hannity, Rush, Levin, Beck etc.. They play a good game of making their audiences think they are one of us, but at the end of every issue they protect the GOP, Big banks, big, oil, Pharma and military profiteers.You don't get $50,000,000 for nothing.
"But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. . . .
"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. . . . . . . Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. . . .
"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. . . . The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html)
Fanned!
Reagan reduced it to 50% then raised taxes every year thereafter until 1986 when tax RATES were reduced to 28% but closed loopholes--and 3 hyears later the economy tanked!
In the end the effect of taxes on increasing or decreasing economic growth is grossly overrated. There is very little evidence that a cut, or increase, in tax rates, except perhaps at the extremes, has any impact on economic growth or decline on its own.
moreover, the point the Republicans make is that the jobs bills don't work, not that they lead to an increased tax. For example, last year's bill had tax cuts for 95% of Americans. And they STILL opposed it, to a person.
But we have come to expect nothing less than bribery for votes, and punishment for non-compliance. This is the hallmark of the Democrat party. We out here in fly over country, when faced with this in the real world, refer to it as 'thuggery'. In the real world, extortion and blackmail are in fact illegal. But we have seen this as de rigor at the Tyranny on the Patomac.
Before you bring it up, I do know the Republicans do the same thing. So we have, and have had, a government of thugs, using bribery and punishment for fealty. This must stop, regardless of party. We 'hire' Congressmen to represent the districts they are sent from, and this is what we get.
It's a shame we do not more aggressively pursue corruption charges, as well as use the recall process with much more vigor.
Another error you make is your statement that the last bill cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Almost 50% of Americans PAY NO TAXES, therefore you cannot "cut their taxes". What you can do and what this administration did was send that 49% a welfare check paid for by the other 51%...or in reality paid it with money from the Chinese which will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren.
Finally, your response to JShep is laughable. He's using the same loopy logic chain you are.
And let's not forget... all those newly-employed Americans will be paying taxes.
And what about the new "Super Majority" required for every vote - definitely NOT "Consitutional" ("Extra-Constitutional"?)
Let's be honest here, invoking the rarely actually read Constitution is the Right Wings tactic for tarnishing and then destroying anything that they don't personally like: from gay marriage to voting rights to environmental policy. ANY connection between GOP tactics / beliefs and the Constitution is purely coincidental.
As Paul points out, PLEASE distinguish earmarks from letting those who don't want or believe in "stimulus money" should not be forced to impose such bad policy on their states / districts / constituencies! Especially when they would be so welcome in other states! On the other hands, the hypocritical Grinches should NOT be allowed to impose their ill-will on others - That's why Paul Abram's has come up with the perfect balance / solution.
What you and John Stewart are equally forgetting, we have a congress and they take votes for a REASON. It is called The Constitution. Democrats just think they can change things in government to suit themselves. I know republicans have done the same thing in the past, but it has to be stopped.
I like Jon Stewart, but there was one statement he made on The Factor the other night that was wrong.
He, like you said the president should just go in and start barking orders. Those who don't like it should get in line.
Regardless of what you want, the republicans want and the democrats want, the bill has to be voted on.
Any senator I vote for better vote with the people of my state in mind or we will vote him out next election.
They are supposed to be representing the people in my state and myself. I don't want to pay for your ear marks, OK?
Laws are difficult to pass for a reason. They are SUPPOSED to be difficult so one party and one man won't be running the show. Most of the country is conservative and we do not like this spending.
Most conservatives feel the first stimulus bill was a colossal waste of money. We also believe the economy would have rebounded without the help of 9000 ear marks.
And if the first stimulus was not a failure, why did they change the name?
All I was suggesting is that Members of Congress and Senators "live with" the consequences of their votes--if they think the stimulus is bad and creates no jobs, then they shouldn't have the money coming into their districts. Instead, what they do is attack the President, and then show up at ribbon cutting events for new projects launched by the bill they voted against, and continually attack.
Finally a brilliant idea! Oh that's right, it didn't come from the D party - it came from out good friend Paul Abrams...
Be prepared for a lot of whining and an avalanche of lame, incendiary and dishonest complaints and accusations. Just ignore them. They don't have a leg to stand on nor anyone to blame but themselves.
I do not like the idea of "punishing" the people in those districts, but they can make it up by voting the hypocrites out of office.
By the way, John Kyl (R-AR) had a grand mal seizure last year when Ray LaHood (Sec Trans and a former Republican) suggested that no transportation stimulus money go to ARIZ if Kyl was so negative about it. Kyl went ballistic and the Administration--regrettably--didn't pursue the point.
Yet when conservatives try and ask for tax credits / breaks go to business to spur hiring... we're told we're elitists and only want tax breaks for the rich and greedy.....
Which is it - do tax incentives work or don't they? You can't have it both ways.
A: Tax breaks can be SOMEWHAT effective at encouraging job creation when properly targeted to small businesses. They are not as effective as direct spending on needed public projects because they don't create additional aggregate demand to justify employment expansion. Programs like maintainence and efficiency renovation put people to work who previously weren't and thus directly boost consumer spending (increasing the demand for goods and services and thus labor to supply them).
B: It MATTERS who you give tax breaks to, and what conditions have to be fulfilled. Giving tax breaks to large corporations with little/nothing in the way of stipulations that justify them is different than conditional targeted tax breaks for small businesses in return for job creation.
You may or may not like the targeted nature of the President's proposal, that is up to you of course. But you are in error when you assert they are the same thing, and thus ought to be judged similarly. They are not.
You ask a more profound question at the end--do tax incentives work, or don't they? That requires much more space to address than is allowed. I am going to write an article on that--because there is a great deal of misperception about it on all sides--and I hope you read it and comment.