I spent much of last week talking to the state’s leaders about their philosophical views about spending the stimulus package most of them oppose.
What I found were leaders profoundly worried about where the current economic woes were taking the state they love. They were considering cuts to education and other programs they recognized would set the state back but saw little choice but to do their jobs the best they saw fit. The stimulus package, with its bounty of education funds, removes the worse cuts lawmakers and the governors faced. It brings its own challenges but changes the game.
Republican Senate President Pro Tem Bob Geddes, is like a lot of Idahoans today. His retirement plans were changed when his “401 K turned into a 201 K plan.”
He thinks too much spending, not just by government but by many of us who overextended our credit, is what put us in this place. So he’s very skeptical that spending will get us out.
But he resented the suggestions that these views meant he and other state leaders wouldn’t spend the money if it came or that they would be hypocrites to spend it.
He doesn’t just want to spend the stimulus he wants to invest it.
Now Gov. Butch Otter has more than anyone tried to hold back the surge of speculation about how much Idaho will get from the stimulus. He has been worried about the effects of the expectations on the lawmakers.
But now that the money is coming to Idaho, Otter’s concerns are a textbook explanation on how economists hope the stimulus will help jump start the economy. He told me in his press conference last week he knew the stimulus would help Idaho’s economy
“I don’t disagree with that, Rocky. But what I’m saying is: If you raise somebody’s expectations beyond your ability to deliver on those expectations, you actually debilitate them from going ahead and making the kind of decisions that they ought to be making for themselves.”
Idaho Statesman reporter Bill Roberts asked him same question the other day, Otter said.
“I said, ‘Bill, you’ve got 50 bucks in your pocket and you’ve got to finish paying off your automobile insurance with that. And I’m standing here saying, ‘Bill, I’m going to give you $500 next week.’ So, now you’re walking down the street, Bill, from this very meeting, and you happen to walk by Alexander’s. And you see a $39.95 tie in there and you say, ‘Boy, I’d like that tie. Butch is going to give me 500 bucks – said he would. I’m gonna go ahead and spend my $39.95 on that.’ So he does.”
Otter said making that decision would inherently be a bad one because he implied that that the $500 would never come.
“I made him make a bad decision by a promise I can’t keep,” Otter said. “And so, we can’t build this state and the infrastructure and make the decisions that we need to on unfulfilled promises.”
But this week the stimulus money IS coming and some of that stimulus is going to come from the teacher jobs it saves, the construction jobs it creates, and all of the other direct and indirect spending it funds. Each taxpayer will get maybe not $500 but at least $400.
Economists say for the stimulus to really turn the economy around it has to convince people that its safe for them to start spending again themselves. So when you walk by Alexander’s and you see that tie are you going to buy it or not?
How you answer that question may decide how quickly Idaho and the nation recover.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Stimulus in Idaho
Idaho's new Senator James Risch called it a "faud." The people who benefit from the stimulus getting extended unemployment benefits and food stamps to keep the wolf from the door aren't likely to see it that way.
At least Otter is thinking about it. Next question - given that much of the money comes to Idaho via existing federal formulas, where the governor and the legislature have some discretion, what will they do and why?
That talk always ends when a check is cut. End of story?
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.
great article
I don't know who I agree with or not but this was such a good article, Mr. Barker.
Ah the irony
The federal government is giving itself a bunch of new money, some of which in turn is going to the states, some of which in turn might end up in the private sector....
What is this called?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
TRICKLE....
TRICKLE-DOWN.....
TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS.....
Alpha
That's not what "Trickle Down" economics are you ignorant wretch. "Trickle Down" economics are when you provide tax cuts to corporations and the highest income earners in hope that they will spend and/or invest more and the benefit of that spending will trickle down to the poor and middle class. This is what the Bush adminstration has done for the last eight years, which has failed. Back in 1980 George H.W. Bush called this... Anyone? Anyone? Something Economics? Something D-O-O Economics? Voodoo Economics.
Bad enought that you don't understand the concept, but mangling the Ferris Bueller quote is unforgivable.
Haha
Speaking of ignorant wretches, here is the Grandest and most ignorant of all.
This bill is a travesty.
This is the government taking their slice of the pie first and then hoping it will trickle down to the poor and middle class, you dolt. Go read the bill and see for yourself.
Watch for the huge tax increases within 1 to 2 years.
Doesn't change the fact...
that you got BOTH things wrong Alpha. The definition of Trickle Down AND the FB quote, 0 for 2, which of course brings into question anything else you have to say. There WILL be tax increases in two years (again, I will point out that you are an ignorant wretch) since the Bush cuts expire in 2010, but not really an increase more of a return to equilibrium.
You obviously know jack about economics and 80's movies, stick to what you know (whatever that might be).
GJ
Please keep talking, your ignorance of the facts surrounding this bill is as great as most of the people in Congress who voted for it.
This bill is poorly written, has had little to no debate, and is crammed full of non-stimulative pet projects. It will only take us another trillion+ in debt at a time that we don't need it.
Have you ever heard of taxation without representation? That's what the TARP bill was. This is no diffferent.
We had representatation
our senators and congressmen all voted against it.
Rock,
You can just give up on giving AlphaDR such specious things as "facts" and "the truth", his mind is made up.
Nope
The vast majority of taxpayers were against the TARP bill but it was railroaded through Congress by Bush and his cronies. And, I might add, the TARP bill has been proven to be every bit the disaster that it was predicted to be.
Alpha, here's a reality check for ya...
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY):
"As Chair of the House Rules Committee, I must clear up untruths regarding the economic recovery package. We've heard a lot of noise across the aisle about how partisan the development of the bill was - that Republicans were blocked from being involved. This is entirely false. In fact, this was one of the most open processes a bill this large has had in over a decade.
They are being disingenuous, or worse. These are the facts:
The bill, as it came to the Rules Committee, the last stop before the floor vote, already incorporated 12 Republican amendments. The Rules Committee then added the 11 amendments: 6 Democratic and 5 Republican, in addition to a complete Republican substitute, and a motion to recommit. They were unable to muster the votes necessary and lost on bipartisan votes. House Republicans may have come together to vote against the final bill, but they split on their own amendments with 40 to 60 Republicans voting with Democrats. Some Republicans even voted against their party's alternative bill, and it failed on the floor.
The Republican alternative didn't have a final price tag, consisted entirely of tax cuts, and would actually raise taxes for 26 million American families. In two years, the Democratic bill would create 3.6 million jobs. The Republican substitute: 1.2 million - a third as many as the Democratic bill that passed the House. President Obama even met with House Republicans more times in two weeks to discuss this legislation than President Bush did with House Democrats in two terms. The Republicans were certainly allowed in the process, but they wanted to obstruct."
Ummm
Ok so what's your point? The Dems say one thing, the Repubs say the oppposite, and vice versa. Rachel and Keith say one thing, Rush and Sean say the exact opposite.
If you think that either of the two parties are telling you the truth about what is really going on in Washington, you are a lost cause who has fallen into a very dark abyss. The two-party system that we currently have is worthless, not to mention the most corrupt bunch in the history of the country.
My point is clear
I am refuting your assertion that "This bill is poorly written, has had little to no debate" when in fact it did have considerable debate and is quite well written, especially looking back at the way the Republicans handled things the first six years of the Bush Administration. Even a low grade troglodyte like yourself should be able to understand the fundamentals of argument, but no, hyperbolic screeds, paranoid rants... You can't even be bothered to educate yourself on the most basic of terms you toss off like just that much more foul seed.
If you do no care for the American system of government, fine, perhaps you'd be happier elsewhere. But if you continue to misuse terms, ignore facts and act like the back end of a horse, then by all means you will be called on it.
Wow
Every post you make leaves me laughing out loud. You seriously aren't suggesting that this bill was subject to much scrutiny or debate - it's a thousand pages long for petes sakes, the house sent it over to the senate with crap hand-penciled in the margins...they spent almost as much time in the state legislature last year debating on whether or not to make milk the state drink as they did on this POS.
Face the truth, this was ramrodded through before the public could figure out they were getting hosed.
By comparison to the Bush years...
this has had a ton of scrutiny, in addition it has played out every single day for a month in the media. There are bills from the Bush years, including the Patriot Act, that got ONE HOUR of open debate. The Patriot Act was COMPLETELY REWRITTEN after Committee approval, 20 Bills of the 109th Congress had votes between midnight and 7am, the "Dracula" congress. This is as open as it gets, and a far better shake for the opposition, and the American people than the Republicans ever gave, so you can stow the faux outrage.
You spew such ignorance of the fundamentals of government and economics and you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Not Trickle-Down
The money is showing up in numerous ways, such as tax cuts, public works projects and maintenance of state-run unemployment compensation and health care programs. That is not trickle-down economics. Trickle-down is when the highest tax rates are lowered on the upper income with the idea that the rich will decide whether to spend, save or invest their tax cut. Then it trickle downs from there.
The tax credits
in this bill are not all that stimulative. A lot of them are either tax credits that already were in place that are being extended, and are not being well received by a lot of economists. They couldn't even leave the 15k homebuyer tax credit in there. Completely a cop-out bill.
As I stated, this is trickle-down all over again, no matter how you want to define it, the government gets THEIR money first and whatever is left over might eventually get to the public sector.
Clearly taxation without representation, most of the people in Congress that are voting for this bill don't even know what is in it.
As for the direct tax credit to the average taxpayer, it's $13.00 a week. The proponents of the bill are making that sound like it's a huge number. $13 a week will not do doodly to stimulate the economy.
"No matter how you define it"?!!?!?!
It is a common economic term with a fixed definition you dolt, by continuing to insist upon using it incorrectly you invalidate ANY argument you may have. And it cannot, by any sane estimation be considered "taxation without representation", another term you obviously do not understand in the slightest.
It's the largest middle class tax cut in history moron, I suggest you STFU before you make yourself look like an even BIGGER idiot, spewing terms you clearly DO NOT understand.
So then genius
Explain how this is NOT trickle-down, then - it's trickle-down by its very nature, if you can't see that, YOU are the moron.
Stop trying to use a narrow definition to defend your argument, it's just silly.
The term was coined by Will Rogers
And it's definition is not in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Stop trying to use terms you don't understand to defend your argument, it's just silly.
LOL
If old Will was alive, he'd call this Krapola the same thing.
Not trickle down
"As I stated, this is trickle-down all over again, no matter how you want to define it, the government gets THEIR money first and whatever is left over might eventually get to the public sector."
Al, you need to work on your terminology. The tax cuts are not trickle-down. I do agree they appear paltry, but the strategy here is not trickle-down, i.e. tax rate cuts to the high-rate brackets with the "trickle-down" effect to the medium and lower tax brackets.
Second, to say the government gets their money first and the leftovers get to the public sector is a fallacy because the government is the public sector. You may have intended to mean the "private sector." Nonetheless, your analysis is wrong anyway because the appropriations to the agencies are going to be handed over to the private sector for infrastructure construction, improvement and maintenance. The end result are people get jobs to build or fix something and the infrastructure is updated.
I do agree with you that the tax cuts are not all that stimulative.
Typo
Yes I meant private sector, that was a typo. As for trickle-down, I am just calling a spade a spade. I have no doubt that within a few months to a year, people will be complaining that not enough money is 'trickling down' to the people who need it the most. They may use a different word or phrase, but it's the same thing.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, JUST LOOK AT THE TARP PROGRAM. They are complaining that the BANKS took almost ALL the money and are NOT in turn lending it out to the people who need it.
As for the money going to the projects, you have to read the bill to understand what I am saying. It is going to the FEDERAL agencies first, who are setting up oversight committees etc etc to the tune of 10's of millions, who then will assign it to the states, who will take their cut, BEFORE it ever gets to the private sector. THEY ARE NOT PASSING THE MONEY DIRECTLY THROUGH, they are taking out a CUT for THEMSELVES. So, if you DON'T want to call it trickle-down, call it something else, the effect will be the same. The people at the TOP get THEIRS first.
.
.
We need the Trickle- Up method in Idaho
The Trickle Down effect is when benefits to the wealthy "trickle down" to benefits for the poor and middleclass. It has never worked, it only made the wealthy wealthier.
The Trickle-Up effect is more effective than the Trickle-Down effect because people who have less tend to buy more and the economy picks up from the money spent.
The poor and middle class spend most or all of their money just to make it in Life. The rich save their money so they do not stimulate economies, they simply save more and become wealthier.
If the lower and lower-middle classes are given benefits, such as tax breaks or stimulus checks, the increased funds would be spent at a much higher rate than would the rich and upper middleclass.
The Rich and upper-middleclass do not spend their entire yearly salary to begin with, which is an indication that they will not spend any additional funds.
The trickle up effect gives more money to those who would be more inclined to spend it.
Not philosophical, but....
ideological. The cuts proposed by Otter are intended to fulfill his ambition of reducing government regardless of who gets hurt.
STOP THE BANKERS
In 1913 Congress passed a little known Federal Reserve Act establishing the right of a privately owned group of central banks to control our monetary policy. In 1972 they abolished the gold standard thereby allowing paper currency to be printed with nothing tangible backing it... A fiat currency. -Both of these are a direct violation of the US Constitution. Now the elite banking and business interests want to further consolidate our system and bring us back to serfdom. Beware of promotion of carbon taxes, cashless systems, and a convergence with other currencies.
Ever wonder why most people in power belong to the Council on Foreign Relations, the IMF, the Bilderberg group?
We're under fascist rule (if you want to be politically correct) and we need to change government.
Obama is just another player in the line. He's bought and paid for as evidenced by his appointees who haven't paid their taxes, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, are pro gun banishment, etc., etc.
Stealing money from the people to give to the banks who then "LOAN" it back to us at interest is what's happening. This economic collapse is by design.
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." JAMES MADISON
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." JAMES MADISON
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison
Until the people wake up to what the TRUTH is behind our fiscal policy, we're going the way of the soviets or the Germans like the Wiemar Republic.
A great video to watch by the guy that produced the 80's hit movie TWINS is AMERICAN FREEDOM to FASCISM.. Well researched and produced documentary worth every minute of your time.
Peace
With the great "messiah"
With the great "messiah" running things the whole country will be down the toilet and neither party will be in control...total bedlam!
HMMMM...Let's try logic
Ok guys, here's how it will work. The stimulus will work for states that do something with it and make it work, and the stimulus won't work for the State's that don't. This could become a self fulfilling prophecy or the State leaders that are good with money will show themselves and the ones that aren't won't. Since Idaho was broke during the height of capitalism, I doubt those leaders are going to magically turn in to great investors and wonderful forward thinkers, but hey, I could be wrong.
GET A CLUE!
If you are someone who complains about all of the rich people in this country and you are just making it and its not fair, quit complaining. Do something about it. Work to become a supervisor or get an education or start a business. Quit sniffling and just go out and do it. Most millionaires in this country contrary to what you believe are people who have just a modest income, but have good saving, and spending habits. Most of us are trying to figure out how big of a plasma screen tv we want and the millionaires stick with their 20" color tv from 15 years ago, or we are busy buying new vehicles and they buy vehicls that are 15 years old, pay cash for it and drive it until it blows up. If we saved like they do then we too could be rich you just have to sacrifce luxury. If you don't sacrifice luxury then you sacrifice independence as you are a slave to debt and you will never be rich despite your appearances of being so.
By the way trickle up econonmics doesn't work because the few crumbs government give us doesn't do much to create jobs or wealth. I suppose if you are someone who complains about the man keeping you down then I suppose you are happy with the few crumbs even though it hurts the company for which you work.
So, did Bill
buy the $39.95 tie? Free advertisement for Alexander's by Butch. Reverse lobbying?
OR NOT...
----------
To read is wonderful. To comprehend art. Falling back to whatever you believed in is NORMAL.