Tag Archives: government spending

Where Are the Deficit Hawks on Pentagon Spending?

25 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, budget, economy, Iraq, Pentagon, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Think of what the reaction of the self-anointed deficit hawks in Washington would be to this headline in relation to any government spending not affiliated with the Pentagon:

“Cost of (insert name of program here) Will Be Double the Original Estimates”

Members of Congress would be stampeding to find a microphone and rail against wasteful government spending. The Tea Party movement would take to the streets in protest. Radio and TV talkers would be ranting about “stealing money from our children and grandchildren.” So why no outcry over this:

“Since 2001, when an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was expected to cost an already hefty $50 million, the plane’s cost has soared into the stratosphere…The estimated cost today is $113 million per plane.  Yes, that’s per plane….It’s also 2 ½ years behind schedule.  Keep in mind that the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy are planning to buy a combined 2,450 of them for what’s now an eye-popping $323 billion.”

That’s assuming there are no more cost overruns. Quite a stretch, to say the least.

“In other words, if all goes well from here (an unlikely possibility), a single future weapons system is now estimated to cost the American taxpayer almost one-third of what the Obama administration’s health-care plan is expected to cost over a decade.”

Where are Sens. Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln? Where are Sen. McConnell, Rep. Boehner and the born-again fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party? Strangely silent. To his albeit limited credit, Sen. McCain offered this scathing rebuke (sarcasm intended) :

“The taxpayers are a little tired of this. I can’t say that I can blame them.”

Strong stuff there, huh?

Republican Hypocrisy On Government Spending

13 Monday Apr 2009

Posted by in Politics

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Republican hypocrisy train rolls on. Today’s two shining examples are Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and House Minority Leader, Mr. Spray-On Tan himself, John Boehner of Ohio. The subject is whether or not government spending creates jobs.

Here’s what Sen. Chambliss had to say in February about the economic stimulus package:

“The majority in Congress has been in runaway mode when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars. This legislation is yet another sign that Washington is more concerned with pet projects than with the welfare of taxpayers.”

But when Defense Secretary Gates announced plans last week to end production of the F-22, which just by coincidence is done at a plant in Marietta, GA, Sen. Chambliss changed his opinion of the importance of those so-called “pet projects.”

“When it comes to stimulating the economy, there’s no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community.”

Sen. Chambliss’ fellow Georgian, Rep. Johnny Isakson, another Republican who voted against the stimulus package, added:

“I also believe that it is unacceptable that this administration wants to eliminate 2,000 jobs in Marietta and potentially 95,000 jobs nationwide at a time when unemployment rates are rising across the country. Senator Chambliss and I will be taking the case of the F-22 to members of Congress and the Appropriations Committees. The F-22 is vital to 21st century American military superiority.”

I thought part of the Republican mantra was that government spending didn’t create jobs? I guess that only holds true when the spending is done in someone else’s home state or district.

Now to Congressman Boehner, who said this in January:

“When it comes to slow-moving government spending programs, it’s clear that it doesn’t create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen.”

With the possible exception of when defense contractor BAE was awarded a $71, 546, 085 no-bid contract for one of it’s subsidiaries in Fairfield, Ohio to build doors for armored vehicles.

Can we assume that no jobs were created in your district because of that contract, Congressman Boehner? Kinda doubt it.

Tell you what I’m gonna do, Republicans. I offer my services, for a reasonable fee of course, as a researcher for you guys to stop you from opening your yap and making such fools of yourselves. I feel it’s my patriotic duty.

Memo to Democrats: No Guts, No Glory

05 Monday Jan 2009

Posted by in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The details of President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed economic stimulus package are starting to emerge, and to be frank, I am less than impressed by what I have seen so far. From the New York Times:

“President-elect Barack Obama plans to include about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses in his economic recovery program, advisers said Sunday, as his team seeks to win over Congressional skeptics worried that he was too focused on government spending.

The legislation Mr. Obama is developing with Congressional Democrats will devote about 40 percent of the cost to tax cuts, including his centerpiece campaign promise to provide credits up to $500 for most workers, costing roughly $150 billion. The package will also include more than $100 billion in tax incentives for businesses to create jobs and invest in equipment or factories.”

I understand the need to fulfill the campaign promise of a middle-class tax cut, and giving businesses incentives for creating jobs, but it seems to me that devoting 40% of the stimulus package to tax cuts is too much.

Here’s a chart from Moody’s that shows “bang for the buck” when it comes to tax cuts vs. government spending. The figures are dollars added to the GDP in relation to dollars spent.

bang-for-the-buck

As you can see, the greater boost to the GDP comes from the last four spending increases rather than tax cuts or rebates.

But the thing that bothers me most about the proposed package is the reason for making tax cuts such a large part. From the Wall Street Journal:

“The size of the proposed tax cuts — which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years — is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.”

I respect President-elect Obama’s desire for bi-partisanship, but isn’t it the suddenly fiscally conservative Republicans, whose policies of big tax cuts, un-regulated markets, and laissez-faire capitalism, have put us into the economic ditch in which we now find ourselves?

Also, the President-elect, and virtually every economist worthy of the title has said that our current economic predicament calls for unprecedented, bold actions. I don’t see kowtowing to Republicans as either unprecedented or bold. It reeks of same old, same old to me.

I realize that Democrats passing a stimulus package by a straight party line vote in the House, and by picking off one or two moderate Republicans in the Senate, is a big gamble. If it works, Democrats get all the credit, if it doesn’t they get all the blame.

But to bring it down to simple terms that I can understand, every gym that I have ever walked into in my 52 years has a sign with some variation of the theme, “No guts, no glory.” I think that’s what the majority of us voted for in November, and that’s what we expect, a different way of how business is done in D.C. Isn’t that what “change” is all about?