Want a stimulus? Cut taxes and spending!

posted at 12:40 pm on October 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this year, Congress passed a “stimulus plan” that consisted of sending a small part of our own money back to us in hope of boosting the economy.  One might have thought that conservatives would have used that as evidence that the best way to stimulate taxpayers would be to take less taxes in the first place, but apparently we’re still content to fight on populist turf instead.  Yesterday, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he’d consider a new stimulus package pressed by Democrats:

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Sunday indicated that he is open to working on a second stimulus package as long as it “makes sense.”

“But let’s not use the stimulus package as an excuse to do what Democrats have wanted to do from day one of this Congress, which is a huge public works plan,” Blunt said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrat would do a second stimulus that will “give the middle class and the average citizen the same kind of relief that we try to give to the financial sector.”

Good grief.  Did the first stimulus package work?  Did I miss the massive growth and surge in employment that it created after checks went out in the spring?  Michelle Obama ridiculed it as nothing more than the price of a new pair of earrings, which got some criticism but has some truth to it.  The stimulus had no impact other than to cover for the high-spending Congress.

Now, Democrats want another stimulus package to go with the massive bailout that taxpayers will fund for the government’s role in distorting the lending markets and crashing the global financial system with fraudulent government-mandated securities.  In other words, we have to spend money in order to justify spending money.  That only makes sense in the heads of DC politicians with little connection to reality.

I don’t mean to criticize Blunt too harshly, as he has been a good voice for rational policy overall, but he completely surrenders on this point by acknowledging even the legitimacy of this thinking.  Government can best stimulate the economy by burdening it less.  Reduce taxes and regulation, stop distorting private markets in order to impose social policy, and cut back significantly on spending; those solutions will stimulate the American economy much more quickly and efficiently than laundering overpaid taxes through the federal bureaucracy.

Put it this way: does it cost more to take money from taxpayers and then pay bureaucrats to filter it back to us, or just leave it in our pockets in the first place?  And which option gives taxpayers a rational way to predict how much money we’ll get to keep in the future, so we can plan for investments in the economy?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Blunt can go under the bus with Cantor. Bailout traitors.

lodge on October 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Want a stimulus? Cut taxes and spending!

Cut spending? You have got to be kidding me. Spending is going through the roof. The yearly deficit is going to be over a trillion dollars.

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Michelle Obama ridiculed it as nothing more than the price of a new pair of earrings, which got some criticism but has some truth to it.

And Michelle whom makes how much? Say something about a pair of earrings? Maybe because that is what she would spend it on….

Can I ask, if ANYONE has given back their “Stimulus Checks”… EVER?

I don’t think so.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM

How does this jive with ed’s support of the $300 billion “let government renegotiate mortgages” bill ?

lorien1973 on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Cut taxes and spending!

What is this “cut spending” of which you talk?

rbj on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Cut spending? You have got to be kidding me. Spending is going through the roof. The yearly deficit is going to be over a trillion dollars.

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM

But increasing spending will have no impact on the deficit?

MarkTheGreat on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

R – Stimulus means money back to the people
D – Stimulus means Pork back to the people.

Squeal lika pig

Kini on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Why don’t we start by cutting the department of education entirely?

nazo311 on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Blunt can go under the bus with Cantor. Bailout traitors. – lodge on October 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Keep tossing conservatives under the bus, lodge, and before long you’ll be joining Ron Paul – on the ledge.

ManlyRash on October 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Ed, this morning they discussed this and they mentioned that this stimulus bill isn’t for the people but for the states. .

broker1 on October 13, 2008 at 12:45 PM

i.e. Pelosi wants a huge chunck of it to save California.

broker1 on October 13, 2008 at 12:46 PM

R – Stimulus means money back to the people
D – Stimulus means Pork back to the people back to the union bosses.

Squeal lika pig

Kini on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

FIFY

Illinidiva on October 13, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Cut spending how, anyway? SS, Healthcare and Defence are all too politically sensitive.

I think a good place to start would be cold-war type projects at DoD. We don’t need them when we’re fighting a guerilla war. Medicare and Medicaid and SS need some sort of reform. They’re bloated and ineffective and we can’t pay for them.

lodge on October 13, 2008 at 12:46 PM

Keep tossing conservatives under the bus, lodge, and before long you’ll be joining Ron Paul – on the ledge.

700 billion dollars flushed down the toilet is being “conservative”?

lodge on October 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Want an economic stimulus? Want to create MASSIVE numbers of jobs?

Drill for oil! Build 4 modern refineries inland with pipelines to multiple coastal terminals!

Cost to taxpayer. . . ZERO.

Problem solved.

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM

How does this jive with ed’s support of the $300 billion “let government renegotiate mortgages” bill ?

lorien1973 on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Maybe that is another one of those socialist investment thingies and not really spending?

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Can someone find/post the video of obama telling the plumber “I just want to spread it around” when discussing his Tax plan! How about it HotAir?! The video was played this morning on Fox News.

christene on October 13, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Ugh. It’s all pointless new anyway…

I, for one, welcome our new Democrat Overlords

Waterboy on October 13, 2008 at 12:50 PM

But increasing spending will have no impact on the deficit?

MarkTheGreat on October 13, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Does it really make much/any difference if the yearly deficit is 1.3 or 1.4 trillion dollars?

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Are you going to mandate that Oil Companies whom drill can only work for the Federal Government? And the oil and gas that come out ONLY go for Federal?

It doesn’t work that way, the permitting and paperwork is slower then maple syrup in -40 and the fact that if you can find an oil company to do that… they are insane!

Do you think the Federal Government is going to make it’s own “oil company” and other sublets?

Give me a break, there is way more to it then you realize.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM

The left has had a catchy phrase in “Republican War on Science”. It captures the popular dissent with the creationist silliness and some of the discussion on global climate change (but not all). I think we should start using the “Democratic War on Economics”. It captures fairly accurately Democratic economic policy prescriptions.

thuja on October 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Keep tossing conservatives under the bus, lodge, and before long you’ll be joining Ron Paul – on the ledge.

Quite so. We need to seize control of the bus, drive over to the ledge, and dump the worthless rat bastard traitors over the edge.

LimeyGeek on October 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM

One party system for sure.

I’m going up to earn $250,000 next year and pull the plug on my business until the next fiscal year.

More play time for me!

mylegsareswollen on October 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM

I don’t want another check. I want fiscally responsible governance. I won’t be bribed with a cookie to shut up.

Doug on October 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM

700 billion dollars flushed down the toilet is being “conservative”? – lodge on October 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Tough decisions. I’m sure they weren’t thrilled to to it. What the hell, even Mr. Newt supported it. But hey…toss ‘em all out. Right?

ManlyRash on October 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM

I think we should start using the “Democratic War on Economics”. It captures fairly accurately Democratic economic policy prescriptions.

thuja on October 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Democrats war on science works for me.

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM

cut capital gains, corporate, and any investment taxes…leave regulation alone though…in light of whats happened, i propose a deregulation freeze.

ernesto on October 13, 2008 at 12:56 PM

I won’t be bribed with a cookie to shut up.

Doug on October 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM

How about with a Taco, Gringo?

VinyFoxy on October 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM

Tough decisions. I’m sure they weren’t thrilled to to it. What the hell, even Mr. Newt supported it. But hey…toss ‘em all out. Right?

Newt got scared into it by the MSM.

Regardless, we should support true conservatives like DeMint and McCotter who stood tall, not those who buckled and went along with it aslong as they got some pork.

lodge on October 13, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Democrats war on science works for me.

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Thought they already won that one.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Thought they already won that one.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on October 13, 2008 at 12:58 PM

They will lose that one when the Iceman commeth.

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 1:00 PM

After the stimulus checks went out the numbers came in the economy that quarter grew at a little over 3%. So it worked in so far as it stopped the economy from contracting. That is not a long term solution by any means, but it worked in so far as it went.

Terrye on October 13, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Upinak,

Your questions have nothing to do with what I’m saying.

Let the oil companies drill and they will. Let the oil companies build refineries and they will. Let them build new oil terminals and they will.

The government doesn’t have to create a new oil company, it just has to get out of the way of the existing oil companies.

If Exxon doesn’t want to drill, then Marathon will, if Marathon doesn’t then Chevron will, if Chevron doesn’t then Joe Oil startup will.

You suggest that there’s “way more to it than I realize”, I suggest that you are being intentionally obtuse and don’t choose to see my point.

Get the government out of the way of the oil companies, and they will drill, refine and sell in the market and prices will go down, jobs will be created, billions (no, really it’s trillions) of dollars will be generated. There doesn’t need to be any government increase in taxes or spending for this to happen, they just need to get out of the way and let energy production go forward domestically.

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM

After the stimulus checks went out the numbers came in the economy that quarter grew at a little over 3%. So it worked in so far as it stopped the economy from contracting. That is not a long term solution by any means, but it worked in so far as it went.

Terrye on October 13, 2008 at 1:00 PM

From what I read on a business site they used an inflation deflator of only 1.3% to get that.

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 1:03 PM

seriously considering laying off about 4 folks to get my income under $250k…..I hope Barry Hussein has some more billions to pay for the unemployment at 12%…..oh yeah, how about the WPA?

Why work hard with Democrats in office? Guess I will take up golf rather than bust my ass….too bad about the good folks I have to can….I will make the same with them or without so might as well enjoy life a little more….UP WITH SOCIALISM!

SDarchitect on October 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Good Lord, I was asking the questions for you to get an understanding.

FYI, regualtions and Government will never be taken out of drilling and production of oil. Drill Here, Drill now is a great idea… but you have to have more people on it (say 15 million) before anything will get going on it. And the fact that it isn’t just a Federal issue, it is also a State and at times a environmental one, as much as most of us hate it.

And if you think I am being “obtruse” is the fact I work in Oil and Gas and I am just telling you how it is. And if you don’t believe me, check out the Regulations concerning permitting, leasing, expiditing on environmental issues.. etc. Dealing with State, Federal, EPA (whihc is now environmental per State) and possibly Corps of Engineers if it is land given back. Not to mention private land owners who may or may not have the mineral rights.

And you have to “spend’ money to make money. How much does it cost to run for exploration of oil and gas before making any profit off of it?

Then come back and talk to me.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Give me a break, there is way more to it then you realize.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 12:52 PM

You left out the most imposing determent—- the invironmental community lawsuits that tie up the process for decades.

Rovin on October 13, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Hey, they’re creating jobs for all the bureaucrats (and postal workers) who will be taking our taxes at gunpoint and then processing millions and millions of checks and then delivering a tiny portion of our money back to us. I wonder — if they give us, say, $500 of our own money back — does it cost more than $500 to give us our $500 back? Which isn’t even enough to fill a heating oil tank half-way?

aero on October 13, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Then come back and talk to me.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Sorry upinak, I posted a little late. Thanks for expanding on the debacle of the industry restrictions.

Rovin on October 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM

This is EXACTLY why we need to throw out the lot of them, including Blunt. These people see themselves as the “elites.” Any “solution” would be an elitist “solution” – one that comes down from above. After all, what do we poor slobs know about this complicated stuff?

Let’s face it: Reagan was no elitist. He understood that reducing taxes and spending, bringing the real spending power back to real people, would pull us out of a recession. And it worked!

Palin falls into this realm, though she’s no Reagan. Still, she sees things as the rest of us “real” people do, and for the most part she doesn’t propose elitist, top-down solutions.

We know the way out of recession; we’ve done it before. It wasn’t tax and spend, it was cut and not spend (even though that last part never came to complete fruition).

Cut taxes and not spend. Repeat as necessary. No recession.

karl9000 on October 13, 2008 at 1:16 PM

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Sunday indicated that he is open to working on a second stimulus package as long as it “makes sense.”

Since when has anything congress comes up with make sense.

Tommy_G on October 13, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Sorry upinak, I posted a little late. Thanks for expanding on the debacle of the industry restrictions.

Rovin on October 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Rovin no worries. I deal with more of the Regs then I care to admit. And at times… there are more Regulations of a well or feild or pool then anyone on here knows about.

Even those who work in Oil/Gas don’t know the paperwork involved.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM

You people sound like a bunch of angry clingers, clutching your guns and Bibles.

Me, I could use a stimulus check; I have my eye on some fab, purple shag for my bunker. I want all of you to pay for it.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM

I’m looking for a job right now. Looks like the most secure employment in the nation will be working for the IRS trying to collect enough taxes to keep the Dems in spending mode. Tax revenues are about to drop like a rock, and I’m sure the Dems’ reaction will be to hire more thugs to try to squeeze a little more blood from the stone before the stone moves outside the country.

aero on October 13, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Michelle Obama ridiculed it as nothing more than the price of a new pair of earrings…

Well in that case she’s ridiculing her husband’s own plan:

Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. Woo Hoo! Should I buy diamonds or pearls?

seriously considering laying off about 4 folks to get my income under $250k…..
SDarchitect on October 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM

You may want to find out how Barry calculates $250,000 first. For instance, is it gross or net income? His website tells us exactly zero, zip, nada.

Let us know when you get an answer.

/s

BTW, Rush made a great point to demonstrate how Barry is lying when he claims that very few small businesses make over $250,000. If you’re employed by small business, look around and see how many employees there are, guesstimate their salaries, and see what you come up with for a total.

Buy Danish on October 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Just stop paying your mortgage

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Me, I could use a stimulus check; I have my eye on some fab, purple shag for my bunker. I want all of you to pay for it.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Purple is passe`, I would go with Brown… the new off beat! It will match the soil and the wood!

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Cut spending? You have got to be kidding me. Spending is going through the roof. The yearly deficit is going to be over a trillion dollars.

MB4 on October 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM

optimist…

CC

CapedConservative on October 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM

aero on October 13, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Hey aero, if you have a finance background the FDIC is hiring like crazy.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Hey aero, if you have a finance background the FDIC is hiring like crazy.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 1:32 PM

So’s “Cash ‘n Carry”… the guy in charge of spending the $700 billion (when they get around to actually spending this emergency money).

CC

CapedConservative on October 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Buy Danish on October 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Key to this one is how you are Incorporated. If you are an LLC, as most small business’s are, then company income is taxed as personal income… after business deductions and such.

If you are a “C” corp, then income is taxed at the business level, which in America is one of the highest rates in the Western world…

So, your question as to Net vs. Gross is a very important one… and one Barry won’t answer about his “evolving” tax plan.

Romeo13 on October 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM

I’m hiring too, though the hours will be terrible, the working conditions highly dangerous, the food is what you can take from the land and you will be required to move to either a southern state on the Mexican border or a state separated from the continental United States.

However, your freedom will be guaranteed for as long as you live.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Tax revenues are about to drop like a rock…

aero on October 13, 2008 at 1:21 PM

You’re more right than you think. You see, this is actually part of the Obama Tax Plan:

Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP).iii The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

Buy Danish on October 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

It makes my skin crawl to think of what Obarky would consider “unnecessary” spending.

Say goodbye to missile defense, new aircraft carriers and air-superiority fighters.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

And if you think I am being “obtruse” is the fact I work in Oil and Gas and I am just telling you how it is. And if you don’t believe me, check out the Regulations concerning permitting, leasing, expiditing on environmental issues.. etc. Dealing with State, Federal, EPA (whihc is now environmental per State) and possibly Corps of Engineers if it is land given back. Not to mention private land owners who may or may not have the mineral rights.

Your making my point for me. That’s EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Get the governement(regulations) out of the way, and the oil companies will bend over backwards to drill. Yes, SOME STATES will take issue, so what, let them, and they will reap the wirlwind for it in higher prices. Other states will fast-track approvals and bend over backwards to get wells uncapped, platforms erected, new holes drilled etc, etc.

First step, get the feds out of the way. Executive order or congressional action, I don’t care which will get the ball rolling. Remove the federal restrictions and the market and industry will take care of the rest. Some states will say no, and they’ll miss out on the opportunity, others will line up and that’s where the jobs will be created.

No need for increased taxes, no need for economic stimulus checks, no need for increased spending. Just remove federal restrictions and “Drill Now!” (include uncapping wells in the mid-south and shale oil and all it’s other forms) and the economy will grow, jobs will be created trillions of dollars will be generated.

So what is it I’m not understanding?

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

However, your freedom will be guaranteed for as long as you live.

Bishop on October 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Bishop, I am already doing that… wth is my pay check?

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 1:42 PM

So what is it I’m not understanding?

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Jason, what do you concider a fast track?

Permitting for drilling? Permitting due to environmental reasons? Permitting of mineral rights (Federal, State and private)? Permitting of disposal issues (water, core samples, Methane Injectable or to haul the gas away, casings, etc)? Permitting of subsurface and surface findings of animals (endangered or other), environmental water ways (ponds, stnading water, lakes, swamp, rivers, the ocean), possible archilogical digs, geological discoveries (fossils), etc. Permitting of Injection wells (water, gas, cabon based re-cycled and/or other)? Pemitting of co-sponserships of companies?

Shit that list goes on and on and on.

Which ones are you referring too? Federal? State? Environmental? Welfare? Municpality/County? City/Town (because it has happened)? Not to mention Private surface and subsurface rights and holdings.

You really do not understand what I am talking about. There are State whom do not go off the guidelines of Federal juristiction… they have their own. Other States who operate on both their own standards and Federal also go off a National Standard which is in part a Conservationist issue and they are called I.O.G.C.C. and work with other States who are part and feel the need to be part of it. Alaska, Oklahoma, and Texas are part of this. Also who guides the mineral rights on Private Land? State? Federal? Is it the right of the individual(s) whom own it… or otherwise.

I am speaking frankly and you aren’t getting the jist. Federal (D.O.E.) does not run everything.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 1:52 PM

It is really too bad there is not a “None of the above” box on our ballots.

Regarding the Republicans, anyone using Republican and conservative in the same breath might want to do a reality check.

With McCain or Obama it will simply be more of the same. Obama will just hurt more.

Rockman44 on October 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Get the credit card companies to quit ripping people off and you’ll get a lot further. Whats it take 30 years to pay one off? 2? 3? There’s where liquidity is tied up. People make the mistake and can’t get out of it.

johnnyU on October 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Upinak,

I understand that each state has their own issues. HOWEVER, as I said, get the Federal Government out of the way, either through Congressional or Executive action and let the markets and industry do the rest.

There isn’t alot of incentive to for the oil companies to deal with the states if then they have to again or before go through the feds. Remove the feds from the equasion and there is incentive to move forward with the states.

Let’s face facts. As financial pressures increase, one, if not multiple states will cut through their bureaucracies to make it more attractive for oil companies to come through them. Other states will make it less attractive.

I don’t posit that the DOE runs it all, but if you remove federal restrictions, the ball can roll forward. If you take your approach, which is to lament that the remaining restrictions are insurmountable is simply defeatist.

Remove the federal restrictions and the market and industry will take care of the rest, one of the fifty will break first and that’s where the economic benefit and job creation will be the greatest the fastest. Others will follow suit based on example.

Get the government out of the way, let the market work and we don’t have to tax, or spend and we’ll all do better.

Which ones to fast-track? The more the better, and make it public. Highlight obstructionists and let the governors take some initiative, there are more than a few who are up to the task.

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Great post, Ed. Tax credits are taxes not tax cuts. How friggin hard is it for McCain to say this. Is McCain effectively communicating anything anymore? How good does Romney look now? He may have lost, but he would have fought and stood with his party. He would have also effectively communicated exactly WHY the bailout was necessary. This is something NEITHER candidate has done.

Angry Dumbo on October 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Angry Dumbo on October 13, 2008 at 2:09 PM

McCain can’t comlain about tax credits, because his own Health Care plan is based on Tax credits.

Way too easy to disrupt this attack.

Romeo13 on October 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Jason, many of the drillings are public. Some have a time frame but usually they are public. Unless it is BLM land.. then it will be confidential forever or until they decide to release which is rare.

But I am trying to point out, that even though EPA is State run, it is still concidered Federal and will never be taken out of the system. Thank our wacko environmenalists. The Conservationists are more down to earth and will think about it unlike “others”.

But also you can’t put everything on fast track. Reasons are fields and pools after you get a lease of land. Federal and State, will have to figure on issues like pool rules, feild infringement, unitization rights.. due to leases.

The reason I say you can’t fast track everything is this example. Say you are a oil comp and you lease some land and want to drill via your studies in this one area. But it is also within (depending on State or Federal laws) 100 acres of another Oil Comp. So the other oil comp who already has a well wants the Gov to investigate (very time consuming) so they don’t get their pool (or bubble) of oil taken by the other Comp.
Sometimes they freeze the drilling, other times they tell the Comp who wants to drill too drill and get a sample before they go any further. Now the Gov will check that or have the Comp analyze it to determine if it is from the same bubble. If it is, the Comp that wants that area they just leased, has to plug and abandon that well and leave it alone. Sometimes both Companies can work it out on shares and marginal percetages. other times it is a lawsuit.

There is so much involved in items like this, I can make your head spin. This example is the usual issue… but they can become more extreme as time go one.

This is one reason why not all regs can just go away. Especially if it is State and Federal land butted up next to each other and the directional drilling going on.

Permitting is one thing… disputes due to fast tracking after the fact is more costly in the end.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Sunday indicated that he is open to working on a second stimulus package as long as it “makes sense.”

Sounds like a plan, Trent Lott, I mean, Mr. Blunt.

Come on, get a freakin’ clue, Republicans! This “stimulus” crap is ridiculous. It’s nothing more than an election-year bribe. It’s insulting and you’re a sell-out if you push it. The only real stimulus plan is what Ed said, cut taxes and cut spending! Now!

CP on October 13, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Want a stimulus? Cut taxes and spending!

The idea behind the stimulus is the central (fallacious) concept of Keynesian economics, which argues that government or consumer spending on anything, no matter how inane, drives the economy. Keynes hated investing, as he thought (wrongly) that it takes time before its effects show up in economic activity.

To a Keynesian, then, your headline makes no sense—the stimulative effects of cutting taxes are more than offset by the reduction in stimulus provided by government spending, as at least some of the tax cuts will result in increased savings.

Of course, to an economist as such, investment spending is the indisputable driver of economic growth. But also, to an economist, the entire idea of “stimulus” is a bogus one.

It is unfortunate that economics, which once served as the basis for Classical Liberalism, the only scientific political philosophy, has been reduced to nothing more than a partisan talking-point shouting match. The Keynesians, whose central ideas are nothing more than a rehash of Mercantilism, take the side of the Democrats, and the Republicans are feebly represented by Supply-Siders, who understand just enough of actual economic science to be dangerous to the cause of human freedom and the Night-Watchman State.

It was a peculiar mix of irony and displeasure that I felt while I observed our “free market, free trade” president attempt to use a Keynesian stimulus to achieve a Supply-Side goal. No one since Reagan has done more damage to the cause of free enterprise, and, like Reagan, Bush has done it by acting as free enterprise’s champion.

hicsuget on October 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Your points are valid but they don’t speak to what I’m saying.

IF there are 10 obstacles before you in a task. Removing 2 of the 10 allows more energy and resources toward the remaining 8. Removing the first two does not mean that number 6 will go any fast or slower, BUT it does mean than in total the time/money/effort to achieve the goal will reduce. That time/money/effort can be used to pursue other goals.

Removing FEDERAL obstacles WILL give substantial incentive to the market. Oil companies will respond, jobs will be created and the economy will improve. As STATES remove obstacles (which some would) the effect will compound.

Yes, fast tracking will cause SOME problems for SOME exploration, but NOT all for all. We, as an economy, can afford having some projects fail or become overly costly, if the majority succeed in creating jobs, wealth and a better economic picture.

You seem to be saying that “all is lost and the regulations are insurmountable and perfect in their scale and scope”. My position is that we strip away as many as we can to speed development. Do you have a logical reason for keeping the regulation levels and evironments static and not reducing the governmental burden?

Remove FEDERAL restrictions and the ball can roll forward. Jobs will be created, the economy will be stimulated and trillions will be generated over the near term (5 years). Some states will go along some won’t and consumers can vote with their feet.

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM

The above was to upinak

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Romeo13 on October 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Agreed, McCain is no small government alternative, what then is a small government conservative to do this election?

Angry Dumbo on October 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Angry Dumbo on October 13, 2008 at 2:45 PM

LOL, I’m on the Buy Ammo and Drink Heavily plan meself.

Romeo13 on October 13, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Jason Coleman on October 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Jason I am not saying all is lost. I am saying it takes time depending on the situation. Some areas have been analyzed for years before the start of exploration in which the permits could be fast tracked. Others don’t have a chance in hell, whether State or Federal, because they have not taken the time to go through the motions and try to keep up with the organizational instructions. Usually it is the smaller companies whom have this issue and in the long run cost everyone more money due to lack of information.

Most permits can usually be fast tracked with the right system… but the little guys are the ones who usually have a problem due to many different items.

upinak on October 13, 2008 at 3:41 PM

I’ll say it again: borrowing money to distribute it across the population will not stimulate the economy. If all of the money thus given away was invested, then the economy would break even. If any of it is spent on consumer goods rather than invested, it will actually reduce economic output.

If you want to stimulate the economy with tax policy, you have to reduce marginal tax rates, so that people have more incentive to earn money. Don’t just give us money–make us work for it. This is especially true for the highest earners.

Other things you could do to stimulate the economy:
-Outlaw unions.
-Eliminate the corporate profits tax, and tax dividends as income.
-Simplify the tax code.
-flatten the tax code.

Count to 10 on October 13, 2008 at 4:19 PM