Get ready for Porkulus II

posted at 2:20 pm on December 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats on Capitol Hill have begun crafting a second job-stimulus plan after the abject failure of Porkulus to rein in unemployment, and it looks like they will take a hair-of-the-dog approach again.  Only half of a preliminary estimate of $300 billion in additional spending would go towards anything remotely resembling stimulus, such as tax cuts and business loans.  The rest would go towards unemployment benefits and another round of pork spending:

The Hill arrived at the $300 billion figure by adding up the following provisions:

Lawmakers are looking to extend unemployment insurance and COBRA healthcare benefits for the unemployed through 2010 at a cost of $100 billion alone, according to the sponsor of House legislation, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) pushed Wednesday for $69 billion for highway and transit projects that could be started almost immediately with funding. Oberstar had criticized the earlier stimulus bill for not including enough infrastructure spending, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) have voiced support for more infrastructure spending to create jobs.

Democrats would also increase loans from the Small Business Administration (SBA) at a cost of $20 billion, according to Zandi.

He called for raising limits for the SBA loans, removing the interest rate cap on them in order to allow credit to be given more freely and using leftover bank bailout money as small-business credit.

Tax credits for businesses that hire new full-time workers would cost about $27 billion under a proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning policy group. A new hiring tax credit has received extensive discussion and is under consideration by President Barack Obama, according to his economic team.

Providing more aid to states, a move to stem further job losses, also has support among lawmakers, The New Republic reported Tuesday. Zandi, noting that the state governments will have a $150 billion budget shortfall in fiscal 2011, has called for $75 billion in federal aid for states.

A federal work-share program backed by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and four other Democrats would cost about $600 million.

The total cost of all of those proposals would be $291.6 billion.

In other words, we’re seeing the exact same approach as the Democrats took in February, which produced nothing but fraudulent “jobs saved or created” numbers and double-digit unemployment.  The proposals would suck more money out of the private sector, expand the debt incurred already by this administration, and keep investors on the sidelines, with the possible exception of the SBA loans program.

The state aid package amounts to a second bailout of states that refuse to exercise fiscal responsibility.  Porkulus provided massive block grants to states, ostensibly to keep teachers and first responders employed.  Instead, the states used the money to paper over budget gaps and put off badly-needed decisions on scaling back their spending.  The next $75 billion will amount to a second federal bailout of the states, which are supposed to function as their own sovereigns instead of becoming dependent on the federal treasury — especially as directly as this.  And at the end of these bailouts, the same structural budget problems will still exist in these states, which will eventually force them to make the tough decisions after the rest of the country has subsidized their procrastination.

Transportation funds are a well-known and well-documented resource of pork for legislators.  The transportation bill each year carries hundreds or thousands of pork line items meant to guarantee re-election.  The only jobs they save are those of legislators.  Furthermore, expediting transportation projects amounts to a Cash for Potholes program, stealing “jobs” from later years, especially when the debt service on all of the borrowing becomes so onerous that Washington either hikes taxes or cuts spending.  Those jobs are temporary by nature and do very little to stimulate long-term growth and stable jobs.

The extension of benefits has value, but not as job stimulus, and there is evidence that these extensions are harming job creation.  Including this in any discussion of job stimulation is at least mildly Orwellian.

If Congress wants to stimulate the economy, it needs to stop expanding government and incurring massive deficits.  That means an end to ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, and Card Check, as well as significant reductions in federal government.  That would send positive signals to private capital that they can expect pro-growth policies and predictable tax rates, which would encourage investment and job creation.  They don’t need a summit to reach that conclusion — they just need a big dose of common sense.

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

So, you WERE serous about that????

So with all the wasted billions of dollars and the way the economy as it is,You actually think that the Government is better at spending money that the people?

So you are a tried and true Statist aren’t you?

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Even the NYT was forced to admit tax cuts work. Let’s step into the time machine (via another HotAir post):

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

…an unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM

So basically we got out of the Depression due to the federal spending spurred by WWII? LOL, I was hoping you’d walk into that trap, but I wasn’t sure if you were quite dumb enough to do it.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 3:39 PM

It wasn’t government spending itself but the willingness of the American people to live with essentially slave labor consumption while still earning decent wages so that 1/3 of our male workforce could be sent to fight (ie, taken out of the private labor market). Then when the men returned there was a built up excess of savings waiting to turn into consumption. We could repeat that today, if everyone started saving 50% of their income and 1/3 of our work force was drafted. 4 years of it and yes the economy would rapidly recover, but who is willing to do that outside of total war?

I don’t know whether I should laugh or shake my head at your supposed “trap”.

jarodea on December 3, 2009 at 5:36 PM

To fix my last serious point, I hsould have said, “but which democracy is willing to do that outside of total war?” Similar actions have worked when done by Stalin and Deng Xiaoping, but then the Soviets and Chinese were never actually given a choice or vote on the matter.

jarodea on December 3, 2009 at 5:40 PM

The government, obviously. Individuals would probably save it or use it to pay off debt.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM

….irresponsible idiots that they are…

Economic illiterate.

mr.blacksheep on December 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM

SirGawain on December 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM

I almost couldn’t believe someone would come out and actually say that.

It belies the fact that to a Statist like crr6, our earnings are somehow automatically the property of the government.

Property with which they can use in whatever manner they choose.

Unfreaking believable.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM

I’m really excited about all the new jobs this will bring to the 172nd district of Georgia where I live with my wife Angelina Jolie.

angryed on December 3, 2009 at 6:03 PM

I almost couldn’t believe someone would come out and actually say that.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Well it’s a pretty banal economic point. The fact that you’re so shocked about it says more about your own ignorance than anything else. Consumers clam up during recessions, so it’s moronic to give them tax cuts. They’ll just save it and we’ll be in a worse spot than before.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 6:18 PM

I almost couldn’t believe someone would come out and actually say that.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Well it’s a pretty banal economic point. The fact that you’re so shocked about it says more about your own ignorance than anything else. Consumers clam up during recessions, so it’s moronic to give them tax cuts. They’ll just save it and we’ll be in a worse spot than before.

crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Well, at least we know the Republicans won’t vote for it. Right? Right??

Hucklebuck on December 3, 2009 at 6:26 PM

I almost couldn’t believe someone would come out and actually say that.
Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Well it’s a pretty banal economic point. The fact that you’re so shocked about it says more about your own ignorance than anything else. Consumers clam up during recessions, so it’s moronic to give them tax cuts. They’ll just save it and we’ll be in a worse spot than before.
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Okay, so to a Statist such as yourself, everyone’s earnings are in fact property of the State?

Property with which they can use in whatever manner they choose.

It’s just a question of where and when the National Socialist Democrat Party would like to buy votes, correct?

Unfreaking believable.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 6:27 PM

I almost couldn’t believe someone would come out and actually say that.
Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Well it’s a pretty banal economic point. The fact that you’re so shocked about it says more about your own ignorance than anything else. Consumers clam up during recessions, so it’s moronic to give them tax cuts. They’ll just save it and we’ll be in a worse spot than before.
crr6 on December 3, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Okay, so to a Statist such as yourself, everyone’s earnings are in fact property of the State?

Property with which they can use in whatever manner they choose.

It’s just a question of where and when the National Socialist Democrat Party would like to buy votes, correct?

Unfreaking believable.

Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) pushed Wednesday for $69 billion for highway and transit projects that could be started almost immediately with funding.

Why do I feel like I’ve heard this before?
Shovel ready?

stevezilla on December 3, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Are the Americans, individually, really obligated to pay off this mounting debt? I mean, one can still move to another country and change one’s citizenship, it seems.

Kralizec on December 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM

ANOTHER PORKULUS?

When is the March on Washington? I need to buy a ticket, pronto.

PattyJ on December 3, 2009 at 8:10 PM

They haven’t finished pissing away the original 800 billion dollars yet. Until they finish squandering that, I say no more money.

eyedoc on December 4, 2009 at 10:14 AM

LOL. Are they serious? Porkulus II, like the first, is entirely about self gain politics. This shows you why we would all be better off without government. I would gladly take care of my own security.

Libertarian Joseph on December 4, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Okay, so to a Statist such as yourself, everyone’s earnings are in fact property of the State?
Property with which they can use in whatever manner they choose.
It’s just a question of where and when the National Socialist Democrat Party would like to buy votes, correct?
Juno77 on December 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Still no answer? – figures.

Juno77 on December 4, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Still no answer? – figures.

Juno77 on December 4, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Because I don’t think we should cut taxes during a recession I believe everyone’s earnings are the property of the state? Stop being such a hysterical little hack.

crr6 on December 4, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3