The $787 billion dollar stimulus bill has passed the House with zero support from Republicans and seven Democrats opposing it.
Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering why the Republicans didn’t all oppose the original stimulus that Bush put forth? I, for one, think both bills were (are) bad news. I just can’t help but be frustrated that the republicans didn’t take a hard stand against the spending-gone-wild sooner!
Had they made a stink earlier and against their “own” President, they would have a lot more credibility now. As it stands, they end up looking partisan for the sake of being partisan. Of course, I don’t want to belittle the good work that many House republicans did in standing up against the earlier bill. I’m glad they did. I’m just venting here.
This bill is even more money than the first. I thought that one was supposed to turn things around? I guess we’ve already forgotten that.
The AP reports:
Republicans pointed out a bevy of questionable spending items that made the final cut in House-Senate negotiations, including money to replace computers at federal agencies, inspect canals, and issue coupons for convertor boxes to help people watch TV when the changeover to digital signals occurs this summer.
Well, it’s good to know that in the midst of the economic crisis no one will be faced with a moment’s loss of TV. That would be a tragedy indeed. You think things are bad now, just think of the rioting we’d see of the must-see TV-starved masses!
We keep first things first, here in the good old US of A.
I couldn’t agree more about the TV thing! Seems like a silly thing to be so concerned about, but you know it wouldn’t go over well if TV service was lost. So sad.
Wow…I can taste the sarcasm ;)
Sarcasm? What sarcasm?
Seriously though, far be it from me to imply that anyone should think about paying the defaulting mortgage on their house rather than buy a converter for their tv.
Well said!
I guess I see things from a slightly different perspective Ab. For some people TV is their only form of entertainment. As for the computers and canals, they do stimulate spending. And I guess I think after a pre-emtive war and a surplus turning into a 2 trillion deficit over the past 8 years, and the home loan situation and wall street and the banks run wild, that it is time for some common sense to come to the fore. Not everyone has a job, nor insurance, nor a home, nor food, nor family to help out. And in some cases it is not their fault. And the churches aren’t able to help out, because they must maintain their beautiful structures, etc., and their missionary work abroad. Are we to let these people starve in this rich country?
Are we to let them die? Just because they are not in our faces doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I believe Jesus means what He says in the Bible about caring for our brothers and sisters. I am a bleeding heart liberal and a fiscal conservative.
I guessing we’ll have to agree to disagree on the main principles regarding government’s role.
But c’mon, Aunt Del! TV? Even if it is someone’s only form of entertainment, since when was the gov’t in the business of subsidizing entertainment (esp when most of it is drivel)?
Food for the starving, yes, but TV? Turn on the radio, or read a book from the free library. Or watch your kids be ridiculous and cute, that’s always entertaining!
I’m w/ you, Abigail!
I’m with you on the spirit of your comments about TV (we don’t own one, and I would personally much rather read a book or ride my bicycle), but I think it (and your aunt Del’s entertainment comment) slightly misses the point about TV converter boxes.
Think about who is most likely to own analog TV’s: older Americans, rural Americans, and poor Americans. For better (or actually for worse, in my opinion), television has become the major form of broadcast media. It overtook radio in the 50′s and 60′s, and will probably eventually be marginalized by the internet.
For now, however, TV is an important source of news and public service information for millions of Americans. Think about older people who may not otherwise know to stay indoors due to severe weather.
Aunt Del, I share your concerns about the misplaced priorities of the church. Your comments get at the heart of my long-winded comments on Abigail’s blog a few weeks ago.
Plus, I’m bound to reply thus, since I’m also a bleeding heart liberal :)
Abigail,
I’m catching up on your blog after being out of the blogging world for a bit. I love it – I appreciate your well thought-out opinions. You are a gifted writer.
I just read 7-8 posts & had mental comments formed for most, but for lack of time those will have to wait. A quick comment on this one though:
“Seriously though, far be it from me to imply that anyone should think about paying the defaulting mortgage on their house rather than buy a converter for their tv.”
The thing is those who are or need to be making payments on their defaulting mortgages are probably not having to worry about converter boxes – because they’re still keeping up with their CABLE BILLS! Which is part of the reason why they’re defaulting on their mortgages. Americans spend money they don’t have and our government does the same.
I actually think Peter above is right-on about the true population making use of the converter boxes. I am a proud owner of two converter boxes and used my allotted two coupons to buy them. However, I agree that it is not the government’s job to provide them and does seem a bit silly. And while I’m happy I will not be losing my signal this summer, I agree – the Stimulus is ridiculous. My prediction: The economy will come up on its feet in a natural way as it always does (in spite of said Stimulus bill), our government ends up farther in the hole, but God Bless Obama for saving us all. :)
The reason the government is contributing toward the price of converter boxes is that it’s the government that is mandating the switchover to digital broadcasting.
From a public policy perspective, it is in the public’s interest to adopt new technologies which make resource use more efficient. Digital broadcasting allows much more content on the same bandwith. This is really important with the crazy proliferation of electronic transmitting devices including cellphones and the growth of digital media.
Sometimes there’s just not enough of a market incentive for private companies to adopt new technologies. It is one role of the government to provide such incentives either through regulation or through tax policy (economic incentive).
This whole discussion, and several of your recent posts, Abigail, raises a more basic question. What is the role of government? We all could agree on some principles about how government should operate. But why have a government? Beyond broad principles like national defense, what does the government’s role look like on a specific policy level?
In other words, what kind of policies are good policies?
Heather, I couldn’t agree more that the people defaulting probably are not the ones concerned about the converter boxes because they have cable. Too true.
And Peter, I also totally agree that if the gov’t legislates something like a switch to digital tv, they should give the taxpayers back some of their money to buy the stinkin’ converters!
I just found it ironic that Pres. Obama’s bill was supposed to be one for a nation headed into a crisis as bad or worse than the great depression. Somehow tv converter boxes don’t mesh with this picture.
Also, I call it an entertainment “subsidy” since everyone will be issued coupons for converters, and not everyone pays taxes (and certainly we don’t pay them in equal amounts).
As for the role of gov’t, I don’t have the time to dive into it presently, but here’s something to start with from True Paradigm that gives the writer’s take on what the role of gov’t should be. I agree principally with most of what he says in his post, even though he’s talking about New Zealand.
http://bethyada.blogspot.com/2009/02/portfolios-for-africa.html
Thanks for the link.
I’m still curious as to what you think makes good policy, though. The author of that blog post just listed a lot of government functions that he thinks should be government functions but doesn’t really say why they should or should not be government functions.
I would say that my fundamental philosophy of government is that in a democratic society the government’s role is to look out for the welfare of its citizens. We often rail against public education today, but public education in America was revolutionary. It is a key example of how the government is to provide for its citizen’s welfare.During Puritan colonial times, universal education was mandated first in Massachusetts through the Ole’ Satan Deluder Act. The thought was literally that the idle mind is the devil’s playground.
Another function of government is to regulate commerce. This is a fundamental function of government in a free market society. The government has to strike a really difficult balance between regulation (which it has done successfully through such monumental acts as the Sherman Anti-trust Act) and letting market forces run their courses.
The switch to digital broadcasting is another example. I was a congressional page in 1996 and 1997, when the process of mandating higher broadcasting technology standards began. This process is finally resulting in a switch to digital broadcasting. The subsidization of digital conversion boxes is merely one of the final steps in this decade-long process. I don’t even think that converter boxes were a part of the stimulus legislation. I applied for (and never received) convertyer box coupons last spring, before the economy really began to tank.
My broader point is that it’s fine to argue the merits of policy, and there can be legitimate disagreements on what is efficient policy and what is equitable policy, but I would rather discuss policy on its own merits rather than on what partisan pundits have to say about the issue.
I would be curious to hear more about what you meant when you said “ . . . not everyone pays taxes (and certainly we don’t pay them in equal amounts).”
This is certainly true, but it doesn’t apply to just income taxes. In essence, all taxes are redistributive. And no taxes are perfectly fair. The middle class pays far higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than the rich. Is this fair? Certain luxury items like yachts that only rich people buy are charged a special luxury tax. Is this fair?
The extremely rich can afford to pay a higher proportion of theri income on taxes and still have more money than they need. An argument against this is that it creates perverse incentives for people to either evade paying taxes or to not try to accumulate wealth. Another byproduct that was part of the political mainstream when the estate tax was in full force during the gilded age was that the famous “robber barons” like Andrew Carnegie and James J. Hill had tax incentives to support philanthropy. Carnegie hall in New York is one such example.
The estate tax has gotten a bad rap from special interests who have labeled it the “death tax”. In reality, this tax only taxed the richest Americans and had the happy effect of preventing the rise of an economic aristocracy. Quite a laudable goal when money buys power and when in a democracy such as ours everyone should be be equal. The middle class’ share of the tax burden has been increasing steadily since the early 20th century (I have raw data collected by the Brookings Institution of the distribution of the tax burden and could create a few graphs to show how the tax burden has shifted. Let me know if you’re interested.) We have to pay for government somehow, and if we keep cutting the taxes of the rich, our share of the tax burden will only continue to rise.
Sorry, didn’t intend to pontificate. When I get on a roll, the words just don’t stop.
Wow, ofter reading over that again, I realize that was quite a ramble and didn’t really string the logic together well. As always, take my comments with a grain of salt (but feel free to respond :)