The new web site Recovery.gov is up and running and, as we hold our breaths to find out how well the stimulus works, provides clues to what and when we will be learning about it.
On March 3rd, Federal agencies are scheduled to begin reporting use of funds and, on May 3rd, making Performance Plans available and detailing their allocations to entitlement programs, followed on May 20th by reporting competitive grants and contracts.
On July 15th, recipients are scheduled to start explaining how they are using the funds.
Beyond that, the site promises to reveal where the money is going, "to which states, to which congressional districts, even to which Federal contractors. As soon as we are able to, we'll display that information visually in maps, charts, and graphics."
Whether or not the program succeeds is an open question, but at least taxpayers won't be kept in the dark about how it is being implemented.
Showing posts with label stimulus bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus bill. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama as Confidence Man
When he signs the Recovery and Reinvestment Act today, the President will be asking Americans to take a leap of faith into a future that is darkening rapidly.
Today's bad news is that California is going broke, Kansas is following suit and even Donald Trump's casino empire is filing for bankruptcy. Yet Barack Obama will try to reassure us that the biggest financial gamble in American history is our best choice for saving the economy.
His inspirational skills are facing the supreme test. Before taking office, he told us "the very fact that this crisis is largely of our own making means that it is not beyond our ability to solve. Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness. It will take time, perhaps many years, but we can rebuild that lost trust and confidence."
Confidence is the key, but it is a word that cuts two ways, meaning trust and also deception, as in "confidence game." From all sides, politicians, economists and unaffiliated naysayers are attacking the stimulus bill as too large or too small, with too much spending or too many tax cuts, too slow or too scattered--too scary in every conceivable way.
We are back to a time when FDR's warning that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" is becoming a main element of our dilemma--consumer fear of spending, banks' fear of lending, politicians' fear of making mistakes.
It may help to recall what the then President-Elect said about the origins of this mess:
"We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC. For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn’t afford. Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets, and our government."
As he signs the new bill, however imperfect, the politicians and pundits may want to take time out from their yapping and join the American people in giving the President a vote of confidence.
Today's bad news is that California is going broke, Kansas is following suit and even Donald Trump's casino empire is filing for bankruptcy. Yet Barack Obama will try to reassure us that the biggest financial gamble in American history is our best choice for saving the economy.
His inspirational skills are facing the supreme test. Before taking office, he told us "the very fact that this crisis is largely of our own making means that it is not beyond our ability to solve. Our problems are rooted in past mistakes, not our capacity for future greatness. It will take time, perhaps many years, but we can rebuild that lost trust and confidence."
Confidence is the key, but it is a word that cuts two ways, meaning trust and also deception, as in "confidence game." From all sides, politicians, economists and unaffiliated naysayers are attacking the stimulus bill as too large or too small, with too much spending or too many tax cuts, too slow or too scattered--too scary in every conceivable way.
We are back to a time when FDR's warning that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" is becoming a main element of our dilemma--consumer fear of spending, banks' fear of lending, politicians' fear of making mistakes.
It may help to recall what the then President-Elect said about the origins of this mess:
"We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC. For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn’t afford. Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets, and our government."
As he signs the new bill, however imperfect, the politicians and pundits may want to take time out from their yapping and join the American people in giving the President a vote of confidence.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Cliff Notes on the Stimulus
The scramble for free money starts tomorrow with the President's signing of the stimulus bill, but the picture of John Boehner holding up hundreds of pages and wailing, "Spending, spending, spending" lingers on.
The grain of truth in Republican howling over the largest government outlay in history is that few Americans, let alone Washington politicians, are familiar with the details of what is supposed to save the economy.
It will take weeks for the measure to sink into the national consciousness, but the New York Times makes a start today, along with a cheat sheet to bring us in on the main expenditures.
You don't have to memorize them, but there will surely be a test later in the year.
The grain of truth in Republican howling over the largest government outlay in history is that few Americans, let alone Washington politicians, are familiar with the details of what is supposed to save the economy.
It will take weeks for the measure to sink into the national consciousness, but the New York Times makes a start today, along with a cheat sheet to bring us in on the main expenditures.
You don't have to memorize them, but there will surely be a test later in the year.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Republican Bunker Mentality
As uncertain as the effects of the stimulus may be, one thing is clear: The Republican Party has chosen clichés for its survival--deers in the headlights, heads in the sand and unity in a bunker to hide from the Obama battle with the destructive economic forces they helped unleash.
As they congratulate themselves on near-unanimity in yesterday's vote, the hairline cracks in GOP solidarity are beginning to show.
Arlen Specter, who breached the party line to support the bill, said before the vote that more Republicans would have joined him if it were not for fear of political consequences.
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
Even in the Judd Gregg fiasco, it's clear how much peer pressure played a part in his decision to withdraw as Commerce Secretary after abstaining on the original stimulus vote while preparing for the nomination process.
But the Mitch McConnell-John Boehner Fuehrer feat may have a price tag on it for 2010. As they keep their troops in line, the opinion polls show voters rallying, however fearfully, behind Obama's moves to save the economy and more Republican stalwarts facing re-election trouble.
Even Gregg coupled his act of fealty with an announcement that he won't be running again for the New Hampshire seat.
As they congratulate themselves on near-unanimity in yesterday's vote, the hairline cracks in GOP solidarity are beginning to show.
Arlen Specter, who breached the party line to support the bill, said before the vote that more Republicans would have joined him if it were not for fear of political consequences.
"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"
Even in the Judd Gregg fiasco, it's clear how much peer pressure played a part in his decision to withdraw as Commerce Secretary after abstaining on the original stimulus vote while preparing for the nomination process.
But the Mitch McConnell-John Boehner Fuehrer feat may have a price tag on it for 2010. As they keep their troops in line, the opinion polls show voters rallying, however fearfully, behind Obama's moves to save the economy and more Republican stalwarts facing re-election trouble.
Even Gregg coupled his act of fealty with an announcement that he won't be running again for the New Hampshire seat.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Stimulus Triskadecaphobia
Passing the $789 trillion bill on Friday the 13th, as Congress seems ready to do, may be a risky move in view of all the voodoo fears about it.
The national mood, as reflected on the editorial pages of today's New York Times, is fingers crossed and fasten your seat belts.
"I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach," Paul Krugman writes, "a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice."
On his right, David Brooks has a gloomy future retrospective: "The nation had essentially bet its future on economic models with primitive views of human behavior. The government had tried to change social psychology using the equivalent of leeches and bleeding. Rather than blame themselves, Americans directed their anger toward policy makers and experts who based estimates of human psychology on mathematical equations."
Amid these gloomy overtones of Hobbes, Yeats et al, the editorial writers steer a mildly optimistic middle course:
"The bill is, for the most part, a step in the right direction. But political wrangling, including President Obama’s futile pursuit of bipartisanship, rendered it smaller and less focused than it needed to be...
"The administration’s next shot at advancing its economic aims will be Mr. Obama’s first budget. The new president should stop courting Republicans who have shown no interest in compromise or real economic fixes. The budget resolution is immune from filibustering. If every Republican wants to vote against it, Mr. Obama should leave them to explain that decision to voters who are in danger of losing their jobs or their houses or both."
Sounds hopeful but, just to be on the safe side, shouldn't Congress wait to pass the stimulus until after midnight when the black cats have done their worst and Valentine's Day will bring cuddly thoughts of bipartisan love into the Capitol?
The national mood, as reflected on the editorial pages of today's New York Times, is fingers crossed and fasten your seat belts.
"I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach," Paul Krugman writes, "a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice."
On his right, David Brooks has a gloomy future retrospective: "The nation had essentially bet its future on economic models with primitive views of human behavior. The government had tried to change social psychology using the equivalent of leeches and bleeding. Rather than blame themselves, Americans directed their anger toward policy makers and experts who based estimates of human psychology on mathematical equations."
Amid these gloomy overtones of Hobbes, Yeats et al, the editorial writers steer a mildly optimistic middle course:
"The bill is, for the most part, a step in the right direction. But political wrangling, including President Obama’s futile pursuit of bipartisanship, rendered it smaller and less focused than it needed to be...
"The administration’s next shot at advancing its economic aims will be Mr. Obama’s first budget. The new president should stop courting Republicans who have shown no interest in compromise or real economic fixes. The budget resolution is immune from filibustering. If every Republican wants to vote against it, Mr. Obama should leave them to explain that decision to voters who are in danger of losing their jobs or their houses or both."
Sounds hopeful but, just to be on the safe side, shouldn't Congress wait to pass the stimulus until after midnight when the black cats have done their worst and Valentine's Day will bring cuddly thoughts of bipartisan love into the Capitol?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
How Tax Cuts Could Backfire
For a little light on the hot topic of the day, the final shape of the stimulus bill, here is an expert view under the title of "Can Tax Cuts Deepen the Recession?"
A new paper by Gauti Eggertsson of the New York Fed argues that tax cuts will lead to increases in both supply and demand, failing to close the gap between the two.
"Under normal circumstances," notes the Times' Freakonomics blog, "this doesn’t present a problem, because the Fed can lower interest rates to close this output gap. But right now, the Fed has set interest rates as low as they can go, and so different principles apply. Eggertsson’s concern is that a big output gap will lead inflation to fall, leading real interest rates to rise in the middle of the recession.
"These higher real interest rates further dampen economic activity, and with the Fed powerless to offset this, there’s the very real risk of a deflationary spiral. And so a tax-cut-based fiscal stimulus might actually backfire. In fact, Eggertsson reckons there’s a chance that tax cuts could even deepen the recession."
As Republicans keep repeating their mantra of putting money into the taxpayers' pockets, Democratic negotiators might try to slip some rational arguments into the discussion. Eggertsson's theory has no historical data to validate it, but it seems to make sense--if that has any place in the deliberations.
A new paper by Gauti Eggertsson of the New York Fed argues that tax cuts will lead to increases in both supply and demand, failing to close the gap between the two.
"Under normal circumstances," notes the Times' Freakonomics blog, "this doesn’t present a problem, because the Fed can lower interest rates to close this output gap. But right now, the Fed has set interest rates as low as they can go, and so different principles apply. Eggertsson’s concern is that a big output gap will lead inflation to fall, leading real interest rates to rise in the middle of the recession.
"These higher real interest rates further dampen economic activity, and with the Fed powerless to offset this, there’s the very real risk of a deflationary spiral. And so a tax-cut-based fiscal stimulus might actually backfire. In fact, Eggertsson reckons there’s a chance that tax cuts could even deepen the recession."
As Republicans keep repeating their mantra of putting money into the taxpayers' pockets, Democratic negotiators might try to slip some rational arguments into the discussion. Eggertsson's theory has no historical data to validate it, but it seems to make sense--if that has any place in the deliberations.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Obama's Offhand Ultimatum
In his most polite, professorial manner, the President tonight challenged Congressional Republicans to put up or shut up in helping him save the American economy.
He spent most of his first news conference translating the stimulus bill from the language of Washington into that of Elkhart, Indiana, where he held a town hall earlier in the day, talking over the heads of Congress to the American people. But when asked "what you're going to have to do to get more bipartisanship," Obama had a clear message for the GOP:
“Old habits are hard to break. And we’re coming off of an election and I think people want to sort of test the limits of what they can get.
"(T)here's a lot of jockeying in this town, and a lot of 'who's up and who's down,' and positioning for the next election...(T)his is one of those times where we've got to put that kind of behavior aside, because the American people can't afford it. The people in Elkhart can't afford it. The single mom who's trying to figure out how to keep her house can't afford it.
"And whether we're Democrats or Republicans, surely there's got to be some capacity for us to work together, not agree on everything, but at least set aside small differences to get things done...to break out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we've been carrying around for too long."
Translation: The President has reached the point where his attempts at give and take have met with almost total Republican refusal to sign on to the stimulus, preferring instead to position themselves for 2010 and claim they resisted expensive efforts to turn the economy around in their campaign to recover control of Congress.
Now that the battle lines are so clearly drawn, the Administration knows that this will be a Democratic program and has to concentrate on placating their own House members in conference by shaping a bill more in line with their version than the compromises made in the Senate to win three GOP votes to reach sixty.
When the final vote comes, the Senate so-called moderates--Specter, Collins and Snowe--will then have to answer the President's quiet ultimatum by serving their party's long-term future or abandoning it to the Rush Limbaugh us-against-them wing.
By staking his mandate on it tonight, the President should have his stimulus bill to sign next week.
He spent most of his first news conference translating the stimulus bill from the language of Washington into that of Elkhart, Indiana, where he held a town hall earlier in the day, talking over the heads of Congress to the American people. But when asked "what you're going to have to do to get more bipartisanship," Obama had a clear message for the GOP:
“Old habits are hard to break. And we’re coming off of an election and I think people want to sort of test the limits of what they can get.
"(T)here's a lot of jockeying in this town, and a lot of 'who's up and who's down,' and positioning for the next election...(T)his is one of those times where we've got to put that kind of behavior aside, because the American people can't afford it. The people in Elkhart can't afford it. The single mom who's trying to figure out how to keep her house can't afford it.
"And whether we're Democrats or Republicans, surely there's got to be some capacity for us to work together, not agree on everything, but at least set aside small differences to get things done...to break out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we've been carrying around for too long."
Translation: The President has reached the point where his attempts at give and take have met with almost total Republican refusal to sign on to the stimulus, preferring instead to position themselves for 2010 and claim they resisted expensive efforts to turn the economy around in their campaign to recover control of Congress.
Now that the battle lines are so clearly drawn, the Administration knows that this will be a Democratic program and has to concentrate on placating their own House members in conference by shaping a bill more in line with their version than the compromises made in the Senate to win three GOP votes to reach sixty.
When the final vote comes, the Senate so-called moderates--Specter, Collins and Snowe--will then have to answer the President's quiet ultimatum by serving their party's long-term future or abandoning it to the Rush Limbaugh us-against-them wing.
By staking his mandate on it tonight, the President should have his stimulus bill to sign next week.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
The Stimulus Absurdity
In the final stages, it's like watching two teams of squabbling sculptors shaping a huge graven image to appease the gods of economic destruction, slicing billions of spending here, sticking back tax cuts there, while chanting the mantras of their competing belief systems.
In the Senate version, which stands to win no more than three Republican votes as opposed to the House bill, which won none: Forty billion of state aid is out and seventy billion to spare thousands of middle-class Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax in 2009 is in--heading a laundry list of cuts for education, sciences, the environment and health care
Why? To make the bill filibuster-proof in the Senate and then hammer the misshapen thing into some final form that will end up on the President's desk to be signed by the middle of the month.
The final product, despite the expensive buying-off of Sens. Specter, Collins and Snowe, will be owned by the Democrats because Republicans sense more political profit down the road by blaming Democrats than signing on to a half-hearted bipartisan effort.
The bottom line on the stimulus is that nobody, nobody--Democrats, Republicans, economists of all stripes--actually knows what will and won't work but all agree that doing something is vital.
The absurdity is seeing them wrestling over the details while pretending to know what they're doing.
In the Senate version, which stands to win no more than three Republican votes as opposed to the House bill, which won none: Forty billion of state aid is out and seventy billion to spare thousands of middle-class Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax in 2009 is in--heading a laundry list of cuts for education, sciences, the environment and health care
Why? To make the bill filibuster-proof in the Senate and then hammer the misshapen thing into some final form that will end up on the President's desk to be signed by the middle of the month.
The final product, despite the expensive buying-off of Sens. Specter, Collins and Snowe, will be owned by the Democrats because Republicans sense more political profit down the road by blaming Democrats than signing on to a half-hearted bipartisan effort.
The bottom line on the stimulus is that nobody, nobody--Democrats, Republicans, economists of all stripes--actually knows what will and won't work but all agree that doing something is vital.
The absurdity is seeing them wrestling over the details while pretending to know what they're doing.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Deck Chairs on the Titanic
The shipboard news today is that the new president is tightening his grip on the helm as Republicans reach for the wheel, but only a few dour souls are up on deck scouring the horizon for icebergs.
Obama rallies Congressional Democrats at their retreat: "We're not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that, for the last eight years, doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. We can't embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face, that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or failing schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees.
"I don't care whether you're driving a hybrid or an SUV-- if you're headed for a cliff, you've got to change direction."
In the first-class lounge, Peggy Noonan sees passengers "braced" for impact while she points out that Obama's "serious and consequential policy mistake is that he put his prestige behind not a new way of breaking through but an old way of staying put. This marked a dreadful misreading of the moment. And now he's digging in. His political mistake, which in retrospect we will see as huge, is that he remoralized the Republicans. He let them back in the game."
Scanning the horizon, Paul Krugman points out that "most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump" and agrees that "the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh."
Krugman and the Times editorial page call for full steam ahead, Republicans want to stop stoking the boilers and the rest of us keep trying to remember how we got shanghaied onto this luxury cruise in the first place.
Obama rallies Congressional Democrats at their retreat: "We're not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that, for the last eight years, doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. We can't embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face, that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or failing schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees.
"I don't care whether you're driving a hybrid or an SUV-- if you're headed for a cliff, you've got to change direction."
In the first-class lounge, Peggy Noonan sees passengers "braced" for impact while she points out that Obama's "serious and consequential policy mistake is that he put his prestige behind not a new way of breaking through but an old way of staying put. This marked a dreadful misreading of the moment. And now he's digging in. His political mistake, which in retrospect we will see as huge, is that he remoralized the Republicans. He let them back in the game."
Scanning the horizon, Paul Krugman points out that "most economic forecasts warn that in the absence of government action we’re headed for a deep, prolonged slump" and agrees that "the president made a big mistake in his initial approach, that his attempts to transcend partisanship ended up empowering politicians who take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh."
Krugman and the Times editorial page call for full steam ahead, Republicans want to stop stoking the boilers and the rest of us keep trying to remember how we got shanghaied onto this luxury cruise in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)