I don't agree with the premise that the stimulus bill is a welfare bill, though you might think that Top is talking abotu the banking bailout, which would be understandable since Top doesn't know the difference between the two, he often conflates them, and in the end, no one really knows what he's talking about on any given day.
Both are welfare packages and focus on rescue for the already rich far more than any focus on average Americans who find themselves in dire situations.
Senate OK's Weak Stimulus Bill
Skeptical citizens might inquire: How does a Senate stimulus bill that was trimmed to eliminate "waste" (like school construction money that would create jobs in communities across the country) and "pork" (like funding to prepare for a pandemic that would bring a sputtering economy to a complete halt) end up costing almost $20 billion more than a supposedly spendthrift House plan?
The answer, of course, is that the tepid stimulus plan passed Tuesday by the Senate with a "bipartisan" 61-37 majority was not trimmed down to hold the line on spending. It was restructured to cut stimulus allocations by $108 million while dramatically increasing tax cuts--at the behest of Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and the Democrats with whom these alleged moderates cut a deal to pass the stalled bill.
---
Smart economists will tell you that neither the House or Senate figures are likely to be sufficient to genuinely jumpstart an economy that sheds more jobs, shutters more business and loses more in the way of consumer confidence with each passing day.
But the extent to which the final legislation will have a stimulative effect has yet to be determined.
If House Democrats, who passed an imperfect but more appropriately focused measure, embrace the changes made in the Senate, they will undermine prospects for renewal.
If House Democrats refuse to accept the Senate measure and instead demand the restoration of spending for school construction, bailing out the states, aiding Head Start and Early Start programs and guarding against a potentially devastating pandemic, they could still make a serious dent in the crisis.
There are signs that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, who has grumbled about the school cuts, and Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who essentially wrote the House bill, are prepared to push back.
There are also signs that responsible Democrats in the House will have to battle conservative "Blue Dog Democrats"--some of whom voted against the House bill several weeks ago, and others who have signaled a sympathy with the Senate compromises.
And what of the Obama White House? The president, who is struggling to be two things at once--"post-partisan" and effective--is going to have to make some choices. If he just wants a bill, he can probably lean on the House to get something similar to the Senate plan passed. If he wants a good bill, he will have to help the House push back and lean on some more senators to get serious about what Obama correctly describes as the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/407017?rel=hp_picks
I can tell you now that democrats are going to rollover and defer to the weak-ass Senate version .. and Obambi will be the chief cheerleader for rolling over to the republicans.
No Tough Love for Wall Street
What an insipid anticlimax! Rising to "a challenge more complex than our financial system has ever faced," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner promised on Tuesday to give trillions more to the very folks who profited from that malignant complexity. For all the brave talk about transparency and accountability in the banking bailout, he gave the swindlers who got us into this mess yet another blank check to buy up the "toxic assets" they gleefully created.
According to the Congressional Oversight Panel created by Congress to monitor the bailout, the Bush Treasury Department overpaid by $78 billion of our money in the first ten purchases of those assets. Yet Geithner tells us "Congress acted quickly and courageously" in throwing that money at Wall Street without requiring any accountability. At the same time, there is still no commitment to directly help what Geithner admits are the millions of homeowners already foreclosed out of their homes, with millions more to come. The leaks from Treasury promise that $50 billion will eventually be allocated directly to helping homeowners, which is a day late and a dollar short in chump change compared to the trillion dollars that Geithner on Tuesday committed to the purchase of more bad bank debt.
The Geithner speech betrayed the buildup to it offered by President Obama in his press conference the day before. I was such a sucker I found myself cheering at almost every line, agreeing that Republicans acted with total irresponsibility in opposing Obama's plan to stimulate an economy that was wrecked on their watch. But then came the hangover reality of Geithner's talk. Instead of the promised transparency we were treated to yet another "trust Big Brother" hustle. How wonderful that Geithner, who as head of the New York Federal Reserve was in on the first wasted $350 billion, now promises a brand new Web site to help us taxpayers follow the action. It means nothing, given that he specifically ruled out any of the serious means of holding Wall Street accountable.
The New York Times got it right: "... the plan largely repeats the Bush administration's approach of deferring to many of the same companies and executives who had peddled risky loans and investments at the heart of the crisis. ..." Geithner and White House economic czar Lawrence Summers won out over David Axelrod and other Obama advisers more loyal to the wishes of grass-roots voters; "... as intended by Mr. Geithner, the plan stops short of intruding too significantly into bankers' affairs even as they come onto the public dole."
If, like me, you still get those chatty e-mails from the Obama campaign, it is time to remind them that we voted for the caring community organizer from the streets of Chicago and not some hack carrying water for the predators of Wall Street.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090223/scheer?rel=hp_picks
Naw .. he THOUGHT he was voting for a community organizer from the streets of Chicago .. but the evidence was clear as a bell that he was voting for that hack carrying water for Wall Street.
Where did he think all that money came from?
Was he under some illusion that Wall Street expected nothing from Obambi for all that money?
Guess who's running the show at Camp Obama?
Geithner and Summers who are over-ruling all other advisers?
