Why Republicans Have It Wrong on the Economy

Guess what? Europe is officially back in a recession. Unemployment is up, profits are down. But not here in America. Not yet anyway. And the reason? While European countries inflicted huge cutbacks in government jobs and services, American government invested in the private sector.

True, government jobs and services are on the downturn in the US, but the difference is that while Europe exercised austerity measures, America had a stimulus package.

Despite the hand wringing and protests from the right, the federal government single-handedly saved the American auto industry. Had the Republicans been in power in 2008 we would no longer have an auto industry in America today. And millions more would be out of work.

What concerns me is that this could have a ripple effect on our economy. Will Europe’s economic woes, based on Republican ideals of economic austerity, translate into a recession here, despite our best efforts to create an economy that is slowly but surely improving?

And Americans need to ask themselves if they are better off now than they were at the end of the Bush regime. A regime that seems to have brought down the world economy in the blink of an eye. They need to ask themselves that question, because the answer is invariably “Uh….yeah.”

Thank You, Bush and Cheney, for Getting Us Into This Mess

Hats off to Eugene Robinson today for writing this piece in the Washington Post where he points out the obvious: Bush and Cheney are two guys who got us into this mess, and now that they are both talking, Americans have an opportunity to place blame at the feet of the people, and the party, that has sent our country to heck in a hand basket.

He wrote this:

“It was the Bush administration, you will recall, that sent the national debt into the stratosphere and choked off federal revenue to the point of asphyxiation. Bush and Cheney decided to fight two wars without even accounting — let alone paying — for them. Rather than raise taxes to cover the cost of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush opted to maintain unreasonable and unnecessary tax cuts.”

“So far, the wars and the tax cuts have cost the Treasury between $4 trillion and $5 trillion. If Bush had just left income tax rates alone, nobody except Ron Paul would be talking about the debt.”

There’s more and you should go there and read every word.

No Default? What a Surprise.

Coming as no surprise to anyone I know, the Republicans and Democrats who are still doing their jobs in DC by negotiating, and not obstinately digging their heels in on a policy of take no prisoners  have hashed out a deal that will prevent the national economy from a proverbial crash and burn come this August 2nd.

Teabaggers, obviously, had nothing to do with the deal, and they could still end up sabotaging the whole process if they can scare up the votes to block passage.

Obama got his wish not to have to rehash the whole thing before the 2012 elections, something that I imagine the Republicans will immediately set to work to reverse in the coming weeks and months. Offsetting this minor victory, Republicans nabbed yet another promise not to raise badly needed revenue, revenue badly needed to set the nation back in working order.

So given that the requisite votes can be assembled in both houses of Congress tomorrow, this whole affair should be old news come this time tomorrow.

Should be.

Destroying the Economy in Order to Save It

I like this Nick Anderson rendition of what the Teabaggers propose to do to my country. It harkens back to the Vietnam War when an American Major made the observation that it was necessary to destroy a Vietnamese village in order to save it.

Republicans Are Deliberately Sabotaging the Economy

Well finally, the thing that I have been saying for months now seems to be in the mainstream. I heard it last night when Senator Chuck Shumer was being interviewed by Keith Olbermann. Shumer has ventured into waters that progressive bloggers have been wading around in for awhile now: Republicans are deliberately trying to sabotage the economy to improve their chances against Barack Obama in 2012.

Nothing could be more clear.

In this op/ed piece at the Washington Post, we find another quote from Senator Shumer:

“Do they simply want the economy to go down the drain to further their political gain? They seem to be against anything that may create jobs, because they view a weak economy as key to their political chances in 2012.”

“It’s an uncomfortable question, to be sure. Are they trying to undermine the economy on purpose, for political gain? Harry Truman had a do-nothing Congress. The Republicans seem to be trying to make this a do-nothing-on-the-economy Congress.”

Time and time again Republicans have supported and even sponsored legislation to improve the economy, but when it becomes apparent that these plans are acceptable to Democrats, the have backed off and moved the goal posts.

Their flip-flopping behavior is getting to be almost bizzarre.

Bizzarre, that is, unless you look at their antics in light of this comment uttered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell late last month:

“I think the president can be defeated if conditions in November of '12 are anything like they are today. He’s got a really tough race on his hands, and I’m confident we’re going to nominate someone who’s going to be a credible, believable alternative.”

The only real issue I have with that statement is the second part. If he’s so confident that a credible believable nominee will appear, where is this person now? The first part of his statement seals the notion, previously considered radical, that Republicans will go to any length to keep the economy limping along at current levels. An improvement in the economy is the death knell to Republican victory in 2012 and they all know it.

Now it’s time to spread the word who is really behind the poor performance of the economy, and why.

News Item

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst has just announced that one cost-cutting measure that will be implemented in order to balance the state budget is to cut 8,000 state employees from the payroll.

Look for more of the same as the Republican-dominated state government will stop at nothing to balance the budget without increasing taxes and fees.

What do you call 8,000 newly unemployed state employees?

Only the beginning.

Let’s All Boycott Hilton Hotels

When it comes to the Hilton family of hotels I have had some pretty wild mood swings. In 2008 I was so disgusted with the media attention that Paris Hilton got as she entered, and then left the LA County slammer that I promised never to stay at a Hilton or any of its divisions. Then as things heated up in the ’08 election, and Paris Hilton used her family wealth to produce an internet video that slammed John McCain, I apologized.

But now I am so incensed at what Hilton Worldwide has just done that I am urging anyone that will listen to me not to stay at a Hilton or any of the hotels in the Hilton family. The complete list can be found at the bottom of this post.

Why boycott the Hilton?

Speaking just this past Friday at a small business in the DC area, President Obama emphasized that economic recovery wasn’t going to come until we do something about the unemployment rate, currently at 9.5%. Some of those jobs, unfortunately aren’t ever going to come back because of outsourcing.

One-by-one, companies have outsourced things like their customer service centers overseas where cheap labor abounds. Such a thing, you would think, would not be advisable right now. An American company wouldn’t want to shift its customer services overseas right now, not when there is already a problem in the country’s unemployment rate. First, it is counter-productive for our own economy, and second, it just doesn’t sit well with people.

But none of that seems to matter to Hilton Worldwide, which has just revealed that they are going to close an entire worldwide reservation center in California and shift that caller traffic to the Philippines.

When you visit the Hilton’s website one thing you see is how they have turned the name Hilton into an acronym. The “O” in Hilton, they say, stands for Ownership. As in “We are the owners of our actions and decisions.” To which I say fine. By deciding to lay off Americans at a time when it matters, at a time that our economy demands a little patriotism, and deliberately acting to give those jobs to a foreign labor force, the Hilton must be made to own that decision.

They can be made to own that decision if American patriots refuse to stay at Hilton hotels or any of their brands (a list of which can be found below).

Hilton

Hilton Garden Inn

Hampton Inn and Hampton Inn and Suites

Doubletree and Doubletree Guest Suites

Embassy Suites

Homewood Suites

Home2Suites

Conrad

Waldorf Astoria Collection

John Culberson (R- Houston) Is Factually Challenged

I know. I’m not supposed to use the L-word. Saying someone is a liar is fighting words in some parts. So in saying that Congressman John Culberson is “factually challenged” I have exercised some restraint in rhetoric, but I leave no doubt – John Culberson intentionally said something he knows not to be true. I’m sorry to report it, but John Culberson was simply lying when he said this, as quoted in the Houston Chronicle:

“There have been 50,000 wells drilled offshore and this is the first blowout. It is a catastrophe. It is a tragedy. But it is like an airplane falling out of the clear blue sky. You don't ground all airplanes.”

That’s simply not true.

First, let’s assume that in using the term “offshore” Culberson was referring to the offshore Gulf of Mexico. First because the numbers are right when you limit it just to the Gulf. Worldwide, there are much more than 50,000 offshore wells that have been drilled.

In the Gulf of Mexico, BP’s Macondo well was not the first ever to suffer a blowout.

The honor of being the first rig to suffer an offshore blowout in the Gulf of Mexico actually goes to the C.P. Baker Drilling Barge. In June of 1964, in drilling on an offshore location in Block 273 of Eugene Island, a tract operated by the Pan American Petroleum Corporation the well blew out. A short summary of the incident, found here, follows:

“The crew were preparing to run the 20" conductor and BOPs when, at around 0300 hours in the morning, the water around the vessel began to bubble, boil and eventually geyser up with some force between the hulls of the C.P Baker. Water entered the the vessel through open doors on the main deck and electric power was soon lost. Members of the on-duty crew attempted notify the off-duty crew of the blowout but an explosion occurred about five minutes after the blowout was first noticed. The explosion and fire was described as encompassing the whole vessel, and covered an area up to 100 feet around the vessel.”

“Most survivors evacuated the vessel by jumping from the port bow, after which the two support vessels pulled away from the burning C.P. Baker and began picking up survivors from the water. As a result of erupting water entering the hulls through open doors, the vessel began to heel aft and, after around 30 minutes, C.P. Baker sank by the stern. Gas continued to erupt and burn for the following 13 hours, with limited gas release continuing for the following month.”

Eight men died, 13 were missing and presumed dead, and 22 were injured.

But according to John Culberson, that never happened.

Then there was the Sedco 135F semi-submersible rig that blew out in 1979. The Ixtoc-1 well. Oh, but that was in the Mexican offshore Gulf of Mexico, so maybe that doesn’t count. Or maybe it does, considering that it was the merger of two Schlumberger subsidiaries, Sedco and Forex in 1999 that produced a company that was renamed “Transocean Sedco Forex,” later shortened to just “Transocean.”

The Ixtoc well blew out in June 1979 with initial flow rates estimated at 30,000 barrels of oil per day. Flow was cut to a mere 10,000 barrels per day until it was finally killed 9 months later after having released 3.3 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf, a lot of which ended up washing onto Texas’ shoreline.

The cause of the blowout? BOP failure. Same as the Deepwater Horizon.

Or what about the Ensco 51 jackup rig that was drilling a well on that same block as the C.P. Baker Drilling Barge, Eugene Island Block 273, when on March 1st 2001, the well blew out resulting in a fire that consumed the rig causing the derrick to collapse onto the platform. The Ensco 51 rig was subsequently repaired in 2002 and has been drilling in the Asia-Pacific regions since then.

But according to John Culberson, that blowout never happened, either.

So contrary to History According to Culberson, the Transocean Deepwater Horizon blowout is not the first time this has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Nor is it the second or third time. It’s the fourth such incident.

And of the four, the worst of the four.

One would think that we would learn from one blowout to another, and that our record of blowouts in terms of their prevention and emergency response policies would improve with time. But clearly, the reverse is true.

Taking me back to John Culberson’s analogy between the Deepwater Horizon blowout and an aircplane disaster. Just because one plane falls out of the sky, Culberson reasons, is not justification enough to ground all aircraft.

No, not all aircraft. No one is proposing that. Not all offshore oil rigs, either. Just the few tens of rigs that are drilling in the same deepwater environment that the Macondo well was spud in.

OK, so according to Culberson’ analogy, one plane fell out of the sky. And to-date, we don’t have all the answers to why that happened. But according to Culberson, we can’t jeopardize the jobs of pilots, flight attendants and ground crews just because one plane falls out of the sky. Even if we don’t know why it happened.

My only question to Culberson then is this: how many need to fall out of the sky before we need to stop and ask why that happens? Obviously, it’s not one.

Two?

But more to the point, how many millions of barrels of oil do we allow to flow into the Gulf before we are allowed by economics and concerns about jobs in the oil industry to stop and ask how we can prevent that from ever . . . ever . . . happening again?

Deficit is Not the Enemy, Deflation Is

As conservatives rock and rattle over unfunded federal spending that would bring relief to hundreds of thousands of American families that have been impacted by intractable unemployment, as they, in an amazing reversal of logic, shriek and wail over the loss of tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans – those tax breaks also being unfunded, both sides of the aisle are acutely aware of the growing federal deficit. Neither, however, can agree on what to do about it.

From my point of view, though, concentrating on the federal deficit is a distraction we can ill afford right now. As a matter of fact, having a deficit, something that is known to drive up inflation sometimes, is not altogether a bad thing right now.

That’s because we now face a more dire circumstance: deflation.

We haven’t seen deflation, that is, a decline in the prices of goods and services, since the Great Depression. Deflation is to a recession what a good barefoot jog in subfreezing weather while battling pneumonia is to health.

It makes it much worse.

But that is apparently where we are heading right now. From AP, through the Chron:

“Wholesale prices dropped 0.5 percent last month, following declines of 0.1 percent in April and 0.3 percent in May, the Labor Department reported Thursday. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, posted a modest 0.1 percent increase.”

“The third month of declines in Labor's Producer Price Index raised new concerns about the possibility of deflation, a prolonged period of falling prices which has not been seen in the United States since the Great Depression of the 1930s.”

Want a preview of what deflation will do to the US economy? Behold Japan.

From Paul Krugman’s Op/Ed yesterday:  

“Back in 2002, a professor turned Federal Reserve official by the name of Ben Bernanke gave a widely quoted speech titled, ‘Deflation: Making Sure 'It' Doesn't Happen Here.’ Like other economists, myself included, Bernanke was deeply disturbed by Japan's stubborn, seemingly incurable deflation, which in turn was ‘associated with years of painfully slow growth, rising joblessness and apparently intractable financial problems.’”

Years of painfully slow growth.

Krugman offers that the Fed, which is unlike the Senate in that it doesn’t need 60 votes to do anything useful, is stalled on doing anything about deflation right now.

“Now that the nightmare has become reality, however – and yes, it is a nightmare for millions of Americans – Washington seems to feel absolutely no sense of urgency. Are hopes being destroyed, small businesses being driven into bankruptcy, lives being blighted? Never mind, let's talk about the evils of budget deficits.”

What should the Federal Reserve be doing right now? Anything other than what it is doing, according to Krugman, which is absolutely nothing. According to Krugman the Fed has some options.

“It can buy longer-term government debt. It can buy private-sector debt. It can try to move expectations by announcing that it will keep short-term rates low for a long time. It can raise its long-run inflation target, to help convince the private sector that borrowing is a good idea and hoarding cash a mistake.”

My guess is, however, that there is so much hand-wringing over the deficit, and no long-term memory over what exactly eventually drew America out of the Great Depression (a massive federal spending program known as World War II), that our fate has already been drawn in the sand above the swash zone.

And I sit here waiting in vain, I think, for a spring tide to erase our fate, because on the one hand, we have talked ourselves into this, and on the other hand, Republicans would like nothing else than a complete economic collapse to capitalize on in November.

Pete Olson Goes to Richmond

Now I have it on good authority, because I read about it here, that CD-22 congressman Pete Olson will soon be making his way to the county seat of the largest and most populous county that lies within the Texas 22nd Congressional District, the district that he represents.

He wants to hold a town hall meeting at the McDowell Jury Assembly Building at 212 Houston St, in Richmond [map]. The meeting will be on a Tuesday evening, July 12th starting at dinner time, 6:30 PM and going until 8 PM.

Yeah, dinner time. On a work day. I am wondering if they want to limit the audience to those who make it to the early bird special at Luby’s. For the rest of us who dine watching the sun set, and want to attend, I don’t know if they’ll let you in with a bucket of KFC under your arm but if they do, just remember not to leave the chicken bones on the floor.

If you go, be sure to go armed with some questions. I hear he will ask for questions. Just make sure that if you want your question asked, you ask it with your own voice. Sneaky Pete is well known for having his staffers collect index cards from the audience – he requires that his constituents write their questions down so his staffers can filter them. Nice, huh? Can you say Banana Republic?

Anyway, one question I want to hear him answer is why he voted NO on HR 5618, the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. This act, passed in the House by a vote of 270 to 153, extends the filing date that families whose breadwinners cannot find work can file for federal unemployment benefits and extends the date of the program until April 2011.

And Pete Olson voted NO. He voted NO while 29 of his Republican colleagues voted YES. They voted yes for Texas families. Pete voted NO.

Clearly, Pete Olson is out of touch with his constituents. Had he looked, he would have seen that his district is hurting. From April 2008 until April 2010 the unemployment rate jumped from a low of 3.7% to the most recently recorded 8.3%. Don’t believe me? It’s here.

That’s more than double the people who were unemployed a mere two years ago.

And it shows in the neighborhoods.

Drive through any neighborhood in Fort Bend County and you see the same thing: a growing forest of “For Sale” signs on front lawns. More go up but none come down.

And then another question that might come up is why Pete Olson voted NO on HR 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The measured passed the Senate (a miracle on the order of the loaves and the fishes) by 59 to 39, and sent back to the House to be reconciled in conference. That report is what Olson voted against.

Now, it is clear to anyone who hasn’t had his or her head stuck in the sand since September 2008 that it was an unregulated, greedy, and rapacious Wall Street that sold our country’s economy into the sewer, and it is also clear that the bill is nowhere near as tough in re-regulating these people as it could be, but these days you get whatever can pass the Senate and that is what we got.

And Pete Olson voted against it.

Pete Olson voted for his lobbyist friends and acquaintances on Wall Street, and against the people who live in the neighborhoods in Fort Bend County.

Now it’s not like we can do anything about it at the ballot box this year. The Democratic opponent he drew is one taco short of a combination plate, but at the very least he can be made aware of the fact that he is now on the firing line.

Literally.

Olson needs 5 years in Congress to get vested in the congressional benefits package. We can cut him off with one year shy of that in 2012 and it is now time to let him know that is going to happen.

A guy’s gotta make plans, after all.

CBPP: Blame Obama on Budget Deficit? Think Again

When I hear the something for nothing Teabaggers whine about how Obama’s careless spending program is driving our country into the ground, and about how their grand children are going to be paying for them, I just want to throttle them, and then slam some things called facts and data on the table in front of them and make them look.

Neither are going to happen. First, I am a peaceful man not given toward throttling anything but my riceburner’s engine, and second, past experience tells me that shoving facts under the noses of Teabaggers does little good.

So let me preach to the choir instead.

Last week the Center on Budgets and Policy Priorities published this graph (at right) in an article you can read for yourself right here. A supporting data table can be found by scrolling down, but the overall trend is clear.

Projecting all of the major areas of government expenditure out ten years you can see what portions of the Obama stimulus adds to the deficit as compared to other areas, specifically, the Bush Tax Cuts and our Two Wars.

After 2011 the budget deficit includes Obama recovery measures that have become miniscule (by miniscule I mean between $60 billion and $37 billion) while the funding for our Two Wars will taper gradually from a high of $193 million in 2012 to a projected $162 million in 2019.

Bush Tax Cuts, on the other hand, will increase in significance as we go forward should they be extended without impediment, from a low of $295 billion in 2011 growing gradually to $705 billion by 2019. The increase is largely due to added debt service costs should the tax cuts not expire.

In other words, if Teabaggers are looking for a direction to point their fingers, if they are looking for someone to blame for the budget deficit, they need look no further than the 2001 to 2003 tax cuts.

In other words, YOUR grand children will pay for YOUR tax cuts.

Now going forward, how do we fix this because it is very much like getting a junkie off of crystal meth. Like an addict’s system, the American economy has become used to and dependent upon getting a fix from time to time. Going cold turkey, while admirable, is sure to cause upheaval in our fragile economy. It’s like “getting clean” while down sick with pneumonia.

But a balance must be struck here. America is addicted to its own inequitable tax policies where the super rich have benefited the most. And so to continue with the allegory, maybe it’s time to start distributing the methadone while we trim the tax cuts from the top down.

Local Jobs for America Act Will Save A Quarter Million Education Jobs

When congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, something that ultimately cost a few of them their jobs, it was the private sector that was the chief beneficiary. Banks that were on the verge of failing got a leg up. Automobile builders were propped up.

And America did not sink into a years-long depression to rival the one we had in the 1930’s.

A depression that we ultimately clawed ourselves out of with a massive government spending program known as World War II.

So now the banks are healthy, the stock market is up, and unemployment has ceased to increase.

But now we are poised at the edge of a new abyss at the state and local level. California is but the first state to find itself in severe financial straits largely because it handcuffs itself every year when it has to pass a budget with a 2/3ds majority in their state house. Other states, including Texas, where an $11 billion shortfall is projected in the next budget cycle.

The next cycle of jobs to be lost are those in the public sector. As states run out of money to pay its teachers, policemen, firemen and first responders, they will have to start trimming the job rolls.

Enter New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey who has taken a lead in urging those in the US Senate to immediately take under consideration a bill recently filed by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. SB 3206 sponsored by Tom Harkin and 26 senate co-sponsors, known as the Keep Our Educators Working Act of 2010, which allocates $23 billion to be distributed to the states on a student per capita basis in order to restore reductions in state funding for salaries of those working in public school education.

Congressman Hinchey, in his press release, explains that the US Congress had passed this $23 billion allocation in December and sent it to the Senate, but the Senate, which has yet to act on the bill, decided it wanted to act on these allocations on a piecemeal basis.

Fine then. In April Rep George Miller of CA-7, who makes education his hobbyshop, filed HR 4812, the Local Jobs for America Act, which restored this $23 billion allocation for educators as well as for those of other employees who are paid through state coffers.

Then Harkin filed his bill which specifically targets educators, and contains language borrowed from Miller’s bill, with the $23 billion figure. If the Senate acts quickly, before states make draconian decisions in their next round of budgeting, the House can respond on a timely basis and get these funds released to the states after Barack Obama signs the legislation into law.

Saving, it is projected, a quarter of a million jobs in public education. Jobs that will otherwise be lost due to state budget cutbacks that are the direct result of a decrease in revenue, a time-delayed consequence of the 2007-2009 Recession.

Jobs that, once lost, are difficult to put back because a new generation would have to be recruited and trained up to meet growing education needs.

Because like it or not, the population is not going to go down and education of the next generation is a necessary requirement as competition for the limited resource known as superior intelligence and know-how becomes severe.

As it will.

Really, there is no choice here.

Rep. Hinchey has a “Dear Colleague” letter that he is sending to his colleagues in the Senate urging their immediate action on this. You can sign a similar one by going here to the National Education Association and entering your zip code.

Really, there is no choice here.

“You Can Either Be For the Recovery Act or Against It”

Echoing the infamous Bushian challenge “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”

But these were the words of a senior Obama Administration official, aimed squarely at Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, and via 4 cabinet members, toward Republican Governor Jan Brewer also of Arizona.

But in this case, being against the recovery act has consequences.

521 billion of them.

In a letter to Brewer from Transporation Secretary Ray LaHood, Politico reveals how the Obama Administration is not above playing a little hardball.

“‘If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Sen. Kyl suggests, please let me know,’ wrote Transportation

Secretary Ray LaHood. For good measure, he attached a three-page addendum listing each of the Arizona projects paid for by the $521 million the state is getting.”

So Arizona is slated to receive $521 billion in Recovery Act funds, but given the harsh criticism of these funds from Senator Kyl, Obama’s people are perfectly correct in asking whether or not they want the money.

After all, when Rick Perry just said “No” to $555 billion, well the state didn’t get that money. And that means that in two weeks, 15,000 Texans will have exhausted their unemployment benefit. A benefit that would have been extended had Perry accepted the funding.

So, what’s it going to be? Take the money, or don’t take it. But if you take it, don’t grumble about it. If it’s such a bad idea, leave the funds to be distributed to states that are more amenable to accepting a helping hand.

Wells Fargo Posts $3 Billion in Profits

In its first quarterly report for 2009, Wells Fargo and Company announced that it expects a net profit of $3 billion during this period, a $1 billion increase over the same period of time last year.

On this news, bank stocks all shot up and the Dow raced above 8000 to settle at 8083 for the day.

Now, none of these banks whose stock price got a boost have actually posted their earnings reports yet. Just Wells Fargo.

And this is the company that told the Obama Administration that it wasn’t going to need its TARP distribution of $25 billion, but had to take it anyway.

So my guess is that this was just another blip and some or all of these gains will evaporate next week (the NYSE is closed on Good Friday) as more banks come out with their quarterlies.

Still and all, during these times of one depressing bit of economic news after another (pun intended), this briefly brightened my day, and maybe really ticked off our Nay-saying Republican friends across the aisle whose entire national political game plan is invested in the failure of our economy.

And that brightens my day, too.

“Shovel-Ready” is Not “Shovel-Right”

Part and parcel, and some would say “central to” the president’s economic stimulus plan is the funding of “shovel ready” public works projects. Projects involving the rebuilding of our country’s crumbling infrastructure. Projects that bring jobs to people and bacon to the breakfast table.

But now, we are starting to see how and where the federal stimulus funds are being spent. We are starting to see public works projects being queued for commencement. And in seeing these projects unfold one after the other, one has to ask “is shovel-ready, shovel-right?”

In part, one must ask this question because of near term vs. long term goals of the Obama Administration. In the near term, we need to repair or replace the things that have served us in the past. No one needs to be reminded of the lives and property lost when the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota failed and took rush hour commuters to their deaths a year and a half ago. That bridge became a poster child for the aging of America’s infrastructure even though it was later revealed that the failure ultimately stemmed from an undetected design flaw in the bridge.

But in the long term, we need to address energy and environmental issues that have only now begun to plague our society. Our infrastructure has been built without taking into account the energy that will be consumed as those projects start serving society. Without taking into account whether that project will increase or decrease greenhouse gas output. President Obama said it best earlier during his town hall meeting in Florida:

“‘The days where we’re just building sprawl forever, those days are over,’ he said, urging officials to employ ‘innovative thinking’ when deciding how to spend their transportation money”

This is the vision as expounded by White House spokesman Nick Shapiro in speaking to the New York Times:

“A White House spokesman, Nick Shapiro, said that the stimulus bill would promote ‘long-term sustainable development’ by spending billions of dollars on renewable energy, mass transit, rail service and urban development, and he added that the choice of most transportation projects was left to states.”

And therein lies the rub. While there is nothing wrong with the vision, a view from the White House “bubble” (as our president calls it), there is something wrong with letting the states decide which project will benefit from this federal stimulus.

State have shovel-ready projects. Projects that have been formulated, plans that have surveys and schedules. Plans for projects that are ready to go, but just don’t have any funds to launch them.

The trouble is, the states have plans that are all ready to go, but these plans are from a vision that looks backward to a time when energy was something you just bought, and greenhouse gases were things that made your tomatoes grow.

Projects that are ready to go are yesterday’s projects, for yesterday’s needs.

Witness the plans to use these stimulus funds in New Hampshire where they will widen I-93, a corridor that delivers New Hampshire residents to Boston, where they work.

Witness the plans to use these stimulus funds in North Carolina to extend I-295 to Fayetteville, a move to benefit its big cash cow, Fort Bragg, but will be built at the expense of projects in already established cities.

Or far more closer to home, witness what Texas Department of Transportation wants to do with $181 million of the funds sent to them from the stimulus plan: extend an established roadway, The Grand Parkway, through an undeveloped area west of Houston, and build it as a toll road (that’s right, tax dollars to build a toll road) so that developers can build on land even further away from the Houston metropolitan area.

A plan that would warm the hearts of the Saud family.

The point is, “shovel-ready” is not “shovel-right.” The long-term vision is correct, but the reality is that shovel-ready projects are projects developed in the past. Projects envisioned by the myopic.

And for those who are ready to consider what kinds of infrastructure transportation projects in and around cities fit the bill here, I have just two words:

Light rail.

Moderate Senate Democrats Threaten to Derail Obama Budget

Democrats are quite often their own worst enemies.

Witness a new coalition of 16 moderate Democratic senators headed by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. This group threatens to undo the progressive budget supported by Barack Obama’s administration as well as the Americans who support Obama in his efforts to put America back on the track to economic recovery (64% last time I looked).

This group sees itself as the group that can provide a path toward bipartisanship. They can, they say, bring Republicans back to the table for some serious negotiations.

Obviously they haven’t checked with their Republican colleagues, who to a man and woman stand in firm opposition to anything that the Obama Administration proposes, has proposed, or will propose anytime in the near or distant future.

They say that they support President Obama and his effort to pass a budget and can bring the 60^th vote in this budget deal.

They oppose, however, the tactic currently under consideration in congress, to use the “reconciliation process” to get the budget passed. A process where only 51 votes are necessary in the Senate in order to pass the budget.

Now why in H-E-double-hockey-sticks would they say that they support Obama’s budget, but oppose a tactic that would get it passed?

Could it be that this gang of 16 see an opening to take the power away from the majority, and become the power brokers in congress? What other reason do they have to oppose the “reconciliation process?”

If so, these conservative Democrats need to take measure of themselves and their positions, and ask whether they want to go down in history as the ones who drove their country over the economic brink. The ones who are responsible for millions of Americans being put out of work with no health insurance. The ones who condemn another generation of children to a life without hope of attaining a college education.

All for the purpose and the hope of getting more political power for themselves.

And here I thought this was something that Republicans were especially good at.

Perry Turns His Back On Unemployed Texans

It has been in the news, first that Texas Governor Rick Perry would refuse to accept the $555 million in federal stimulus money that would go directly to relieve the very folks who are suffering from the Republican-incepted financial crisis, then how he was going to think about it some more.

Well, he thought about it, and falling in line behind South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, Rick Perry slammed his fist on his desk today and said “Ditto!”

Leaving tens of thousands of Texas unemployed workers (voters) in the lurch.

And I thought he wanted to run for re-election next year. Geez, just goes to show you how wrong you can be about these things.

But not to be concerned - yet, the fat lady has yet to clear her enormous throat.

The state legislature has yet to have a final say, and today, by a 5 to 1 vote in the Texas House’s Appropriations Committee, they voted to accept the federal stimulus offer.

Republican Chairman of the committee, Jim Pitts, broke with his party, and its state leader, and voted for the federal funds. His colleague, Myra Crownower (R - Denton) held to her Republican principles that dictate total obedience to the party at the expense of Texas families, some of them Christian families, who are now in dire need of some extended benefits that the economic recovery package would provide.

The matter moves to the state house.

At issue, then, is whether the Texas House can scrounge up one more Republican vote to accept the federal funds.

What happens next is fairly obvious with a Senate that is controlled by a 19-12 Republican majority. We should see few surprises.

So one thing is for sure. The business favors and incentives that Texas has provided to enable mass migration of Americans to the state are still in force. Businesses can feel safe that Texas government will see to their best interests, and not those of their employees.

Ironic, though, that the recent mass migrations of workers to Texas due to its state government’s anti-labor pro-business perspective has been singularly responsible for the nonstop demographic shift that will one day ensure the election of a Democratic majority in the near future.

Does Wall Street Want Obama to Fail, Too?

A random thought crossed my mind as I was reading about the 12-year low 6763 Dow-Jones average posted today, first time below 7000 points since the Internet evolved from ARPANET (thanks to Al Gore).

I was wondering whether Wall Street players want, as Rush Limbaugh and his dittoheads want, for Barack Obama to fail.

If so, they are certainly in the driver’s seat as it is their actions that drive the stock market, and everyone’s 401K with it.

Do you think?

Calling the GOP Governors’ Bluff

A couple of days ago, I posted this, wondering about a CNN article on how GOP governors, that is, southern states governors, can cherry pick what has become the law of the land. As it turns out, I was not alone, and someone who has actually read at least some of the Economic Recovery Act has the answer: While state governors, apparently can accept or not accept “any division of this act,” they are also not the sole deciders in this.

Section 1607 of the act (now law) that says exactly this:

“SEC. 1607. (a) Certification by Governor - Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will request and use funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.”

“(b) Acceptance by State Legislature - If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”

Get that?

If a state governor decides to give a pass to federal funds that would extend unemployment benefits to those that they do not now cover, state legislatures can override their bad decision.

See? Section 1607 spreads the wealth. Governors cannot take sole blame for their unemployed voters not getting the federal aid, blame extends to any state legislature, and their majority voting members, as well, should they fail to override their governor.

This is particularly bittersweet in that we have in the New York Times today an article that sounds the opinions of unemployed voters in affected states. Particularly interesting to me, is that the article features a photo of Governor Rick Perry top and left. Here it is at right. I would try to caption this without too much tongue in cheek, but I still can’t seem to come up with a quote that is printable on this page unless I want to forego my PG rating.

Here is what the unemployed workers (voters) are saying about their governors’ threats to reject their unemployment benefits for them:

TEXAS: “It just seems unreasonable that when people probably need the help the most, that because of partisan activity, or partisan feelings, against the current new administration, that Perry is willing to sacrifice the lives of so many Texans that have been out of work in the last year.”

SOUTH CAROLINA: “I don’t understand the whole thing, Apparently because he [S.C. Governor Mark Sanford] has money and he doesn’t have to worry about everybody else who doesn’t have money.”

GEORGIA: “I don’t think he [GA governor Sonny Perdue] truly understands the plight of his citizens. He’s surrounded by people with good jobs, who make good salaries. He’s not surrounded by people like me.”

Governors have defended themselves saying that the federal rules would mandate a changing of state law to allow the funds to flow to those who are at present uncovered by unemployment benefits, something they don’t want to have in place when the federal money dries up.

They don’t want to have to take up the burden mandated by the feds, once the fed money goes away.

And rightly so. Except for the fact that there is nothing in the law says that the states can’t revert to their old rules once the federal money goes away, presumably when the crisis has passed.

Well, then it just gets better now, doesn’t it? Not only will southern state governors have to explain to their unemployed citizens (aka voters) why they are refusing to allow the feds to help them through difficult times, the members of their state legislatures are also in the same boat.

And the sweetener is that their arguments about this law mandating that states change state law is nothing but smoke and mirrors.