Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

Lawrence B. Lindsey: How About a Payroll Tax Stimulus?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318933384726785.html

For a similar amount of money, the government could essentially cut the payroll tax in half, taking three points off the rate for both the employer and the employee. This would put $1,500 into the pocket of a typical worker making $50,000, with a similar amount going to his or her employer. It would provide a powerful stimulus to the spending stream, as well as a significant, six percentage point reduction in the tax burden of employment for people making less than $100,000. The effects would be immediate.

By contrast, the stimulus now under consideration would suffer from the usual problems of government spending. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have calculated that only $170 billion, or about one-fifth of the $816 billion package will be spent in fiscal 2009. An additional $356 billion will be spent in 2010. That leaves $290 billion to be spent when even the most pessimistic forecasters think the economy will be in recovery mode.

Stimulus Debate Moves to Senate After Passing in House With No GOP Support

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/01/29/stimulus-debate-moves-to-senate-after-passing-in-house-with-no-gop-support.html

The House passed the $819 billion stimulus bill yesterday, but the weeks of attempts to get bipartisan support behind the package failed. Not a single Republican voted in favor.

The bill passed by a vote of 244 to 188, with 11 Democrats crossing the aisle to oppose the bill. The GOP's firm opposition comes as a disappointment for the new administration, which had emphasized the importance of bipartisanship in the process. President Obama himself held a closed-door meeting with Republican legislators on Tuesday to try to win their backing.

As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, the bipartisan side of the vote was "No" -- both Democrats and Republicans voted against the bill, only Democrats voted for it.

The "Rangel Rule"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDQ2NjlmZmRiOTQzODNhYzMxMjJiNzY1OWQxZDhjODA=

Rep. John Carter, a Texas Republican, sent out a press release earlier today about his innovative new bill:

"Rangel Rule"

All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Obama Administration Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, if a bill introduced today by Congressman John Carter (R-TX) becomes law.

Carter, a former longtime Texas judge, today introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009, HR 735, which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from charging penalties and interest on back taxes against U.S. citizens. Under the proposed law, any taxpayer who wrote "Rangel Rule" on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.

The Pelosi-Obama Stimulus Bill

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Thomas Sowell : What Are They Buying?

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/01/27/what_are_they_buying

Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.

If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.

If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.

Silicon Valley Could Become Another Detroit

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012602376.html

Could Silicon Valley become another Detroit? [...] [S]ome who work here see trouble on the horizon. These include top executives at Hewlett-Packard, who are ringing an alarm bell about what they see as a looming disaster, not just for HP, but for the entire U.S. tech industry. They say that unless we boost government spending on science, technology, engineering and math -- STEM, in industry jargon -- we will be unable to keep up with countries such as China and India.

‘Soviet’ Britain swells amid the recession

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5581225.ece

PARTS of the United Kingdom have become so heavily dependent on government spending that the private sector is generating less than a third of the regional economy, a new analysis has found.

The study of "Soviet Britain" has found the government's share of output and expenditure has now surged to more than 60% in some areas of England and over 70% elsewhere. [...]

In the northeast of England the state is expected to be responsible for 66.4% of the economy this year, up from 58.7% when a similar study was carried out four years ago. When Labour came to power, the figure was 53.8%.

Across the whole of the UK, 49% of the economy will consist of state spending, while in Wales, the figure will be 71.6% – up from 59% in 2004-5. Nowhere in mainland Britain, however, comes close to Northern Ireland, where the state is responsible for 77.6% of spending, despite the supposed resurgence of the economy after the end of the Troubles.

Sebastian Mallaby - An OPEC Lesson for China

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012303291.html

Geithner is correct that China manipulates its currency. What's more, this manipulation is arguably the most important cause of the financial crisis. Starting around the middle of this decade, China's cheap currency led it to run a massive trade surplus. The earnings from that surplus poured into the United States. The result was the mortgage bubble. [...]

If Americans' insatiable appetite for loans explained the flood of Chinese capital into the United States, we would have seen the evidence in a rising price for those loans -- that is, higher interest rates in the bond market. But bond rates were strikingly low at mid-decade. This strongly suggests that it was the supply of lending that went up, not the demand for it. Chinese money flooded into the United States because of the push factor from China, not the pull factor from Americans.

NFL supports our military

Mallory.Steinberg@NFL.com writes:

After speaking with our military liaison for the color guard, we will host the members of the color guard (12 people) in the stadium. 

So it sounds like everyone should be happy with the result.  I think the NFL did the right thing. There's no need to turn this into a big controversy.

They didn't say so explicitly, but I also think it shows some respect for the memory of Pat Tillman, who might have been playing in the Super Bowl this year had he not volunteered for the Army after 9/11.

Go Cardinals!

This Is No Time to Panic

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/060scqkh.asp?pg=2

I liked the headline that the Wall Street Journal gave to an op-ed by George Mason University economist Russ Roberts: "Don't Just Do Something, Stand There." Roberts pointed out that politicians can't wisely spend the trillions they commit, "even if they want to. The information about who needs to be bailed out and who needs to fail is too complicated. .  .  . It is time to let the imprudent fail and the prudent pick up the bargains."  [...]

George W. Bush told CNN, "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Why did Bush and Pelosi think they knew how to run the economy? F.A. Hayek famously termed this the "fatal conceit" -- governments can't possibly know everything that's going on in an economy, and so while government intervention may delay some economic pain, it cannot stop it.

"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled," said Cicero in 55 B.C. He was right.

Rush Limbaugh Responds to Obama

Rush responds via email to Byron York...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=

One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. [...] Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

Obama zings Limbaugh

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. [...]

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

Remembering Pat Tillman

Lighthouse on The Right mentions the Tillman connection and posted the Sports Illustrated cover shown above.

NFL snubs military at the Super Bowl

http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2009/01/are-you-ready-to-get-angry.html

The Super Bowl won't let the military color guard stay and watch the big game? Yes you read that right. Was I skeptical? At first, but after I contacted the Tampa Bay host Committee through their official website and spoke to Katie Wagner, I was assured that yes in fact her email inbox is full of emails from upset Marine Mom's all asking for an explanation. To Ms. Wagner's credit, who by the way was extremely gracious during my questions the Host Committee has no control over game day decisions; that authority rests solely with the NFL. 

What has become a common yet gracious act of allowing a military color guard to stay and watch the game from the side lines, in honor of their service to our country, this time has them being treated as if they are the unwelcome guests, common servants to be whisked away as soon as their task is completed.

I have a feeling that a bit of publicity might change the NFL's position.  Maybe they remember Pat Tillman, who played for the Arizona Cardinals before volunteering for the Army.  He died tragically in a friendly-fire incident in Afganistan.  I think Pat would appreciate letting the military honor guard watch the game from the sidelines.

Burr Opposes Geithner for Treasury Secretary

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) issued the following statement on President Obama's nomination of Tim Geithner to serve as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury:

 

"I think the President should be given the benefit of the doubt in selecting the executive leadership of his Administration, and I've been pleased with many of his nominations.  In weighing a nominee, the most important questions I ask is if he or she is qualified to effectively lead an executive department and whether the nominee possesses the judgment necessary to manage and spend taxpayer money wisely and in an open and transparent manner.

 

"As I asked these questions, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Geithner does not measure up.  With the entire banking system collapsing, Mr. Geithner served as the head of the most important and powerful Reserve Bank in the nation.  During his tenure at the New York Federal Reserve, Mr. Geithner was a leading participant in many late-night, closed-door deals made between major financial institutions and the federal government.  I have particular concern with the ill-conceived proposed merger between Citigroup and Wachovia.  It is now clear, as Citigroup is on the verge of break up, that it was in major financial trouble. 

 

"Many questions remain about the decision-making process and the judgment of government participants, including Mr. Geithner and the New York Federal Reserve.  So far, Mr. Geithner's response to the Finance Committee on this particular issue raises more questions than it answers.  Additionally, I have concerns about the unanswered questions concerning Mr. Geithner's taxes and his now being asked to head the Treasury Department and oversee the IRS.  For these reasons, I cannot support Mr. Geithner's nomination as Secretary of the Treasury."

Inauguration crowd

Early predictions for the attendance at the inauguration had gone as high as five million:

In an off-hand moment six weeks ago, District of Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty tossed out a guess of three to five million.

President Bush, at the urging of the mayor, had to declare an emergency to get enough federal money to handle the anticipated crowds.

Of course, "official" crowd estimates are typically inflated for political purposes.  Remember the "Million Man March"?  When the National Park Service estimated the crowd at less than half of the titular number, the organizers threatened to sue.  These days, the National Park Service refuses to issue crowd numbers, but just for this historic inauguration, they decided to accept an AP estimate of a "record number" of over 1.2 million as a reasonable guess (probably to avoid getting sued again).

A more scientific approach came up with a somewhat smaller number, making it completely unacceptable...

An ASU journalism professor using satellite images calculated that 800,000 people attended President Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony.

Variety reports that Nielsen ratings clearly demonstrate that Obama's inauguration is the most watched in the history of our great nation... since Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1981. 

Early numbers for the inauguration of Barack Obama are impressive but, perhaps surprisingly, could come in below those for Ronald Reagan's first term in 1981.

By the way, American Idol also beat Obama on Tuesday.

Instapundit has been collecting links regarding these near historic numbers:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/67064/

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/65883/

I think it's safe to say that this inauguration has generated historic levels of blog coverage. (Numbers, please!)  I mean, how many bloggers covered Reagan's inauguration back in 1981?  I think I updated my finger .plan, but I had only a couple of work friends who might have noticed.  Now the whole world is watching... and googling.

Does 'Rangel Rule' Cover Geithner?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30376

I caught up with Rep. John Carter (R-TX) yesterday in the hallways of the Rayburn House Office building, outside of an Appropriations Committee markup.  An attorney and former judge, Carter has been a vocal critic of the double standard afforded public officials, in particular House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), by the IRS when it comes to assessment of interest and penalties on back taxes.

"The first one that popped to the surface seemed to be the issue of Mr. Rangel's 20-years of failure to pay taxes on his rental income," Carter told me.  "So far there have been no penalties or interest assessed. … If that's the way the IRS is going to treat Mr. Rangel, I think that we should be able to write on our tax returns if we owe any penalties or interest, 'I exercise the Rangel Rule' and you would also be exempt from having to pay those monies. … Now it appears Mr. Geithner is getting the same treatment."

In the real world, taking "responsibility" includes bearing the consequence of your actions.  Paying the penalty.  The Democrat Congress has placed unprecedented power in the hands of the Treasury secretary, granting sole discretionary power to disburse hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout funds.  Being held accountable in actuality means as a consequence of your actions, whether "careless" or intentional, you are not placed in a position of great power in the public trust -- a position wielding oversight of the disbursement of trillions of dollars of the public's money.  

"I should have been more careful" and "These were careless mistakes" should not be in the financial world vernacular of the person who will guide this nation through the worst economic times since we endured four years of Jimmy Carter at the helm.  

Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258284337504295.html

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.

As President Barack Obama's team sets about revising the $700 billion TARP program, following last week's release of the second half of the money, among the issues it faces is widespread dissatisfaction with way the program has been implemented. Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, testifying Wednesday at his Senate confirmation hearing, acknowledged "there are serious concerns about transparency and accountability...confusion about the goals of the program, and a deep skepticism about whether we are using the taxpayers' money wisely."

Bankers, regulators and politicians complain of a secretive and opaque process for deciding which banks get cash and which don't. The goal of aiding only banks healthy enough to lend -- laid out by the Treasury when the program began -- clearly seems to have shifted, but in a way that's hard to pin down and that the Treasury has declined to explain. Part of the problem is that some powerful politicians have used their leverage to try to direct federal millions toward banks in their home states.

Deficit Spending Stimulus Skeptics

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/21/deficit-spending-stimulus-skeptics/

For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative.