« Junk Economics | Main | SCOTUS Rules Government Has the Right to "Speak For Itself" »

THe House Passes $410 Billion Spending Bill

Sixteen House Republicans voted for it, too. So we have another very expensive, earmark-riddled, spending bill:

The Democratic-controlled House approved $410 billion legislation Wednesday that boosted domestic programs, bristled with earmarks and chipped away at policies left behind by the Bush administration.

The vote was 245-178, largely along party lines.

Republicans assailed the measure as too costly -- particularly on the heels of a $787 billion stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed last week. But Democrats jabbed back.

"The same people who drove the economy into the ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., pointing out the large increase in deficits that President George W. Bush and GOP-controlled Congresses amassed.

McGovern is working as fast as he can to get people to forget that Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress the past two years, making them very much complicit in the state of economy right now. If he wants to place blame, fine. I can play that game, too. Two years ago, the economy was chugging along very well. The recession didn't begin until December 2007, a full year after the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34607.

Comments (25)

the White House pr... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
the White House projects this year's budget shortfall will be $1.5 trillion, triple the previous record of $455 billion in 2008.

Therein lies Obama's strategy to cut the deficit in half by 2013; as in half compared to the 1.5 trillion for 2009. Thus, the bigger the deficit in 2009 the easier it will be to cut it in half for 2013. As of now a $750 billion deficit for 2013 would allow Obama to claim he cut it in half. Now you know why Obama is not objecting to the earmarks in the spending bill. When you turned the pigs lose in the corn field you are going get lots of pork.

Well...I need to find out w... (Below threshold)

Well...I need to find out who those 16 were! If any were from Indiana, they'll be hearing from me.

I cannot believe they actually want MORE money. Our government needs a kick to the groin...seriously.

~T the D
http://thedrunkelephant.blogspot.com/

Let's just print one quadri... (Below threshold)

Let's just print one quadrillion dollars and spread the wealth around like it's candy.
http://www.rightklik.net/

Tis amazing, Mac Lorry-... (Below threshold)
Rolf:

Tis amazing, Mac Lorry-

Obama can manage to have his predecessor more than double the national debt and transform projected surplusses into trillion dollar deficits so he can be all, snap-- half-a-trillion--Hmm-hmm!

What good fortune the G.W. Bush admin turned out to be!

McGovern's statement has ca... (Below threshold)
Imee:

McGovern's statement has caused quite the ruckus in the internet world. However, I do have this chart I found which contains statistical data from whitehouse.gov which does kind of confirm his statement.

Rolf,Sorry, but mu... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Rolf,

Sorry, but much of the 2009 deficit is on Obama's watch. He didn't inherit the stimulus bill.

in 2000, the national debt ... (Below threshold)
jmc:

in 2000, the national debt was about $5.7 trillion dollars, whicch is now $11 trillion. President Bush ran up more debt for this country than ALL previous presidents combined.

When I come here I feel like a guy who has a glass of wine for dinner when town drunk comes by, and chides me for using alchohol.

here's to sobering up guys, maybe you can stay dry this time. Although you never have before.

This little theme that Shaw... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

This little theme that Shawn Mallow and Ms Priestap here keep shoveling -- that the Democrats are responsible for the recession because they (just barely) controlled Congress the last two years -- is specious, and they both know it.

Reid and Pelosi couldn't stand up to Commander Codpiece if their lives depended on it. It was pathetic. Name ONE THING they accomplished that Bush didn't want them to, or ONE THING they blocked that Bush wanted. Just ONE bill.

jmc,What's the log... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

jmc,

What's the logic in using the increased national debt to justify even greater increases in the national debt? Yes, we have a crisis, but so was 9/11.

This little theme ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
This little theme that Shawn Mallow and Ms Priestap here keep shoveling -- that the Democrats are responsible for the recession because they (just barely) controlled Congress the last two years -- is specious, and they both know it.

It's not just Mallow and Priestap who are laying at least some of the blame on democrats. Calvin Woodward (San Francisco Chronicle) and Jim Kuhnhenn (Associated Press) Wrote this article for the AP. In it they state the following:

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

To use one of Obama's arguments, Bush inherited the housing bubble. Yes, it burst on his watch and he contributed to it, but he didn't create the problem.

What's the logic ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
What's the logic in using the increased national debt to justify even greater increases in the national debt? Yes, we have a crisis, but so was 9/11.

The logic is economic. We are in what is called a liquidity trap, meaning money is not in circulation. So how do you get money in circulation? That's the purpose of a stimulas bill.

So there are sound reasons for deficit spending. In fairness, there are economist who would argue a stimulas bill is not the right thing to do. Either way, Republicans had no such excuse when they ran up the largest debt in our nation's history. yet now they argue fiscal responsibility? Thaat is some serious hypocrisy.

Good point, Mr Lorry, but o... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Good point, Mr Lorry, but one that is rather beside mine.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that Democrats bear no blame. But the theme that I hear from Mr Mallow, Ms Priestap, and our own esteemed resident genius, Wild Willie, is that because of the fact the Democrats held nominal control of Congress the last two years, the current mess is entirely, or mostly, their fault.
Simple-minded and false. Red meat for Wild willie types nationwide. And, as I said, SPECIOUS, and both Mr Mallow and Ms Priestap are smart enough to know it, even if the unfortunate Willie is not.

Brucy, please let me school... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Brucy, please let me school you, if you want to know the story.

Your side continuously, and I mean continuously say GW crashed the economy while in actual fact, (I know you try to qualify your agreement so you look good) the democrat's in congress has leadership into its third year. You can dispute that fact if you want. In the house, the Speaker and Majority Leader have full control over agenda, budget, chair person assignments, etc. To you, that is nominal control, to me, and I think most sane people would say that is total control. With that comes the oversight committees. Yes, the very committees that should have stood up to Fanny and Freddie but CHOSE not to. Your party. So, scoff all you want and qualify all you want, the appropriations and oversight when this mess hit was when your party is in control.

GW wanted to curtail the mortgage mess in 2005 but was shot down and a filibuster was threatened by the dem's including your messiah.

GW has some complicity, but I think the bigger percentage belongs to your side. But since you take party over country, I have to say it is your side alone.

Thus endith the lesson. ww

jmc - "Either way, Repu... (Below threshold)
marc:

jmc - "Either way, Republicans had no such excuse when they ran up the largest debt in our nation's history. yet now they argue fiscal responsibility? Thaat is some serious hypocrisy."

So what is the dems excuse for not only continuing a policy of spending what we don't have but adding more debt in the last month than the cost of the two wars and Katrina combined?

And since when is "hypocrisy" defined as correcting a behavior that's later realized as wrong headed and a detriment to both the budget and the country as a whole?

Republicans had no... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Republicans had no such excuse when they ran up the largest debt in our nation's history. yet now they argue fiscal responsibility? Thaat is some serious hypocrisy.

The largest part of the deficit increase under Bush was his Medicare plan, Katreana, homeland security and the expenditures in Afganistgtan and Iraq. Of those only Iraq is an arguable expenditures, but anyone who makes that argument must consider the cost of leaving Saddam and his sadistic sons in power. There's good reason to believe that leaving Saddam in power would have cost the U.S. even more in both human life and treasure.

The Republican never argued that there should be no stimulus bill, but that it could have been better designed to stimulate for the economy for a lot less money. That's anything but hypocrisy.

It's "endeth," not "endith,... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

It's "endeth," not "endith," Professor.

So, if your party has the majority, it's in "total control" of Congress, is that what you're saying? And with that comes the oversight committees?

OK, by your logic, Wet William, why was Bush unable to accomplish his curtailing of the mortgage mess back in 2005, when HIS PARTY had "total control" of Congress? Who stopped a President whose party had "total control?"

You're too easy, Willie. Apparently you don't have the embarrasment gene, or you'd keep quiet when grownups are talking.

The largest part ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
The largest part of the deficit increase under Bush was his Medicare plan, Katreana, homeland security and the expenditures in Afganistgtan and Iraq. Of those only Iraq is an arguable expenditures, but anyone who makes that argument must consider the cost of leaving Saddam and his sadistic sons in power. There's good reason to believe that leaving Saddam in power would have cost the U.S. even more in both human life and treasure.

You can make an argument for everyone of those expenditures. What I don't think you can justify though, is running those, doing that spending, spending as a deficit and making our kids pay for it. Bush should have raised taxes if he was going to spend more.

Obama on the other hand would be making a huge mistake to raise taxes in the middle of a liquidity trap to raise too many taxes because it takes spending out of the economy. That is when it is justifiable to run a deficit IMO and that of econjomist who beleive that stimulas is needed. It is not justifiable to do it just because you want to spend without having to deal with the political consequences of raising taxes to pay for your spending as Bush did.

The Republican never argued that there should be no stimulus bill, but that it could have been better designed to stimulate for the economy for a lot less money. That's anything but hypocrisy.

To be fair I'm generalizing, however republicans are not saying, Don't make the mistakes we made, they are saying. Look at those spendthrift Democrats. That is hypocrisy given they had just spent more than all previous administations combined.

So what is the de... (Below threshold)
jmc:
So what is the dems excuse for not only continuing a policy of spending what we don't have but adding more debt in the last month than the cost of the two wars and Katrina combined?


I already addressed that in a previous post. post 11 to be specific.

Bush should have r... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Bush should have raised taxes if he was going to spend more.

If you remember, the dot com bubble burst near the end of Clinton's second term and Bush inherited a recession of his own. He did what Republicans are supposed to do, cut taxes on small business owners and investors as a way if stimulating the economy and growing tax revenues, and it seemed to work. We all enjoyed 54 months of economic expansion, the longest in the history of the U.S. It can now be argued that the housing boom caused the economic expansion, at least in part, and that's why both democrats and republicans did nothing about the growing alarm over subprime mortgage even when Bush tried to do something. It's hard to crap on success for the sake of theory.

Obama on the other hand would be making a huge mistake to raise taxes in the middle of a liquidity trap to raise too many taxes because it takes spending out of the economy. That is when it is justifiable to run a deficit IMO and that of econjomist who beleive that stimulas is needed.

I see the logic in what Obama is doing, and for all our sakes, I hope it succeeds or at least doesn't make things worse. Where I disagree with Obama is the carbon cap and tax scheme he has called for, as it won't do anything for climate change, but will raise energy costs. I believe high energy costs was the trigger that burst the housing bubble. I also oppose any changes to Social Security that would effect the benefits for anyone 50 or over. We don't know if that's a problem yet because Obama hasn't given any more details. Nationalizing health care may be another place where I will disagree once there are more details. Cutting the military also seems like a short sighted idea that Obama is proposing. It's all too early to say.

To be fair I'm generalizing, however republicans are not saying, Don't make the mistakes we made, they are saying. Look at those spendthrift Democrats.

Some republicans may be saying that because that's all sound bytes allow. When they have a chance to give more details their argument is that there were both better and cheaper ways to get out of this mess.

That is hypocrisy given they had just spent more than all previous administations combined.

The people just voted for change, so for democrats to continue the vary behavior they were elected to stop opens a door for republicans to make gains in 2010. You can call it hypocrisy, but it's also smart politics.

Brainy Bruce, please read t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Brainy Bruce, please read the comment again. I explained how the request was met from your side. Really, instead of trying to get ahead of someone just to insult them, you should first read what you are complaining about. How many lessons in a day do you need? ww

OK Willie, better men than ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

OK Willie, better men than you have failed to answer this question from me. (Mr Lawson is one.)

I re-read your comment. It says what I think it says. If you mean something different than, "the majority party has 'total control" of Congress," then say so.

If, as you say, the majority party has "total control," and since the GOP, according to you, had "total control" in 2005, then how could Bush's reform attempts have failed?

You can't have it both ways, Wee Sillie. A minority party either can or cannot obstruct the majority's will. If Dems could do it in 2005, then Republicans could do it in 2007. Only a Weebul could fail to see that.

you remember, the... (Below threshold)
jmc:
you remember, the dot com bubble burst near the end of Clinton's second term and Bush inherited a recession of his own. He did what Republicans are supposed to do, cut taxes on small business owners and investors as a way if stimulating the economy and growing tax revenues, and it seemed to work. We all enjoyed 54 months of economic expansion, the longest in the history of the U.S. It can now be argued that the housing boom caused the economic expansion, at least in part, and that's why both democrats and republicans did nothing about the growing alarm over subprime mortgage even when Bush tried to do something. It's hard to crap on success for the sake of theory.

if you believe deficit spending was appropriate in the last recession, doesn't it seem a little disingenous(sp) to say it no longer is?


see the logic in what Obama is doing, and for all our sakes, I hope it succeeds or at least doesn't make things worse. Where I disagree with Obama is the carbon cap and tax scheme he has called for, as it won't do anything for climate change, but will raise energy costs. I believe high energy costs was the trigger that burst the housing bubble. I also oppose any changes to Social Security that would effect the benefits for anyone 50 or over. We don't know if that's a problem yet because Obama hasn't given any more details. Nationalizing health care may be another place where I will disagree once there are more details. Cutting the military also seems like a short sighted idea that Obama is proposing. It's all too early to say.

Those are all fair arguments. I don't agree with all of them but a legitimate case can be made for each of them.


Brucy, the part about a thr... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Brucy, the part about a threat to filibuster from the dems including your messiah missed your keen eye? You are so smart. I am in awe. You need to think outside the box your party has you in. If you can. ww

"McGovern is working as fas... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"McGovern is working as fast as he can to get people to forget that Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress the past two years, making them very much complicit in the state of economy right now. If he wants to place blame, fine. I can play that game, too." -- Kim

Realizing that the Moron King (who you Republicans are responsible for to your EVERLASTING SHAME) had veto power, the American electorate clearly doesn't place the blame on the Democrats, else they wouldn't recently have placed more Democrats in Congress and fewer Republicans.

That's got to sting, doesn't it, Kim???? Stings real bad, huh?

Deal with it.

Wee One, you've lost. Man u... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Wee One, you've lost. Man up.

"Threat to filibuster?" Don't make me puke. Since when did Harry Fucking Reid "threatening to filibuster" scare the GOP?

The Bush "reform attempt" of 2005 failed because of a lack of votes in Congress, both Democratic and Republican. After all, according to YOU, Willie, the GOP had "total control" of Congress. Why else would it have failed?

"Threat to filibuster" my ass.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy