With Extension Blocked By Republicans, A Successful Stimulus Jobs Program Dies

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Susie Madrak

Legislation can be a positive, creative process when politicians work together for the common good. (I know, you can stop laughing now.) I wish that Republican legislators used their influence for something useful, instead of posturing and saying no to programs they already know work. Hell, even Haley Barbour likes it!

At midnight on Sept. 30, the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund (TEF) - considered one of the most successful stimulus programs, having created 250,000 jobs for previously unemployed workers - expires. The Obama administration and Democrats had requested $1.5 to $2.5 billion to keep it going for another year. The House has passed two extenders, but yesterday, legislation failed again in the Senate. That means employers are now faced with laying off the TEF workers, as many as 100,000, into an economy that already has 14.9 million unemployed.

"Without federal funding, most states and localities won't be able to continue to provide support for these jobs," Larry Summers, the director of the White House's National Economic Council, said in a statement today. "Governors from both parties have called for the extension of the program and some will try to keep it going for a couple of months with state funds, buying Congress time to act. But the reality is that many states will be unable to fill the gap, and those that can, only temporarily. A commitment to extending this program will give more governors the confidence not to end it now and could save up to 100,000 jobs."

The program did not need to end in this way. Senate Democrats tried numerous times to extend the legislation - in provisions moved in March and blocked by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), and in versions of the tax extenders legislation. This week, Sen. ####### Durbin (D-Ill.) tried to move a three-month extension, to give Democrats some time to work a fuller fix for the program into another bill. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) objected to Durbin's unanimous consent request, killing it on the grounds that it expands the welfare state and costs too much.

TEF's end has led to howls from progressive think-tanks, Republican and Democratic governors and the thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of workers the program has aided.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for instance, looked at the programs states created - 36 of them, plus a program in Washington D.C. - and summarized their achievements. One county in Tennessee brought its unemployment rate from 27.3 to 18.6 percent in just eight months. North Dakota helped create jobs for parents without the means to pay their child support. South Carolina targeted parents who would otherwise collect welfare. Alabama aided job-sapped rural areas. CBPP's analysts described ending the fund as "walking away from a win-win-win."

Congress could attempt to recreate or reauthorize the program later, though Congressional aides say that chances are slim. That leaves states to try to fund their own programs, despite the fact that many are facing yawning fiscal gaps and service cutbacks.

link

[DanishBill 15]

Story #3: Holtz-Eakin on Stimulus for the Dead and Obamacare

RUSH: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he's president of the American Action Forum, used to be at the Congressional Budget Office. National Review Online, The Corner blog today: "The Light at the End of the Tunnel Is an Oncoming Train -- The news today is that 89,000 stimulus checks -- totaling $22 million -- got sent to people who were dead or in jail. My first instinct was, of course, to giggle. ... I mean, seriously, dead people? And my second (perhaps revealing) thought was to wonder about the policy implications. What are the 'multiplier effects' for dead people? It might not be so bad."

It's like Dr. Spencer says, "Are they now in line for cost-of-dying increases, just as there are cost-of-living increases?" "Stimulus didn’t work for the living so is it really any worse to try the dead? Having checked those boxes, I turned to the fact that $12 million of the invalid checks were returned." Twelve million dollars were returned out of 22 million. "This is truly astonishing and a tribute to the character of America. It’s a silver lining in an otherwise bad-news story. Get ready, because the bad news is going to turn horrific. With stimulus checks, the goal was to send seniors $13 billion in checks, one time, using a well-honed check-writing machine (the Social Security Administration) to an easily-defined group. And it didn’t go so well." They're trying to buy votes. And maybe in a couple towns the dead vote in some numbers, Chicago and other places, but for the most part it's a waste of money if you're buying votes.

So Mr. Holtz-Eakin wonders: "So imagine what will happen with the new health-care law. Recall, the goal is to distribute about $466 billion in insurance subsidies over the next decade. This will require identifying who is eligible based on their income and whether their employer offers insurance (or perhaps offers 'unacceptably costly' insurance). The subsidy amount will depend on income. It will have to be sent to the state of the individual’s exchange. It will have to be transmitted to the insurance company of the recipient’s choice. And it will have to be sent monthly in advance of the payment due date. So, the U.S. Treasury will have to parse through 300 million Americans; verify their income, employment, insurance status, location, and potential insurer; cut correctly over 10 million checks for just under $4 billion; and do so on a monthly basis. It will never happen. The first duty of any committee doing real oversight of the new law should be to ask the Treasury if it can implement the law as written. Its honest answer will have to be 'no.' Perhaps this will be part of the unraveling of Obamacare, which is essential because it is an integral part of the excessive government overhang that is dragging down the private sector."

We've got to do something about this. It's unsustainable even before it's fully implemented. It's a destroyer. It is in its own way a nuclear weapon aimed at the American private sector, aimed at the American way of life. And there's no way they can do it. His point is if they can't successfully send out $250 checks to 89,000 people, what in the world makes us believe -- and then there are other examples you could cite as well, government errors, mistakes, inefficiency -- how in the world are we to believe that they're going to be able to cut ten million checks for just under $4 billion to the right people in the right state every month to comply with the law? And then what happens when they can't do it? What happens when it doesn't happen? What happens when these people don't get what they're supposed to get, which will compensate them for their health insurance, which they won't have? What will happen?

I'll tell you what will happen. You can see it for yourself. Go to any major metro area, top 50 city, top 75, go to the federal building, go to the Social Security Administration office and try to get something done. Take a look at who's there, ask yourself how long you want to stand in line there, and then ask yourself if you endeavor to stand in line as long as it's gonna take, when it's your turn at the counter is what you need going to happen correctly? It's not just DMV. Everybody takes a shot at county motor vehicle offices and so forth. Go to a federal agency, go to the VA, go anywhere, stand in line, go wherever you have to go. If you are dependent on what happens in that building to eat, to live, go in there, pretend that you can't live without making monthly trips to that building and see if you want to know what health care is gonna be like after it is implemented as written.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Taxpayer dollars for jobs does not equal successful in any way, shape, or form.

The worst kind of job, is a government job. It's a leech on society. It's no different than welfare.

You cannot grow an economy and the government cannot "make" money without support from the private sector.

If it's government money being used in the private sector, that's a negative growth factor...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Son't worry. The Democrats will extract another pound of flesh, after the election. Way to make a mockery of the democratic process, Reid and Pelosi!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Taxpayer dollars for jobs does not equal successful in any way, shape, or form.

The worst kind of job, is a government job. It's a leech on society. It's no different than welfare.

You cannot grow an economy and the government cannot "make" money without support from the private sector.

If it's government money being used in the private sector, that's a negative growth factor...

You have no idea how taxes in the forms of subsidies have not only helped companies stay afloat, but have shaped our economy. The agriculture industry, particularly the corn growers thrive on such subsidies. The fossil fuel industry.... Government has a huge, HUGE impact on the economy through such policies.

[Danno 1,228]

You have no idea how taxes in the forms of subsidies have not only helped companies stay afloat, but have shaped our economy. The agriculture industry, particularly the corn growers thrive on such subsidies. The fossil fuel industry.... Government has a huge, HUGE impact on the economy through such policies.

Are you referring to our Government or the by-gone soviet government?... your comment seemed to apply equally to both.

[웃 910]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You have no idea how taxes in the forms of subsidies have not only helped companies stay afloat, but have shaped our economy. The agriculture industry, particularly the corn growers thrive on such subsidies. The fossil fuel industry.... Government has a huge, HUGE impact on the economy through such policies.

Actually, they haven't helped agricultural companies at all. They have caused a scenario in the agriculture industry where the market is skewed. We still pay farmers (corporate ones even) not to farm at all. Many things are very controlled, which doesn't help anyone at all. I mean hell, we had a SCOTUS ruling decades ago that you can't just farm for yourself without paying penalties. How absurd have we gotten in how we treat agriculture? It's one of the few industries that could be thriving more than ever right now, yet there are stops put in place to keep that from happening. Granted, not all types of crops are needed, but when you look at the fact that corn is actually about to be in short supply (which shouldn't surprise anyone) you'll see the fallacies of Government intervening too much.

You are right about one thing and that is the government does have a huge impact through policies. However, it's not the primary one. The majority of our economy today is reflective of whatever the Federal Reserve is doing. How they control interest rates, how they control the value of the dollar, etc. Congress' has very little in the way that they directly effect the economy outside of random tax breaks here and there (which are approved by the FED mind you) and overspending/borrowing more money from the FED and therefore decreasing the value of the dollar even more.

Our economy would be a lot better right now if the value of the dollar were much higher once again. Unfortunately, 20 years of bad policy making/appointments by both parties have led to the situation we see today.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you referring to our Government

Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $73.8 billion from 1995-2009.Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $73.8 billion from 1995-2009.

You'd have to live in a cave not to know. These huge government subsidies will continue, much to the dismay of the tax payer without so much as a bat of the eye from teabaggers.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $73.8 billion from 1995-2009.Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $73.8 billion from 1995-2009.

You'd have to live in a cave not to know. These huge government subsidies will continue, much to the dismay of the tax payer without so much as a bat of the eye from teabaggers.

of course, this is part of the reason why it will be a long time before the FDA reconsiders HFCS or the government does something to try and encourage it be used less.

Too big of a lobby that loves that money...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

of course, this is part of the reason why it will be a long time before the FDA reconsiders HFCS or the government does something to try and encourage it be used less.

Too big of a lobby that loves that money...

That's beside the point. The argument that many Right Wingers such as yourself make is that government policies have zero impact on jobs (outside of simple tax cuts). However, when it comes to subsidies, none of the teabaggers or their counterparts in Washington are even talking about cutting subsidies. Why? Because they know they do have a positive impact on the economy and jobs. Cut Defense spending? No, no - not in my district! So, in one corner of the mouth, Right Wingers are saying that government policy can't help create jobs, but in the other corner of the mouth, "....but don't touch my subsidies!" Double-talk and hypocrisy run rampant among the Party of No.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's beside the point. The argument that many Right Wingers such as yourself make is that government policies have zero impact on jobs (outside of simple tax cuts). However, when it comes to subsidies, none of the teabaggers or their counterparts in Washington are even talking about cutting subsidies. Why? Because they know they do have a positive impact on the economy and jobs. Cut Defense spending? No, no - not in my district! So, in one corner of the mouth, Right Wingers are saying that government policy can't help create jobs, but in the other corner of the mouth, "....but don't touch my subsidies!" Double-talk and hypocrisy run rampant among the Party of No.

subsidies don't have a positive impact.... it's always negative because it hides true value.

you can put makeup on a girl, but she still has the same pale skin underneath once it's removed.