Thursday, December 16th, 2010
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
IN WASHINGTON AND BATON ROUGE,
THEY'RE SPENDING LIKE DRUNKIN' SAILORS!
It's the holiday season, and we always talk a good bit about watching our weight and curtailing our appetite. We just cannot pass up all the tempting finger food at holiday parties, washed down with too much to drink and desserts galore. Wait till the New Year, right? That's the message we received from Democrats and Republicans alike in the final days of the 111th congress. Both parties are supporting a second stimulus package that will blow another $1 trillion hole in the budget. Forget the ever growing deficit. It's just not the right time.
What a well worn phrase. It never seems to be the right time in Washington. After all, we are continually told, the economy is fragile and the recovery is halting. But when is the "right time?" It wasn't that long ago when the economy was churning. So instead of planning a reduction of the deficit, both parties joined the fray by adding massive entitlement programs, cutting taxes, and entering two wars that cost several trillion dollars. Who cares about the debt? The mantra to follow is Mark Twain's -- "never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow."
It should be obvious to Republicans in congress that the president was wrong to believe that the United States could fight a war, cut taxes and increase federal spending all at once. Yet here they are, embracing Keynesian economic arguments they have denounced for years.
When I was on the radio in New Orleans on WRNO a few years back, I enjoyed my regular economic policy arguments with Rob Couhig, a lawyer friend who preceded me on the early morning time slot. Rob would often stay over for my show, and it was a standing joke that he would constantly bring up the theories of Nobel Prize economist Milton Friedman, working Freidman's thoughts in to any and every conversation.
Friedman's ideas were embraced by President Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and lauded by many in the business world. But they were also controversial because of the deep cuts in government spending and the more restricted role they entailed for government in buffering citizens from economic forces. To most Republicans, Friedman's views represented the "holy grail" of how government spending policy should be implemented.
But we sure have seen an about face by Republicans and conservative Democrats alike. Now, Republicans have joined hands with Democrats in a Kumbaya embrace of the Keynesian arguments that they have denounced for years. As Time economist Fareed Zakaria points out: "John Maynard Keynes argued that when private demand weakens, the government should pick up the slack. He advocated either of two paths: government spending or tax cuts." Republicans and democrats alike have irresponsibly embraced both options with no one around to pay the bill.
And what's all this ballyhooing for bipartisanship? Both parties are so proud of themselves for "reaching across the aisle" to find the middle ground. But how does this really get the best result? Does this, "I'll take a half a loaf if I can't get the whole loaf" theory really benefit anyone? Voters want solutions that work, and problems to be solved. Not so much "bipartisanship," but more "post partisanship."
It's not easy for a new congressman arriving in Washington not to be seduced by the swarm of vested interests licking their chops to bring the new lawmaker into the partisan fold. Platoons of Wall Street bankers, 13,000 corporate lobbyists, corporate media flacks, Demodon'ts, Republican'ts, war machine promoters, tea party yackety-yackers, and other powerful forces of business-as-usual politics are not so easy to resist. I wrote last week about the throng of Tea Party candidates who ran against the Washington establishment - and that within weeks of their election victory they were jumping at the chance to have these same lobbying interests pony up at one big money Washington fundraiser after another. The early lesson is to stay in lock step with your respective party leadership, and, from the very start, gather up campaign dollars. No time here for post partisanship solutions.
State governments are not immune from the Washington mentality of spending with little regard for cutting back. In my home state of Louisiana, the governor is proposing the selling off of state buildings and other state properties to fill the current year's budget shortfall. This means doing away with an asset to pay for years worth of debt. Huey Long would be rolling over in his grave on the front lawn of the state capitol, except for the fact that he might be part of the onetime fire sale. Any way you look at it, this is an irresponsible way to pay stare expenses.
Louisiana Treasurer John Kennedy, who is a dwindling voice of reason in state government, put it this way, "A junkie can go sell his television and sell the radio and pay for a fix," Kennedy said. "But sooner or later... he's got to face his addiction. I would prefer to have us face our addiction."
Louisiana workers, by the way, will see significantly less help in the new proposal than most of the rest of the country because of the greater number of low wage earners. Any employee making $20,000 or less will not get the benefit of a $400 tax credit, and state employees, who are exempt from payroll deductions will also see a tax increase compared to those who make significantly higher wages.
Americans are borrowing more and spending more. And they are running up a higher personal and national debt. We keep hearing that our national debt is now above $13 trillion dollars. But when you include Baby Boomer demographic demands that include Social Security, union, pension and health-care obligations that all end up drawing on the public purse, the national debt skyrockets.
China lends us cash so that we can give ourselves one more big tax break. So when all is said and done in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, find it much easier to give away $ one trillion, than to make any meaningful effort to curtail spending. Congress is merely buying time. Sadly, that's not what leadership should be about.
*****
Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it.
Lao-Tzu
Peace and Justice
Jim Brown
Jim Brown's syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the South. You can read all is past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim's nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. The show is televised at http://www.justin.tv/jimbrownusa.
You may remember Bobby’s anti-stimulus posturing during the debate and eventual passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act where most states knew they needed the money to get through these difficult times – yet Bobby continued with his national political posturing and even said he was going to refuse the funds. Over time, he changed from flat out refusing to only questioning PARTS of the package...to him traveling the state handing out oversized checks of Stimulus Funds to local communities -- with his signature at the bottom, no less.
This hypocrisy is just ripe and I have no stomach for it any more.
UPDATE: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced yesterday that Louisiana has in fact been awarded $147 million. According to the Secretary, "These education dollars will help these states keep thousands of teachers in the classroom working with our students this school year."
So, even as JIndal continues to "starve the beast" of education in Louisiana, he will both blame and take the credit for a national initiative that will in fact keep teachers in the classroom and try to save education from the effects of the recession on the states. Our good friend Lamar had some insightful comments on the good governor:
So while Jindal and company debate the need for the stimulus and health care reform, they're quietly attempting to use both as stop-gaps for our own growing deficits, and whenever it's politically appropriate, Governor Jindal seems more than willing to swoop in and claim the credit.
And right now, Governor Bobby Jindal, Republican of Louisiana and the author of the forthcoming book Real Hope, Real Change, is ordering massive cuts in education funding, cuts that severely undermine the integrity, stability, and credibility of Louisiana's system of higher education, cuts that pose a significant challenge to Louisiana's long-term sustainability.
Precisely because we are a poor State, Louisiana relies on our institutions of higher learning to provide and expand opportunities. Right now, more than anything, we should be investing in education, because we need an educated 21st century workforce in order to remain competitive.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
Governor PBJ is at it again ... saying one thing, but doing another. Back in February, in the Republican response to the President's national address, he denounced President Obama's Stimulus bill as "wasteful spending." But more to the point is what he denounced as "wasteful spending":
While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring."
"Long term we see it as a very valuable economic incubator for the entire corridor."
But wait ... hasn't Governor PBJ declared that the Recovery Act (aka the stimulus) has not stimulated?
No wonder, then, that KO declared Governor PBJ the worst person in the world last night, as it is apparent that Governor PBJ is trying to have it both ways:
Our Christian Governor PBJ has repeatedly stated that he will not accept $98.4 million in stimulus funding designed to help those who have lost a job in our state's oh-so-booming economy.
Well, Senator Landrieu's staff asked the Department of Labor to clarify the rules and regulations of accepting the money, and whether the state will have to repay any funds back to the federal government if they change state law to accept the funding, and then repeal the law enacted to enable the state to get the federal funding. Here's the Department of Labor's response. Here are the pertinent parts for y'all:
Section 2003 of the ARRA added a new subsection (f) to section 903 of the Social Security Act (SSA), which established UI Modernization Payments. Under Section 903(f)(4)(B)(i), SSA, the Department is to certify any state law provisions that meet the UI modernization requirements. Although this section requires the Department to disregard "any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation" when certifying state laws, it does not prohibit the state's legislature from repealing these provisions in the future.
As a result, if a state eventually decides to repeal or modify any of these provisions, it may do so, and it will not be required to return any incentive payments. However, in providing the incentive payments, Congress clearly intended to support states that had already adopted certain eligibility provisions and to expand eligibility to additional beneficiaries by encouraging other states to adopt these provisions. By specifying that the provisions must be in effect as permanent law, Congress also made clear its intention that the benefit expansions not be transitory. While states are free to change or repeal the provisions on which modernization payments were based subsequent to receipt of incentive payments, Congress and the Department rely on states' good faith in adopting the eligibility criteria.
I'm struck by a few things here ... As I understand it, currently, unemployment law disregards the last 3 months of employment for eligibility for unemployment insurance, a result of a bygone era where employment records were kept by hand. I believe most employers in Louisiana have modernized their payment systems, and have put everything on their computers, or their accountants' computers.
The second thing I'm struck by is the fact that the Deputy Assistant Secretary is quite cognizant of the power the executive branch has compared to the power of Congress. Would this even have been a consideration under the Bush Administration?
The last thing I'm struck by is the fact that while the law states that the states should make any changes to state law permanent, they are quite willing to overlook it to ensure that as many people get the help they need.
That, folks, is what good government is about. Making sure that as many people are helped. This is a SEA change from the Bush Administration ... especially when dealing with Louisiana, as we are all too well aware of.
(Pertinent question ... though I really wonder how many Louisianans will tune in during Mardi Gras Weekend. Unfortunately, this will be the only post on the Kingfish this weekend, since my computer will not arrive until Monday. Until then, have a happy and safe Mardi Gras weekend!
- promoted by ryan)
. . . what do you think you would ask Gov. Jindal? Well, it is going to happen as David Gregory has announced that the Louisiana governor will be a guest on MTP this Sunday.
One of the hot topics that Gov. Jindal and his co-guest, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida will be facing is whether to accept all, part or none of the funds coming to their states through President Obama's economic recovery and stimulus package.
But beyond questions relating to that topic, if you were sitting in Gregory's chair, what would you like to ask Gov. Jindal?
I can't wait to read your questions. I am sure there will be some good ones.
You may remember Bobby’s 
