Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Trillion-Dollar Stimulus
The Wall Street Journal has a gruesome article today that pushes the stimulus price tag into 10-figure la-la land and lists in depressing detail the Lobbyists Gone Wild on Capitol Hill this week.
The magnitude of the spending bill, and its urgency, drew a swarm of lobbyists seeking money and tax breaks. The concrete and asphalt industries battled over how the government should spend billions proposed for road and bridge repairs, while dairy and beef cattle producers butted heads over talk that the government might buy up dairy cattle for slaughter to drive up depressed milk prices. Unions backed infrastructure spending. States sought budget bailouts. [...]
"I would love to not have to spend this money," Mr. Obama said, according to individuals familiar with the president's meetings with Republicans.
Hmmm. The reluctant interventionist. Where have we heard that one before?
Meanwhile, the Volokh Conspiracy's Ilya Somin asks a relevant question for those dwindling few who care about recent legislative history and spending tax money wisely: Whatever happened to the last big infrastructure bill?
These days, we are repeatedly told that we have to pass a massive new infrastructure spending bill in order to fix our "crumbling" roads and bridges. Everyone seems to have forgotten that just three years ago, in August 2005, Congress enacted the biggest federal public works program in American history, spending a massive $286.4 billion on the 2005 highway bill. At that time, President Bush and congressional leaders from both parties told us that the new highway bill would fix our infrastructure problems.
Finally, over at the Reason Foundation's Out of Control blog, number-cruncher Anthony Randazzo breaks down the (many) costs and (few) benefits of a stimulus he currently estimates at $1.1 trillion.
Travis|1.28.09 @ 9:05AM|#
"dairy and beef cattle producers butted heads over talk that the
government might buy up dairy cattle for slaughter to drive up
depressed milk prices."
That's a interesting way to stimulate the economy. Make milk
products more expensive so poor people can't afford to buy them
anymore.
creech|1.28.09 @ 9:08AM|#
Lobbyists? Special Interests? Weren't we voters led to believe
these guys would be absent in the new regime? While cynical
libertarians should not be surprised, what about those who - in
good faith - plumped for
change? Perhaps they were cynical all along too - several
colleagues at work, big-time Obama supporters - have now admitted
"I never believed half of what he was saying" or "How naive you are
to think things would change" or
"The economic crisis changed everything, once the votes were
counted."
Vines & Cattle|1.28.09 @ 9:09AM|#
The forced dumping of 300,000 dairy cattle would wreck the beef
market, so everything would balance out.
Let your babies eat steak!
|1.28.09 @ 9:10AM|#
But I thought it was a crisis. Surely Congress wouldn't
pass a massive pork bill during a crisis.
Even if you agree with the idea of government spending us out of a
recession, surely it matters where the money goes.
This is a God-awful Congress, and Obama's going to go down with it
if he doesn't learn the word no in a hurry.
sage|1.28.09 @ 9:14AM|#
I love how some of the Republicans are saying they want to vote against this latest stimulus. They have no right to say anything; they have just as much pork on their hands as the Dems do.
A Modest Proposal|1.28.09 @ 9:15AM|#
Let's bring the free market to Reason!
A simple comment rating system would eliminate most of the trolls
(or at least consign them to posting below the radar of most of us)
and make this a great place for libertarians to hang out
again.
These kinds of rating systems are used at Slashdot, Urban
Dictionary, DKos, etc and aren't hard to implement.
Bring reasoned discourse back to Reason!
|1.28.09 @ 9:16AM|#
He told them to remove 200 million in contraceptives for poor
women and std research from the stimulus package. It's a start.
Hopefully he will keep them in check. Now time to remove the Chula
Vista, CA dog park and Austin, TX frisbee golf course. (I wish I
were kidding.)
Is the new reason game to drink every time you include Hope of
Change in a comment about Obama? Am I late to this party? I don't
mind trying to catch up.
Reinmoose|1.28.09 @ 9:22AM|#
Now time to remove the Chula Vista, CA dog park and Austin,
TX frisbee golf course.
NOOOOOOOOO! Look, let's be reasonable here. If I get my dog parks
and frisbee golf courses, surely there's a..uhh..uhh.. riverfront
boardwalk or $30 million tourism building that we can afford you,
huh? Maybe a nice bike-trail system? hmm?
Reinmoose|1.28.09 @ 9:24AM|#
Of the various articles that I've seen they describe Obama
meeting with business leaders and CEOs about his plans for the
stimulus.
What absurd naivity his supporters have. When Bush is talking with
CEOs, it's because he's going to give them what they want. When
Obama is talking with CEOs, it's a responsible measure to reach
across the isle and not allow his ideology to get in the way of
responsible decision making...
TallDave|1.28.09 @ 9:26AM|#
These days, we are repeatedly told that we have to pass a
massive new infrastructure spending bill in order to fix our
"crumbling" roads and bridges. Everyone seems to have forgotten
that just three years ago, in August 2005, Congress enacted the
biggest federal public works program in American history, spending
a massive $286.4 billion on the 2005 highway bill.
Wait, wait. Are you saying there's an upper limit on how much we
can usefully spend on infrastructure?
I stumbled across an apropos Ayn Rand essay last night, which
begins:
Since "economic growth" is today's great problem, and our
present Administration is promising to "stimulate" it -- to achieve
general prosperity by ever wider government controls, while
spending an unproduced wealth...
As relevant today as when it was published in the LA Times in
1962.
A Modest Proposal |1.28.09 @ 9:28AM|#
That's not me!
I propose we keep the comments just as they are.
|1.28.09 @ 9:30AM|#
Kirsten Gillibrand was my representative and now she's my Senator. I'm going to email her once her Senate office has a website and tell her I'd like her to vote NO on any stimulus package that includes any pork whatsoever unless my area gets a full refund in the amount of all federal income taxes paid. In that case, I would request she vote YES.
|1.28.09 @ 9:31AM|#
"I would love to not have to spend this money," Mr. Obama
said
Easily done, Mr. President. Easily done.
Unless, of course, you're just lying to us. I believe it was your
very own chief of staff who said it would be shame to waste a good
crisis.
Xeones|1.28.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Let your babies eat steak!
You're assuming the slaughtered cattle will be sold for beef, and
not simply burned or buried. Mighty big assumption, my
friend.
Yo, fuck Washington DC.
sage|1.28.09 @ 9:34AM|#
What absurd naivity his supporters have.
I swear to God that when I read that I saw "worshippers" and not
"supporters." Too weird.
Reinmoose|1.28.09 @ 9:34AM|#
Nick -
KG voted against the TARP both times. Hopefully she's smart enough
to vote against this bailout stimulus too and won't do the party
thing.
Taktix®|1.28.09 @ 9:41AM|#
This sucks.
Producers of goods and owners of over-priced assests have been
raking in the cash for the last decade.
Now that prices are coming down a bit, which makes things easier
for the rest of us, we have to fucking pay to make things
more expensive?!?
And we're talking about food and housing, two basic fucking needs.
Fuck!
|1.28.09 @ 9:41AM|#
LOL, must be nice having barrels of cash lying around.
RT
www.total-privacy.us.tc
|1.28.09 @ 9:44AM|#
What absurd naivity his supporters have. When Bush is
talking with CEOs, it's because he's going to give them what they
want. When Obama is talking with CEOs, it's a responsible measure
to reach across the isle and not allow his ideology to get in the
way of responsible decision making...
Utterly classic in-group-out-group thinking. The common term is
hyprocrisy. It's really depressing how people can be governed
purely by their affiliations.
I say that knowing I'm only marginally better, if that much.
Xeones|1.28.09 @ 9:45AM|#
I second Taktix®'s "Fuck!" and raise him a "Jesus H. Christ On A Pony Shit."
Fixer Upper|1.28.09 @ 9:47AM|#
LOL, must be nice having barrels of other people's cash lying around.
gollum|1.28.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Oh goody, they're sending $4 billion ACORN's way too.
I guess the top priority is recruiting more socialists.
Shannon Love|1.28.09 @ 9:57AM|#
Now time to remove the Chula Vista, CA dog park and Austin,
TX frisbee golf course.
What? Typical regional bigotry. Austin, TX desperately needs
frisbee gold courses. Frisbee golf keeps slacker preoccupied so
they don't choke the street corners with performance art, err,
performances. I tell you its hell! We can't possible afford to
build it ourselves because were a state capital and the seat of a
major university giving us a crushing parasitic class to
carry.
Have some mercy!
adrian|1.28.09 @ 9:58AM|#
didn't people starve the last time they slaughtered animals/burned fields to prop up prices?
|1.28.09 @ 10:04AM|#
I demand a rating system so group-think can tell me which posts are worth reading and which contain bad ideas. We can be just like KOS! While were at it lets add buddy and ignore lists like demUnderground. Also, I want to be able to set posts to disappear if they have too many negatives, just like youtube. That would be awesome and I'd probably renew my subscription to Reason.
|1.28.09 @ 10:12AM|#
Dairy cattle do not make particularly good eating; better than
nothing, but not exactly an awesome gourmet feast. If you then
consider the rational decision to cull the oldest, and
lowest-producing beasts from the herd, you get....
cat food.
Which is actually good, because I can really get behind a
government program to drive down the costs of cat food. Play
on!
sage|1.28.09 @ 10:13AM|#
Adrian, shhh! The important thing is that they are doing something. We're not looking for a history lesson over here.
|1.28.09 @ 10:16AM|#
Oh goody, they're sending $4 billion ACORN's way
too.
Pork is one thing, but if you don't make your pay-offs you'll never
get anywhere in politics.
Taco Bell|1.28.09 @ 10:19AM|#
Dairy cattle do not make particularly good eating
We do allright with 'em.
Mike M.|1.28.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Apparently among the things that needs to be stimulated is the grass on the National Mall, which was trampled by the hordes of Obamaphiles, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Elemenope|1.28.09 @ 10:31AM|#
As relevant today as when it was published in the LA Times
in 1962.
And did the economic world end when they passed a stimulus in 1962,
over and against the sage words of Ayn Rand?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the stimulus is a good idea. But
some folk around here are absolutely addicted to eschatological
fervor: *all* actions taken contrary to Austrian economic doctrine
*will necessarily* cause the end of the world as we know it.
|1.28.09 @ 10:33AM|#
*will necessarily* cause the end of the world as we know
it
I blame Warren the Doomsayer (PBUH).
Reinmoose|1.28.09 @ 10:44AM|#
From each according to his ability political ties, to each according to his need political ties.
Shannon Love|1.28.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Elemenope,
But some folk around here are absolutely addicted to
eschatological fervor: *all* actions taken contrary to Austrian
economic doctrine *will necessarily* cause the end of the world as
we know it.
I think you reading a little much into this. The quote form the
L.A. Times simply showed that we've tried the same thing repeatedly
in the past with little effect.
The idea of stimulus is based on the concept of the economy as a
simple system like a boiling pot. It assumes that since a vibrant
economy has a lot motion, that that anything which creates economic
motion will revive the economy. Unfortunately, the motion in a
vibrant economy isn't random, its focused and purposeful. Just
getting people to randomly build things doesn't create the
purposeful motion needed for prosperity.
There is no concrete evidence at all that government spending
stimulates the economy in the short run. This is just the political
class trying to exploit bad times for their own benefit. It's not
the end of the world but it is a step down the long slope to
stagnation unless reversed somewhere down the road.
Seward|1.28.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Well, both major parties have their "Dear Leader" elements and probably always will. Indeed, that's probably one of the major "benefits" of parties.
|1.28.09 @ 10:58AM|#
SugarFree | January 28, 2009, 10:33am | #
*will necessarily* cause the end of the world as we know it
I blame Warren the Doomsayer (PBUH).
You know, my fifth grade teacher, Mrs. DeVoise actually predicted
that civilization wouldn't be able to withstand my influence.
Seward|1.28.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Elemenope,
But some folk around here are absolutely addicted to
eschatological fervor: *all* actions taken contrary to Austrian
economic doctrine *will necessarily* cause the end of the world as
we know it.
The end of the world as we knew it is something which happens all
the time. As for the "Austrian doctrine," I'm not quite sure what
you mean by that exactly, but if you mean the Austrian theory of
the business cycle it seems like a good explanation in part for why
we are where we are today. I think for a time we've thought that we
had tamed the central banks (who were at the heart of the Great
Depression) and that may not be the case.
|1.28.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Warren,
Sounds like a wise woman.
My 5th grade teacher accused my of lying when I told her a could
speed-read and didn't back down even after I demonstrated it. (I
got to Pluto long before anybody else and it made her very angry
for some reason.)
Elemenope|1.28.09 @ 11:07AM|#
(I got to Pluto long before anybody else and it made her
very angry for some reason.)
At least teachers now can crush spirits by denying the planethood
of Pluto. To tools they have now they could not have dreamed of
then!
Reinmoose|1.28.09 @ 11:12AM|#
SugarFree -
it's been my direct experience that teachers really hate it when
you prove them wrong, even if it's not publicly and has nothing to
do with the subject they teach, although especially when it's
publicly and has something to do with the subject they teach.
I had a statistics professor who absolutely despised me for not
needing to come to her office hours, or even hand in most of the
graded homework to get an A in a class that everyone else thought
was hard. She told me that I was going to be disappointed when it
came test time, but alas - with a weighting on homework of 10% of
your grade and me only handing in 4 of 10 of them, I got an A in
the class.
Elemenope|1.28.09 @ 11:19AM|#
it's been my direct experience that teachers really hate it
when you prove them wrong
Only the bad ones. Many teachers lose sight of what exactly it is
they are doing.
Seward|1.28.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Elemenope,
Oh, and FYI, in Feb. 1929 Hayek predicted the onset of what would
become the Great Depression.
|1.28.09 @ 11:23AM|#
That's a interesting way to stimulate the economy. Make milk
products more expensive so poor people can't afford to buy them
anymore.
That's where you might be wrong. We may be in the world of Giffen Goods! We
could make food so expensive that it's all they can afford to
buy!
Sure, there's no empirical evidence for Giffen goods, but that
doesn't mean we can't try. Besides, you don't trust empirical
evidence that contradicts your prior assumptions, do you?
That's what I thought. Neither do I!
Reinmoose|1.28.09 @ 11:24AM|#
LMNOP
I was speaking specifically about when they're wrong about
you, but yes, sometimes even wrt the actual material.
That's a little harder to prove, though, since I imagine a lot of
students who differ in opinion with their teachers/professors think
they've proven them wrong. I'm referencing mostly predictions about
the students.
The Angry Optimist|1.28.09 @ 11:29AM|#
But some folk around here are absolutely addicted to
eschatological fervor: *all* actions taken contrary to Austrian
economic doctrine *will necessarily* cause the end of the world as
we know it.
Note one: Ayn Rand probably was not an Austrian.
Note two: She didn't say anything about the economic world
ending.
Elemenope|1.28.09 @ 11:39AM|#
I'm referencing mostly predictions about the
students.
Ah, I misunderstood. Yes, I would agree that many teachers badly
misjudge the relative capacities of their students.
Ayn Rand probably was not an Austrian.
I agree. That's why I said "some people around here". I'm pretty
sure that Ayn Rand isn't around here.
She didn't say anything about the economic world
ending.
Well, yes and no. There is a eschatological flavor to Atlas
Shrugged for certain.
Ayn Rand\'s Ghost|1.28.09 @ 11:42AM|#
Of course I'm here, you twit - where else would I be? Now, get on your knees and worship my intellect, you putz.
The Angry Optimist|1.28.09 @ 11:59AM|#
I agree. That's why I said "some people around here". I'm
pretty sure that Ayn Rand isn't around here.
You should understand that smacking down a Rand quote and then
jumping off into smacking down Austrian fanbois will be
misconstrued as you linking the two in belief.
There is a eschatological flavor to Atlas Shrugged for
certain.
It's also science fiction.
Vines & Cattle|1.28.09 @ 12:03PM|#
"You're assuming the slaughtered cattle will be sold for
beef, and not simply burned or buried. Mighty big assumption, my
friend."
Um no, not really.
"The proposal would use taxpayer dollars to raise dairy prices
by buying older dairy cows from farmers, taking approximately 6.5
billion gallons of milk off the market. This would result in nearly
320,000 additional head of cattle entering the beef market, which
could drastically reduce the price of beef cattle."
Beef
Today
There are no plans to burn or bury. You know what they say about
assumptions....
Elemenope|1.28.09 @ 12:14PM|#
You should understand that smacking down a Rand quote and
then jumping off into smacking down Austrian fanbois will be
misconstrued as you linking the two in belief.
Only by people who have a habit of reading too deeply into the
text.
It's also science fiction.
Granted.
Kolohe|1.28.09 @ 1:05PM|#
There is no concrete evidence at all that government
spending stimulates the economy in the short run.
Now, this is simply not correct. It is both empirically proven and
intuitively obvious that government spending stimulates the economy
in 'the short run.' It's the *long* run where everyone disagrees on
the effects and consequences.
Kolohe|1.28.09 @ 1:09PM|#
from the late 90's to mid oughts, houses exibited behavior much likely a Giffen good. Which is why we're in the mess we're in.
|1.28.09 @ 2:58PM|#
To be sure, Beef Today is claiming that all those dairy cows are
entering the beef market in support of their own lobbying campaign
for price supports/subsidies.
Grain of salt, people. Grain. Of. Salt.
Vines & Cattle|1.28.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Ninety percent of all subsidies go to just five crops: corn,
rice, cotton, wheat, and soybeans.
You won't find me defending any farm subsidies, but beef producers
depend far more on cheap subsidized corn and trade agreements than
it does outright subsidies from the USDA. The dairy industry is far
more in bed with the government. They've got state supported
cartels for god's sake.
|1.28.09 @ 8:30PM|#
R C Dean you said,
To be sure, Beef Today is claiming that all those dairy cows are entering the beef market in support of their own lobbying campaign for price supports/subsidies.
I assume you RTA and are just being sarcastic. Beef is not
subsidized by the government.
From the beef today article.
"The cattle industry is not subsidized by the government, nor do we wish to be," says NCBA President and Arizona rancher Andy Groseta.
"However, we are subject to the unintended consequences of policy directed towards other sectors of agriculture, such as the dairy industry. Flooding the market with beef and driving down the price for our products will be devastating for America's cattle producers."
|1.28.09 @ 8:45PM|#
The buyout proposal points out just how ignorant our political
class is.
Buyout programs have been tried before and they did not cut milk
production but were very effective at visiting economic devastation
on the non subsidized beef industry.
Our
Next Criminal Class: Milk Bootleggers
Congress attempted to solve the dairy surplus problem in 1986-87 by paying dairymen over $l.3 billion to slaughter their cows.
Under the Dairy Termination Program, 144 dairy owners got over a million dollars apiece to take a five-year vacation from dairying, and one California producer received $20 million.
Yet, as the General Accounting Office noted, "Total milk production did not decrease because nonparticipating farmers increased their production during the program period."[18]
Mn March 29, 1986, the USDA announced that it would soon be sending 1.6 million dairy cows to slaughter--far more cows than anyone expected to be slaughtered under the dairy buyout program.
That severely disrupted beef markets, costing ranchers scores of millions of dollars in losses and bankrupting some cattlemen.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245