Angry lefty Jon DeVore inadvertantly makes a point for conservatives while objecting to Bobby Jindal's criticism of "volcano monitoring" in last night's speech.
DeVore is indignantly upset that Jindal could oppose such programs. What DeVore totally ignores, however, is that Jindal was using the program as an example of how the recently passed "stimulus" was choke-full of programs of zero stimulative value.
Was Jindal, or conservatives writ large for that matter, objecting to the existence of such programs? No, yet DeVore is quick to presume as much. Meanwhile, Jindal was making a point about the contents of the actual "stimulus" that supposedly is all about improving the economy. And of course, the profound job creating impact of "volcano monitoring" is...
This gets to the whole Republican complaint about the dubious content of the stimulus that was passed. The GOP had profound issues with the details of the package, yet as DeVore demonstrates, advocates for the "stimulus" have been quick to engage in non sequiturs at every opportunity. Republicans don't like the plan drafted by House Democrats, therefore they oppose aiding the economy in these hard times...
This is an all too familiar device. Oppose a plan to pour money into K-12 education with no accountability? Clearly, you hate kids. Have issue with a large expansion of Medicare without substantive reform of an actuarially unsound system? You hate seniors too. [Wow, you're a real jerk.]
This sort of errant logic is tiresome and should be called out at every opportunity.
UPDATE: speaking of straw man arguments from the left, behold Karl Rove calling out Obama for just such antics:
President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.Posted by Eric Earling at February 25, 2009 04:54 PM | Email This[snip]
During his news conference on Feb. 9, Mr. Obama decried an unnamed faction in the congressional stimulus debate as "a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing."
Who were these sincere do-nothings? Every House Republican voted for an alternative stimulus plan, evidence that they wanted to do something. Every Senate Republican -- with the exception of Judd Gregg, who'd just withdrawn his nomination to be Mr. Obama's Commerce secretary and therefore voted "present" -- voted for alternative stimulus proposals.
Going longer term we have the value of advanced warning for volcanoes and the new technology likely to be development in part from this money.
Posted by: giffy on February 25, 2009 04:58 PMIn general, people want the government to be prepared for natural disasters.
Shoulda picked a better ham hock from the pork barrel.
Posted by: Hello Katrina? on February 25, 2009 05:03 PMhttp://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/status.php
It's that funds going to such activities are not going to create thousands of jobs for 'the unemployed'. Sure, it'll increase the grad student employment in some geosciences departments by maybe a few dozen. It'll buy some positioning and seismic and remote sensing equipment from specialized companies who don't hire 'workers' off the street. It'll fatten up some bureaucracies. But even a few million bucks, in a trillion-dollar bill? That's only enough to bribe a University or two.
But there are damn few volcanoes in the extended US, not ten of which are likely to do much damage in the next 50 years - and as aforesaid, they're already monitored.
So volcano monitoring is a pretty fair example of how far Congress had to reach, in its unscientific desperation to pork up the bill. The volcano-monitoring community may indeed all vote Democratic (the most likely reason those funds were appropriated), but it's just too small to make a significant addition to the US economy in general.
They might just as well have porked up the whale-watchers - and probably did.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 25, 2009 06:02 PMWell, you gotta feel more comfortable knowing Ol' Joe's hard on the trail of being the watchdog of those receiving swindle-us funds. Now if he could only remember "the website number" then he'll be set to go.
Is is too early in the administration to send Joe to a little rehab of his own? We can call it recovery.gov/joes_intervention
Wow! is this the idiot that keeps on giving or what?
If the government spends that dollar instead, it sometimes is, or isn't "stimulus"? How's that?
Seems to me that a dollar spent is a dollar spent...except that I do think that there are ways to spend dollars that work to a greater or lesser degree as "stimulus".
Probably spending dollars at Walmart, for example, sends that money overseas faster than say, buying a meal at a restaurant that purchases local ingredients - so spending that targets a higher rate of local churning of a dollar is better than spending that goes to imports for example.
Why is paving a road good spending (oil dollars - imports) , and monitoring a volcano (mostly wages) bad spending?
Posted by: BA on February 25, 2009 06:55 PMUmm, perhaps because there were only two volcanic eruptions in the contintental U.S. in the entire 20th century (Lassen,St.Helens). That's a job boring enough to make the maytag repairman jealous. It's not like these USGS departments don't already suck off the department of interiors annual alloted budget anyway. Jindal was right, the eruption in federal spending is the emergency we aren't monitoring and it's a hell of alot more detrimental to our future than a fairly predictable geologic event like a Volcano eruption.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 25, 2009 07:21 PMe.g., If you oppose the war in Iraq, then you're not a patriot...
If you are pro-choice, then you're a baby murderer...
If your middle name is Hussein, then you don't love Jesus...
These ploys are indeed tiresome, but are definitely not limited to liberals.
Posted by: Hold On on February 25, 2009 07:43 PMWanting accountability for money handed out?
or
Enslaving our children to pay off a multi trillion dollar debt that gave them no benefit?
Posted by: Vince on February 25, 2009 08:01 PMIf the issue is the current recession, and getting the economy going, then a tax cut - and some certain Federal spending - is immediate. It happens NOW, during the recession.
Most of this "stimulus" spending happens months or years down the road, after the recession is over (Bernanke's testimony yesterday). What's the point of spending $1.2 trillion on "stimulus" if the vast majority of that spending happens after the recession?
You want to dump $870 billion into the economy now? The easiest - and fastest - way is to declare a corporate tax holiday for the entire year (corporate income taxes were about $850 billion last year). That's an immediate effect as companies do not have to make monthly or quarterly payments. And they'll do all they can to grow NOW since profits this year will be tax free.
It's not just what you spend, it's when you spend.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 25, 2009 10:14 PMWhat categories of "stimulus" spending are years down the road - and how might they compare to private spending? i.e. building a school versus building a factory for example - both take time.
Posted by: BA on February 26, 2009 08:07 AMIf the vast majority of the 'stimulus' money hits the streets a year or two off, it just happens to coincide with the 2010 elections. And just coincidentally is aimed largely at Democratic constituencies. That's the point.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 26, 2009 08:14 AMWhat Dole should have said was: "I would ask candidate Clinton how taking a dollar of tax from a local taxpayer, sending it to Washington DC and maintaining a Federal bureaucracy, then returning 67 cents to the local school helps educate students?"
Posted by: Stan on February 26, 2009 09:42 AMThat is why the idea of doing "stimulus" by construction is insane. It takes a private company a year or two to break ground on that new factory; it takes the Federal Government even longer.
If the Federal Government is convinced it needs to waste the $790 billion of the "stimulus" bill, and now another $410 billion expense, then the best AND fastest way to spend that money is to simply not collect it in the first place; eliminate corporate taxes for two years. That would be a literally IMMEDIATE dumping of the cash into the economy, as most companies report monthly or quarterly.
But Insufficiently Sensitive is completely correct; this is not a "stimulus" bill - this is a re-elect Slavers Act.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 26, 2009 09:51 AMConstruction isn't "insane", for public or private spending. Either way there is the upfront spending by engineers, architects, planners etc. by both entities to get something underway.
Infrastructure spending, depending on what it is, can be real fast (how quick to get paving contracts out right now for example) and reworking warehouse space for new tooling or processes for example can go quickly as well.
It's how long it takes to start the process, not just finish the project, that is important I think.
To just say, as Obama did, that "What do you think a stimulus bill is? It's a spending bill", but not care what it is spent on is ludicrous. If money is spent on infrastructure items that will lead to economic efficiencies or improved productivity (e.g., road improvements that allow trucks to move goods more efficiently, or dams that will allow cheaper hydroelectric power to be created) then those may be defensible. If people say "it doesn't matter what the money is spent on", then you end up with things where money is spent on activities that neither improve economic efficiency nor productivity. That leads to idiocy such as pay one person to dig a hole and another one to fill it--that does not help the economy.
Posted by: Bill H on February 26, 2009 12:14 PMThat said, giving a tax break to a corporation because they'll spend it better than I might as an individual - what's the evidence that this will happen?
I'm after understanding that if I had a dollar to spend on "stimulus", where's the very best place to put it, and why?
(Disclosure, I'm a corporation and an individual...)
Posted by: BA on February 26, 2009 12:34 PMJindal's idea was dumb and made for a horrendously stupid metaphor. Good luck getting that guy elected President.
Hmm, afraid to respond, you doubled the corporate tax break since your first response.
Well, I learned the Slaver Party is ramming through at least another $410 billion in "stimulus" in the next month, and just rammed through $275 billion in "mortgage assistance". So the package went from ~$870 billion to around twice that...
I know, the Slavers are burning through money so fast it's hard to keep up. Like today Obama announced his proposal for $7 TRILLION in deficits over the next 8 years. So I guess we can count on $850 billion a year average deficit. Meaning we could eliminate corporate taxation for the next 8 years as well, and be at the same point.
Construction isn't "insane", for public or private spending. Either way there is the upfront spending by engineers, architects, planners etc. by both entities to get something underway.
Yes, you spend about 10% of the money over the first 2-3 years of the project. And you employ the fewest number of people per dollar as well, since only the "highly paid white collar" workers are earning anything.
So you delay the vast majority of spending, and that which you do spend goes to the very people you're demonizing for being rich and educated and successful. It's an "interesting" approach to say the least!
It's how long it takes to start the process, not just finish the project, that is important I think.
Ever worked as a private contractor on a Government contract? And then done the same work as a private contractor for a private company? The difference in the speed of the project is nearly an order of magnitude. The LAST way to get money moving quickly is to try to funnel it through Government spending. It'll take 6 months just to fill out the proper forms to authorize the right people to investigate the potential sources to allow to bid on the projects.
It's all about the speed. The fastest way is to do tax cuts. And of course, that is also the way that not only requires the least amount of Government work (you don't need people to hand out checks or contracts), but actually REDUCES the amount of effort (and hence, cost) for Government because suddenly all those corporate tax returns GO AWAY.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 26, 2009 07:19 PMWow, that was one of the weakest arguments I've seen put forth by you to date, Cato. Remind me again how many died 30 years ago with months worth of advanced warning as to the volitility of Mt. St. Helens (and yet still defied safe zone areas) and perished May 18, 1980.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 26, 2009 09:00 PMenough of this travesty waged against us by those to whom we only LEND power! and--stop expecting the moon from the govt; nothing given you will be without strings;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 27, 2009 03:01 AMPart of the problem with the Feds is how they fund - design funds one year, construction doc's the next, skip a year, then funding to value engineer, then funding to build, etc. etc.
All of this should be fixed - neither party seems to want to do that.
As for the proposed budget, which I've not read yet, is the Iraq war costs in it from the get go? That would be a change.
Posted by: BA on February 27, 2009 08:56 AM