March 06, 2009
Where's that federal "stimulus" money going?

Well, Mike Ennis makes a compelling case at the Washington Policy Center that it sure isn't going to boost employment (I thought that was the whole point of the stimulus?):

Over half the money ($180) million is going toward 5 Nickel and TPA projects that are already funded with the two gas tax increases approved in 2003 and 2005.

[snip]

The remaining 30 on the state list are small repaving, rumble strips and guard rail projects that will either be completed with existing labor or with new employees. Those projects completed with existing labor do not count toward improving the job market in Washington. The others may result in a net increase of jobs but there won't be very many, they will be temporary and those new employees will again be unemployed by the end of summer.

I suppose if you were foolish enough to believe that this influx of money to "shovel-ready" projects was actually going to be some sort of substantive shot in the arm to aid the unemployed then you're upset. If you were appropriately cynical in advance then you aren't so newly perturbed.

Maybe instead you might hope the project list [pdf] actually addresses a number of the pressing congestion relief needs we continue to have in various parts of the state, especially in the Puget Sound region.

You'd be out of luck there too. Funny thing, accelerating re-paving projects doesn't actually end up improving anyone's commute time either.

Then Joel Connelly wonders why Republicans in the Legislature weren't all that thrilled with the package.

Posted by Eric Earling at March 06, 2009 12:03 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Conservatives have complained that not enough of the stimulus money would be spent quickly when it will do the most good. Now they are complaining about money that will be spent almost immediately. There's just no pleasing some people.

No matter how you look at it, that stimulus money represents $341M soon to be injected into the state economy that otherwise wouldn't be there. It doesn't matter whether the money is used to pay existing workers or to hire new ones. Saving a job that would otherwise be cut has the same net benefit as adding a new one.

Also, becoming unemployed at the end of the summer is better than becoming unemployed right now. Preventing or even postponing that unemployment is stimulative because the person who keeps his job still has money to spend right now and the burden on the state's unemployment insurance fund is reduced. It may be that people who become unemployed at the end of the summer will have a better chance of finding a new job before their benefits run out than someone who becomes unemployed right now. Or, we might see more stimulus funds later in the year.

Don't forget that cash is fungible. If the feds finance some project that was already funded by the state, then that money becomes freed to be spent in some other area that would have been cut. So, again, the effect is stimulative because, overall, there is more money in the economy than there would have been.

Bottom line: it looks like the $341M allocated to Washington state will be spent quickly in places where it will create or save jobs, which is exactly the point of the stimulus spending. Nothing in the WPC post refutes that.

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 12:23 PM
2. Conservatives have complained that not enough of the stimulus money would be spent quickly when it will do the most good. Now they are complaining about money that will be spent almost immediately. There's just no pleasing some people.

No matter how you look at it, that stimulus money represents $341M soon to be injected into the state economy that otherwise wouldn't be there. It doesn't matter whether the money is used to pay existing workers or to hire new ones. Saving a job that would otherwise be cut has the same net benefit as adding a new one.

Also, becoming unemployed at the end of the summer is better than becoming unemployed right now. Preventing or even postponing that unemployment is stimulative because the person who keeps his job still has money to spend right now and the burden on the state's unemployment insurance fund is reduced. It may be that people who become unemployed at the end of the summer will have a better chance of finding a new job before their benefits run out than someone who becomes unemployed right now. Or, we might see more stimulus funds later in the year.

Don't forget that cash is fungible. If the feds finance some project that was already funded by the state, then that money becomes freed to be spent in some other area that would have been cut. So, again, the effect is stimulative because, overall, there is more money in the economy than there would have been.

Bottom line: it looks like the $341M allocated to Washington state will be spent quickly in places where it will create or save jobs, which is exactly the point of the stimulus spending. Nothing in the WPC post refutes that.

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 12:23 PM
3. I see Obama was making a big deal about saving 25 police officers jobs. Yey he failed to say it's only for one year.

Sound like Clinton and his 100.000 cops doesn't it.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 6, 2009 12:31 PM
4. According to Joe Biden, if it helps build a bridge that people will use to get to your business, that's how it helps. I wonder the logic of that as well. Now if scottd will explain the benefit of taking 682M out of Washington to send them back 341M is stimulating, I'm all ears. That is assuming the 50% efficiency rule in federal spending.

Posted by: PC on March 6, 2009 12:33 PM
5. PC:

Sure -- as soon as you show me how 682M is going out of Washington right now to pay for the 341M in stimulus.

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 12:42 PM
6. prolly going to Seattle's Acorn branch

A-American
C-Communist
O-Organising
R-Reform
N-network

Posted by: Hellpig on March 6, 2009 12:45 PM
7. scottd, you are being somewhat foolish.

Most of the so-called stimulus won't be spent this year when it is supposedly (or what they said was) but later on.

When I looked at the list, it seemed Auburn scored big time. I noticed the new Spokane St. Viaduct in Seattle got 50 million and the Mercer West got 30 million.

So, scottd, I took a couple of good products. Do you really think they will be turning dirt this summer? It takes a year contracting hoops to get the thing started. That is why they say the money won't be spent for a 1 1/2 years.

My list is the city list (and Eric's town of Edmonds scored big, too) and Eric's is the state.

Posted by: swatter on March 6, 2009 01:03 PM
8. I've been opposed to this massive indebtedness program from the beginning. Not everyone here has been as convinced (Eric) that the porkulus programs stretching back to the bizarro world of the last year of the Bush Administration were not only a BAD thing, but a HORRIFIC thing. I predicted that this money was being flushed down the payoff hole.

For days last October, I was posting "Do you FEEL bailed out?" posts that made the point... over and over... that shoveling cash out for the banks, mortgages, and later, the porkulus program was merely part of the empty suited one's income redistribution program.

fringe nutter socialist types like scottd are all about taking money to give to leftist special interests under the guise of "creating jobs" (as if that was any of government's business) and in this case, requiring prevailing wage and subsequent massive wastes of money to get those jobs done.

THIS Conservative says STOP BURYING US IN DEBT. LET these people go under. Our state government has been warned, over and over, that they've lost their minds in unsustainable spending, but because the d's had to pay off the unions and keep the lower class under control, no one listened.

Well, to quote one of scottd's heroes... those "chickens have come home to roost."

Of COURSE this massive waste of money won't create any jobs. And this moronic, idiotic, "create or save" jobs bullshit is just being done to provide the empty suit with political cover for when his massive waste of money FAILS, like the huge wastes of money given to GM FAILED.

They'll say, no matter what, when this fails, that the jobs figure is 3.5 million better than it would have been.

For example, when we're down 3 million jobs, the winged monkeys will say, "well, if it wasn't for our effort to bury untold generations in debt, the job loss would have been 6.5 million."

No matter WHAT the outcome is, people like scottd will STILL take credit for the outcome.

The last two bailout efforts (and there will be many, many more bail outs) were as moronic as the $2000 cash cards handed out like smaples during Katrina.

Is anyone surprised that with this much cash floating around, huge chunks of it will vaporize like an ACORN book-keepers voter registration records?

Posted by: Hinton on March 6, 2009 01:08 PM
9. swatter:

I don't know if the projects will happen this year, although it seems possible.

I was responding to Eric's (and WPC's) contention that the projects were not stimulative because they were already approved or because they would use "existing" workers (whatever that means).

If their argument was that the money was not being spent soon enough -- that would be another thing and cause for concern.

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 01:09 PM
10. I'm worried less about where the money is going and more about where it's coming from.

Posted by: Smoley on March 6, 2009 01:13 PM
11. Scottd,

If the projects were underway, or slated to get underway, then the money is already allocated and spent. The best this funding would do is lower our $8 BILLION deficit a few hundred million.

Reducing a deficit will not help stimulate the economy; eliminating the deficit will. At best, we'll get a slight reduction in the increase of taxation that Olympia plans; at worst, we'll get the money blown to up the artistic value of the projects and be left in even worse shape...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2009 01:27 PM
12. @3: At last! A minor point that you and I can agree on. I think it's not only worthless, but downright irresponsible (in this one case) to use these funds for continuing obligations that aren't distinctly related to the downturn. Infrastructure projects make sense, but hiring police officers for one year just so they can get fired the next doesn't make sense.

Does it mean that I think the entire package should be thrown out? No. But I'd be much happier if these types of outlays would be reduced.

@8: THIS Conservative says STOP BURYING US IN DEBT. LET these people go under.

I'd have more sympathy for conservatives' pleas for fiscal responsibility if conservatives weren't cooking the books about the real costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of COURSE this massive waste of money won't create any jobs. And this moronic, idiotic, "create or save" jobs bullshit is just being done to provide the empty suit with political cover for when his massive waste of money FAILS, like the huge wastes of money given to GM FAILED.

As much as I despise companies that have a gun to the head to workers, the fact is that to let them fail and retrain all of their employees for jobs at Wal-Mart isn't a great strategy either.

They'll say, no matter what, when this fails, that the jobs figure is 3.5 million better than it would have been.

And you'll say that it would be 3.5 million worse.

Posted by: demo kid on March 6, 2009 01:30 PM
13. Slavery Party Failed Abortion writes:

I'd have more sympathy for conservatives' pleas for fiscal responsibility if we Slaver Marxists weren't cooking the books about the real costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sure you meant to say the above corrected version? After all, for the last 2+ years the Congress and the budget have been under Slaver control, and now the entire DOD is under Slaver control as well. And apparently William Gates - SecDef - is reliable and honest enough that your Obamassiah kept him on.

So how long do you intend to overlook the responsibilities YOUR PARTY has with what's going on? Control of the Senate for nearly 4 years of the Bush administration, and complete control of Congress for the last 2. Any responsibility to own up to?

For the record, it's around $600 billion so far, about 1/4 the monies blown through by Pelosi/Reid/Obama in the last 5 months...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2009 01:37 PM
14. @13: When all else fails, try to pass the buck, eh? I laugh whenever someone tries (and fails miserably) to describe the Republican Party as the "party of personal responsibility".

Posted by: demo kid on March 6, 2009 01:41 PM
15. And for the record, I DON'T overlook the responsibilities of the Democratic Party (NOT my party, by the way). I am, however, more rational about pinning blame.

Posted by: demo kid on March 6, 2009 01:46 PM
16. With scottd's clarification, I can go on.

Are some of you saying that throwing 300 million in construction dollars isn't going to put people to work? People, construction companies have been hit as hard as any, if not more since they are private.

If these projects just sat on the shelf, who would be working- the unemployment office staff?

I am thinking of a copier purchase. A new guy in town said he would do it at his cost. Do I do it or should I pocket that cash for a rainy day or do I do something else? Right now, it seems like holding on to it is the best instead of helping the economy. Tough decisions.

At least public works spending provides a tangible benefit.

Posted by: swatter on March 6, 2009 02:02 PM
17. Dan:

The state does not run a significant deficit. The $8B you refer to is the difference between spending projects and revenue projections. It will be closed somehow -- always has. Much of that closing will come through spending cuts, some may come through tax increases.

No matter what happens, the state is going to spend every dollar that is available to it. And now, they are going to spend $341M more -- which is the whole point of the stimulus bill. You may not agree on the utility of that spending, but it is going to happen. Eric and the WPC imply that money won't be spent, or that it won't preserve or create jobs. They are wrong.

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 02:06 PM
18. Slavery Party Failed Abortion wrote:

And for the record, I DON'T overlook the responsibilities of the Democratic Party

Great! Then we can agree to condemn the last two Pelosi/Reid/Obama budgets and condemn President Bush for signing them. And condemn Pelosi/Reid/Obama for the trillions being wasted right now!

Good to know you're ON RECORD with that...

(NOT my party, by the way)

So you're a member of the Socialist party? Funny choice of name if you're not a "Democrat"...

Scottd wrote:

The state does not run a significant deficit. The $8B you refer to is the difference between spending projects and revenue projections.

You know, I really can't take you seriously if you're going to try to weasel-word out of the FACTS that Washington State is facing an $8 billion deficit (or shortfall, or gap, whatever you want to call it).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2009 02:35 PM
19. At least public works spending provides a tangible benefit.

Depends on where the public works spending is spent. We all remember Ted Steven's favorite Public Works project. Should the public works spending be used to benefit trucking? railroads? Small town America?

Rich people are suffering, lets give them more tax breaks!! =P

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2009 02:36 PM
20. Swatter,

Are some of you saying that throwing 300 million in construction dollars isn't going to put people to work? People, construction companies have been hit as hard as any, if not more since they are private.

For projects already underway, the funds are already spent - there is no new "job" created. It already existed. Projects with the DOT take multiple months - if not years - to get approved and running.

For new projects, this money COULD be a stimulus, but I HIGHLY doubt any pending projects will start this year because of this cash. At best, this will defray a few percent of our deficit, or add a few jobs in 2010 or 2011.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2009 02:38 PM
21. I HIGHLY doubt any pending projects will start this year because of this cash.

Any you know this how? You have some deep insight into public works projects from your little wingnut cave?

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2009 02:42 PM
22. Dan:

Now I know that I can't take you seriously -- not that there was ever any doubt.

If you read carefully, you'll see that I acknowledged that there was an $8B gap between spending plans and projected revenue. I also said that gap would be closed somehow, simply because the state is not able to run a deficit. This has always been the case. If you don't understand that, then you have no business commenting on state budgets.

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 02:56 PM
23. Where is the "stimulus" money going? Why, right over to Ohio where it minted 25 brand new rookie cops from the police academy. Obama said in his speech that these 25 were " . . . just part of the big ideas and bold action for creating jobs in the Untied States."

T-w-e-n-t-y f-i-v-e jobs.

No mention in his speech that these jobs only have funding for one year. But why let that get in the way of his "big" ideas and "bold" action?

Obama is a boob.

Posted by: G Jiggy on March 6, 2009 03:42 PM
24. If a job saved equals a job created then gov't workers make out.

A citizen in the private sector: not so much.

Posted by: Sam Adams on March 6, 2009 03:43 PM
25. ObfusCATOr,

Actually, it's a nice high-floor apartment on a beautiful, sunny day here in Shanghai! No cave needed...

I've worked on Federal and State projects before as a contractor (back in my SONAR fisheries day), and rare was the project that went from slated to operational in under a year. Just getting it into the budget took forever. It's called experience.

And in your twisted little world, what makes you believe that new projects will start with this funding, especially with Government facing a massive deficit of $8 billion? Is it time to pile on even more spending?

Scottd,

So a shortfall is not a deficit. Got it. And the State will spend every dollar coming in on new projects, rather than using it to cover some of this shortfall?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2009 04:00 PM
26. "I also said that gap would be closed somehow, simply because the state is not able to run a deficit.

Translation: The fool that recklessly increased spending by 8 Billion in her first term, will now raise taxes to close the gap in her second term.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 6, 2009 04:04 PM
27. Sounds like Hugo is stimulated by Obama, no word on whether it's up his leg or not though--
From Bloomberg news:
Chavez Tells Obama He Should Follow Venezuela?s Socialist Path
By Daniel Cancel
March 6 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez comments on U.S. President Barack Obama and the state of the U.S. economy. He made the remarks today on Venezuelan state television.
"It's regrettable the crisis that the U.S. is living through. Millions of workers are being left in the street, thousands of companies are closing, in the U.S. there isn't a single new infrastructure project. Go look for a highway there, the country has gone bust."
"Now President Obama arrived with some announcements, hopefully, but the capitalist model and its perverse values have failed."
"I recommend to Obama -- they're criticizing him because they say he?s moving towards socialism -- come Obama, ally with us on the path to socialism, it's the only road."
"Imagine a socialist revolution in the U.S. Nothing is impossible."

Even a punk like Hugo Chavez recognizes a fellow traveller and freedom oppresor when he sees one.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 6, 2009 04:37 PM
28. Dan:

It's pretty clear you don't get it -- and I can't do any more to help you out. Maybe someone else can explain it to you in words you can understand.

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 04:50 PM
29. It will be spent in areas that voted "correctly".

Just watch.

Posted by: joebandmember on March 6, 2009 04:57 PM
30. I've worked on Federal and State projects before as a contractor (back in my SONAR fisheries day), and rare was the project that went from slated to operational in under a year. Just getting it into the budget took forever.

So things are the same as when you worked on them way back in the 70's? Items come in under budget all the time. Look at the huge bonus the I-5 contractor got when he finished early. Bonus gave the private contractor the incentive to hire workers, finish early, collect bonus.

Of course he likely needed all that money when all the funding for public works dried up. Jobs are created/saved, those people spend money and create other jobs.

Posted by: Cato on March 6, 2009 05:08 PM
31. Hey scottd.....Your full of Crap! The State does operate at a Deficit. When the State is running a Deficit they are running on borrowed Money. They sell various interest bearing instruments, some of which are called Bonds. Banks, Investment groups, Individuals or anybody who may wish to buy foreign or domestic. The most coveted of these Bonds are the Tax Free interest bearing Bonds. Meaning, the money gained on the interest over the loan aka Bond value is IRS tax free. The real Danger is that the State can default, leaving the buyers of the instrument bearing papers up a creek without a paddle. So quit acting like you're all knowing and giving Crap information that the State can run a Deficit and not, owe money. What a Joke. But then, your a Liberal.....It is Expected!

Posted by: Daniel on March 6, 2009 05:26 PM
32. Maybe someone can explain to Daniel how municipal and state bonds work and the definition of deficit spending. I just don't have the time and I doubt he'd understand anyway...

Posted by: scottd on March 6, 2009 05:34 PM
33. Scottd,

We have what's called a STRUCTURAL DEFICIT. You know, fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

ObfusCATOr,

It was throughout the 90s, and things are only worse. You know I still know people in the industry! You make a plan one year, refine it the second year, receive approval the 3rd year, then execute the 4th year. IF you're on the fast track!

See, here you're arguing that spending 2, 3, 4, or more years from now will "stimulate" the economy now. Isn't that the same as your dreaded "trickle down economics"? It does NOTHING now, except tie up MORE capital that could be used in the private sector now.

You haven't a clue of that which you speak. It's not about when it's finished - it's about when it's started.

And what's your experience with Government? Ever worked with NOAA? UW School of Applied Physics, DFO of Canada, USGS, BLM, WA Department of Wildlife, etc? Have any private contractor experience with Governments? Here's a hint for me: I'm published in Sea Technology magazine, wrote the HAC Standard for hydroacoustics for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, and was a guest lecturer of the FAST working group ICES meeting in April 1999, among many other things (including leading lectures on advanced hydroacoustics for a few hundred scientists worldwide).

Prior to the SONAR world, I was a defense contractor with Sundstrand Data Control working on systems for Mk48/Mk50 torpedoes and the PATRIOT missile system for the better part of a decade.

So what's your experience, other than being a keyboard commando? And no, going to the welfare office once a week doesn't count...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 6, 2009 05:49 PM
34. scottd@32.......It is apparent that you can't explain deficit spending. You don't know. Deficit spending is spending money that you don't have cash of your total ownership to cover such expenditures. You must cover those expenditures with loans or hopefully have incoming cash from other sources, tax revenues, etc before the bills generated by deficit spending comes due. This works for the individual, business, city or state. I do know about municipal aka city or state bonds. You don't seem to know anything except your pretense of knowing more than you actually do. Your a Phony....Your a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on March 6, 2009 06:51 PM
35. scottd-
product of public schools" "it takes a village" to spend all our $$; the $$ coming into WA is BORROWED, get it?

BORROWING & spendign does NOT create WEALTH; go back to your prestigious community college before you mix it up with people like us who live in and make the REAL small business world work!

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 6, 2009 08:09 PM
36. This B.O. massive over-spending is reckless beyond belief. It's like they don't realize this is actual borrowed money that has to be paid back or else. At our house, we are stunned at the complete disregard for taxpayers that B.O. and his democrat henchman are demonstrating. I truly hope for a voter backlash. It really could happen, when you even have known democrats like Jim Cramer publicly speaking out against the recklessness of B.O.

With B.O.'s threatened massive tax increases on small business (where most of the jobs in America are created, for those who don't know, including, apparently, B.O.) and attacks on charitable organizations, I think the slogan for his so-called budget should be "Let's kick America while it's down, shall we??"

Posted by: Michele on March 6, 2009 10:01 PM
37. massive spending, massive borrowing, cap-n-trade scam, hope-n-change, wholesale disregard for the true founding & Constitutional values and intentions;

throughout history, many countires' suicides have been committed in the name of feel-good or noble causes; i hope we do not become another stagnating, weak, fat and indifferent Europe;

i for one will now fly a Gadsden flag--

Posted by: jimmie howya doin on March 7, 2009 07:02 AM
38. #1 "Don't forget that cash is fungible. If the feds finance some project that was already funded by the state, then that money becomes freed to be spent in some other area that would have been cut. So, again, the effect is stimulative because, overall, there is more money in the economy than there would have been."

Except that:

1) this cash must be then taken from us in the form of higher taxes, regardless of what the Ds may be claiming right now about not raising taxes.

2) Keynesian economics has been completely debunked over the past forty years. There isn't a reputable major economist that still thinks that government spending is the way out of a recession. Look at history. We have not government spent our way out of an economic slowdown EVER. FDR's ridiculous programs did nothing but extend the depression. It wasn't until the war that the economy recovered.

The only proven way to stimulate the economy is to reduce the burden on the average American and let them do what they do best. Create jobs. We need to lower, not raise, taxes across the board. Not welfare programs disguised as "tax refunds" for people who don't pay taxes, but across the board tax rate cuts for people and corporations. Eliminate capital gains, eliminate the death tax. The problem with lowering taxes, however, is it doesn't create one single new federal program. And that, in a nutshell, is why the current government won't do it.

Posted by: Calvin A on March 7, 2009 08:49 AM
39. Great post Calvin A. Your absolutely correct. However, the specter of raising Taxes is just one of two ways Government pays the Bills....Inflation is the other. I think we'll see both.

Posted by: Daniel on March 7, 2009 09:45 AM
40. Demo Kid said:
"I DON'T overlook the responsibilities of the Democratic Party (NOT my party, by the way). I am, however, more rational about pinning blame."

If that isn't your party, why do you call yourself demo kid ? Nice try again. Granted, the Republicans lowered the bar in the last 8 years and most people no longer believe that they are the party of smaller government. It is already known that Dems have a Pavlovian response about growing government, which will invariably remove freedoms from the people, by definition. Bush grew it way too much and his administration removed some freedoms. However, the new POTUS has accelerated the growth, which will remove more freedoms and certainly more significant ones if the banks and health care are nationalized. Beware of the teleprompter - an effective tool in parsing words - the POTUS does not leave home without one.

So if you believe that the Dems take responsibility for their actions, do you acknowledge that the Stimulus Bill was merely a band aid (very similar to what Japan tried in the '90's) that worked to no avail ? Why don't they pay attention to that piece of history ? The investment community (i.e.Wall Street), who Obama has tried to demonize not just for what they deserved, but for everything to combat the fact that they do not like the Stimulus - as witnessed by the continued downward trend of the market. The mention of Universal Health Care will only accelerate the downward trend of the Dow.

The Dow is only an indicator, but it is representative of the overall consensus from those who know. This is different from the public perception of the Stimulus - which includes those who are clueless, still shows as split - but has been slipping also.

Posted by: KS on March 7, 2009 11:01 AM
41. #41: I haven't read your full exchange with DK, but I'm always amazed at how democrats are completely unwilling to admit that democrats--Barney Frank and Chris Dodd---CHAIRED THEIR RESPECTIVE HOUSE AND SENATE BANKING COMMITTEES for two years before the spit hit the fan. Yet they did absolutely nothing about the coming problems, and seemed to want to avoid any blame whatsoever. They wanted the power, but not the responsibility. I don't respect that.

Posted by: Michele on March 7, 2009 01:25 PM
42. scottd @ 5, if you can't see that money going out of WA do DC then you aren't looking at the income tax taken out of your check.
Or are you of that 40% that doesn't pay income tax?

Posted by: PC on March 7, 2009 03:15 PM
43. Michele, did Barney Frank and Chris Dodd reverse the fix that was made during the prior years of Republican chairmanship of the same committees together with an administration from the same party?

Or, was no fix made by those folks either?

Seems to me there's a lot of blame to be shared on both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: BA on March 8, 2009 07:59 AM
44. Great BA! Then we can agree this is not something that Barack Obama "inherited" from George W. Bush; it came as much from his own party as it did from the GOP. And he was a member of Congress when it all started breaking apart, too...

So, I guess you'll denounce President Obama's attempt to whitewash his - and his Slavery Party's - complicity in the current fiasco?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 8, 2009 04:42 PM
45. I guess BA never saw the video of Barney Fand other dem's yelling at the rep's as they asked questions about Fred & fran when they were in trouble. ?????

Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 8, 2009 05:37 PM
46. Nope, I don't think Obama inherited this from Bush and the Republican party without complicity by his fellow party members.

Just as Bush and his party had a chance to fix the problems when they had sole control over the regulatory controls, the Dem's had a chance to send a bill up to Bush to fix this as well.

Medic/Vet - who is "Barney Fand"? Hitting it a bit early tonight?

Posted by: BA on March 8, 2009 07:13 PM
47. OT, but I'd like to read the "Conceal" article and maybe comment on it--but it won't allow me to do either.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon on March 8, 2009 07:42 PM
48. BA,

Thanks for your honesty. It's time to just buckle down and solve the problem, and the blame-casting being done by the President is completely counter to what needs to happen. If he really wants to be a leader, he needs to make Pelosi and Reid sit down with the GOP leaders and hammer out some appropriate plans.

Governing by dictate, and lying about the past is not just hyper-partisan but completely unethical.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 8, 2009 09:33 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?