Obama: $50 billion in stimulus to re-save jobs

We all know about the snowball effect and how it basically compiles one thing on top of another thing on top of another thing and so on. Well witness this in strict practice under the watchful eye of the federal government and their bailout-happy trigger finger. President Bush started us down this journey in 2008 and we are still heavily paying the price.

It was months ago, well over a year now when President Obama pushed his first near-trillion dollar stimulus failure in early 2009 which did not meet administration promises nor did it help in any measurable form to improve the economy. The one thing it did do, however, was allow many local governments on the state and city level to use stimulus funds as avoidance of actually having to cut their budgets.

Flash-forward to June of 2010 and now the same issues still linger with bloated local budgets and a lagging economy. Now local leaders faced with cuts they should have made last year are in the same predicament of hoping the federal government will once again bail them out.

Enter Obama, stage left, with a new $50 billion plan of “emergency” bailout funds:

President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters” and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama defended last year’s huge economic stimulus package, saying it helped break the economy’s free fall, but argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. “We must take these emergency measures,” he wrote in an appeal aimed primarily at members of his own party.

First of all, this is the same tired rhetoric we’ve heard for over a year now that failing to doll out government stimulus funds means the next time your house is on fire, there will be no fire department to put out the flames. Also, without Obama’s stimulus dollars, all teachers will be fired and public schools will close. These are exaggerated lies we’re being fed and none of it has panned out in reality.

Furthermore, turns out these are the same “saved” jobs being target as last year:

Besides, the jobs targeted by these bloc-grant bailouts are the exact same ones claimed by the White House last year. When do people in Minnesota get to stop bailing out California bureaucrats? Shouldn’t the states themselves start working on making rational judgments about the size and sustainability of their own governments? If it takes Minnesota money to float California, and Texas money to float Minnesota, then there is no accountability to the citizens of a state at all. It’s a shell game and nothing more.

And this is all money just going down a rathole anyway. The bailout last year didn’t solve the problem, but it did add over a hundred billion dollars to the national debt. Obama now proposes to send $50 billion more in imaginary money after bad imaginary money to, once again, avoid tough economic choices by kicking the can down the road at the expense of future generations. It’s becoming the theme of his presidency, which is profligate irresponsibility combined with an utter lack of strategic comprehensive growth policies.

We must end the bailout mentality and stop the madness coming from Washington. It is fiscal insanity to watch the federal government try to step in and keep padding the budgets of states and counties with taxpayer dollars.

I have watched personally here in Virginia where Governor Bob McDonnell walked into office in 2009 to a $4 billion dollar shortfall left by the previous Democratic Governor. Amazingly enough, McDonnell was able to cut enough from the state budget and shift funds around to fill in holes on necessary services and do it all without raising a single dime in taxes. Why can’t the federal government live on this model? Why can’t other states do the same? Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey is attempting to do a similar thing by holding the line on spending, cutting items from the budget and refusing to raise taxes to make up the difference.

It can be done yet Washington refuses to show even a glimmer of competence with the ability to make real decisions on what fits in the budget and what must be cut. President Obama, as the great enabler, has helped push this model to the state and local level by offering these ridiculous bailout funds for local budgets where they need to do some trimming to make up the difference.

I have a great thought which occurred to me, perhaps we need a team of McDonnell/Christie to run in 2012 as the fiscally conservative powerhouse with strong records in their respective states to turn Washington around. One can only dream…

  • Bill Hedges

    I agree with Nate on nearly every word that escapes his mouth. Man has taste and married above his station in life. I’ve only found one specific area I differ with him on. Bush attempts to save our economy. TARP.

    I won’t provide my normal links. Done countless times here. Will just surmise their content, after all they are embedded in political beliefs. Maybe a few links.

    Our fiscal mess was caused by Clinton. Begun by Carter, Bill expanded, provided money, forced F/F and banks to make risky loans to minorities and poor with low requirement standards to buy homes. Using Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act with TEETH.

    Billy boy signs repeal of Glass-Steagall/Stiegel Act.

    “Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed along party lines by a Republican vote in the Senate. The banking industry had been lobbying for the repeal since the 1980s, complaining it couldn’t compete with other securities firms. The banks said they would only go into low risk securities, and this would reduce risk for their customers by diversifying their business. By consolidating investment and commercial banks, repeal of Glass-Steagall led to banks being too big to fail. This required their bailout in 2008-2009 to avoid another depression.”

    Ouch !!! Republicans for. Truth hurts. But Bill Clinton SIGNED. Law by his SIGNATURE.

    Article says exactly why Bill C. wanted this repeal. Goes alone with Community Reinvestment Act . Article says:

    “The banks said they would only go into low risk securities, and this would reduce risk for their customers by diversifying their business”

    BANG_ Smoking gun to our recession. Risky Bill C. home owners program. Money to oxidized the fires to burn hot.

    Stage set for recession before Bush took office.

    Now, Bush knew there was a problem. Starting warning year he was election. Countless times he spoke up. Tried to get legislation but failed by all Democrat vote.

    BANG. Now Democrat fault. I’m feeling better almost. Though we still get recession.

    To regurgitate and expand a bit, Bush is nearly pristine clean of blame for recession. His housing plan was a much better choice than Clintons.


    “They actually turned out to be a money maker for the federal government. From the Wall Street Journal”:

    “The Treasury Department on Friday said the money repaid to taxpayers for government funds used to bail out U.S. companies has for the first time surpassed the amount of loans. The Treasury, in its May report to Congress on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said TARP repayments reached $194 billion, $4 billion more than the outstanding debt of $190 billion.”


    Profit. This link is LIBERAL. Must be true.

    Just to be belligerent, was TARP money and profit deducted from Bush’s National Debt or obama’s National Debt. Spent by obama ? My money is on the latter. Anyone know answer ? Didn’t obama spend that money ?

    As far as TARP, was paid back with profit. I say it saved our economy.

    I believe that is the extent of bone of contention between Nate and I. Of course my “I say it saved our economy” is conjecture on my part. I base this on history. Ability to get business loans was rough even with TARP. Without TARP it would be that much more impossible. Surely worsening matters.

    Unlike liberal point of view, TARP did not open the flood gates to obama. No carte blanche.

    Using one example I pick Car company. Bankruptcy did not have to be given special treatment by obama. Politically it did with unions being big obama supporter. I contend lower wagers and other concessions in normal bankruptcy would have made GM more lean and mean. Profitable. Though unions would not be ecstatic with Democrat party.

    Obama is pushing tax cuts for small business. He says to CREATE JOB. Yes obama said that. UNBELIEVEABLE isn‘t it. He could of done that before all his DEBT.

    Tax cuts would not have saved WALL STREET. No repeal of Glass-Steagall would have helped or Bush’s regulations.

  • Well Bill, you got me in that TARP was paid back at a higher amount than what they handed out.

    I can’t argue with your facts except to say that I believe TARP sent us down the bailout road. As in, once Bush was on board with it, the bailout became “bi-partisan” and gave Obama an easier door to ram his $700+ billion porkulus bill through.

    This is a double-edged sword.

    Did TARP save the economy from falling further? Possibly.

    Did it enable the Democrats to push even more bailouts through without much resistance? Definitely.

    TARP was not a principled approach to the solution, it was a knee-jerk reaction by politicians.

  • Bill Hedges

    I must disagree about knee jerk reason. Could easily had been a FIGHT FOR SURVIVIAL:



    TARP was enacted about a month after this event. Was this on Bush’s mind ?

  • Bill Hedges


    Here is a link you may find helpful. I know I do not remember all historical events leading to recession. Tells you who was President and who controled each side of Congress: