Who Used the Filibuster More?

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #8

Who used the filibuster more: the Democrats when they were the minority party with a Republican President, or the Republicans when they were the minority party with a Republican President? An interesting question. Certainly, the Republican majority was highly upset with the Democratic minority, even threatening the nuclear option which would have eliminated the minority's right to filibuster judicial nominations. 

What do the numbers say? Well, in the 110th Congress which featured the Republicans in the minority, there were 104 cloture votes as of Oct. 3rd last year. In the 109th Congress which featured a Democratic minority, there were 54 votes.

What have we learned? We have learned that when the Republicans are in the minority, they are the party that uses every trick in the book to prevent the government from helping the American people.

Which is a Better ...

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #7

Which is a better stimulus: tax cuts or infrastructure spending? Well, if you are conservative you argue for the tax cuts. Of course, if you are a conservative, you always argue for tax cuts. That's the problem with ideologues. No matter the situation, the same thing is needed. The economy is soaring? Tax cut time! An expensive war is needed? Tax cut time! The economy is cratering? Tax cut time!

Well, are tax cuts effective stimulus? That's an interesting question. Moody's, known for their independent research, has a method for ranking the different types of stimulus. For every dollar spent on that type of stimulus, Moody has determined the dollar effect on GDP. For example, for every dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits there is a $1.64 increase in GDP. Good stimulus. Easy enough to understand, right?

Well, here are the numbers. For every dollar spent on a cut in the corporate tax rate results in a 30 cent increase in GDP. For every dollar spent on making the Bush tax cuts permanent there is a 29 cent increase in GDP. For every dollar spend making the capital gain tax cut permanent, there is a 37 cent increase in GDP.

For every dollar spent directly on infrastructure spending, there is $1.59 increase in the GDP. For every dollar used to temporarily increase food stamps, there is a $1.73 increase in GDP. That would be game, set and match.

What have we learned? Government spending is better than tax cuts for helping the economy. This begs the question: are conservatives ever right?

A Lesson from Paul Krugman

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #6

Here is the Nobel Prize winner with today's lesson on spending. You can read the entire thing by clicking here.

I don’t think Tyler understands what I (and everybody else) means by government spending. I don’t mean the government handing someone a rebate check; I mean the government actually, you know, buying something — say, building a bridge.

...

If the government builds a bridge, the boost to aggregate demand comes not because people are “tricked” into feeling wealthier but because the government is building a bridge.

...

I don’t know how a trained economist can make something this simple so complicated.

Is It True?

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #5

Is it true that social security will take in more than it earns by 2010? The esteemed David Gregory, the new host of NBC's top rated Meet the Press, says it is, and surely, he'd know. Right?

Well, no. I guess not.

You see according to the Social Security Administration ...

The year-by-year relationship between income and cost rates shown in figure II.D2 illustrates the expected pattern of cash flows for the OASDI program over the full 75-year period. Under the intermediate assumptions, the OASDI cost rate is projected to increase rapidly and first exceed the income rate in 2017, producing cash-flow deficits thereafter. Redemption of trust fund assets will allow continuation of full benefit payments on a timely basis until 2041, when the trust funds are projected to become exhausted. This redemption process will require a flow of cash from the General Fund of the Treasury. Pressures on the Federal Budget will thus emerge well before 2041. Even if a trust fund’s assets are exhausted, however, tax income will continue to flow into the fund. Present tax rates are projected to be sufficient to pay 78 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2041 and 75 percent of scheduled benefits in 2082.

What have we learned? We have learned that the SSA will take in enough money to pay benefits without dipping into the trust fund. Then, using the trust fund designed for this very purpose, the SSA will be able to pay full benefits until 2041. If no changes are made, they will still be able to pay 75% of scheduled benefits by 2082. Get that? Full benefits until 2041. At least.

Does this sound like a crisis to you?

Read This ...

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #4

Read the list at this link and tell me, what have you learned?

A. Lots of banks are failing.

B. Georgia has a disproportionally large number of banks failing.

C. All of the above.

Needless to say, you should have learned C. One more reason that I'm proud to be a Georgian.

Is the Size of the Stimulus Package ...

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #3

Is the size of the stimulus package currently working its way through Congress "breathtaking in size and scope" as suggested by The Washington Post? Well, in the words of Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research ...

It might be helpful to tell readers that the collapse of the housing industry has lead to a $450 billion falloff in the pace of annual residential construction, the loss of $8 trillion in housing wealth will reduce annual consumption by around $450 billion, with the loss of $8 trillion in stock wealth leading to a further decline in annual consumption of $250 billion. In addition, the collapse of the non-residential real estate bubble will likely reduce annual demand by another $200 billion. This gives us a total decline in annual demand of around $1350 billion or $2,700 billion over two years. Next to a demand loss of $2,700 billion, an $825 billion stimulus package seems rather small.

So, what have we learned? Well, the size and scope of the stimulus package is not so great. In fact, I think further research will show the package isn't nearly as large as it needs to be.

Is Michael Steele ...

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #2

Is the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele a proud Republican? Well, during his Senate campaign in 2006, Steele printed yard signs indicating he was a Democrat in order to confuse the electorate into electing him. It did not work, of course. Sen. Cardin handed Mr. Steele a rather easy defeat. This makes Mr. Steele, of course, the perfect chairman for the RNC. He's a loser, much as they have been over the last two electoral cycles.

What have we learned here? Is Michael Steele a proud Republican? Yes, he is. I don't think his attempt to mislead the voters was indicative of his being ashamed of his party. Of course, he should be ashamed of the party, but that's another story.

Is Rush Limbuagh ...

8 Things to Learn for 2/2/2009 #1

Is Rush Limbaugh the titular head of the Republican Party? You be the judge.

Here's a comment made by super conservative Rep. Phil Gingrey (R - GA) ...

I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach. I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.

Seems like a fairly reasonable position for a Republican to stake out on the issues of the day. You might be wondering, was there any fall out to Gingrey's comments? What do you think? The very next day, Rep. Gingrey placed a nauseating call to Rush Limbaugh's show and I think I'll let the transcript stand on its own.

I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday to Politico. Basically the intent of my words to them was to discuss the unique position of congressional Republicans and our leadership, particularly John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments (laughs) and I just wanted to tell you, Rush, and -- and all our conservative giants who help us so much to maintain our base and grow it and get back this majority that I regret those stupid comments.

So, here we have one of the most conservative members of the house begging for Rush Limbaugh's forgiveness. What have we learned? Rush Limbaugh is the titular head of the Republican party.