The House passed a (very small) bill to give aid to states today. The bill is intended to ease the burden of Medicaid and prevent teachers from being laid off. Pawlenty's office released the following statement:
"The federal government should not deficit spend to bail out states and special interest groups. Minnesota balanced its budget without raising taxes and without relying on more federal money. The federal government's reckless spending spree must come to an end. "
Putting aside the fact that Pawlenty doesn't understand how stimulus works, the bill is completely paid for. A couple tax loopholes are closed and the stimulus extension of SNAP (food stamps) was cut. I actually disagree with how they paid for it--indeed, I disagree with bothering to pay for it at all--but those are the facts. And T-Paw's statement bears no relation to them.
Edit to add: In case anyone is curious, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that Minnesota will get $346m for Medicaid and $167m for education.
The Star Tribune recently reported on a couple construction projects that demonstrate what stimulus projects can accomplish, and why we need them right now. A project being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which is usually what's meant by "stimulus", is the Bishop Whipple Federal Building at Ft. Snelling. The other is the new bridge over the Mississippi at Hastings. That's actually a state project, but the economy doesn't care where the money came from. People care because the federal government has far more ability to engage in fiscal stimulus than states, but the effect of the money is the same. What is the effect?
This article on CEO compensation has an interesting statistic and interesting thought about the effect of excessive executive compensation.
Consider the following:
1. A reduction in the CEO pay multiple to the 1980 level would allow the average U.S. company to hire an additional 277 workers. This reduction, applied across the Wilshire 5000 index, would create nearly 1.4 million jobs.
2. Executive compensation paid in salary and bonuses is taxed at the highest possible rate. These tax receipts, paid to the federal government, are being used to fund unemployment benefits and stimulus spending.
Think about that for a minute. Instead of hiring prospective workers, executives are (indirectly) paying the same people to stay at home -- unemployed. Alternatively, if an executive is compensated with a massive stock award (rather than salary), long-term shareholders (including 401(k) investors and pensioned employees) are "pickpocketed" by the equity dilution.
It's hard to imagine a greater destruction of economic utility and shareholder equity.
The writer, John DeFeo, seems to disagree with the concept of government stimulus, given that he also said government spending is growing at he expense of private job creation. He's wrong about that, and the point of this post is to defend the use of fiscal stimulus and call for more. It happens the part I quoted helps explain why the spending has to come from the government, not from business.
Via MinnPost, this is Tim Pawlenty's view of how stimulus works, from Meet the Press:
"So If I took a dollar from you, David - this is what government does - I'm extracting a dollar from you, in the form of taxes. I'm the government. I take it from you, subtract 20 or 30 percent for overhead, because I'm going to manage, squirrel around, do compliance checks, audits, bureaucracy and the like.
Ok, I'll give him the general "government is inefficient" crap for the sake of argument, and because it's often true, though likely not to the extent Pawlenty thinks. Moving on.
Occasional Minnesota Governor and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty had yet another of his talking points debunked today. The Bureau of Labor Statistics released their analysis of the economic trends of last month today.
Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the U.S. economy added a better than expected 290,000 jobs last month. The BLS also revised the jobs number for both February and March upwards, putting both of those months into the black in terms of job creation. (Due to 805,00 discouraged workers "feeling better about their prospects" and resuming their search for work, the unemployment rate actually ticked up to 9.9 percent.)
The continued turnaround of the labor market is a strong sign that the economic stimulus package passed last year is doing what it is supposed to. But today's report also refutes one of the favorite Republican talking points about the stimulus, which is that it only preserved government jobs:
- Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN): These are mostly government jobs, you know...The idea that government grows the economy when all they really do is extract money from taxpayers, bring it into the bureaucracy and put it back out into the economy on a political agenda is not growth.
Poor Timmeh. Another talking point bites the dust.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and I sat down at a coffee shop near his congressional office in Minneapolis to talk. I wanted to find out his take on healthcare reform, what's coming up in Congress and see "the goatee" for myself.
"I started it over August Recess last year," Keith said. "You know, just didn't shave for a couple of days. Then shaved my cheeks. Nobody said anything about it, nobody said 'it's gotta go' so I've kept it." Including his wife, Kim.
After getting the discussion of facial hair out of the way, we got to the biggest question on everybody's mind regarding Congress: healthcare reform.
"You can't arouse people's imaginations for a year straight and then not do something," Keith explained. "I think we're going to do something. I think we're going to use reconciliation."
"Look, social security and medicare were smaller at first," he continued. "They expanded it after they passed it."
After the fold, there's more about healthcare reform, plus the climate change bill, his views on the progressive movement, stimulus and a mid-flight impromptu birthday party featuring then-President George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
There has been a lot of news lately on MSNBC and 950Am about Republicans who were against the Stimulus passed by President Obama and Congress last year. Many Republican Governors such as Rick Perry of Texas refused the stimulus money and then requested federal loans. But what about Minnesota's own Gov. Tim Pawlenty? How is he doing with the stimulus for Minnesota?
In December, Fox News' Eric Bolling presented Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty as an example of a conservative politician making tough choices to balance his state's budget. "A big hole and a simple plan to dig out of it, stop spending," said Bolling while introducing Pawlenty. "Sounds simple enough. Hold the line on taxes, live within your means. That is how my next guest aims to close his state`s billion-dollar-plus projected budget gap."
During the interview, Bolling asked Pawlenty about whether he would seek federal stimulus funds to help close his budget gaps. Pawlenty criticzied the idea, claiming that it would "delay the inevitable" by "just sending some cash out as a Band-Aid":
And that's funny, because ever since the Dems got it through, the GOP and Fox News (is there a difference?) have been telling Americans that it wasn't gonna work.
Fastest quarter of growth since 2003. Thank you, President Obama and the Dem majority, it took courage to spend to stave off a depression and bring back economic growth. From USA Today:
Obama gets good economic news
08:43 AM
By Mark Wilson, Getty Images
President Obama has some good economic news to bring with him to Baltimore later this morning -- the economy grew by 5.7% from October through December of 2009.
It's the fastest quarter of growth since 2003; it's also the second straight quarter of growth, signaling the end of the recent recession.
Jeez, I am so glad to be breaking some good news this week. If next week's unemployment figures reflect the growth this quarter, we'll be able to turn Reagan's old joke against the Republicans:
If you get invited to a costume party, just put a little egg on your face and go as a conservative.
So what was wrong with the claim the stimulus produced no jobs? If you guessed the right answer is jobs are growing, sorry, that's the one that's wrong. Well, the "communist Wall Street" answer is wrong too, but if I have to explain to you what's wrong with that concept, I hope your tea party went well. If you picked one or more of the other answers, well done.
Even before we get to evidence or lack thereof, think for a moment: some stimulus money has been spent already. States and cities have plugged budget holes, construction projects got done, and to assert there weren't jobs created or saved means maybe you do think invisible unicorns did the work and didn't demand any pay. That bit of logic says nothing about how many jobs were created or saved, but it should indicate there were more than zero. Maybe you refuse to believe the tax cuts (yes conservatives, your taxes have actually been cut) and unemployment extensions have saved any jobs, but to drive on a fixed road and think there were no jobs --- maybe you shouldn't be allowed to drive.
And do some math. If one employer uses stimulus funds to hire 50 employees, but another employer lays off 60, you are down 10 jobs, but that doesn't mean no jobs were created. If the first employer didn't hire anyone, but would have laid off 50 without the stimulus funds, that's still 50 jobs saved. Though we're likely to say 60 jobs were lost, the fact is whether a new employee is hired, or a layoff is stopped, the effect is the same: one more person is working who otherwise wouldn't have.
Though I've been having fun with debunking the right, I see a need to debunk something on the left too. Specifically, I'm referring to this moroseness afflicting many of us who were getting ready to party a year ago as we looked forward to a new Congress and new president. Plenty has gone wrong this year, sure. We poured our personal wealth and elbow grease into electing people who in some cases have disappointed us. It seems we're always having to give up something really good in hopes of getting just something.
However, a lot has gone right in this year ending tonight, more than many of us have recognized. The health care bill has sucked the air out of the proverbial room. More troops heading to Afghanistan has grabbed most of the attention available for foreign policy. The biggest complaint of many on the left, me included, has been the continuation of Bush policies in regard to civil liberties and human rights.
It's been long enough since I posted part 2 (and here's part 1) that I felt a need to explain the point of these posts again. My own experience is I thought this would be one post, and I was surprised when I finished part two that there was plenty for a part 3.
That's a good thing.
What got me to finally get on this today is something I just learned, and that I'm pretty sure is not common knowledge, but should be. Ever wondered why the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, but the Voting Rights Act was passed separately in 1965? Because the only way to get the Civil Rights Act past the conservative (including the dixiecrats who make up the base of the modern GOP) filibuster was to drop voting rights. Voting rights? And we thought dropping the public option was tough! But voting rights got through the next year, so don't anyone despair about having to do things incrementally.
So let's get started, and I think I'll start with what I expect will be the most controversial silver lining (you can tell me in comments if I'm right), the things that went right in regard to war crimes, human rights and civil liberties.
What's wrong with the Napa Valley Wine Train Story? You were right if you guessed either other trains use the same tracks (a plurality of you did), the whole area benefits, and that the local government supports it.
The origin of the story is a "stimulus checkup" put out by Senators John McCain and Tom Coburn which names stimulus projects they think are wasteful. The Wine train has been picked up by Fox News and been "reported" by Glenn Beck and Fox and Friends.
Returning to their strategy of attacking the stimulus (ARRA -- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) by mischaracterizing specific projects, Republicans are going after $54 million for the Napa Valley Wine Train. This is a private train that hauls tourists around Napa Valley in California. The money is being used to save this private company at taxpayer expense for the benefit of wealthy tourists while other people in the area go unprotected. This is an example of the stimulus being used not for job creation, but to benefit districts represented by Democrats.
Click "There's More" to vote in the poll and add your guess to comments.
From a post and accompanying email from StimulatingBroadband.com:
The Administration of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) informed StimulatingBroadband.com this morning that the communication issued by a state agency to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) relative to the Administration's funding priorities for federal broadband stimulus projects in Minnesota is not considered a "public document."
In an e-mail of 10/19, Ms. Diane Wells, the Manager of the Telecommunications Division of the Minnesota Department of Commerce stated:
"Minnesota has undertaken its BTOP evaluation process following guidelines the state has for reviewing RFPs. Under that process, the results of our evaluation would not be made publicly available until the completion of the full process, which for purposes of the BTOP broadband grants, we have defined as when the NTIA issues the awards. Thus the recommendation from Minnesota to the NTIA is not a public document at this time."
According to one of StimulatingBroadband.com's authors,
It is the only instance we have seen of a state governor holding a state document about federal broadband stimulus funds as "not a public document".
I'm inclined to agree with the implication here: why is Tim Pawlenty's lame duck administration keeping an official communication between government organs in St. Paul and Washington out of the public eye? The expansion of broadband access into rural Minnesota is a huge piece of the economic puzzle, and Minnesotans from across the state deserve to know how our state government is working with its federal counterparts to achieve common goals on the issue.
Number of jobs the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has directly created or saved in Minnesota: 11,800
Number of jobs the ARRA has directly or indirectly created or saved in Minnesota: 20,100
Other ways working Minnesotans have received direct and immediate assistance from the funds: Unemployment benefits, medical assistance payments
Any others? Rebates on energy-efficient appliances, services for the blind, teachers and staff in the schools
Infrastructure improvements paid for by stimulus funds: A bridge over the St. Francis River, improvements to National Guard armories used as emergency shelter.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty's view of the stimulus:
But Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said the stimulus program remained flawed, and said that the $1.6 billion spent to produce 11,800 jobs meant that each job cost more than $135,500 to create.
"Governor Pawlenty believes stimulus funds should have been more targeted to put money quickly into people's pockets or to directly create more jobs rather than spending so much on government bureaucracy," McClung said.
WASHINGTON - The recession faded in the spring with economic activity shrinking at a pace of just 0.7 percent, a better-than-expected showing that buttressed beliefs the economy is growing now.
...
A main reason for the second-quarter upgrade: businesses didn't cut back spending on equipment and software nearly as deeply as the government had thought. Consumers also didn't trim their spending as much.
Many analysts predict the economy started growing again in the July-September quarter, due partly to President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus package and the government's now defunct Cash for Clunkers program, which had ginned up auto sales. It offered people rebates of up to $4,500 to buy new cars and trade in less efficient gas guzzlers.
Earlier this month, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the recession, which started in December 2007, is "very likely over."
This recession has been bad, there's no getting around that. Years of deregulation and a massive housing market bubble led to a situation where a few very bad actors were able to extract billions in real wealth from the system and cause huge losses for everyone when the house of paper-wealth cards came tumbling down.
But imagine how much worse it would have been without these stimulus measures. Imagine how much longer it would be taking us to get out of this worldwide dive if we weren't saving however many thousands of jobs through direct stimulus spending.
Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the U.S. economy added a better than expected 
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and I sat down at a coffee shop near his congressional office in Minneapolis to talk. I wanted to find out his take on healthcare reform, what's coming up in Congress and see "the goatee" for myself.
