Stimulus

Throughout the recession, one major city stood out as an oasis for jobs and growth: Washington, D.C.
Supported by a gusher of federal borrowing and spending, the District of Columbia was the nation's only metropolitan area                                                                     that never stopped growing. It stood as a beacon for the nation's millions of job hunters, from recent college graduates seeking                                                           careers in civil service to well-heeled lawyers cashing in on a bonanza of work stemming from health care and financial reform.
A $700 billion bank bailout and $814 billion economic stimulus bill helped push the federal deficit to unprecedented levels of more                                                    than $1.3 trillion in the past two years, and a disproportionate share of that tidal wave of money washed up right back in Washington.
But the spectacle of Washington's free spending while virtually every other region has had to cut back — increasing prosperity in the                                                  capital in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression — has engendered public resentment and a pronounced anti-                                                 Washington sentiment that is now playing out in the midterm election cycle.
While the nation's work force took a body blow, losing 8.3 million jobs — 5.5 percent of the jobs available before the recession —                                             Washington suffered no more than a surface wound. It reported a loss of about 35,000 jobs, or 1.1 percent of the jobs available —                                                  mostly in real estate and construction businesses hurt by the housing collapse.
"We are one of the lucky ones," said Alice Rivlin, a former Federal Reserve governor

"D.C. seems to have managed to grow right through the recession," said George Mason University's Stephen Fuller,  "D.C. and the entire metro area were substantially cushioned from the full effects of the recession."

Ms. Rivlin said that "the nature of our economy protects us,"

"The federal government is the engine that drives this economy,  she said. "In response to the economic crisis, federal activity is actually expanding."

The blue highlighted comments tell us all we need to know. The disconnect between the political class            and the American people have never been greater. Washington simply shrugs its collective shoulder indifferent to the anemic economy they themselves  were instrumental in causing.

If this election brings the necessary changes to transform the relationship between those in the employ           of the American people  from entitlement to respectful service, the opportunity to reverse the downward  trend may occur.

 

 

 

 

A debate exist over which jobs provide a better stimulus, private of public sector.

Those who support teachers, police and other valued public sector jobs believe

this will is the best way to grow an economy. But each of these jobs is a direct

drain, requiring revenue to support..which adds a greater burden on tax payers

or increase the debt by needing to borrow.

However, in the private sector jobs are added due to demand, and this demand

generates the sales to bring in revenue to pay the new employees, which leads

to greater tax revenue which provides the funds to hire the teachers, police and

other public sector employees.

ajbruno14@gmail.com

--
Stay well,
Tony


After reviewing the House Stimulus Bill I can fully understand why so many citizens
have such little confidence in our government's ability to function effectively.

What should be the first thing explained to the American is this subject question.
Yet, it is not. We are total the huge amount of money this bill will spend, upwards
of $800 billion.

But, before we reach this number, we need to learn how the laundry list which adds
up to $800 billion is gathered.




 





Are phone called made to every governor, major city, Federal agency and solicit
requests?

How can such a lengthy and varied number of projects fall under the title of stimulus?

And when you review the bill nowhere does it state where this money is coming from.

Nor,  will a review of spending state the number of jobs each item will create.

One thing I did notice is how some money is being spent, under authorization of
previous legislation written in earlier years as the `Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy', $18,500,000,000 will provide.









Most citizens have little if any understanding of what is in the stimulus package
Congress is planning to enact.

One important element in the package is the money to be channeled back to the
states to provide funds for repairing failing infrastructures.

I am skeptical about this, as government gives citizens good reason to be suspect
of the reason to warrant spending.  If the roads and bridges are truly in serious need
of attention we need to know why this is so. What of the money in budgets to do this
work, provided by state and local tax revenue and additional fund from the Federal
government?

If there was a shortfall why weren't taxes raised for this important work?  Or was the
money for infrastructure squandered or spent elsewhere as was done in New Orleans
when money for levees was diverted for everything but.

Or, perhaps our nation's infrastructure is not in the dire condition we are  being led to
believe, and this is simply a convenient way for a money grab after the collapse of a
bridge in MN. several years back.



























This is a long winded (written) commentary on only a single part of the stimulus bill,
but when the cost is in the billions and the concern over the ineffectiveness of levels
of government, perhaps this is not that long after all.

Lastly, if it is determined states and localities need funding as the public has been told,
than money should be sent to be spent as it is intended, but without Federal conditions
superseding state law as is in the case with the wording written into this plan.

Returning money to states, which was originally provided by the citizens of these states
should be an opportunity to for government to impose it will with "strings" on the very
states that have the right of self rule.