Why our recovery will be slow to non-existent
Why our recovery will be slow to non-existent
Posted by: Barthélemy Barbancourt
on Mar 07, 2010 
Tagged in: Untagged
According to a Department of Energy inspector general report last month, "only 2 of the 10 highest funded recipients completed more than 2 percent of planned units." New York had completed 280 out of 45,400 planned units as of December, Texas had completed 0 of 33,908, and California 12 out of 43,400. That's 292 homes in three states with a total population of roughly 80 million.
So much for the 87,000 jobs the administration promised "right away." The inspector general report is unsparing: "The job creation impact of what was considered to be one of the Department's most ‘shovel ready' projects has not materialized," and neither have "the significant reductions in energy consumption."
Prior to the stimulus, weatherization funds were not subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, a union-friendly law that mandates government pay contractors the "prevailing wage." Slavishly committed to the unions, Democrats made Davis-Bacon apply to the new weatherization funds, and the Department of Energy spent the past year trying to determine the prevailing wage in thousands of counties. At least the program kept someone busy.
According to a Government Accountability Office report, meanwhile, 90 percent of the homes slated for weatherization in Michigan were subject to historic preservation review; as of last fall, only two people worked in the state's historic preservation office.
The stimulus devoted $2 billion to wind power, creating an estimated couple of hundred jobs while permanent wind manufacturing employment still declined last year. The Department of Energy will hand out $2.3 billion in tax credits for the creation of 17,000 "clean" jobs - at a cost of $135,000 per job, if they materialize.
We're out billions and nothing was done. This is the story not only of the Obama administration but America in 2010. We have too many regulations. Ronald Reagan didn't just cut taxes, he cut regulations. We can't grow out of this recession in this regulatory environment. Obama is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everything that needs to be done is the opposite of what Obama wants to do.
De-regulation doesn't cost money, it would help reduce the debt and deficit but increasing economic activity. This is a major opportunity that the Obama White House is ignoring.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (49)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Odin , March 07, 2010
De-regulation doesn't cost money,
Nonsense. The meltdown of the economy was due in part to de-regulation and failures to enforce the laws that were on the books. IIRC, one percent of American kids have autism, probably because of environmental pollution, also worsened by failures to enforce govt regulations. If history has taught us anything, it's that a lot of companies can't be trusted to put their responsibility to society ahead of short-term profits.
written by Kermit , March 07, 2010
Fix the grammar in the title.
Bart be am U of M graduaite. Cut him sum slack.
written by Sequel , March 07, 2010
Odin has just found the cause of autism.
Republicans!
Time for the Nobel.
written by Kermit , March 07, 2010
No, free markets and lack of government regulation are the cause of autism. It's just so obvious.
I'm going to go have a good laugh now.
written by Odin , March 07, 2010
Republicans!
Wouldn't surprise me at all if autism was caused by environmental factors and the Republican Party, particularly the Reagan administration, has been pro-business at the expense of environmental stewardship. Reagan's head of the EPA, Anne Gorsuch, told the ten EPA regional managers that every case they referred to headquarters for enforcement would be a black mark against them. in 1980, 313 cases were referred, In 1981, only 59.
Prior to being Reagan's first Sec. of the Interior, James Watt had the distinction of having sued the EPA on behalf of a conservative Colorado group that called itself The Crazies. (They lost and Colorado was forced to comply with the Clean Air Act.)
One of the worst producers of hazardous waste is the chemical industry. In fiscal year 1982 Reagan's EPA was scheduled to inspect 723 chemical plants. They inspected 3. Dow Chemical was even able to get its name removed from an EPA report blaming them for dioxin contamination.
The Reagan administration's favoring of factory farms over family farms has led to more antibiotics and chemicals like atrazine in the water supply, corporate profits over environmental protection. Environmental malfeasance is one of the reasons Republicans can't be trusted to govern.
{b] Time for the Nobel.
Let me see if I have room on the mantle first.
written by Nobody , March 07, 2010
Gee Odie, got anymore Huf Po talking points? I see why you'd like the EPA though, It's become a totalitarian arm of govmint. (Thank you Dick Nixon)
written by Odin , March 07, 2010
Might be better is you stuck with simpler expressions you can understand, like - "Republicans good, Obama bad."
We're out billions and nothing was done.
If the money's in the pipeline, how are we "out billions"?
written by Hans , March 08, 2010
knows that these government spending programs do not work, nevertheless, the PR value is eminence and that voters have short memories...
The day is not long, which the country's capital will be renamed Athens II...
It will be a good climatic for the breeding of Union cause..
written by Kermit , March 08, 2010
Onan forgets that the EPA was created by...Nixon. That Democrat.
Do you even know what "totalitarian" means?
We just have to read your comments to get the full flavor, Mr. Forced Labor Camps.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 08, 2010
The houses couldn't be winterized because they are in a historic district, in Detroit!
I'm glad that Odin has solved the Autism issue, I think she should submit his research to a peer reviewed journal so that others can know.
As for the $$, it has been spent by the Feds, so the taxpayers are paying interest on it. The states maybe collecting interest, but that wasn't the idea. The longer the states have the $$, the less likely it will ever go to it's intended purpose. I'd guess that many states will eventually shift the $$ into the general fund and no good will have come from the increased debt.
written by TomC , March 08, 2010
The bust of the housing sector and banking regulations is what brought us this negative economy. Government spending has never been shown to stimulate a recovery. Not in the US during the 30s and not in Japan repeatedly through the 90s and 00s. Government should just get the hell out of the way. Sensible people and sensible corporations will economize because it is the financially wise thing to do. Not because of regulations. Exxon and Dow will not repeat their Valdez or Love Canal incidents because they are financially crippling.
Odin idiocy!
written by Odin , March 08, 2010
It's government regulations that got us here...
What's your economic background? I only managed to squeek through Econ 101 so I tend to go with guys like Greenspan and Krugman and Delong, economists who agree deregulation was a major part of the problem. It couldn't have been easy for Greenspan to disavow his Randian faith in the Free Market but at least he seems to be living in the real world. You on the other hand . . .
I'm glad that Odin has solved the Autism issue,
Good article in the paper today about superbugs, bacteria resistant to the antibiotics that factory farms shovel into their livestock. Serious-minded people who study such things seem to be worried, perhaps because you haven't told them deregulation is the problem and scientists aren't to be trusted.
The longer the states have the $$, the less likely it will ever go to it's intended purpose. I'd guess that many states will eventually shift the $$ into the general fund and no good will have come from the increased debt.
Because money-starved state govts will just waste the money? If you don't trust the federal govt and you don't trust state govt, is there a level of govt you trust? If you don't trust Jeffersonian democracy, how would you structure society?
written by Odin , March 08, 2010
who was bright enough to be president. Too bad he turned into a paranoid mad bomber. Reminds me of Bob Dole pointing at a picture of Carter, Ford and Nixon and dubbing them - "See no evil, hear no evil, and evil."
written by Kermit , March 08, 2010
I only managed to squeek through Econ 101
LOL! You are a tribute to the American education syndicate. What you know about autism could be contained in a very small envelope.
written by Kermit , March 08, 2010
BTW Einstein, I have two autistic children one 23 and one 16. So please don't even try to instruct me on the condition.
written by Kermit , March 08, 2010
One more thing. Until or unless you have lived with the reality of dealing with autistic children shut the fuck up. It is a world of pain no one should have to deal with. God I hate smug assholes who think they know everything.
written by Hans , March 08, 2010
Minnesota General Fund spending...
2010-11.....31.B
2000-02.....24.B
1990-91.....14.B
1980-81.......7.B
450% increase in spending over 3 decades...
The Duma has gone mad...
Come to the anti-tax rally on April the 10th, at the Crapital..
written by Odin , March 08, 2010
Even you should be able to see that if environmental pollution is the cause of autism and/or other afflictions, future parents could be spared "a world of pain" through better regulatory oversight.
We don't know everything. That's the point. We don't know how the chemical soup in our drinking water affects human biology, so it's common sense to regulate the use of those chemicals. We do know what atrazine does to male frogs and it aint good.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 09, 2010
I agree that we don't know everything but we do know that our rivers, lakes and streams are cleaner than they have been in 100 years. The trouble is that we have lost sight of common sense regulation and have gone too far into over regulation.
You can't winterize a house in Detroit because it's in a historic district? In Detroit??? This is regulatory overkill. In many areas we need to swing back towards property owners rights and away from the state telling people what to do.
The biggest water issues today are drugs like Prozac that don't get cleaned out. The EPA has bee aware fo this for years and has done nothing about it. The state should stop worrying about some claiming that some wet field is a wetland and start addressing up to date issues.
Odin, there are way more regulations than just clean air and water. If we left all of those alone and whacked 50% of the rest, our economy would start recovering much quicker.
written by Kermit , March 09, 2010
And as far as the supposed increase in autism, it is primarily due to better understanding of the disorder. Many children who were diagnosed with ADHD were actually mildly autistic, and the perscription of Ritalin was incorrect.
I would hazard a guess that as a percentage of population, autistics have never changed much, but since there is absolutely no way of measuring it historically, attributing this to environmental factors is idiotic.
written by Nobody , March 09, 2010
Many children, back in the day, would have been "socialy shy" or not aware or just quiet. IMO it is over diagnosed. To blame it on environment is to ignore lots of other things.
But then we have Odin.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 09, 2010
This is not meant to disparage anyone's child, but the schools now have an incentive to diagnose kids with any disorder. The more kids they get labeled, the more money they get from the state for special programs and teacher's aids.
Some kids really need Ritalin, but many are put on it so that the school can cash in. Parent's are easily snookered as they want the best for their kids and they assume that teachers are trained professionals, an assumption that is often far from true.
This is the age old example of if you want more of something, subsidize it.
written by Kermit , March 09, 2010
Which is why we got medical diagnosis from actual doctors. With my daughter we went to Children's Hospital to have the ADD diagnosis reversed. Any parent who relies on a public school for diagnosis is not just a fool, they are negligent.
written by Nobody , March 09, 2010
Kerm, My Missus is, by any measure, highly ADD. She has managed to turn it into a positive. She is hyper able to multi-task. She made all her teachers crazy until she had one that could keep her busy with a ton of tasks.
Schools get more money CHA-CHING!
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , March 09, 2010
Kermit
Don't confuse him with the facts it will make his one track mind jump the track its on.
written by Badda , March 09, 2010
Odin... you watched "The Incredible Shrinking Woman" with keen interest, didn't you?
It was a comedy. Not like AlGore's unintentional hilarity, but a comedy none the less.
written by Kermit , March 09, 2010
I loved the scene with Charles Grodin earnestly reading a book titled "Marriage Without Sex".
written by Sequel , March 09, 2010
We don't know everything
Everything?
The scientific community doesn't know what causes autism, and you don't know shit from shinola.
We don't know everything
What-choo talkin bout we? You got a turd in your pocket?
You come in here acting like you know something, and accuse people of being the cause of something whose cause is unknown. The douchebaggery knows no bounds.
Go git your fuckin shinebox.
written by Sequel , March 09, 2010
Sorry Fred
It's typical Odin.
A thread about economic recovery gets hijacked with some BS about republicans being the cause of autism.
Barth has it right about the complete waste of tax money for weather stripping.
Great for bureaucrats and red tape dispensers, but a big waste for the rest of us.
written by Badda , March 09, 2010
It's Jason Lewis' fault for not supporting the idea that wealth and property should be taken from every citizen upon the time of their death.
written by Odin , March 09, 2010
I agree that we don't know everything but we do know that our rivers, lakes and streams are cleaner than they have been in 100 years.
In some ways that's true, thanks in large part to increased environmental regulation, but atrazine and antibiotics have probably greatly increased as family farms have given way to factory farms.
The trouble is that we have lost sight of common sense regulation and have gone too far into over regulation.
Again, in some instances that's true, but not in others.
Senator Lautenberg says that under existing law, of 80,000 chemicals registered in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency has required safety testing of only 200. “Our children have become test subjects,” he noted.
You can't winterize a house in Detroit because it's in a historic district? In Detroit??? This is regulatory overkill. In many areas we need to swing back towards property owners rights and away from the state telling people what to do.
I agree. The SC's ruling that govt could take people's property through eminent domain if there was a potential for realizing tax base gains was particularly egregious. It's unfortunate but inevitable that govt orgs with differing missions will sometimes conflict, winterizing
vs historical preservation being a good example. I assume steps were taken to expedite the historical preservation process and resolve the conflict.
Odin, there are way more regulations than just clean air and water. If we left all of those alone and whacked 50% of the rest, our economy would start recovering much quicker.
Perhaps, but the potential for short-term gain vs long-term damage needs to be weighed. Regulations usually exist as the result of problems that govt seeks to lessen or prevent. Those problems don't usually go away when the regulations do.
I would hazard a guess that as a percentage of population, autistics have never changed much, but since there is absolutely no way of measuring it historically, attributing this to environmental factors is idiotic.
No. Inaccurate historical measurements have no bearing on whether environmental factors are responsible. As for your inane assertion that the attribution being idiotic, there are a lot of learned people who disagree with you. Here's one -
“There are diseases that are increasing in the population that we have no known cause for,” said Alan M. Goldberg, a professor of toxicology at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. “Breast cancer, prostate cancer, autism are three examples. The potential is for these diseases to be on the rise because of chemicals in the environment.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02...of.html?em
I could cite a lot of similar opinions from people much more educated than you. That doesn't make their opinions right, but it does reduce the odds that the opinions are idiotic.
You come in here acting like you know something, and accuse people of being the cause of something whose cause is unknown.
Actually I used the word "probably." Look the word up and you'll probably find it doesn't mean what you think it means.
written by Kermit , March 09, 2010
No. Inaccurate historical measurements have no bearing on whether environmental factors are responsible.
And yet you insist on blaming "environmental factors". Perfect circular logic. Then you go on to insult people's intelligence. You are now officially a non-entity to me. Bye.
written by Badda , March 09, 2010
Any chance you could simply talk with other folks without being such a condescending horse's ass?
You see, this is why you have a reputation for thread-jacking and misbehavior. Aw, fuck it... keep doing what you're doing. It's not really helping your side.
written by Odin , March 10, 2010
You see, this is why you have a reputation for thread-jacking and misbehavior.
I have that rep among rightwingers because of your comprehension deficiencies, not because of anything untoward I've done.
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , March 10, 2010
"I have that rep among rightwingers because of your comprehension deficiencies, not because of anything untoward I've done."
Odin
you just did it again Everybody is wrong but me, its not my fault You are just to stupid to understand my Superior intelect, all repbublicans are to stooped to do any thing right.
If I can find the time i will go and pull every quote I can find of your total condescending attitude
written by Odin , March 10, 2010
If I can find the time i will go and pull every quote I can find of your total condescending attitude
Don't bother. Everyone condescends to you, me included. As I said before, it's your Repub leaders' condescension and contempt for your intellect that you should find most troubling.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 10, 2010
You assume that everyone is stupider than you. You ignore any proof that you are wrong. Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance.
Plus your views on some issues are so far out side the main stream that they border on the insane.
Finally, you display the worst traits of the internet. You thread jack repeatedly, you duck the hard questions you don't want to answer and often fail to address the core issue while focusing on some peripheral issue. In a scored debate, you would repeatedly lose. Probably much like you are a loser in life.
written by Badda , March 10, 2010
"...not because of anything untoward I've done."
You split hairs on what the definition of "is" is.
written by Odin , March 10, 2010
You assume that everyone is stupider than you.
I haven't said anything that would support that conclusion. If fact, I've said I tend to listen to economists like Krugman, Delong and Greenspan because they know a lot more about economics than I do. The next time one of you rightwingers feels compelled to offer an opinion on the Obama administration's economic efforts, I suggest you first visit Delong's site to get some idea of how little you know.
http://delong.typepad.com/
You ignore any proof that you are wrong.
Also not true. When someone corrected me about the Israeli raid being on Iraq iinstead of Iran, I quickly said I was wrong. Kinda hard to be proven wrong when the rightwing norm here is bluff, then fold but I'm willing to consider the evidence. Where else specifically have I been proven to be wrong?
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , March 10, 2010
Senator Harry Reid Pledges Filibuster Reform: "The filibuster has been abused. I believe that the Senate should be different than the House and will continue to be different than the House," Reid said. "But we're going to take a look at the filibuster. Next Congress, we're going to take a look at it. We are likely to have to make some changes in it, because the Republicans have abused that just like the spitball was abused in baseball and the four-corner offense was abused in basketball..."
Wow, someone so partisan and stupid that they want to revoke the filibuster. Has Reid even considered what will happen when Republicans are in charge? This guy takes short sighted to new levels of myopia.
written by Kermit , March 10, 2010
Has Reid even considered what will happen when Republicans are in charge?
Nah. But it's pretty good odds that come December he's gonna be sitting in a rocking chair in Searchlight writing a memoir that absolutely no one is going to buy. Long overdue.
written by Odin , March 10, 2010
Wow, someone so partisan and stupid that they want to revoke the filibuster
Wow, a rightwinger who misinterprets what he reads. Do you understand the difference between "change" and "revoke"?
The historical trend has been to reduce the number of senators needed for cloture and Reid's probably talking about reducing the number again. From Time -
The history of the filibuster
The word "filibuster" comes from the Dutch word meaning "pirate." Members of the U.S. Senate have pirated debate for as long as the institution has existed. Initially, House members were permitted to filibuster as well, but their growing numbers soon made the practice inadvisable. In the Senate, unlimited debate was permitted until 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson suggested the Senate adopt a new rule: a two-thirds vote (67 members) would close down ("cloture") a filibuster. In 1975, the required vote count was reduced to three-fifths (or 60 members).
http://www.time.com/time/natio...12,00.html
[blue]like the spitball was abused in baseball and the four-corner offense was abused in basketball..."[/blue]
Stick to trying to legislate, Harry, XXXXXXXX. (Stop calling people names - ed)
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
