Rush Limbaugh Providing Stimulus Plan for Republicans My Bipartisan Stimulus Let's cut taxes, as I want, and spend more, as Obama would like. By RUSH LIMBAUGH There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention. I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades. Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back. Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches. Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate. Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that." Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise. Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me. Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth. I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can. In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now. The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day? Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.
I thought this was going to be about the conspiracy nuts that are pushing Obama to release the so-called UFO file that they claim the government is keeping secret.
Thirty years of supply siders gave us our $12 trillion debt. Helloooo? Limbaugh is such a court jester. Dance, b****, dance.
Basically there is shrinking separation between Rush and the average person who still considers themselves a Republican. Rush has always been a Republican tool. During the Dubya era , like Fox News did according to Scott McClelland, Rush got his daily talking points largely from the White House. It is pretty funny Rush pretending that he and the GOP are the rejected fans of bi-partisanship. The GOP's position: "I we win, we won. If you win, you need to be bi-partisan." lol PS I think the GOP leaders have scolded old Rush for his baldly stating he wanted Obama to fail and he is trying to make amends.
Not this Republican, and certainly not on this issue. The idea to stimulate the economy is not to reduce taxes on those who are working (although I do support tax cuts at the right time - and this is NOT the right time). The idea is to put some of those who have seen their job evaporate back to work. This will accomplish 3 things: 1. Reduce the burden on state unemployment compensation systems, 2. The government will get some of the money back as these jobs will result in taxable income, and 3. We will rebuild our deteriorating infrastructure. This was also the idea behind the TVA. The projects undertaken by the TVA eased the economic morass of the time and resulted in infrastructure that would not have existed without the TVA and which we still use today. It just makes too much sense. On this issue, assuming Congress implements it properly (a big "if"), I agree with President Obama on this one. And I thought that I would agree with President Obama seldom, if ever. It's a nice surprise.
Good post. Also, a big percentage of the stimulus bill is in aid to the states, which most need desperately. A lot of people don't realize that. Texas is in pretty good shape, but we'll get some of that money as well.
Are you aware that approximately 3% of the spending bill goes towards infrastructure? Eh, probably not.
Are you aware that big chunk of the education category goes to school renovations. Are you aware that a huge amount in the energy category goes to weatherizing homes, retrofitting govt buildings for energy efficiency, and modernizing the electricity grid. Are you aware that there is a decent sum for the modernizing and computerization of medical records? Are you aware that there are lots of things in the bill that are commonly thought of as infrastructure but not included under the highways and bridges section of the bill? Eh, probably so.
That was far better written than I expected it to be. His request to "stop the acrimony" is kind of funny, though. The moment he stops delivering acrimony, his ratings will plummet. Acrimony is his job description. At this point, about 275 bil of the 900 bil goes to tax cuts. Rush is asking for a higher percentage to go to tax cuts. I appreciate that he boils it down very simply to Keynsian economics vs supply side economics. Philosophical differences. I think Obama's alleged quote "we won" is taken out of context, I'd like to hear the full context of that. Having it used out of context isn't a huge surprise. I'd like to hear substantive debate from both sides (Keynsian vs supply side) as to why either is better or worse.
What's pathetic is Rush is all about the money. The guy has made hundreds of millions of dollars manipulating wingnut conservatives. Rush didn't even vote until the 90's which mean he never voted for his mesiah Reagan.
Well to answer your debate question, its too simplistic to answer. No one advocates pure Keynsian economics anymore. A Keynsian economist from the 1930s is basically a spend as much as possible to boost the economy. Unfortunately, such an answer isnt a one size fits all policy. The principles behind Supply Side and Keynsian economics have their place but neither represents some total solution. For example in the 80s with stagflation, spending more money wasnt going to do a damn thing and taxes at the time probably were too high. Stagflation was a unique economic animal that economists had no answer to. It took some smart action from the Fed and even partially the Reagan tax cuts to do something. Tax cuts have their place as an answer. Now I dont think Reagan's tax cuts were the sole reason behind the boom of the 90s (there are tons of factors) but it didnt hurt. Its just the spending cuts that were promised didnt happen. (surprise surprise) That being said, Supply side advocates tend to get borderline delusional when describing the impact of tax cuts. The Laffer Curve (the basis for many supply side orgasms) is almost a have our cake and eat it too scenario. But even Laffer admitted it was purely a theoretical concept he developed on a napkin in a restaurant. (The Laffer curve is the idea that there is a medium where tax cuts create more jobs and productivity in the long run that will actually increase tax receipts) Where this actual point is, is completely unknown and simply a theoretical idea. Yet every Republican jumped on it as a magical solution to all our worries. That and its politically convenient to be a supply sider. You favor cutting taxes while politically deflecting blame on spending. In terms of short term economic stimulus. Tax cuts are terrible. Theyre generally poorly targeted, only provide minor boosts to consumer spending, and just take a while to trickle down. Besides supply siders generally defend the long term benefit of tax cuts. No supply side economist actually defends tax cuts as a form of short term stimulus. In short there's benefits to both ideas but tax cuts are not a panacea and the reality is that its too politically easy to cut taxes without making appropriate spending cuts which makes supply side economics very difficult to implement in practice. That and direct government spending increases are the best form of short term stimulus that we have. If it were up to me there wouldnt be any tax cuts in the new bill. They're simply terrible at quickly impacting the economy.
Ok, you win. 4% goes to a loosely defined 'infrastructure' definition. What this bill does is try to catch the Dems up on their pet projects (which the public has been rejecting for 15 years...) while their messiah is still enjoying his honeymoon period. That alone isn't enough to get this orgy of waste through Congress, so the libpigs are forced to talk down the economy and scare people into thinking this pork-a-thon is a legitimate solution. This bill is campaign payback for all the ACORN branches, Planned Parenthood branches, union dolts, and enviro-loonies to 'get theirs'. This bill is nothing about a stimulus. INVESTMENT must begin again, starting with the debt and equity markets. Slash the capital gains tax to zero. Slash the corporate tax rates. Create an incentive to use debt or equity. Watch the stock market soar and confidence be restored. Let me simplify all of this, which apparently is needed. When the debt and equity markets are frozen, money does not change hands. When money does not change hands, goods & services do not change hands. When goods & services do not change hands, gains from trade are not achieved. When gains from trade are not achieved, profits are not achieved. When profits are not achieved, asset values decline. When asset values decline, companies/individuals become overleveraged. When companies/individuals become overleveraged, they face a cash crisis. When entities face a cash crisis debt and equity markets are no longer efficient. REPEAT CYCLE. So it all starts with money flow and liquidity.
Thanks for the reply, that's what we need to see more of. What I see in economic debate (lack thereof) is that the free-marketers still hold their pure ideal as an achievable ideal. Any single move to raise taxes or increase regulation is 'socialist'. This is an unintelligent debate. Pure socialism/communism is generally regarded as a failure worldwide (outside of a few countries.) But the myth that completely unregulated free markets are the godhead amazingly persists, despite recent history. Both systems in their pure forms can't work. Most developed nations balance social programs and with free market ideas. If we could recognize the fact that we're trying to find a balance, the national debate would improve a great deal, instead of shouting "socialist!" when a tax moves up three percentage points.
Hello guys, this is my fault but the real reason I posted this is to point out the lack of leadership in the Republican Party, we're at the point where Rush is submitting alternate proposals to the democrats.
