COMMENTARY: ARRA or Stimulus? Oregon as an Example

Spending without taxing forces printing money. Printing money causes inflation.

If you are willing to vote for this package, then if it does not work you should be able to take a cut in salary. For a U.S. Representative or Senator, it should be their whole salary if their State or District fails to have the jobs materialize in their area.

The low end claimed for the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is 3 million jobs. That is about one job for every 101 people in a nation of 305 million people.

In the House of Representatives there are 435 US Representatives who vote and 6 who do not vote that represent the Territories that are not States. That is about 691,609 people each for 441 who represent the people of the States and territories.

So, that means about 6917 for each District. In Oregon, there are five Congressional Districts. That would mean at least 35,580 jobs for Oregon, if you figure it that way.

If you look at the total population again, 305 million, Oregon is 3.8 million of that or one in every 81 U.S. citizens. If you divide that 3 million jobs by 81, that means Oregon should get at least 37,037 jobs from ARRA. One of the Oregon U.S. Representatives is claiming we will get 44,000 jobs from this spending, so this seems fair.

It sounds helpful, too, when we have about 180,000 unemployed in Oregon. . That 180,000 is twice the unemployment of a good economy, so we need to reduce to 90,000 unemployed.

However, let's just hold the Representative to the 37,037 jobs. That would mean this ARRA should bring the unemployment down to 143,000. So, if we are at that low end by the end of the year, the Representatives who voted for ARRA should be able to keep their salary and job. Otherwise....

However, remember that one in 81 figure. The ARRA costs $787 billion. That means ARRA is costing Oregon $9,716,049,382 to get 37037 jobs or $262,232 per job.

Can't we get a better deal than that? If we paid workers to just build windmills at $62,232 per worker, including wages and benefits, that would be a very good deal for the workers.They would still have wages of $42,000 after paying for benefits.

Yet, it would leave $200,000 left over for those roads and bridges we need. But even if we just built windmills, it would be a better use of our money. You can install at least three sizeable wind generators for $200,000. Imagine 37,000 windmiills and 37,000 people employed for a year.

Would you rather have? The "Stimulus Plan" of Congress? Or mine?

Write the Whitehouse Here.

National Ponzi Scheme - Recovery.Gov - ARRA - Stimulus Plan

The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is an extention of the National Debt by $2580 for every man, woman, and child.

Of that, President Obama claims $288 billion is "Tax Relief," or $944 per person. Then, he claims the "Tax Relief" includes $15 billion for infrastructure and science, $61 billion for "protecting the vulnerable," $25 billion for education and training, and $22 billion for "Energy."

So, after all those special tax cut programs are removed, that leaves $165 billion of more general "Tax Relief," for all of us not in those categories, or $540 per person. So, you are going into debt for investing $2580 for $540 in tax relief.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from profit.

Is the ARRA any less of a Ponzi Scheme when the Federal Government does this than when Charles Ponzi or Bernard Madoff does this? Does it matter whether Nicolas Cosmo, Allen Stanford, or Barack Obama does this?

If you want to comment on ARRA, Write the Whitehouse Here.

The Error In ARRA

I emailed my U.S. Representative, Kurt Schrader, regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to indicate my lack of confidence in the claims being made.

Rep. Schrader claimed in his email he suported this act "because the cost of inaction is far too great." He provides no proof of that. It seems that the serious of the economic crisis is justification, even if it causes inflation and more unemployment.

The reports are that this bill would bring 44,000 jobs to Oregon and in his email he states, "In Oregon alone, the unemployment rates are a staggering 9%." The challenge for him, which was in my email, is if that 9% unemployment is not reduced by 44,000 jobs that he either resign his office or remit his salary to the people of the U.S.

He claims the bill includes "targeted funding support for: education for the 21st century; clean, efficient, American energy; modernizing roads, bridges, transit and waterways, lowering healthcare costs; saving public sector jobs, creating new public sector jobs, and protecting vital services; transforming our economy with science and technology."

The percentages of the total money for those in the bill are small indeed. They certainly do not cover the losses to state revenues due to the economic downturn. The bill includes less than 10% for state fiscal relief to key services. Regarding modernizing roads, bridges, and other transit construction, less than 11% of the bill is infrastructure building.

The "clean efficient American energy" is mostly for the "Smart Grid," and weatherization. The rest comes in the form of tax cuts for renewable energy. All of this portion is less than 8% of the bill. There are real investments in energy production that reduces our dependence on foreign oil as President Obama promised. We increased energy production even more than roads or bridges.

In fact, the cost of government spending while decreasing taxes results in wild increases in inflation. By the end of the year, inflation will be in the double digit figures to go with double digit figures in unemployment.

He claims, "Indeed, economists testifying before my budget committee stated that our long term ability to deal with our debt burden would be much worse if we allow the nations economy to sink without any support."

Obviously, it depends on which Nobel prize winning economist you listen to.

Before this, in the campaign speeches of Candidate Obama, he claimed he would get that cost of the Federal government back down to 18.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that was under Reagan. I would debate that figure and his pick of a model.

The better model would be under Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. The budget surpluses at the end of the 1990s were due to slowing the increases in spending to keep the pace more in keeping with the growth of the economy. Even 18.5% is too high, but it was 21% before the 111th Congress passed ARRA.

The $787 billion ARRA will cost us, our children and their children about $1.14 trillion. That is about $30,000 in new debt for each American household. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of permanently extending the twenty most popular provisions in the bill. The cost? $3.27 trillion.

However, if they had to directly appeal to the voters for this, every bill would be subject to higher scrutiny. This ARRA would be no exception. The economy can only pay for so much government.

The Democratic Party has made this bill unacceptable and then claims the Republicans are being partisan. If you yet again mortgage our grandchildren's future on this roulette wheel with the excuse of stimulating the economy and fail, there should be a penalty.

Unfortunately, that will only come in the form of not being elected again, at best. This debt will stay with us. The inflation it causes will stay with us for some time as well. It will not come in the form of those who voted for this losing their jobs and homes.

Again, the people have turned to a two party system that is neither responsive nor representative. They develope policy based on partisan politics rather than having to respond with a referendum of issues to the voters. Make no mistake, the Republican Party is correct in not voting for this.


If you want to comment on ARRA, Write the Whitehouse Here.